Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2009/March

File:Lanenavenby.jpg

An editor wants to delete this image, which appears on a Featured Article page and passed stringent vetting to get that status, and I wondered if I could ask some questions about it? (As it would ruin the article if it wasn't there.)

The picture appears on a UK postcard dated (by way of postmark on stamp) to 1907. As this is over 100 years old, I assumed that it would pass the copyright test for both America and the UK. My understanding of British copyright law for photographic images is that it expires 70 years after a known photographer's death, or 70 years after the publication of the work of an unknown photographer. The photographer in this case is unknown (and uncredited on card). Even if the photographer was pretty young when he took this image, he would still be dead by now.

However, the editor who wants to delete it says that I'm wrong and has said: "Unless you can provide evidence that the author's name has never been disclosed, this cannot qualify for an anonymous work." How can you prove anything like that about an unsigned postcard of more than 100 years old?

The editor has also said: "If it was published in the US before 1923, we could keep it as PD-US." Ummm- how do I go about that? I would have thought copies of this postcard probably made their way over to America - does that count?

Please help, I just don't want to lose this image from the page.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 18:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about UK copyright, but it would appear to qualify for {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. As for the UK (as a member of the EU), the image may qualify under {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} as you indicated. Perhaps put both of these tags on, but do get rid of the current {{PD-old}} as that is for works where the author died more than 100 years ago (which we don't know and may not be the case). (EhJJ)^TALK 20:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The actual tag on the image is for no source. Perhaps it would help to say that you personally scanned a postcard with a 1907 postmark. —teb728 t c 21:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks much better now, though I removed {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}, because some kind of evidence is required to make that claim. Just the fact that this wasn't published with an author's name attached to it, is not sufficient for that license tag. Can be kept with the abroad tag, though. Regards, --ChrisiPK (talk) 11:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Images of copyright infringement groups

A bot called beta bot removed some images showing logos and screen shots of installers and keygens from an article about a warez distribution group. It said there was no rationale for fair use. Which I think is ridiculous considering we are talking about a group that illegally distributes other peoples copyrighted works. I think it can be safely assumed with some common sense that they are anti-copyright and at the very least in no position to complain or take legal action. Just thought I would mention it to you all as I found it incredibly ridiculous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PARADOX_(warez)&diff=199780512&oldid=196737358

Unfortunately this image seems to now have been deleted and it is to late to revert.

68.25.20.16 (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you may say about that Warez distribution group, Wikipedia is not anti-copyright. The images were deleted because they did not conform with Wikipedia’s policy requiring a rationale for non-free use. —teb728 t c 21:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

We still have to follow WP:NFCC. It doesn't matter what group the article is about; we have to take the responsibility to either add FURs or delete the violations. §hep^Talk 21:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I'm really surprised that this seemed to go right over the heads of the two people that responded. See this is one of this situations where it's good to be a human and not a robot. So try acting human for a second and THINK.

Clearly this content IS FREE, just look at the reality of the situation. It's freely and purposely copied and distributed by the authors without giving any limit real or implied other than maybe just to give to due credit to their group and pseudonyms. It is completely impossible by any rational standard to imagine any legal action being brought with regards to this content. Again this is plainly obvious. This is de facto free content. It's part of the public domain. It's a clear cut special case that your rules are not designed for and have no bearing. Also could you explain how there is a screen shot of windows on the windows article along with the windows logo and that is somehow fairuse but when it comes to the same content from a piracy group you feel you might be in some legal hot water?

I guess the real question is how did this image get deleted without a human seeing these obvious facts adding it to the fair use rationale. Unfortunately the image is gone now but my point is just that someone screwed up here. Maybe your robotic responses have already answered the question though. Sorry if I'm being a bit of a dick here. I know that in a world of rules and regulations it's easy to get caught up but really use some common sense in the future. It nothing to be afraid of. Like I said that's what makes us superior to the machines or usefully different anyway if superior is to strong a term for you.

68.25.20.16 (talk) 06:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You say that it would be logically incoherent for these Warez types to defend their copyrights, and that is probably so. But the law does not only protect people's property rights when it would be logically consistent for people to demand it. The bot's move was correct. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this screenshot copyrighted?

I have someone who uses video editing software (Cyberlink PowerDirector) to make screenshots of a tv show. Is this a freely licensed software? Do I need to do the fair use rationale? The person has a photobucket account where they allow free access to their screenshots. Is this enough information to upload the screenshots and not have them deleted? Loveoandn (talk) 06:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

What's relevant here isn't the software used to take the screenshots, but what the screenshots are of. Since the TV show would almost certainly be under copyright, so too would the screenshots, regardless of how they were obtained. What are you hoping to use them for? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I have an article on a same sex soap opera couple. I wanted to upload pictures from various episodes that would represent the different storyline sections of the article. Could I use CBS screenshots under the fair use rationale? Loveoandn (talk) 06:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the correct answer is that that would depend on whether the images "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." That's not black and white, of course, but a good partial test is whether the specific subject depicted by the image is discussed in the article. For example, if the characters shared a kiss that became controversial and garnered lots of media coverage, a screenshot of that kiss would likely be appropriate. If you're just showing what the characters look like, not so much. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for the info! So the best thing is to use the fair use rationale for photos that support the subject discussed. And yes, the kiss garnered lots of controversy and media coverage.Loveoandn (talk) 06:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

v chip

i added two v chip logos (TV-Y and TV-Y7). I got them from www.controlyourtv.org. I am not exactly sure, but i think that this website is like a press release site so it should be legal. Can you check asap before I upload more?

Thanks!

Ross User Name: ral725 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ral725 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the site reads like a press release or not. It all depends on the license of the image. As it stands you could use {{PD-text}}. §hep^Talk 20:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Whatcha_Lookin'_4.jpg‎

I've provided a description for the file explaining why it should be on the article,the website is just an online christian music store, and it just shows the cover of the product. Hometown Kid (talk) 15:30, 30 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are asking about, but the file has a tag asking that instead of linking to the image you should link to a page on the source site that uses the image. —teb728 t c 22:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

CC-BY vs. GFDL

Copied from Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism for consideration here Franamax (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles may embed full verbatim texts only when those sources are licensed PD or GFDL. GFDL texts must be referred to the author. But what about all other kinds of free licensed text (mostly including CC-BY and CC-BY-SA)? According to some people I met, CC-BY text can not be verbatim copied in Wikipedia, but needs to be rearranged in order to avoid an original license misuse charge. Brief explanation: the Italian Army officially stated to Wikipedia that most part of Army web site contents are licenced under CC-BY. Some wikipedians on it.wiki do not consider texts released under CC-BY licence fully compatible with Wikipedia GFDL policy as they consider CC-BY licence "would force" Wikipedia articles status to CC-BY too, which is incompatible with present Wikipedia GFDL choice. How can we deal with this and where we can find useful data for better assessing this dispute winner ? --EH101 (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Any opinions? CC says we can't alter the CC license, so relicensing under GFDL would seem to be a violation. Otherwise the license would have to be at least "split" so that there were CC-BY notices even on blockquotes. Franamax (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, this is just plain incompatible. CC-BY-SA obviously doesn't work, because that requires later derivatives to be licensed CC-BY-SA, which Wikipedia isn't. CC-BY doesn't work because it requires attribution always. The GFDL only requires attribution of five major contributors. So abiding by the GFDL is not sufficient to ensure the attribution required by CC-BY. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

That's just the title page where listing five authors is acceptable. In the section titled History, every author has to be listed. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. What if we put a footnote like "text in this paragraph was released under CC-BY from X at http Y". This would be very similar to the way we embed CC-BY or CC-BY-SA photos in Wikipedia articles. As soon as somebody starts to alter the CC-BY licensed text, rearranging contents with different wording or integrating with some other sources, the footnote could be removed or, much better, transformed into a standard reference link. --EH101 (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Except that unless it's a complete rewrite, it's a derivative work, so it's still CC-BY. And what happens if I put a new sentence into a CC-BY paragraph? Is it a derivative work of the CC-BY part of the article, or a GFDL contribution? However the footnote method would work for blockquoted text. Franamax (talk) 06:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It's OK. CC-BY footnote should be removed only after a complete rewriting. Minor modifications should not be considered valid for removing an original license notice: it is a pure use of common sense. --EH101 (talk) 09:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Image:NYC Legoland.JPG

There appears to be an issue of using this file in Legoland California (see Talk:Legoland California#Image copyright problem with Image:NYC Legoland.JPG). A bot, FairuseBot, claims that the photo does not have a fair-use rationale. The two major questions are:

• Is it a fair use, and, more importantly,
• Is the picture even copyright? The user who uploaded the photo apparently released under the GFDL, or is the real issue about thae fact that somehow the models are copyrighted by the Lego Group?

If it was a non-free image, the rationale is missing the exact names of the articles its being used it (It's got Legoland but not Legoland California in it.) But as why it's being tagged by fairuse bot , I'm not sure. --MASEM (t) 00:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

However, it isn't a non-free image; therefore it doesn't need a fair-use rationale, does it? Any others willing to comment on this issue?

Anon126  (talk - contribs) 00:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

One could argue it is artwork in public display in the US, and thus by nature, it falls under Freedom of panorama that it is a copyrighted work and thus non-free. You're right that if it is free there's no need for that rationale, but if it is non-free it needs it for both articles, regardless of the photographer's intent. --MASEM (t) 01:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• I've tagged it with {{non-free 3d art}}, as is clearly falls within the U.S. law in that respect. I've also tagged it as missing a rationale. The non-free 3d art tag should never have been removed. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Owner permission query

Okay, I've been sent an image by Karin Muller to replace the shot that's currently in the article; problem: not sure what license to use. I've requested clarification fro her as to whether it's a free image or copyrighted; if it's free, I'm sure a CC-by-SA will be fine, but if it's copyrighted, what should I be using there? She's giving permission for it to be used here... *confused* Tony Fox (arf!) 05:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Permission for use only on wikipedia of a living person is not good enough, you must get a free licence that allows commercial usage otherwise the image will be deleted. You don't decide the type of licence, they must decide what license to release it under. Just try get it released with one of the free licences you will find here or, if you can, take a photo yourself and release it into the public domain. ww2censor (talk) 05:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Also see WP:PERMISSION for some help. §hep^Talk 05:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, folks. She seems okay with releasing it into the wild, so I'll work with those licenses. Cheers. (This all reminds me why I avoid doing image work now!) Tony Fox (arf!) 16:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

---

are we allowed to copyright information from this site —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.223.222.23 (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You must release our text content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License; see WP:C. §hep^Talk 16:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Robert Rotenberg

Hi Wikipedia Media People,

I have been trying to upload cover art and a picture of Robert Rotenberg, and it keeps getting deleted. I understand this is because I have not proved that I have permission to distribute this media. Is there anyway that you could contact him or his publisher, so that he/ they could confirm that I have permission to distribute these images? You can reach him at [deleted]. Thanks,

Andy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aibsen (talk • contribs) 21:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately no, we don't do the work for you because the burden of proof is on you to provide the appropriate copyright licence for any images you upload. You should follow the instructions on WP:PERMISSION and all should be well if you complete that. ww2censor (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Images query on status

Whelas (talk · contribs) has uploaded a number of images (File:Leyland Built LF45.jpg, File:Leyland Trucks Built CF85.jpg, File:Leyland Trucks Built XF105.jpg, File:MX Awards Presentation.jpg and File:HRH Prince Michael Presentation.jpg) which have been placed on the Leyland Trucks article. The images all look like they are images that have been originated by the company yet the user indicates they own the copyright and have given them a Public Domain license. The user could be employed by the company and have permission to do this. What should be done about this? Keith D (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like he does claim to own the content: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snigbrook&diff=prev&oldid=263774010 --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Barring actual release from the company, we have to presume these are copyright violations. Anyone can come on here and claim they are XYZ person. Without confirmation from a corporate address being sent to m:OTRS, we have no way of verifying. Mark as copyvio, have them all deleted, and inform the uploader to contact m:OTRS. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have tagged the images and requested user get appropriate permission. Keith D (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I am the photographer

If I took the photo/images and put © on the image would that be all that is necessary to publish the photo/image on Wikipedia. Is that enough be able to post the picture that I took. thank you cragistry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cragistry (talk • contribs) 02:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No, if you claim copyright by adding a © copyright notice, you are not releasing it under a free licence that is required for images to be permitted in wikipedia. You should probably review WP:CFAQ to get a better understanding of copyright and also to WP:IUP#Free licenses and WP:TAG which tell you about what licences are permitted for use with any images you upload. ww2censor (talk) 03:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Flintshire Bridge

I'm having problems with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flintshire_bridge.jpg

It was sourced from http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/411436 and the photographer has allowed it to be used under Creative Commons license. Can somebody help fix the copyright issues on the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheYak22 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed it for you. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a geograph template for use in images from that source: {{geograph|image number|author name}} which provides all the appropriate CC licence and link info necessary to comply. ww2censor (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama speeches

I noticed the WP:FS article in Signpost. I am wondering if any of Barack Obama's speeches from before he became United States President are considered PD. Two are particularly interesting to me. His speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention came while he was an Illinois State Senator. On November 4, 2008, he made an acceptance speech in Grant Park, while he was a United States Senator, but not in his normal course of duty as a Senator. Is either of these PD or eligible for WP:FS in any other way.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Two questions

Hello,

I have two questions:

1. How should I tag the image File:Wounds.jpg? I made the image entirely myself and therefore own it. Moreover, it was officially released on an album cover through a record label.

