Wikipedia talk:File copyright tags/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

What license to use?

I'm confused, and I need help figuring out how I should license my own photos for use in Wikipedia articles. Here's what I want to accomplish:

• I want Wikipedia to be freely allowed to use my photos.
• I don't want someone else to earn a profit from the photos I took.
• I want to require that my name be associated with my photos, so people know I photographed them.
• I don't want someone else to be able to claim ownership of my photos or say that he photographed them.
• I don't want someone else to be able to put a different license, with different restrictions, on my photos.

Basically, I want anyone to be able to use my photos fairly, as long as I get credit and they're not making money off 'em. I don't want any complicated legal entanglements on my photos. I had been using this tag: {{NoncommercialProvided}} the photographer (Brian Kendig) is credited. but I've been informed that copyrighted photos of any sort are not allowed on Wikipedia and will be deleted. So, how should I license my photos? Or is some part of what I want incompatible with Wikipedia's aim? - Brian Kendig 15:42, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If it weren't for the non-commercial part, that would be roughly identical to the GFDL or cc-by-sa (I think). Maybe you can take "comfort" in the fact that anyone distributing it must include the text of the GFDL, and any modifications must also be GFDL. I'm not that familiar with this stuff, as I'm a public domain commie, so wait for someone else to comment. --SPUI (talk) 16:35, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In short, I think it's precipitous to be deleting your images at this stage, unless there exist replacements of sufficient quality and weaker license. On the other hand, we certainly shouldn't be redistributing them, since almost all of our downstream users are commercial. While I'd like to encourage you to consider the profit society as a whole could have by being able to indefinitely use the pictures in many works for many purposes, while continuing to credit you, I understand that you might feel like others are profiting from your work. Deco 19:50, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I just don't like the idea that maybe one of my photos might somehow be so good, or so unique, or just so convenient to get, that someone decides to sell my work and pocket the proceeds for himself. That's why I want to copyright my work and license it freely to anyone as long as they're not making money off it. What do you mean by "almost all of our downstream users are commercial" - are there really people charging others for the use of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia wants me to make my material available for commercial use so they can do this? - Brian Kendig 21:44, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Downstream users (such as encyclopedia.com) don't charge, but they have ads, and they intend to make money that way.

About non-commercial licenses, I sympathize, but all submissions to Wikipedia (text or photos) are licensed under the GFDL, which allows commercial reuse. Your only choices are (1) allow people to reuse your work for commercial purposes, so long as they release their own work under the GFDL, or (2) don't submit material to Wikipedia.

In practice, very few money-making ventures are willing to release their product under the GFDL. So if someone wanted to use your work, but didn't want to release their own product under the GFDL, they would have to ask you for a separate license (which you would presumably either turn down or charge money for). – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 23:26, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

I have the same concern as the original poster (Brian Kendig). Can I publish my photographs under both the GFDL and cc-by-nc? I imagine this would mean that my work could be freely used by non-commercial entities (so long as they attribute it), but that commercial entities would also have to add the text of the GFDL and publish their entire work under it (would this include a whole coffee-table book or the like?). If so, how do I do this? Do I put both tags on my submission here? Do I just put GFDL? Or does GFDL happen automatically anyway? Toby Ord 20:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you can use two licenses in this way. And the GDFL doesn't force the entire derivative work to be GDFL -- just the portions which were originally GDFL. --Fastfission 23:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you can use two licenses in this way. A copyright holder can offer as many different licenses as they like. And the GFDL does force the entire derivative work to be GDFL--right at the start it says "A "Modified Version" of the Document means any work containing the Document or a portion of it, either copied verbatim, or with modifications and/or translated into another language." --Prosfilaes 20:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you could have the GFDL apply in some uses and cc-by-whatever in others, at least with respects to how we do things on Wikipedia. As for the GFDL, it's been awhile since I went over it closely, but I'm pretty sure it is set up so that you can mix GFDL and non-GFDL material and only the GFDL material needs to be re-licensed under the GFDL. Using a painting as a metaphor, adding the GFDL flower to your overall garden scene doesn't, I'm fairly sure, require to license the entire scene under the GFDL -- just the flower. (The reason for this is so that the GFDL can be compatible with other licenses, yes?) Anyway, I can check this over again. --Fastfission 03:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

You don't have the GFDL apply in some uses and cc-by-whatever in others. You give blanket permission for both, and people can use either as it suits thier needs.