2. How should I tag the image File:HELLFIRE.jpg? I was given permission by the band to upload the image, along with details on its photographer/owner which I have listed.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjetil Ottersen (talk • contribs) 17:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

1. The album cover should probably be tagged with {{non-free album cover}} along with {{Album cover fur}} filled out. If you are the graphic designer and photographer for that image, did you have a contract where you retained the rights to the image? Normally with contract work, you give up your copyright when you provide your services of making the album cover (and the copyright transfers to the band or label).

2. We would need to have that permission on file through the OTRS system. See WP:PERMISSION. Basically, the copyright owner needs to e-mail us with a consent declaration, see WP:CONSENT. The permission also has to make it clear the image is being released freely (and not limited to just wikipedia use). Hope this helps.-Andrew c ^[talk] 18:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Using a picture from Wikipedia

Dear Wikipedia staff, Can I use the picture of Harvey William, Image:Harvey_William_color.jpg‎, and other pictures such as, Image:William_Harvey-Foto.jpg‎, and, Image:William Harvey ( 1578-1657) Venenbild.jpg, on that page for my report on him for my class?

Best Regards, John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.208.142 (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The first and third are in the public domain, and the second is released under GFDL... so as long as you don't claim ownership, you should be OK... - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Is your report for a school project? In some jurisdictions, educational use of images are exempt from copyright laws. That said, as Adolphus79 pointed out, two of the images are in the public domain, which means anyone can use them for any reason. The one that is GFDL has a little stricter use (but not much). See WP:REUSE and this. -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale

OK, I think I've correctly added a rationale for the image File:taso-zorro.jpg - can anyone verify this for me? Thanks. Thegreek147 (talk) 06:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it meets the technical requirements, but it should have a better explanation of how it helps the understanding of the article if it is to survive deletion requests. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 07:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyright of lists

I'd like a second opinion as to whether the "lists" in Serge Spitzer can't be copyrighted. Sorry this isn't a media question but I can't find any place to ask about text copyrights. RenegadeMonster (talk) 07:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think pure lists of information cannot be coprighted (yet). Hence phone listings are not covered by copyright, although this has (so far unsucsessfully) been challenged in courts.

Lists of information most certainly can be covered by copyright, as long as there is a minimum of creativity in creating them. So "Yellow Pages" type phone listings, for example, are copyrighted. I'd reckon the same applies to the listings at Serge Spitzer but, more importantly, the article is a horrible substub and any effort to improve it will probably eliminate the copyright problem (you can't copyright the inormation itself, merely the form in which it's expressed). Physchim62 (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Fan art status

Both Fan fiction and slash fiction currently have depictions of fan art. One is claimed as fair use, with copyright presumed to be the fanzine creators, and ther other has an OTRS ticked for free use. But in both cases, doesn't the copyright belong to the original creators? So i wanted to know if this means they must be deleted, even though it is not wikipedia doing the infringing directly. The slash fiction image is up for deletion (at commons), should the other be too? Can someone who knows more about copyright do that?YobMod 12:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Derivative work cannot be claimed as free. That said, I don't see why we couldn't have a dual copyright/non-free image. State that it's a) the cover of a copyrighted fanzine and b) the likeness of the characters are copyrighted to Paramount or whoever owns Star Trek.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Commons and copyvio

Hi, I wonder what the procedure is when encountering Commons images that are clear copyright violations. Naturally such images should be tagged for speedy deletion at Commons, but should anything else be done? (Like putting a tag on their captions or remove them entirely from their respective articles on Wikipedia) decltype 15:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

As an editor, you can always remove an image from an article if you think it shouldn't be there, regardless of your copyright worries. I shouldn't get into any edit wars though – the most effective long-term action is to get it removed from Commons. Physchim62 (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If it's a pretty clear copyright violation, I think it's best to remove it from en.wiki articles preemptively. Sometimes deletion requests on commons take months to be closed. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers. Makes sense. decltype 15:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

While commons deletion can take some time, you can always request a commons admin to review any deletion request made there and that usually gets it resolved more quickly. ww2censor (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Siouxsie Sioux

Resolved

 – Already taken care of at the Help Desk. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 04:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I originally asked this question at Wikipedia:Help Desk#Siouxsie Sioux regarding an image I want to change in the article. I provided the links to the question so that I wouldn't have to repeat myself. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 00:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Drake (Young Barack).jpg

Please take a look at File:Drake (Young Barack).jpg. There was a perfectly good and presumably correctly licensed image originally uploaded by Minnesotamusic (talk · contribs). However, Stats2011 (talk · contribs) has replaced the original image with a succession of inferior images, without any attempt made to ensure the new images are correctly licensed. The latest picture shows the subject with another person (LeBron James). The [[Wikipedia:Images#Image choice and placement|image choice] guideline suggests that images should not be too dark or blurry, and the subject should be obvious from surrounding clutter and other people. I'm unsure how to do it: is there an easy way to revert the image to the originally uploaded version and with the original image description etc? Astronaut (talk) 04:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Policy is that a previous image shouldn't be overwritten unless it's a indisputable improvement to the previous image. You can click the revert button next to the image in the history. Also worrying is that all the images including the original are web-resolution without a clear explanation how they were obtained (potential copyright infringement) --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 05:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. I reverted to the original image on the basis that it was a better photograph - representative the the subject, better lit and without extra clutter. One question: What qualifies an image as "web-resolution"? Astronaut (talk) 06:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well an image straight from a quality digital camera, like those you'd expect someone doing photoshoots of celebrities to use, will be a resolution like 2304 by 3072 pixels. When images are included on a web page, they're resized to a few hundred pixels or less so the page loads quickly. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 06:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This user's images, in the caption, give credit to different people, which suggests this user was lying about these images being self-made (and presumably being the PD as well). I have tagged this user's images as needing proof of permission. So... back to the initial question, it isn't necessarily a matter of which image is the best quality or highest resolution... but which image is FREE. There is no evidence that any of these images are actually licensed freely.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The image has links to Drake (entertainer) and Aubrey Graham. The latter has a caption associated with the image saying "Drake Promotional shot by Denise Grant Photography". I visited both denisegrantactors.com and DeniseGrantPhotography at creativeshake.com and could not find the image. Then I did a google image search and could not find any original version - only those that were sourced from Wikipedia. So, what's next? Is it definitely a copyvio, just a suspected copyvio, or should we take the original uploader's ownership and PD claim at face value? Astronaut (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I have tagged the image as needing permission, which means if no action is taken, the image will be deleted. If you want to be proactive about this, you could contact Denise Grant and inquire about the image. See who owns the image and if it ever was released into the public domain (and perhaps asking to send in WP:CONSENT). The uploader can also work to clear this up as well. But there are two many unanswered questions to just leave this users uploads at face value. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair use of video screenshots

Can the following screenshots from videos of historic events be used in the listed articles as fair use:

• File:Mohammed_Ajmal_Kasab.jpg in 2008 Mumbai attacks
• File:Story.crash.sequence.jpg in September 11 attacks
• File:2 gunmen cought on security camera.PNG in 2009 Lahore attack on Sri Lankan cricket team
• File:2 gunmen cought on security camera 2.PNG in 2009 Lahore attack on Sri Lankan cricket team

or is such use disallowed per the following unacceptable use listed in WP:FU, "A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. This applies mostly to contemporary press photos and not necessarily to historical archives of press photos." ?
(This question has arisen at Talk:2009_Lahore_attack_on_Sri_Lankan_cricket_team#non-free_images) Abecedare (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

These images are of different types so treating them together is incorrect.

1. File:Mohammed_Ajmal_Kasab.jpg in 2008 Mumbai attacks Is used in the article, and associated sub-article, to illustrate the subject himself, not as a representation of the attack, or even as commentary of the attack. Clearly meets WP:FU criteria as there is no other alternative available to illustrate the subject of a BLP, when speaking about the subject.
2. File:Story.crash.sequence.jpg in September 11 attacks - this is a unique historic image for which no free equivalent has been found. The day such content is found it will be replaced. The unique historic image criteria is not subjective, and does not cover things generally recognized as news. It is a combination of notability of the given image, time passing, and generally recognized uniqueness. That is the case with this image, which was added long after the events happened, and which is generally recognized as a fair use for that event (as in it has been seen as such by courts).
3. File:2 gunmen cought on security camera.PNG in 2009 Lahore attack on Sri Lankan cricket team and File:2 gunmen cought on security camera 2.PNG in 2009 Lahore attack on Sri Lankan cricket team. These are screencaptures, with the station logos, of images taken by a security camera. They do not meet WP:FU criteria, as screencaptures are specifically are only allowed to be used to illustrate the specific station, in an article about the station or its programing - for example, logos. The underlying subject of the screen capture is irrelevant under fair use criteria, it is the use of the image and not the subject that comes in play. If the camera footage were to be widely released in raw format with clear licensing, or under a free license, then those images could be allowed. However, screencaptures from a third party are not. In fact, if the raw video is released without clear licensing, it cannot be fair use, as fair use can only be applied to non-free image for which the copyright owner and licensor is known. In fact, we tend to delete even public domain images if the copyright origin of the image is not known, even obvious images such as those from the 19th century. Fair Use is not a sophistic excuse to use non-free content, but an objective criteria in copyright law, as such, we cannot reach consensus on keeping. We must delete all copyvio.

I suggest to Abecedare that s/he read up on copyright law, before emiting opinions on this topic. --Cerejota (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Note that even the 9/11 images are screen shots of copyrighted amateur video (with unknown videographer) of a historic event shown by CNN (with a CNN exclusive tag). In that sense, they are no different from the File:2 gunmen cought on security camera.PNG. All four images, IMO, satisfy all the 9 NFCC criteria.

Secondly the issue is not US copyright law, by which standard all these images are clearly usable, but WP:NFCC, which by design is stricter.

Finally, Coretja, even if you prove to be right, the last sentence of your comment is unbecoming of you. I'll wait for input from uninvolved editors. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 03:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course, calling other users simply wrong is so becoming. WP:IRONY. Definitely WP:IRONY. It would be funny, except that copyvios are the only thing (well, and libelous BLPs) that could potentially bring down the project as we know it.--Cerejota (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW you are wrong on the laws. Please read WP:NFC again, as it is quite explicit on this respect - and reading WP:NFCC as if it were separate from WP:NFC is an exersice in futility at best and in wikilawyering at worse. Also, we removed a lot, and I mean a lot, of non-free images in 2008 Mumbai attacks, an article in which I have been very active (probably second only to the original author). Yet the image File:Mohammed_Ajmal_Kasab.jpg remains. This would betray to the casual editor that I have a nuanced understanding of the fine points of fair use, as applied to copyrighted images. All of the images that we removed were similar and in some cases identical to File:2 gunmen cought on security camera.PNG and File:2 gunmen cought on security camera 2.PNG, that is, screencaptures of retransmissions of the actual video, used to illustrate not an specific subject, but the events in general. I am involved, but that doesn't make my points any less valid, and your inability to understand this is telling. That you would risk the integrity of the project for a few salacious images is incredibly sad. --Cerejota (talk) 05:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Abecedare, we should never tolerate copyvios: what's wrong with saying that all must be deleted? Fair use isn't a copyvio. Nyttend (talk) 15:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyright/use issues with a new image

This image surfaced recently, and I have two concerns.

• The image is licensed CC, but says "Use without permission is prohibited by law." That contradicts, doesn't it?
• On Fleetwood Mac's page, in the infobox (upper right corner), it says "Photo by Matt Becker". What (and where) is the policy regarding credits on photos?

Thanks, tedder (talk) 04:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I tagged the image both {{nsd}} and {{npd}} and removed the credit from the article. —teb728 t c 05:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I changed the tags to {{db-f9}}; the real problem is that with the contradictory licensing the image is a copyright violation. —teb728 t c 06:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've never really paid much attention to the media/image side of the Wikipedia world, so I appreciate the expert help on it. Cheers, tedder (talk) 06:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

(deindenting, need help again) The image has been re-uploaded, and it looks like the contributor has uploaded quite a few similar to this one. tedder (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be copyvios from http://melodicrockconcerts.blogspot.com/ (EhJJ)^TALK 21:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that this user is the owner of that blog. His user page basically says as much (plus these images don't have the water mark that is found on the blog posts). I think everything looks fine here. Perhaps an OTRS identity confirmation would make things more solid. And maybe we should tell him that it isn't a good idea to post your e-mail address on wikipedia.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Blink 3D

Are the pictures from http://www.pelicancrossing.com/Gallery.htm copyright? If not, I'd like to use them :| If only I knew. If they aren't, please tell me how you knew. It would be nice to tell me on my talk page here Thanks in return, have a nice one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Study Kaji (talk • contribs) 16:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The default assumption is that anything you see is protected by copyright. © 2003-2008 Pelican Crossing is a further hint.Geni 17:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Songs less than 30 seconds?

For an article I would like to use a song that is actually a snippet of a larger song off the same album, but discretized as a single track that runs about 15 seconds. Is this necessary a problem and thus should I seek to grab from the larger song itself, or can I use this short song alone with proper FUR? --MASEM (t) 16:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

For a free standing song that is less than thirty seconds, we would start to have problems but, in the case you describe here, I don't think it makes any difference whether you use a clip from the full length version or the fifteen second snippet elsewhere on the album. It is a basic principle of copyright law that you don't get a new copyright just by copying. You have to do something new (technically termed the "threshold of originality") to generate a new copyright protection. Physchim62 (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Reverse copyright problem

Can anyone direct me to where we report possible violations of Wikipedia copyrights? This image, displayed at this page, is apparently identical to File:Spring City Utah House.jpg, but because the other website doesn't display the picture at a resolution greater than 300px, our picture can't be copied from there. Therefore, I'm wondering if the other website is using the picture posted here: but there's no attribution of any sort, and the other website claims copyright. The image on Commons is licensed under both GFDL and CC, but I can't find any proof that the other website is following either one. Nyttend (talk) 15:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Tell the uploader is probably your best option.Geni 17:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You could be bold and e-mail the website. Also see Wikipedia:Standard GFDL violation letter. -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

E-mail sent to the webmaster.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Quick Googling shows that the uploader is a web/graphic designer who is also involved in the the government there and lives or lived in that city. He undoubtedly either made the site for them or explicitly approved it. DreamGuy (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Small Favor

Would anyone see if this image is copyright here I'm not good at this stuff >.< —Preceding unsigned comment added by Study Kaji (talk • contribs) 12:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is copyrighted, and it has not been released under a free license. It's easy to be (fairly) good at this stuff: if you can't find an explicit declaration that something has been freely released, then it is fully protected by copyright. This doesn't always apply (some images are in the public domain due to being very old or being uncopyrightable, for example), but it's a good rule of thumb for most cases. Algebraist 13:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Copywrite issues

What do i need to tag to an image that is owned by me and has not be published anywhhere else (including online) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MHenbert (talk • contribs) 16:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You can tag it however you want. See WP:ICTIC for more details on different tags.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you hold the copyright (note spelling) to the image, or merely the image itself? If you produced the image, you probably hold the copyright and can release it under any license you see fit, or into the public domain entirely. If someone else produced the image, it is likely that they hold the copyright and you will have to persuade them to release it freely. If you can't persuade them to do that, you'll have to use a claim of fair use. Algebraist 16:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess I should also add that the subject of the image also is important, as derivative works of copyrighted material cannot be licensed freely. That is to say, in the US, images of 3D art that has been produced say in the last 70 years. Or if you take a photo of an album cover. Or if you make your own screenshot of a copyrighted computer program. etc. All of those would be examples of images that you could create yourself, but you wouldn't own the rights to release. So... if you want more information specific to your image, could you tell us what your image is of?-Andrew c ^[talk] 19:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyright of a derivative.

I want to upload Clade_types_revised_20090306.svg, which was derived from commons:file:Clade_types.svg. The only information that I deleted was a line identifying which computer program created the file. User Neurolysis has pointed out that my file does not have copyright information and may be deleted. Frankly, the content looks a bit trivial to me. Does it need to be copyright, and do we need to do something about the lack of copyright of the original file?Peter Chastain (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Answered on his talk. — neuro^(talk) 18:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Add a line stating who the original author was and linking to the original file, and then copy and paste everything from the "Licensing" section of the original file into the "Licensing" section of your revised upload. The issue is that every single image page must have a "tag" describing the image's license. Since this is a derivative work, it is really simple to just copy and paste the licensing info from the original file and be done with it. If you need help, I can do it for you, but you should also learn about these things yourself (and best way to learn is try it out!) Any questions or concerns, feel free to contact me or respond here. -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Big Nickel

A photograph of the Big Nickel, a coin monument in Sudbury, Ontario, was recently deleted on the grounds that it constituted a "derivative work" because of the Royal Canadian Mint's copyright on the actual design of a Canadian nickel. The photo itself was uploaded under GFDL by its own photographer; the deletion took issue with the actual subject of the photo.

I thus have to ask:

1. Is it really possible that Wikipedia copyright is so restrictive that we can't even post a photograph of a public monument, which would be entirely valid under any normal interpretation of commons:Freedom of panorama, because somebody happens to hold a design copyright on the thing that the monument was built to commemorate?
2. If the answer to that question is yes, then how is the Big Nickel article supposed to be illustrated at all?

I certainly understand, respect and wholly support the fact that Wikipedia has to place some restrictions on the types of images that can be uploaded — but if the policy is drawn so tightly that an article such as this can never have any image on it at all, then there's something very wrong with the policy. Bearcat (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It should be okay for the article about Big Nickel, it just has to be tagged with a fair use tag and rationale. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I would get the file undeleted and give it a proper FUR. §hep^Talk 18:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Photo

Does somebody know who this person is and which license i can use if i upload it? Thank you very much! --15:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.246.94 (talk)

That image is used in this blog post. There is no licence information there, so I don't think you'll be able to use it unless you can find the original photographer and evidence that it is freely available. (EhJJ)^TALK 18:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Newbie Compuer User has quesion on photo usage.

I'm not an attorney so what is listed as legal usage in somewhat confusing to me. I am building informational CD's for public sale. Right now I'm in bad need of some out-of-season photos that I can find here. By that I mean some of the photos I need can't be taken by me until next November, so using someone else's work would help. Am I allowed to use photo from here so long as I give the author/photographer credit? Can someone explain usage in plain English for me without all the legaleeze? Thanks, TDE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.9.237 (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

What photos are you talking about? All images on Wikipedia should have information on their copyright status on their image page. Algebraist 18:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has multiple image licenses, so I cannot say for sure anything without knowing to what images specifically you are referring. The images may be copyrighted and we are using them under a fair use claim, or the images could be in the public domain which means anyone can use them for any reason (and there are dozens of licenses in between these two examples). So... what images?-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

We can't give legal advice. On the description page of each image you will find the terms under which images are used here, and you will need to determine for yourself, or engage the services of an attorney to determine, whether you can use those images, and what you need to do in order to do so. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Galleries

Is this non-free gallery within guidelines? Thanks, §hep^Talk 06:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how these pictures are significant enough to justify using non-free images. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 11:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

All the images including the ones in the gallery are unfree. One unfree image might be justifiable, though the one in the infobox does not really add anything to the understanding of the article. If anything File:2008 Badghis province operation 2.PNG might be a better choice as there is at least a Norwegian flag on the tank and because the existing one is just a soldier and some smoke in the distance. ww2censor (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Should the rest be tagged with {{Dfu}}? §hep^Talk 20:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, {{subst:dfu|Fails WP:NFCC#3a as multiple images are used when one would suffice}} would be better, but yes. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. §hep^Talk 17:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Picture I made

I added an image I made to my userpage, plus stated where some of the characters came from, but I am having problems.

In case you guys want to know who made the characters, erka:es made the human females, while NIntendo made the elf guy. (who oringated from Wario Land: Shake It!)

I hope someone can help me.Superjustinbros. (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're talking about File:Super Justin.jpg, you seem to have added a license tag properly. However, I am concerned that the image may be a derivative work of copyrighted characters and am going to list it on possibly unfree images. Stifle (talk) 09:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Linus Pauling Werner Kuhn Wolfgang Pauli big.jpg

Is there still a copyright/tag problem with this image on your side? If yes explain it to me (in simple english ...) 83.76.255.124 (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Sorry I thought I was loged in. CarsiEi (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well it attempts to do what is required: That is, it has a {{Non-free historic image}} tag and a non-free use rationale. But the rationale is inadequate because it does not explain why showing the image in the article is essential to readers’ understanding of the article, as required by WP:NFCC#8. The fact that “LP, WK and WP knew each other personally” could be stated in text, without actually showing the image. If fact, aside from the caption the article has no commentary on the image. —teb728 t c 05:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What's up with Wikipedia:OTRS

I have sent permission for two pics tagged for deletion to Wikipedia:OTRS twice this week - but have heard nothing. Usually the OTRS number appears within a couple of days.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 22:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

OTRS is a little bit more backlogged right now than it has been over the past few months; this is mainly because the users operating there have real lives (-:

If there's an urgent need to sort out a ticket for some reason, you can contact me or anyone on this list specifying the image name and other particulars of the email (you can also send them by email if you don't want to disclose them onwiki).

Finally, please don't send multiple copies of the same permission to OTRS. If the email hasn't gone through, you'll get a bounce message, but otherwise all tickets are replied to (barring spam, abusive messages, etc.), and usually in the order they are received. Because of the way the emails appear to OTRS users, it wastes quite a bit of our time if we get multiple messages about the same image. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Image:ToyotaEuropeanDesignDevelopment.jpg and TMEHO.jpg

Both images are available on http://www.toyota-media.com. On the website itself I can't find any information concerning copyrights. They are freely available to all people who have access to the website. Could you please provide me with assistance for the license tagging of both images?