The section I was thinking of is:

7. AGGREGATION WITH INDEPENDENT WORKS

A compilation of the Document or its derivatives with other separate and independent documents or works, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the copyright resulting from the compilation is not used to limit the legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. When the Document is included in an aggregate, this License does not apply to the other works in the aggregate which are not themselves derivative works of the Document.

--Fastfission 03:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

That's simple aggregation. As it says "this License does not apply to the other works in the aggregate which are not themselves derivative works of the Document." So that doesn't apply to any part of "the entire derivative work". The easiest way to look at it is to look at the goals of Free Software Foundation in writing the GFDL; they wanted a counterpart to the GPL that would keep free documentation free. It's designed so if someone adds to the documentation, the whole thing is free, just like with the GPL. The line between derivative and aggregation isn't simple, but the FSF has generally interepreted it broadly.--Prosfilaes 05:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I had to modify the archive to prevent it from showing up as a speedy deletion candidate when {{NoncommercialProvided}} will soon redirect to {{Db-noncom}}, a speedy deletion candidate. Jesse Viviano 01:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really a tagging question

I have used some images from the website http://www.forestryimages.org, the site is a collaboration between the USDA Forestry Service and the University of Georgia. The University asserts copyright over images made by USDA FS, but wouldn't they (the images made by USDA FS employees) be in the public domain by default since they were made by US government employees?--nixie 01:51, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they would be Public Domain. The University is incorrect. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 02:21, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Not necessarily. A number of private agencies have been able to negotiate copyright policies with the government, even for things funded with federal money. --Fastfission 23:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

About photos

I'd like to upload a photo that was taken in the USSR before May 27, 1973. But it was published in a book only in 1995, and I'm not sure if it was published before 1973 (most likely not). What should I do? Thanks. --IgorMagic 06:31, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Press Releases

If an image is included in a press release, can it be used under fair use? --MJR 19:41, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Use the {{Promotional}} tag – this covers promotional materials, press packets, etc. — EagleOne\^Talk 21:52, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Update: use the {{PD-awio}} tag for bulletins released by to the press by emergency services: Amber Alerts, FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives, and the like. — EagleOne\^Talk 03:09, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Wikipedia:Template_messages/Image_namespace

This page should be merge with Wikipedia:Template_messages/Image_namespace. They both contain a slightly different amount of tags, but most are duplicates. Why should we maintain two different versions of this page? This is why it needs to be merged. --michael180 21:39, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

I agree - Omegatron July 3, 2005 23:29 (UTC)

Softwarecover template?

Has anyone before discussed possibly having a fairuse subtemplate for software box art/covers? Something like "This image is from the cover or box of a computer software program. blah blah blah fair use provision of United States copyright law." --JohnDBuell | Talk 21:21, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, it look like this has not been discussed before, at least not on this talk page. I would assume that you could make a derivative of Template:Gamecover, as long as it adheres to our fair use rationale (i.e., must be of reduced quality, does not restrict the owner's right to sell the software, etc.) That blah blah blah section is important... — EagleOne\^Talk 00:21, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree with that suggestion. Just change "video or computer game" to "computer software" and make sure it's NOT used for computer games. --JohnDBuell | Talk

Excel?

I'm curious as to what tag to use for images made in Microsoft Excel - I've been using it to create charts. I'm guessing {{PD-self}} or {{PD-ineligible}}, but I'd greatly appreciate it if someone could clarify this for me. Impetus 00:51, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I think you'll be okay with the GFDL tags; though you might want to see the section below for a controversial interpretation of the GFDL as it relates to images. There was some controversy over the legality of the PD-self tags, too; see above and this project page for the gritty details. If you truly want to release all rights to your work, then I suggest one of the tags listed here. I also have some general comments on your images, but I'll take those to your talk page. — EagleOne\^Talk 02:40, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Israeli Government