Tmecorpcomms (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

In the absence of evidence that they have been freely released, we have to assume that the images are fully copyrighted. Since free alternatives could easily be made, they fail the non-free content criteria and should be deleted. Algebraist 14:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Sept 11 monument in NYC - August 2004.jpg

With an image currently at FPC, some voters said there are copyright issues with File:Sept 11 monument in NYC - August 2004.jpg. Could someone check out the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/September 11 Attacks Memorial and say their opinion. We could use someone with good knowledge of these areas for this discussion. Thanks, Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 21:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyright help

Will someone edit this photo to show that it is entirely my own work, I took it, and anyone can use it, print it, copy it, sell it for whatever reason they so desire, or even no reason? No copyright, copyleft, copywrong... Whatever. Grazi. WiiWillieWiki 20:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Tagged {{gfdl}}. Bearcat (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Release under the gfdl is not what WiiWillieWiki asked for. I've tagged is as public domain. Algebraist 20:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

On a pedantic note, GFDL isn't wrong either; any PD work can be released under the GFDL. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it can't. You can't release a work under a license unless you hold the rights to the work in the first place. The GFDL is explicit on this: 'This License applies to any manual or other work, in any medium, that contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it can be distributed under the terms of this License.' Algebraist 13:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Miklos Rozsa CD image

In the Miklos Rozsa article, an image of a CD of his music is used to identify him, instead of a picture of him. I don't know if there are any free images of him available, but the article does not discuss the CD whose cover is used, so it doesn't seem appropriate to be using the CD artwork, especially so prominently, in the article about Rozsa. How should I resolve this? 71.237.161.172 (talk) 04:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems inappropriate, and the rationale doesn't make a compelling case for keeping it. Tag it {{Di-disputed fair use rationale}}, following the instructions on that template page. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 05:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I already tagged it. ww2censor (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

A Tale in the Desert screenshot

Can I use a screenshot of the game from their official website for the game's aricle?

If not, what are my alternatives? Take a screenshot myself, ask them for permission etc...

Thank you.

PS: Please Trackback or notify me via my talk page. -Andriyko (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Either case would result in a non-free image, so it would have to follow our strict non-free content guidelines. As long as you mention the source, taking an image from the website shouldn't be much different from taking a screenshot yourself (as long as you are not interfering with the company's commercial opportunities, see WP:NFCC #2). The important part here is that there is a fair use reason with a solid fair use rationale behind the image. We can't use non-free images willy nilly. The image has to significantly increase understanding. That said, normally having a screenshot to show what the game interface looks like or to accompany text describing is usually ok. I know our non-free image use guidelines are a bit overwhelming at first, so ask if you have further questions.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyright for camel trophy and G4 Challenge photos.

Hi there, I have been updating the Land Rover Camel Trophy and G4 challenge pages and would like to add some photos. I previously created a gallery but it was taken down because I did not claim copyright of the photos. I took the G4 challenge photos from the Camel Trophy owners club website and have now contacted the club chairman and webmaster, both of whom have very kindly agreed to grant me permission to use their photos as long as I attribute the photos to the original owner. Similarly for the G4 Challenge photos I have been able to contact the original event photographer who has granted permission (as have Land Rover!) for me to use some of his photos. Finally, the question I want to ask is what copyright 'label' should I use to attribute the photos to the original owners/photographers who have agreed to their use on wikipedia?

Many thanks for your help in advance, (Superbencooper (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC))

See WP:COPYREQ for the procedure. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Images from the Bibliotheque Nationale de France

Hello all, I am editing an article on a composer, and it seems that some of his scores and portraits are in the French National Library's (BNF) Gallica internet site. In other words they have been digitized. The majority of the images are from the early 19th century and some date back to the 18th century. I don't know if they can be added to an article for copyright/intellectual property reasons. The link to the above mentioned images is below. Thanks for your help, Blackteebox (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC) http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b77219439 OR http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b77219439.r=pleyel%2C+ignace.langEN

Those links are not working for me (or the page partially loads, but there is no content available, no images). Are these 2D works of art that were published before 1923 (or, for France at least 70 years after the artist's death)? Basic reproductions (or photographic duplications) of public domain 2D works of art can also be claimed to be in the public domain. I don't want to say anything for sure without seeing the site and the images, but it seems likely that these images are in the public domain. Commons:Licensing#France has a bit more general info for France.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I've seen the images. Definitely public domain based upon their age. Scanning an old 2D work doesn't give a new copyright. In fact I have in the past uploaded a number of images from this site. Go for it. DreamGuy (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

File:ICDKeyLogo.jpg

I created a page on the International College of Dentists, wrote the ICD and they sent me a logo to use on the Wiki site. I uploaded, marked it as permission to use it on Wiki and included the persons name from the ICD that sent it. Just got deleted for copyright violation by Skierdude -- any ideas how to resolve the issue or undelete it and modify the copyright? Ian Furst (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Permission to use any image only on Wikipedia is not good enough for us and I doubt any organisation will actually released their logo under a free license which can include commercial use by anyone. Usually non-free logos are permitted on the primary page if tagged as {{non-free logo}} with a properly completed {{fair use rationale}}. ww2censor (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you -- I'll double check with the organization, convert to low res and meet the other criteria specified. I've also found a comparable to use as a template. Thanks again. Ian Furst (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Missing evidence

An image I uploaded has been tagged with missing evidence of permission. The instruction is: "If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org." The image has been taken by my friend who has given me permission via online chat, not email. How do I proceed with the non-email evidence? Jay (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, one answer is to ask again, by e-mail, using the instructions at WP:COPYREQ --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

'when asked permission for use in Wikipedia, the author said "My pleasure!"' is not acceptable permission. Wikipedia does not accept permission for use only on Wikipedia; as it explains at WP:COPYREQ, the permission must allow reuse by anyone anywhere. —teb728 t c 22:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've modified the permission note, the permission was granted for GFDL. Now what option do I have if I don't wish to go via the email formality? Jay (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The other option is to wait for File:Hard Kaur.jpg to be deleted on 18 March. —teb728 t c 23:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

How far are non-free screenshots supposed to be reduced?

I just uploaded File:Kayak.com homepage.png, but forgot to reduce it. What's the recommended scaling factor? 1/2, 3/4? --Wulf (talk) 04:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

According to the Template:Non-free image rationale, no more than 300 pixels on any side. ww2censor (talk) 05:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw that. I'm thinking there must be a larger bound for screenshots, though, since 90% of the screenshots I see at Category:Screenshots of web pages are much larger (speaking of ones without size reduction requests). --Wulf (talk) 08:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Essentially, "as small as possible while still performing its encyclopedic function". See WP:NFCC#3b - there isn't necessarily a hard pixel limit on the size. If, for the purposes of encyclopedic discussion, a screenshot needs to be larger than 300x300 so you can read it and identify the parts being discussed, then that's fine. Just bear in mind that if it's appropriate, the image should always be cropped or resized as far as is reasonable. ~ mazca ^t|c 08:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just resized it to be 225px wide (the size used in the article thumbnail). I've got an idea, though: What if there were a way to keep higher-res images behind the scenes and then just never show them full size? That would make resized versions look much better (by avoiding resizing multiple times)... Is there somewhere I can suggest this? Thanks, Wulf (talk) 20:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it could probably be larger, I can hardly tell what it is. For instance all of the Windows theme screenshots are huge (example). Or are those too big? §hep^Talk 22:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's the thing. Downscaled screenshots (even 1/2 size) are all but useless, and the full-res versions can't possibly help somebody infringe anything, since they could easily just go take a screenshot themselves (more so for free websites or software as opposed to for-pay software like Windows, however widely available). Outside Wikipedia, I've never heard any claim that full-size screenshots aren't fair use, and they're used by other major websites (e.g. O'Reilly, IBM, or even SCO and Microsoft) all the time. --Wulf (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

And with all their lawyers, one would think the latter three in that list would know better if there was indeed something wrong with the practice. --Wulf (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In these kinds of situations it's less about exposing Wikipedia to legal risk, and more about not including excessive, decorative copyrighted material in what's supposed to be a free encyclopedia. In this particular case, I just can't see the point of the screenshot in the first place - why wouldn't a user just click through to the website in question to start with? We're never going to include a full-resolution screenshot on the article page itself anyway, so why would someone bother clicking through to a static image of the website instead of just visiting it? ~ mazca ^t|c 22:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, we could replace the current screenshot with one showing a results page. That'd be more useful, as it would show details about what sets Kayak.com apart from similar sites, and would take more time for a user to replicate (entering a second airport or city, clicking the Search button and waiting while the search is performed, at a minimum). I think the merits of including screenshots at all would best be debated at Template talk:Infobox Website... --Wulf (talk) 01:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that File:Live Search Farecast.png and File:Expedia.comScreenShot.png aren't reduced at all. Unless anybody can think of an objection, I'll be reverting to the full-size version and removing the non-free reduce template on the 17th (the day before the original is scheduled to be deleted).

There is currently no screenshot policy, merely a historical RFC at Wikipedia:Software screenshots. However, since that RFC is the only source of specific guidance on this issue, I tend to give it some standing. It recommends a "screen resolution of 800x600 or 1024x768". Think of the spirit behind Wikipedia:Logos where it says "reasonable diligence should be taken to ensure that the logo is accurate and has a high-quality appearance".

I take WP:NFCC#3b ("...low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement)...") to mean that one should not use excessively high resolution (e.g. a 4800dpi scan of a logo) -- notice that it says "low- rather than high-resolution", not "low-resolution" or "low- rather than medium- or high-resolution"...

Wulf (talk) 04:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Auschwitz Album

Has anyone determined the copyright status of the photos in the Auschwitz Album (for instance, File:Selection Birkenau ramp.jpg)? The photos are currently tagged as fair use. I'm not sure that they would be subject to copyright except in the most theoretical of senses though. Assuming that the Second World War didn't happen (...), the IP would be owned by the photographer, who given the passage of time is now almost certainly dead. His heirs, if any, may not even be aware of it. The photographs were abandoned, possibly due to the death of the creator (I have no idea if he survived the war or not), and the album was found by one of the luckier (in relative terms) victims, who then donated it to Yad Vashem.

Complicating things further, Yad Vashem restored the photographs, raising the question of whether the ones we have are "original" (faithful reproductions are uncopyrightable, and are part of the original IP) or a new creation. There is also the issue of the post-war property confiscation, meaning that the actual IP ownership is at best hopelessly muddled and arguably lost entirely.

I have two questions - 1) is this assessment correct or is there something obvious I've missed that gives a clear answer, and 2) in the absence of a simple answer to Q1, is the fair use tag appropriate for these images? Normally, IMHO, it wouldn't matter but these images are of outstanding importance, both as a historical record and as a document of current relevance. If I could choose one class of media to declare free content by fiat, it would be the records of man's inhumanity to man. Orpheus (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

[More detail http://www.flickr.com/photos/22603354@N08/3009394539/ here], including that the head of the Auschwitz photo lab survived the war. Orpheus (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyright duration in Germany is life of the author plus 70 years, and there is no evidence of intentional abandonment of the copyright. The photographs were first published in 1980. On those facts alone, the photographs would still be under copyright in the United States. The remaining questions are whether the government of Germany confiscated the copyright after the war, and if the photographs were in the public domain under German copyright law as of January 1, 1996. If so, they would also be in the PD in the United States. — Walloon (talk) 07:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

There was no general confiscation of copyright after the war, as can be seen in a number of German cases where the copyright of wartime photographs has been held to lie with the photographer and his/her heirs. So the assumption has to be that someone owns the copyright on these pictures. Note that the case of Adolf Hitler's works is distinct: the German government owns the copyright to these because Hitler bequeathed it to the German state with the rest of his property. Physchim62 (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

State copyright?

I'm working on the Nebraska legislature and was wondering if the images off of the official site Example are government work and thus public domain. Anyone know if this is correct?--Rayc (talk) 03:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about Nebraska specifically, but most states retain copyrights on their work. The US Federal Government puts everything in the public domain, but most other governments do not. Dragons flight (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

As for the specific page you cite, it says explicitly, "Copyright © 2008 Nebraska Legislature, all rights reserved" So obviously Nebraska is not a government that releases its works into the public domain. —teb728 t c 06:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Book Covers

How do I upload book covers? I don't see an option for it, just covers for albums/singles. Indianparttime2 (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The option on the upload page just under CD Covers says A cover or other page from a book, DVD, newspaper, magazine, or other such source. [1] Just make sure you fill out all the proper information. You need to state your source (and link to it if its online) add a proper license tag and complete the fair use rationale, making sure to explain why the image is needed if it isn't used at the top of the article/in an info box. If you have any more questions about this, feel free to ask. -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

My bad, I didn't notice it. In fact, I didn't even scroll down on the list. I didn't notice that sidebar (for some reason). Thanks. Indianparttime2 (talk) 01:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Need Image for Jim Cramer Wikipedia article, unsure if this is acceptable, how can I know?

Who can tell me if this picture , or this one, or this picture is OK to use for Jim Cramer's Wikipedia article? I realize they are from other Web sites, so a little more clarification on this would be cool.

If I'm not allowed to use images from other websites, may I simply uploaded images that I've captured on my own computer? Or if uploading images is still not OK, can I use images from Flickr, for example, this image: Jim Cramer picture on Book cover

I'm just unsure what makes an image acceptable or unacceptable to use. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tycoon24 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No you cannot use any of the images you have listed. There are a few reasons why. The first three are copyrighted to the photographer or website, none have been relicensed under a Wikipedia friendly license like CC or GFDL. Images that you have 'captured' on your own computer are in the same situation. You could attempt to find an image on Flickr or elsewhere online that is licensed under a compatible Creative Commons or GFDL license. If you can find one you could upload that. The Flickr image that you mention is a copyright violation itself, being a copy of a book cover. As Jim Cramer is a living person you cannot claim fair use on any copyrighted imagery as a free image of him is easily obtainable (in theory). Mfield (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing it up for me, much appreciated! Tycoon24 (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Image of the McDonald Brothers

http://www.doney.net/aroundaz/celebrity/mcdonald_brothers.jpg

What would be the license for this image for me to use? They are both dead. I want to use it for the article for the two founders of McDonalds, because there's no image of them on it. This is a sketch.

There's also this image: http://www.mcspotlight.org/company/company_pix/history_mcdbrothers.gif (Dick right and Mac center)Indianparttime2 (talk) 01:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

As they are both dead, and assuming there are no freely licensed images of them elsewhere available, you could use one of these to illustrate the subjects under a claim of fair use with the appropriate rationale (uploaded to enWP, not to Commons). Mfield (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyright of 1957 broadcast

Is the 1957 Royal Christmas Message still subject to copyright? As a tv broadcast surely the 50 years were up in 2007? The video can be found here. Thanks, --Cameron* 14:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If it was just the text, it'd fit under {{PD-BritishGov}}, but the BBC may own part of the copyright to the video. Anyone know? --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyrightservice.co.uk say broadcasts are covered "50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the broadcast was made.", so I assume this should be OK. Does this mean the coronation footage is also no longer covered? --Cameron* 13:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright issue

Hey there,

I'm currently a member of the University of Richmond Octaves, a collegiate a cappella group. I recently created our wikipedia article, and was given by an Octaves alum an old photo to put on the page. I did, and it was deleted of a lack of copyright info. I don't know the copyright information--all I know is that it was a photo taken of the group of which I am currently apart and I was given the photo specifically to put on Wiki. How do I deal with this?

sjack (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

How old is the picture? Who took it? --Carnildo (talk) 09:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Attaching an image to an entry

Hi, I recently created a page for a band and was given a jpg image by the band to use on their page but was not sure what sort of license I should attach to it, it has now been removed, what should I do to re-load it correctly?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.116.85 (talk) 10:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

See WP:COPYREQ for the procedure. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If the band gave permission to use on Wikipedia, that is not good enough because wikipedia is distributed under a free license (GFDL to be exact). This means that images that are donated need to be released under a corresponding free license (there are number of licenses from public domain to creative commons attribution to GFDL, etc). So you would need to get the band to e-mail the permission to release the image under the terms of a free license to the OTRS system. Details about all of this are in the link Rat gave above. Alternatively, you could look for a free image elsewhere (flickr has SOME images that are already free, but not all of flickr images are free).-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Two Images No Idea How to Deal with Copyrights

I have permission by the copyright holder for these two files, but I do not know how to proceed from this point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Sulphur_Institute_Logo.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TSI_Website_Frontpage.jpg

He will write the permission email but I do not know what needs to be included, how to select a copyright label, or where to send it.

Thanks for the help Jmoasahkua (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

See WP:COPYREQ. Also, you could tag File:The_Sulphur_Institute_Logo.jpg as {{PD-textlogo}} anyway. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else getting "The image “http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/75/The_Sulphur_Institute_Logo.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors."?-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Perhaps the file was corrupted? Try reloading it. J. Johnson (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

File:The Sulphur Institute Logo.jpg displays fine as does the uploaded image when you click on the logo in the preceding page, but do you notice that the " at the end of the newer link that Andrew posted makes the display error out. Remove the trailing " and the image is there fine. ww2censor (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you actually the logo? I see the image description page but not the logo image at the top nor either thumbnail in the history section. (I agree that the URL in Andrew's post is broken, but fixing the URL thus does not display the logo.) It doesn't help to refresh the page or purging the cache. —teb728 t c 02:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any problem. I see the logo, thumbnails and all older thumbs too. Maybe it could be a problem with your browser. As a matter of interest did you try using a different browser? ww2censor (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

IE6 is the only browser I have available right now. —teb728 t c 02:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Using Content of Wikipedia on a Website

I have a website of our company for the products manufactured and distributed by us. Now in this site, we would want to dedicate a page for learning on the product types available globally, history of the product, and a lot of other details which are available at Wikipedia. Can I use the same content word - by - word on my site or should I just keep links on the page to be redirected to Wikipedia site. The aim to have this informational page on the site is to educate people about the product we mfg and sell and is nothing to do to our business or commercial side to it. Please advise —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huntmanoj (talk • contribs) 08:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

See WP:REUSE for information on reusing the content. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 08:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Question about two book covers

Hi, I recently uploaded two images, both book covers:

• File:Ndtcotvv.jpg
• File:Ndfharh.jpg

On my talk page I was told that these "fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information." I followed the user's instructions for disputing this, but I was also told that "Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification."

I'm concerned b/c these images are for an article I just nominated for Good Article status, and I don't know what I did wrong -- I couldn't find other images of these covers, at least one of which I know for sure is out of print, and I followed the link on the upload page for book covers, which took me to a fair use upload page. I filled in all the info, using as a template the fair use rationale for book covers already on the page. I don't understand why these particular book covers don't fit with a) the other book covers on the page and b) the Wikipedia book cover upload page.

Any help would be greatly appreciated!! Thanks, Ricardiana (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me that those are just automatic bots complaining about the fact that you put the book titles into the article title fields -- replace that with Nancy Drew and the bot should see that there is a real article that free use is claimed for. If you need help or have other questions, just ask. DreamGuy (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, DreamGuy! - I just changed the article title on the image pages. Ricardiana (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The advice that you were given is not accurate: since this is a relatively recent book cover, no free version of it can be found, so your upload should not be criticized on that basis. However, as they currently stand, both images do still fall foul of the non-free content criteria (NFCC) for the following reasons:

1. The images are too large: the convention seems to be that copyrighted images should be no larger than 500 pixels on any side
2. Their non-free use rationales are not in accordance with the NFCC

There are a couple of reasons for #2. Firstly, such rationales must be for each article in which the image is used whereas the current rationales are for articles that don't exist. Secondly, under "Portion used" you have, "Only the book's front cover is used. This image is only a small portion of the commercial product." This is not accurate - the copyrighted work in question here is the book cover, not the book, so you're actually using the entire work. This is not a problem, but the rationale needs to say this. Finally, and most significantly, the "Purpose of use" does not currently comply with the NFCC. If you want to use these images in the Nancy Drew article then they can only be used there in a way that significantly adds to the reader's understanding of the accompanying text in a way that the words alone cannot. Currently, neither image fulfills this requirement, but one of them almost does. To elaborate: File:Ndtcotvv.jpg is currently accompanying some text that specifically refers to the design of the book covers from the 80s, 90s, and 2000s. All the text needs to do is mention The Case of the Vanishing Veil and then the use of the image would be fine (or, alternatively, the caption could be adjusted to refer to the text describing it). Conversely, nothing in the article is referring to the design of the cover shown in File:Ndfharh.jpg - the use of that cover in the article is purely decorative, so it should be removed. And in fact, all the covers shown in the article prior to the "Evolution of Nancy's appearance" section should be removed on the same basis.

I hope this helps! -- Hux (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Hux! This makes a lot of sense, and will help me improve the article. (Thanks also for being thoughtful and posting this to my talk page, as well!) I am about to re-work the article and pictures to tie in with each other better. I'll see about re-sizing them as well. Again, many thanks. Ricardiana (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Google images

Hi, I just wanted to know how I would provide information for an image which I obtained from google images, for there aren't any author names provided with the images there. Could you please tell me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Universityoffelicity (talk • contribs) 23:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless an image is specifically marked as being in the public domain you can be pretty sure it is copyrighted by someone and not available for use on Wikipedia. Do you have a specific image in mind? ww2censor (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for answering my question. Yes, I do have some images in mind. The images I have recently uploaded are File:Henryandmary.jpg and File:Edmundbertram.jpg. According to what you informed me of, does that signify that no matter what I try to do, my images will be deleted? Is there anything I can do to rescue my images Henryandmary.jpg and Edmundbertram.jpg from speedy deletion? universityoffelicity (ta;l)

Somebody might be able to help if you gave some information, like what do the images show and what external pages did you get them from. —teb728 t c 06:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

From what I understand of the article, these are screenshots of a BBC television program. So it's a good bet that the BBC holds the copyright, the specific website you got it from isn't important, and any use in Wikipedia would have to be under fair use. So if those images were important to the understanding of the article, and met WP:NFCC, you would provide information required by {{Non-free television screenshot}} --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Back covers of albums – when can their use be justified?

I edited The Isness to remove the back cover of the promo single "Divinity", as I did not think its use was justified as fair use of non-free images; there is no critical content regarding the back cover on the page, and there is no suggestion the promo cannot be identified by the front cover alone. Is this correct (I'm having a slight confidence crisis on this edit)? Presumably there are some circumstances under which the back cover of an album might be justifiable under fair use, such as if the back cover were the topic of significant coverage in reliable sources? --Rogerb67 (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. If there's encyclopedic, sourced information that is best expressed and explained with reference to an image of the back cover, then it's entirely justified to use it under fair use. Conversely, if the image was basically just decorative then you were right to remove it. ~ mazca ^t|c 00:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Screenshot used in article

A fairly large screenshot (Drudge-report.png) is being used in the Drudge Report article, and I would like to know if it is in any way violative of WP policy on copyright images. The uploader asserts "fair use" as the rationale. He also has "Drudge-retort.png" which combines two separately copyright logos, but says that the image is therefore his, and released to public domain. Can a combination of two copytright logos be released to public domain? Is "Drudge-Report-Logo.png" properly tagged as "public domain"? Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The logos (simply text, not logos at all really) are being used to illustrate a point about the fact that one logo derives from the other (as in The Drudge Retort is a social news site originally set up as a left-leaning foil to the popular conservative-leaning Drudge Report news aggregator [2]), and neither seem to be copyrighted at source anyway. The screenshot of the Drudge Report website is used to illustrate a section about the site's design, on a page about the website. It has been there for a long time, and replaced a similar screenshot that was there even longer. The owner of the Drudge Report, Matt Drudge, has known about it for ages and has not complained. ► RATEL ◄ 14:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I read and reread the policies -- can you state where it says "violating copyright is fine unless the person complains"? And "other stuff exists" is not, as far as I know, a valid reasoning either. The fact is that the screenshot is of a copyright site, and that is what counts. Collect (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That is not the reason why Wikipedia may have the right to use that image. Non-free content is used on Wikipedia under US fair use law. If content is properly used under fair use, it can be used even over the strenuous objection of the copyright owner. Use of non-free content on Wikipedia, however, is subject also to Wikipedia’s restrictive non-free content policy. File:Drudge-report.png is probably too large to conform to that policy.