How does Israeli Government copyright work? Superm401 | Talk 04:39, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• According to the Copyright Act 1911, the government has copyright for 50 years after publication. Physchim62 17:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

ESA pictures

See explanations and discussions on meta:ESA images. David.Monniaux 29 June 2005 18:05 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Given the recent policy change on the use of noncommercial-only licenses, we have to be much more careful about what we allow. Does the ESA license fit under the new guidelines? Prior experience says no; see the similar Art Images for College Teaching license, in the talk archives. However, the terms listed on meta seem to be a little looser in terms of commercial use, so I'm not sure. — EagleOne\^Talk July 1, 2005 02:22 (UTC)

• I'd like to use some of their released SMART-1 images of the Moon on the crater description pages. Would it be possible to get an ESA copyright tag (template) that is along the same vein as the NASA image template? Thank you!! — RJH 16:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

According to that meta page linked above, currently ESA images seem to be free to use only for educational or instructional purposes, which is too restrictive a license for Wikipedia. NASA material is in the public domain (and can be used for advertising, for example) and is as such quite a different thing, in terms of copyrights. --Fastfission 19:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

MIT License

Can we use images under the MIT License? I think so, but we don't have a copyright tag for it. — Bcat (talk | email) 29 June 2005 22:58 (UTC)

PS: The image in question is here. — Bcat (talk | email) 29 June 2005 23:09 (UTC)

For our purposes, this looks like a free license. — EagleOne\^Talk July 1, 2005 02:52 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that licensing an image with a software license distinctly displeases me. It would be far better for people to use an appropriate license for their situation, like Creative Commons by-sa, or one of many others. Nevertheless, the licnese appears to be valid for use on Wikipedia. I'm reluctant to create an MIT license template for what seems likely to be just a couple of images. Therefore, I've used(for my first time) Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat, in the form of

{{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}}

I do understand that using that as a tag is somewhat of a way of evading the concept of a specific tag for a specific permission. Nevertheless, I believe my type of use was intended by the creators of the tag. If I see more MIT licensed images, I'll create a template for them. At any rate, I believe that this type of image use falls right under a {{logo}}-type "fair use", so I've added that as well, as a fallback, in case the other permission is invalid. Superm401 | Talk July 1, 2005 03:30 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! I was bold and created Template:MIT to add to the image. I think this is OK, but if not, let me know. As for the odd choice of license, the image is from an MIT licensed software package. — Bcat (talk | email) 2 July 2005 17:28 (UTC)

I'm fine with the decision to create the template. I added a note to the page asking people not to license their own images MIT. That would just make things more difficult than they have to be. It's okay to add others' MIT images though, in my view. Superm401 | Talk July 4, 2005 02:30 (UTC)

I added back in the {{logo}} tag, which you removed, as a safe-guard in case the image isn't really "software." Superm401 | Talk July 4, 2005 02:33 (UTC)

subst with image tag templates

I'm beginning to feel a little uncomfortable with the idea that anyone can effectively change someone else's license for their work by modifying a template. Should we begin recommending that people use the image templates, but add subst:? That will still copy the template message exactly to the description. However, if subst is used, the image desciption page will not change when the template does. The advantage to this is that it guarantees their intended message will remain intact. Disadvantages include lack of standardization and the fact that better wordings for the licenses will not automatically be used by licensors. I don't think this plan would adversely affect the image tagging idea, becauses the images will still be categorized. What do people think? Superm401 | Talk July 3, 2005 16:13 (UTC)

I'd rather just protect the templates. We already protect pages for legal reasons anyway (e.g., Wikipedia:Copyrights). — Bcat (talk | email) 3 July 2005 19:17 (UTC)

Protection is better, so they can be updated when needed. The whole point of these is to make image tagging easier. If we need to go through all our images and redo the tag every time it changes a little... - Omegatron July 3, 2005 23:28 (UTC)

I suppose I could agree with that, if the admins could guarantee that the legal meaning didn't change when a template was updated. Superm401 | Talk July 4, 2005 02:20 (UTC)

I'd rather not have these templates protected. If they are going to be included without using subst:, then the text of them shouldn't change at all, "better wording" is still different wording which changes the legal meaning, and if it does change any user should have the power to change it back. For legal purposes we should probably be using subst:, and adding a signature. I was actually just thinking this a few days ago, then I ran across this.