The original logos are public domain because they are {{PD-textlogo}}s: They do not contain enough creativity to copyrightable. —teb728 t c 21:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I changed the licensing on the logos parody comparison to fair use. I'll reduce the size of File:Drudge-report.png. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 00:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Note further that Drudge attaches "circled R" to his title, which, to me, implies that he is separately claiming trademark status for it. In which case, you are back at square one. 'Fair use" of trademarks is dealt with by WP policies an guidelines which say they may be used in an infobox, and give no blanket exceptions at all otherwise. Note also that your comparison includes editorial text in the image, which may also make it not "fair use" in the first place. Collect (talk) 12:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Where do you see a ®? I don’t see it. In any case, a PD trademark image should be tagged {{trademark}}. But that doesn’t affect its copyright status—it is still PD—free use. —teb728 t c 04:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Blanket assertions of copyright (e.g., PD-USGov-DOE/PNNL)

I am trying to resolve an issue where a blanket assertion of copyright has been made on all materials, including items where no copyright is claimed. (For background see Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE/PNNL, and particularly CENDI Copyright FAQ. §4.0.)

I have located an image (a most excellent and appropriate map, which I have no hope of recreating) in a document produced under contract for PNNL / U.S. Dept. of Energy. The document itself makes no assertion of copyright, but the PNNL website has the usual notice that "These documents may be freely distributed and used for non-commercial, scientific and educational purposes." Which leaves open the question of commercial use, which (at least on Wikipedia) is implicitly "unfree".

A PNNL librarian(?) has offered to "fill out" any forms needed, but the only forms I have seen (e.g., WP:CONSENT) require a statement by the "creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright". Which I am pretty certain this person is not, so I don't see how a release could be binding.

I think I know who the original author/creator is, and would like to be able get the image from him directly, before it enters the murky depths. But so far he hasn't responded, so I am left wondering: how do we get releases from these secondary, blanket assertions of copyright? J. Johnson (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You can make a blanket assumption that if something is not explicitly released to the public domain, it is copyrighted even if copyright is not claimed. Works made by the US Federal government are PD, but works done under contract for it are not. —teb728 t c 23:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure. But in this case there is someone willing to provide a release. The problem is that this person is not the creator, and may not have the legal standing to represent the creator/owner. She may have standing to provide a release from the secondary assertion by PNNL, but that would not be as creator, and I have not seen any what the proper language/form would be. And I don't know if such a release would be sufficient regarding the unasserted but implicit copyright of the creator/contractor. J. Johnson (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I totally misunderstood your first post. On rereading I suspect your PNNL person is offering to sublicense for non-commercial, scientific and educational purposes (which according to their notices page they have a right to do). Of course for Wikipedia that is as good as nothing. Are you sure the PNNL person understands you want a free license? —teb728 t c 02:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No (re understanding). I am attemping to start a discussion with her so we can explore this. I also looked for instances of PNNL (or Oak Ridge) licensed images (in 'file space'), but I have doubts that the few I found are valid. Is it likely there have been any valid instances? J. Johnson (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I now have an e-mail stating that the material requested is in the public domain (!!), and "we really can't restrict how it's used". "So, we can grant permission for all use, so long as the appropriate disclaimers ... are attached." (Which amounts to a block of legal "no warranty", etc., CYA.) Any suggestions on how to proceed? J. Johnson (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hobo News title

Is there any chance that this image from here is public domain? It is the title of Hobo News, a long defunct newspaper from December 31, 1946. If not, I consider using it under a fair use claim instead. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: I've uploaded as fair use, for now, to File:HoboNews.jpg. If it turns out to be out of copyright, I can easily change the licensing info and move it to commons. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright

Hello, I want to create a map for inclusion in an article, I will be creating the map myself. Should it be Creative Commons Attribution or Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike? Thanks. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 04:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are creating it yourself, you can choose either—whichever condition you prefer. It's your choice. —teb728 t c 04:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou, would you happen to know what the difference is between them? 94.192.38.247 (talk) 04:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You should read the full texts of the licenses to make sure you agree to their terms. The main difference between the two is that, while both require attribution, one of them also requires derivative work and reuse to be licensed identically. -Andrew c ^[talk] 04:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

More info at CC.-Andrew c ^[talk] 04:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Question on Flick images

For this page for example, is it okay to be uploaded as a Creative Commons image as it has the following information:

All rights reserved

Anyone can see this photo

As for the said image, it's already uploaded under Riot control.

Regards for answers. Ominae (talk) 06:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. The license status of File:Mótmæli vörubílstjóra 1.jpg was confirmed by a bot, but now the Flickr page says, "All rights reserved." Perhaps it was changed on Flickr. Or could the uploader and the bot have screwed up? In any case I tagged it as a copyvio. —teb728 t c 07:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I would think it's most likely it was changed on FlickR. It's pretty common for FlickR users to change their mind, and change licenses. Since the license is legally non-revocable, we shouldn't have to delete it. Regardless, I think this is a case for a deletion discussion, not a speedy delete tag. --Rob (talk) 08:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, this is a commons image, so you will need to take it up there but the FlickreviewR was done on the day it was uploded and that confirmed a proper CC licence at that time, so it should not be deleted because the user has now placed a more restrictive licence on it. If you uploaded it today it would be deleted. You may wish to comment further on the commons image talk page . ww2censor (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If it was confirmed by a bot, then it's safe to say that it was previously licensed freely. I'd even trust a bot over a "trusted user" any day ;) -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry teb728 but I have removed your copyvio tag from the commons image as this is clearly properly licenced. ww2censor (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded Image Marked for Speedy Deletion, But I Have A Permissions Ticket Number. What Now?

I recently uploaded the image Image:Taongi Beach & Lagoon.jpg, included it in a Wikipedia entry, and then sent an email stating permission to use to permissions@wikimedia.org, in that order, all within a couple of days of each other. Subsequently, I received Ticket#2009031510003198, and the file was marked for speedy deletion.

Another image, Image:Taongi Lagoon Shore.jpg, which I uploaded as part of the same process received an OTRS blessing, as it were. If the first image ends up getting automatically deleted, will I have better luck next time by submitting the permissions email *before* I include the image in an entry?Cmholm (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you read down to the bottom of the email? There is an explanation there of the problem with the image. Stifle (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I figured it out. You sent a bunch of emails to OTRS, but they were merged by the system, so I only saw and tagged the first one. I went back and sorted it out tagging all the images in all the emails. Best to upload before you email OTRS so we can find the image. Thanks for the heads up. MBisanz ^talk 19:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Arirang 1926 poster.jpg Description/copyright issue.

That file is described as the Poster to the 1926 Film Arirang, but that's not correct. It's actually from the 1957 remake with the same title (for reference: http://www.kmdb.or.kr/eng/md_basic.asp?nation=K&p_dataid=00323&searchText=arirang).

Not only does this falsify the linked articles, it is also very doubtful that the copyright as expired for the depicted poster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derboo (talk • contribs) 00:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Proper tag for recreated PD images?

I uploaded a bunch of new notation images to the Symphony No. 5 (Mendelssohn) article to supersede the old JPEG images. The old images (link) are scans from a book in the public domain. There are two things that bother me:

1. The image pages lose the reference to the book. Should I copy that over?
2. The wording on the upload page and the PD-self tag seem to imply that I made the work all by myself. I merely recreated the images using the old ones as a model (the old ones, in turn, are quoting from Mendelssohn's symphony). Is there a better tag for this? MinorContributor (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Yes, it's good practice to cite your sources, even if they are public domain. 2. I believe {{PD-retouched-user|username}} is the tag you need. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've made the changes. MinorContributor (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

need help

I am writing about a specific book and want to include the cover.

I have been asked to provide a fair use rationalel

When I read the help section, it stated that it typically is fair use to include a pic of the book cover.

What do I need to do?

AlonaK —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlonaK (talk • contribs) 23:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I presume you are talking about File:Chicka 1 2 3.jpg? You should add template:book cover fur to the image description page. Fill out the fields and add as much information as you know. The source part is important and the article part is important. The license part looks good. Hope this helps.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

King Robert Stewart II.

I recently found this article on your site. I am distantly related through the Edmonstone's who married into the Stewart family in the 1500's. I would like only to keep the history part, and photos for my generation. Not to distribute them or invade anyone's copyright. I understand that I must source what I am allowed to use. I don't want to edit anything either. I believe that the Symonds are distantly related as well. What must I do, and where do I get the permission license? I just created my account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CMable49907 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you asking about Robert II of Scotland? If you are asking about reusing an article, see WP:REUSE. (All Wikipedia content is licensed under GFDL, which allows reuse under certain conditions.) —teb728 t c 06:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

EarthRef.org

Hello. I would like to download some maps and images from EarthRef.org for use in science-related articles. Is this allowed? The site is funded by the National Science Foundation. Viriditas (talk) 04:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

According to their copyright policy, they can only be used for "not-for-profit scientific or educational purposes", which is not free enough for Wikipedia. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

However, if the images meet the non-free content criteria, then they can be used. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

How to use photo from Corbis?

is it possiable to use photo from corbis or not?--Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably not. What photo do you want to use, in what article, for what purpose? Algebraist 15:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

A photo of Sikh Kirpan in Sikhism articel--Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

What photo in particular? If it's freely licensed (which is unlikely), then yes. Otherwise, no. Algebraist 15:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Kirpan Carried by Sikh Initiate

Image: © Pascal Deloche / GODONG/Godong/Corbis Collection: Godong Standard RM Photographer: Pascal Deloche / GODONG Date Photographed: January 25, 2004 Location Information: Bobigny, France This image is distributed as Rights Managed.

Cart Lightbox

Login to remove image watermarks from images.

Warning: The usage has not been set for this image. Corbis recommends that usage be set before comping. To download image: right-click image and select "Save Picture As..." What is Rights Managed? Caption Disclaimer Image Feedback Restrictions Collapse Questions about Restrictions?

Not available for "royalty free" licensing.

Corbis represents exclusive rights to this image (with the exception of France and Germany where Corbis' representation is non-exclusive).

Model Release: No Release Property Release: No Release

Search By Keywords

can you explain this please?--Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

We can't use it. It's not free. Anything with "exclusive rights" is unfree. Also, there's no potential for "fair use", since anybody can easily make a free picture of a Kirpan, and many have. --Rob (talk) 15:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Pic of mt Fuji from Corbis would be Fair use then right? Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No. Again, free pictures of Fuji can easily be made. See WP:NFC. What do you want to use these pictures for anyway? We already have at least three free photos of kirpans and ten free photos of Mount Fuji (and those are just the ones I found in 30 seconds of searching). Algebraist 18:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Almost certainly not. Our standards for using non-free media under a claim of fair use are at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Please especially read criterion 1 ("No free equivalent" - obtaining a freely licensed image of Mt. Fuji would be easy to do, so we can't substitute a non-free image) and 2 ("Respect for commercial opportunities" - in general, we can't use images from commercial clearinghouses like Corbis without devaluing their commercial rights, so we can't use them at all). — Gavia immer (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

A portrait of a Zulu man is fair trade? Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 20:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You mean "fair use"? Not one from Corbis, no. In fact, from now on you should probably just assume the answer to any question would be "no, you can't use it." DreamGuy (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

how much should I pay then u think? Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

They own the copyrights or represent the copyright owners, they set the price, so you pay what they ask! ww2censor (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

But no matter how much you pay, you don't use their photos on Wikipedia. —teb728 t c 21:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless you buy full rights to the photograph, which is going to be extremely expensive. --Carnildo (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Riste.jpg

File:Riste.jpg is from commons, is claimed to be property of the uploader, but it looks like a posed photographic studio image. On Commons, it's listed as not having sufficient copyright information. As an image of a living person, is this a violation of fair use? Should the image come out of the article it illustrates? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

All this user's images are tagged as lacking copyright, look like posed images and unless that is fixed within a week they will be deleted. It's up to you whether to remove it now or wait until it gets deleted or fixed. ww2censor (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyright for Image

Hi,

I created a fully original map and posted it recently. It was brought to my attention that it was missing copyright information. It does however, have a license attached to it. What would be the ideal copyright for the image file:NJTurnpike.jpg?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armand85 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem Resolved

It was a file that I had posted earlier which I already replaced. Disregard previous message. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armand85 (talk • contribs) 06:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

File:NJTurnpike.jpg was deleted because you left out a license tag. When you upload images, there is a drop down menu that gives you a number of options to choose from and it will automatically add the license to the image page. Alternatively, after you upload the image, you could add a license (and for work you created yourself, check out WP:ICTIC. Finally, (a little off topic), since you created this map, would it be possible to get an SVG version? -Andrew c ^[talk] 03:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

He actually did provide a license tag on File:NJTurnpike.gif, but conversion to SVG would be good. —teb728 t c 06:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Using photo from National Geographic?

is this ok?--Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 08:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No. On Wikipedia, we only use images that are out of copyright or where the owner has agreed to make it free. Commercial producers seldom do that. We have a few exceptions, such as a screenshot of a computer game in the article about the game, see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. But mostly no, images must be freely licensed. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well... since NG has been publishing since October 1888, the pre-1923 stuff's copyright should be expired. -Andrew c ^[talk] 03:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Carolyn Hart photo

I need help with determining the copyright status of a photo of Carolyn Hart that is online in the Sooner Magazine Winter 2007. This photo, by Robert Taylor, does not have a copyright tag on the face of the photo. The other photo on the page, by a different author, does have a copyright tag. This photo depicts the author along with one of the skull-bearing teapots she has received symbolizing her winning the Agatha Award and would be an excellent tie in to the Awards section of the article. Please advise. Thanks! Xela Yrag (talk) 21:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless you have specific evidence that an image has been released under a free license, we have to assume it is copyrighted. Unfortunately, because Carolyn Hart is a notable, living public figure, most claims of a "fair use" image would fail WP:NFCC #1, as it is plausible someone could take a photograph themselves. Hope this helps.-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

? ?

What do you meen by not fair use! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohmygod766 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

See fair use and WP:NFC. You'll have to ask a more precise question to get a more precise answer. Algebraist 23:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Are we talking about this image File:Type II Sub Machine Gun.jpg that you uploaded today. You have not provided any copyright information nor the source and it likely will not qualify for a fair use criteria and because you, or someone else, can photograph one of these guns relatively easily. To me it looks like you copied the image that is on this web page. If this is the case the image is copyright according to the website's copyright information page and you cannot use it without a free licence. ww2censor (talk) 02:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Casmir plates.jpg

Admin check needed for Commons File:Casmir plates.jpg. It has as source "english wikipedia" and {{PD-USGov}} as the license. Can someone check the original (now deleted) file to see if a source is mentioned and if the license is indeed correct? Thanks. Deadstar (talk) 10:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I've transferred the original upload log and summary text to the commons. Can you do the license check now that you have all the information? (if not, I can) Hope this helps.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Andrew c - I've put the image up for deletion as I don't think the license is valid. Deadstar (talk) 12:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

What copyright applies for historical documents scanned from another source?

See File:Great Cipher.png. It's from the 1600s but I scanned it from a scholarly journal, who scanned it from the French historical archives. Surely copies made from copies of a historical document are free? Rofflebuster (talk) 03:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes - {{PD-art}} and Bridgeman v. Corel. It should be tagged as PD, not fair use, as any experienced user would have seen. But we have bots checking for fair use, and bots are dumb. --NE2 04:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a similar situation and would be pleased with confirmation. I wish to include a scan from a page of a 1971 book published by the South African Library that includes a facsimile of a document in their possesion published in 1796. Interestingly enough the 1971 book does NOT include a copyright statement anywhere and is part of their 'Reprint series'. As the earliest published document in South Africa I think they would prefer me to work from the facsimile rather than travel 1400 km to photograph the original. (I cannot upload the image for another 3 days) Idyllic press (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC) Idyllic Press

That's in the public domain in the US due to Bridgeman v. Corel. You can upload it to commons right now, which is the better place for free images anyway. Algebraist 20:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Does this meet fair use rationale/advice for other options?

I uploaded File:Drshereesilverbiophoto.JPG today for the article Sheree Silver.

I think it meets fair use rationale because no free alternative is available, but I'm not 100% sure.

Please leave a note on my talk page, thanks.Spring12 (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

No sorry, it does not. See #12 under Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images 2 (what is unacceptable for fair use). If someone is still alive, you can never use fair use rationale because it is possible to create a free replacement. --Yarnalgo _{talk to me} 20:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I see, thanks. I'll restore the old "no free image available" picture...Spring12 (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried emailing her to see if she would donate a photo? Wikipedia:Permissions. §hep^Talk 23:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Status of Mug Shots Released to the Press

I'm interested in the copyright issues surrounding inclusion of a mug shot in an article. The mug shot in question represents the most current image of a famous incarcerated individual currently in a California State prison, and was released to the press by the prison, and has been consequently been in wide circulation. Proxy User (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing Charlie Manson? MegX (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the laws of the jurisdiction. Without further evidence, we should assume it is copyright. However, if the individual is in prison, we can't simply go there to photograph them, and because the mug shot is released to the press, a fair use of the mugshot of this individual seems quite valid.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, I have been told "Fair-use images can't be used in infoboxes, it needs to be a free use image". Is this true? I can't really imagine a connection. Proxy User (talk) 04:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't heard that, doesn't make sense to me. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 05:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

That certainly doesn't apply to non-free logos and non-free cover art. They are accepted in infoboxes more readily than otherwise. —teb728 t c 06:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Haven't heard of that; fair use images can't be used in userboxes though. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Mug shots - specifically meaning the photos taken when booking arrested criminals (front shot, profile shot, with sign with name and identification number) by US law enforcement are explicitly public domain, as they are done by the government for public purpose with tax money. I don't know the full details of the Manson photo, but I would suspect it's public domain (and not merely fair use) for the same reasons. DreamGuy (talk) 14:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That is true for federal bookings, and the State of Florida, but in most other jurisdictions and localities that isn't the case. See Template:Non-free mugshot.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I see a template that decides to label all mug shots not made by the federal govt. as "non-free" but I see no actual legal support for the conclusion that most cases are not free. Indeed the discussion on that template's talk page backs up what I said. I think the templates in question need to be updated. DreamGuy (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Watermarks/website advert

Hi,

I can't say I'm totally familiar with Wiki policies as yet, especially those regarding images, but I was looking at the Kristine Kochanski article, and I noticed on the second image that it included a watermark for the official website. Could I just double check how Wikipedia regards watermarks?

I'm also considering sending it and one of Kryten to FfD as I'm not too happy about the non-free media rationale, they're both at the same resolution as used on the site. On the other hand, they do both illustrate alternate actors for each of the rolls, and are included in the appropriate section discussing it, so I do approve of having similar images, just more appropriate to wikipedia's standards. Am I way off base here? -- WORMMЯOW  08:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You can tag that image with {{watermark}}. Generally, Wikipedia does not like watermarks. If the image is appropriately used, the watermark can probably be cropped off. (EhJJ)^TALK 16:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I have cropped the watermark and performed a clean up on the image. Mfield (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help guys, have been reading up on fair use, and I think we qualify there too. All's looking good now -- WORMMЯOW  11:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

71 Vega Hatchback.-mesa sand

The 'image' page for File:71 Vega Hatchback.-mesa sand.jpg specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but it seems that its use in the Wikipedia article about the Chevrolet Vega fails the first fair use criterion in that it illustrates an automobile for which a free image could reasonably be found. Thanks! CZmarlin (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The Chevy Vega article contains several other images that I am not sure of their status (such as File:1973 Vega GT Showroom Stock.jpg that is taken from a magazine and File:DeLorean and Vega in 1971.jpg from the New York Times, as well as the following General Motors publicity images: File:Cosworth Vega promo photo.jpg, File:1975 Pontiac Astre Lil Wide Track.jpg, File:Road Test mag. 74 Vega LX.jpg, etc. Thank you — CZmarlin (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The majority of the images uploaded by Vegavairbob have been obvious copyright violations or improper use of non-free images in a number of Chevrolet related articles but mainly Chevrolet Vega, over the last 2 months. One or two non-free images would be acceptable in this article but not the large numbers this user keep adding without any critical commentary of any kind. Each one must be justified. Many images have been uploaded several times under different names, deleted when disputed and uploaded again, such as File:Chevy Vega 12-05-05.jpg. I have tagged several images today again. In my opinion this editor has been given sufficient warnings, many from me and should be blocked for a long time, if not indef. IMHO, more people need to watch his upload and edits closely. Some images are claimed to be his own, but based on his uploading pattern, I smell a duck though his two remaining commons images do actually seem to be legitimate.ww2censor (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There are many images of the Chevrolet Vega that come directly from GM brochures. There are scans from magazines that keep popping up. Almost too many to keep track! Yet, they all seem to be clear violations of WP guidelines. The Chevrolet Vega article has eight images that are claimed as "fair use" ... as of right now! CZmarlin (talk) 04:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Due to uploading previously deleted images multiple times, and abusing our non-free image policy, I believe a block is in order. I blocked the user once before earlier this month, so I was wondering if another admin could review the case and issue another block if you think one is appropriate. -Andrew c ^[talk] 04:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 4 days. Stifle (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Photo of statue

i recently upload this image from my friend website File:Statue_of_Shah_Ismail_in_Iran_.jpg to put this image in Shah Ismail page but i do not know how to add permisson for this upload please help me..User:Spider 2200

Did you take the photo of the statue yourself? If not, you will have to follow the directions at WP:COPYREQ --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 08:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

of course, i myself take this picture and give it to my friend ( http://www.aghlam.com/index.php?newsid=510 ) but because of lossing picture i had to upload this picture from his site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spider 2200 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Contacting creator of images to ask permission to use

I want to know how to contact an image creator to use an image. How do i do that? <email removed to prevent spam> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.94.3.178 (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Clicking on the image and looking at the image description page should allow you to discover the creator. Most images, though, are released under free licenses, so you can use the image without permission as long as you comply with the license. What image did you have in mind? Algebraist 15:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Historical logos with no related content

I am finding some articles with the logo of a one time event or an organization with no related content. Do we have a tag for these types of images? I would rather try to get concerned editors to work the articles than to delete the images outright. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

{{non-free logo}}? Stifle (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The images are already properly licensed, but I question the use. For example: If an article about an organization has the current logo in the infobox, then that is an acceptable use per Wikipedia:Logos. But if it has has an old logo in the body, with no related content, then I think the use is questionable. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Query

This file [File:Drs. 'Will' Beebe & 'Ted' Hill, Simla, 1959 .jpg] is listed as an orphan but it is included in the box on the page for William Beebe in the English Wikipedia. Can someone please explain why or else fix it for me? I am sorry I don't know how to do this. Many thanks, John Hill (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It is orphaned at Commons:File:Drs. 'Will' Beebe & 'Ted' Hill, Simla, 1959 .jpg because no pages on Commons use it. It is not orphaned at File:Drs. 'Will' Beebe & 'Ted' Hill, Simla, 1959 .jpg. —teb728 t c 02:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The software only generates internal links for the individual project space for the "file links" section, which is why there are none on the commons page, but one on the en.wiki page for the same image. If you are on a commons image page, you can hit the "check usage" tab, and that will scan all wikimedia projects and languages for links. Yeah, it's confusing, but hopefully this will help you.-Andrew c ^[talk] 04:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Concept Ice Vehicle

I have uploaded an image for the page Concept Ice Vehicle. Image:Concept_Ice_Vehicle_FR_Satic_HighR.jpg

I have tried to tag the image to show that it is copyrighted to CVS Management. This is the string that I have used: {{Non-free promotional}} but I am still getting a message that the image does not have the proper copyright information.

Please advise. Kind regards, Fiona —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fionamcgowan (talk • contribs) 08:11, 26 March 2009

The image page currently has no license tag, nor a fair use rationale. The image description page is blank or empty, which explains why it was tagged for deletion. Go to the image page and hit the "edit this page" tab and try adding your templates and fair use rationale again. -Andrew c ^[talk] 18:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You put {{Non-free promotional|CVS Management|image_has_rationale=yes|image_is_of_living_person=no}} in this edit to the Concept ice vehicle article. As Andrew said, it was never on the image description page, nor was there ever a non-free use rationale. —teb728 t c 22:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I moved the tag to the image description page for you, removing "CVS Management", which is not a URL, and changing the rationale parameter to "no", because there still is no rationale. —teb728 t c 23:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyright on OS maps

I'd like to use copies of early Ordnance Survey maps in my article. One is scanned from an OS Second Edition (1900) map and the other is scanned from a copy of an OS 1859 map in a book. Is there a problem here? Wikipedia says that OS material over 50 years old is in the public domain - but I thought I'd better check. Best wishes Crossview (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

In addition, according to US law, anything published before 1923 is in the public domain. Those images should be fine.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

My images

I am looking to add images, but do not know how to properly license them. The images in question can be found on my talk page. Please somebody get back to me to properly address this.Keystoneridin (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk.-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Mummycemetery.jpg

This pen and ink sketch is dated from the 1840s, so well over the 100 years (plus life of creator) to qualify as out of copyright. But, it has just been tagged, and I wondered what else I needed to do to make it "Wikipedia legal."-- Myosotis Scorpioides 23:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The copyright tag itself seems fine. The deletion tag's issue is stated clearly: Who created this image? Who holds the copyright to this image? Where did this image come from? Since you are the uploader, you are probably the best person to fill out that information. All images need to specify a source. Did you scan this image out of a book? Did you find it on the web? Adding this basic information should be enough to remove that warning tag. -Andrew c ^[talk] 02:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me, please, if this is any better? I'm a bit stumped, to be honest, cos the image is 160 years old and i didn't think there would be a problem.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 22:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

World Trade Center Site Memorial Competition

This article contains two images which are very much not the work of U.S. federal government. They were taken from a brochure by LDMC, a corporation which holds copyright over them (p.30 of the said publication) and is a joint City-State corporation. Perhaps at least the Liebeskind design would qualify for fair use. Please re-tag/nominate for deletion as appropriate. --Dzordzm (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Picture with unclear copyright status

Could someone more knowledgeable than I please take a look at this picture. I'm having trouble figuring out what it's status is. I'd like to use it in the article on Don Chafin, and from what's shown in the picture I can tell you with certainty that it was taken in or before 1921. However, for copyright if I understand correctly the issue isn't when a picture was taken but when it was published, and according to the picture's description it didn't enter the WVU archives until 1981, and may never have actually been published. Is it something we can use?

If you don't mind while you're at it, could someone also take a look at this picture? I have no idea when it was originally published, but it's at least 50 years old (if that does anything for us), and it's most likely older than that. I'm seen in widely reproduced in books and on other websites [3] [4], etc. Can we use it? If it's not a free image, then fair use applies, right? Thanks! Cool3 (talk) 02:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Italian Public Domain

There is a wonderful picture that I want to use in an article about a roman train station that I am writing illustrating its use as a meeting point for Hitler and Mussolini. Here is the image: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HitlerOstiense.jpg, it is in the Italian Public domain, can I use it in the english wikipeida article? --Alex Barrow (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe so. Its copyright status in Italy would have expired 20 years after the image was produced, meaning it was in the public domain there before 1996. Hence, it falls under {{PD-US-1996}}. (EhJJ)^TALK 16:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems pretty cut an dry to me. --Alex Barrow (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The file has a clear warning that it may not be public domain in other countries. WP appears to steer clear, as much as possible, of claiming public domain status for images. With EU copyright law changes, the claim of copyright expiration on a photograph is not that simple at all, and many things which were in "public domain" for a few years now have regained copyright status. Collect (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw the warning, it says it may not be in the public domain of other countries, I was simply asking if it is in the public domain here on the english wikipedia. Unfortunatly, it may not be.--Alex Barrow (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Remember that as far as English Wikipedia is concerned, if the image is PD in the USA it can be used. Commons is different. Stifle (talk) 12:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Their policy is such that it can be used as long as it is PD in country of origin and US and not necessarily worldwide. SYSS Mouse (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

But the image is not PD in Italy, nor anywhere else in the EU. It probably is in the US, as Italy missed the deadline to take advantage of the Uruguay Round Agreement Act of 1994, but it should still only be used under fair use provisions on English Wikipedia. Physchim62 (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

My Italian is poor (read: nearly nonexistent) but I'm pretty sure the copyright tag on the Italian Wikipedia's copy of that image states it's PD in Italy, could you elaborate on why you don't think it is? It would seem to clearly fall under the provisions of {{PD-US-1996}} as tagged at the moment, and that's all that matters as far as en-wiki is concerned.~ mazca ^t|c 10:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Image Help

Hello, I have found an image I would like to insert into the Brain ischemia article. I am a part of the AP Biology collaboration project and am new at the whole idea of inserting images. I was hoping that someone may check on the copyright of the image I want to insert. It is found here: http://rad.usuhs.edu/medpix/medpix_image.html?imageid=20376. Your help will be greatly appreciated. Thank you! --Saunc2011 (talk) 21:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The website home page says: Contributed content may be © copyrighted by the original author/contributor, and is used with their consent and permission. The burden of proof is no you to provide the image's copyright so unless you can prove the image has a free licence, you have to assume it is copyright by someone, even if you don't know who. You could try emailing the website and asking to be put in touch with the owner of that specific image, but don't hold your breath. Finding a free image elsewhere is probably your best bet. ww2censor (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I have one more question though. Could you maybe link a place to find an image? I know about the Wikipedia Commons site but I do not know how to find an image. That may be a weird question but your help is greatly appreciated! Thanks! --Saunc2011 (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Just go to the Commons website and search as you would here using words that seem appropriate. ww2censor (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Image incorrectly credited

This concerns copyright of the image file "File:Trafford Centre.jpg" from the Wiki page relating to the Trafford Centre in Manchester. The original image comes from Panoramio [5]. As indicated, it was uploaded on the 27.05.2007. The author of the image is Buzzard525 (Myself). While I am flatterred that someone would use my image in Wikipedia, and I don´t mind Wikipedia continuing to use it, I would nevertheless like to be credited for it. Buzzard525 (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It's been fixed [6], thanks for drawing our attention to it and thanks for the image. ~ mazca ^t|c 09:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Article images of products and sourcing info

I'm having troubles figuring out copyright issues about sourcing FREE photos or describing how a photo of a product may be free if you own said product, even if you don't have THAT copyright for it.

I guess what i'm trying to ask here is, that i'm trying to use pictures of plushies (anime/japanese musician) like this onehide plushieonly maybe use photographs of them, of the purchased.. not the commercial photos. Ie: if i have a photo i've taken of mine (the well loved kind lol) rather than using the commercial one. Would this class under non-free commercial still, or possibly just a photograph i've taken that i may be able to use? --XxReikoxX - The Visual Asia Geek (talk) 00:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If you took the photograph you can license it however you want. §hep^Talk 06:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not true in all cases. It depends what it is a photograph of. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 08:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You're both half-right; you can license the photograph as whatever you'd like, but what's in the photograph may mean that your rights to distribute the photograph are limited. Obvious example: a photo of the Atomium. Stifle (talk) 12:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyright status of the Wikipedia "globe"

Can the Wikipedia globe be freely used on an external site (to identify to visitors that the site is mentioned on Wikipedia for example)? Astronaut (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

As I understand the tags at File:Wikipedia-logo-en-big.png, it is not freely licensed and requires permission for use (other than fair use). —teb728 t c 02:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

As stated on the image page, "use of the Wikimedia logo is subject to the Wikimedia visual identity guidelines and requires permission". — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 08:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright

I'm trying to tag an image, but I just seem to get nowhere...I'm clicking from one page to another without specific guidance about how to tag it.

What exactly do I have to do to tag an image that's in the public domain? What am I clicking on?

Thanks

Speakwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speakwise (talk • contribs) 20:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Please be more specific. What image are you referring to? Did you make the image yourself or get it from somewhere else, if so where? Are you certain it is a PD image? Then someone may be able to help you. ww2censor (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are asking about File:Aguyana.jpg, why do you think it is in the public domain? And if it is not PD, the tag is {{non-free logo}}, and a non-free use rationale is required, for which you can use {{logo fur}}. —teb728 t c 21:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Clearly this is the official logo of the University of Guyana and I presume you got the image from their website though I don't see the exact image there. This is a copyright image of the university and can only be used as a non-free image using a {{Non-free use rationale}} template and the only article you can really justify using it in is the University of Guyana and not the Education in Guyana article where it is now. Certainly you cannot use it in the infobox of that article because that would not be a fair use of the image. ww2censor (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Trying to settle copyright issue for File:Monsterwax Promotional Image.jpg

Hey, I uploaded an image that is cleared for promotional use like Wikipedia, but I still got a tag saying it would be deleted unless proper rational was given (issued by the STBot1). I thought I used the proper tag to begin with, and don't know what else to do to correct the problem. It is cleared for use (I'm the copyright owner so I'm certain that it's okay) and it's loaded here: File:Monsterwax Promotional Image.jpg The destination page is Monsterwax. I'm not a programmer so working my way through these various issues is somewhat difficult. Will this take care of it? Feel free to email me direct if there are any further questions (monsterwax@aol.com). Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monsterwax (talk • contribs) 21:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:RAT. You added a licensing tag, But for all non-free images, you must also include a fair use rationale. The licensing tag just states the type of image it is, what the copyright is, and some general disclaimers. The licensing tag is generic and applies to multiple images. The fair use rationale on the other hand explains in detail how that specific image falls within our non-free content guidelines. We have a fairly strict non-free content policy set up in 10 criteria (WP:FUC). We don't just accept any and all copyrighted images. The fair use rationale sets forth, well... a rationale behind why you think the image is "fair use". Just read up on the linked pages, and ask questions if you have any. Then perhaps look at some example images to see how other users have tagged them. Hope this helps.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There's two ways to go about it. You either need to either...

• correctly claim fair use by adding a fair use rationale (as described here Wikipedia:Non-free_use_rationale_guideline) to the image page, clearly answering all the relevant points as to articles, resolution, what the image is being used to illustrate, why it is not replaceable etc.

or, if you are Ricardo Garijo, and you hold the sole copyright on the image, then:

• you can freely license the image itself under a compatible license such as a creative commons attribution license or a GFDL license (or one of any of the available during the image upload process).

On a side issue, you need to change your username, as right now by having the username Monsterwax and contributing to an article of the same name, your username is liable to be indefinitely blocked as promotional per Wikipedia:Username#Inappropriate_usernames. Rather than initiating a block, I am going to request that you immediately visit Wikipedia:Changing_username and file a request to change it to an appropriate personalised name. best. Mfield (Oi!) 21:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You miss understand: I was emailed by someone in the UK to upload an image to this entry because they wanted a sample added and I am the copyright owner who commissioned Ricardo Garijo's work. I went to the Wiki entry, saw the statements in it were basically accurate (not what I would have written, but fair enough) and I agreed to upload an artwork sample that was already cleared for promotional use. (I assumed the fellow who emailed me worked for Wikipedia! But maybe he was a volunteer or random reader.) Anyway, I'm not a programer so I'm not to hip on where to add those tags. I'll try to insert them, but if I don't figure it out, please feel free to adjust it as need be. I've never uploaded an image before and don't expect I'll do so again. Perhaps this chap tried to load an image before and got copyright issues, and that's why he tracked me down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monsterwax (talk • contribs) 23:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)