I'd suggest using subst:, and adding a dated signature. In addition to not allowing the meaning to be changed without an easily accessed audit trail, this would allow one to know at a glance who added the tag, and at what time the tag was added. The latter is especially useful for fair use images, where the fair use status might change at a later date/time, and also useful in tracking down situations where the image changes but the image page doesn't (which unfortunately is possible in the current wiki system). Also, if a second or third user wants to affirm the tag, she can add her signature right after the first one. Yes, right now we need to focus on getting all the images tagged once, but in the future it will be quite useful to know that someone reviewed things and it isn't just the assertion of one person who didn't really know what she was talking about.

The disadvantage is that it makes the tags harder to read by a computer. But when these tags were invented, we didn't have category tags. Now that we do, those could be used for easier computer parsing. Use of tags is a kludge in the first place. Use of subst: is a little bit less of a kludge. Ultimately the better solution is to have something built into the wiki software. To do that properly we need a good specification, which addresses the needs of all Wikipedians. Maybe now that we've had these tags for over a year the work on a specification can begin. anthony 12:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Public Domain Art

Can the public domain art licenses be used for any image whose original version was created by someone who died 100 years ago etc... Or does it have to be some particular type of art. I.E. paintings, sculpture. My instinct is strongly toward the former, but I want to be certain before I start tagging news photographs or paintings PD-art. Can someone confirm or deny? Superm401 | Talk July 4, 2005 17:19 (UTC)

I see now there are equivalents like {{PD-old-50}}. I'm not sure how I missed that before. However, there is no general PD tag that specifically refers to the fact that ANY image made published before 1923 is PD. Do people have suggestions as to how to deal with this? If not, I'll probably add {{PD-old-US}} or something similar. Superm401 | Talk July 5, 2005 04:18 (UTC)

Any image published before 1923. Superm401 | Talk July 5, 2005 04:23 (UTC)

UN Photo Archive license - non-free?

The UN Photo Archive's image license states:

UNRWA photographs can be reproduced for editorial purposes only. They may not be used in advertising. All photos used must show the UNRWA photo credit line.

Currently, this template is filed under "Any-purpose copyright" section. I think that the restriction on adverstising use makes it a non-free license, according to the ban on images under non-commercial licenses. Should we move this to the deprecated tags section? — EagleOne\^Talk July 9, 2005 03:31 (UTC)

Done. Superm401 | Talk 12:25, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Fairusein

There was some talk on the mailing list about having a tag which allows specification of which article(s) apply to a fair use assertion. I had created Template:Fairusein for this purpose, and added it here. It was struck through in November '04 [1], and there is a bit in the talk page archive about it. At some point it was removed from this page. I haven't bothered to track down the link. anthony 12:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. It should be reinstated. It will help fight the idea of fair use being a license. Superm401 | Talk 12:24, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Hopefully you or someone else can re-add it. I'm not allowed to edit this page. anthony 12:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Before I do, why can't you edit the page? Superm401 | Talk 22:54, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Because of an arb com ruling. anthony 22:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

non-profit or educational use

{{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|restrictions}} - For example, provided that credit is given and copyright is attributed. Note that non-commercial or educational use restrictions are not allowed as provisions in this tag.

Then what do we use for something like Image:@molecricket.jpg, which is from Public_domain_image_resources#Insects? - Omegatron 13:22, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Why is it listed on that page? It doesn't seem to be public domain. If indeed it can only be used for non-commercial use, then we aren't supposed to have the image here at all. anthony 13:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Watermarks

I assume that images with watermarks are a serious no-no on Wikipedia. Is there a stated policy somewhere on this, ie "no image used on Wikipedia shall have an embedded tag or watermark"? Image:Mustang2005 convertible.jpg is the one I have this problem with, and the fact that it's of disputed copyright status... --SFoskett 22:37, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

You assume wrong. Whether or not there is a watermark is totally irrelvant to copyright law. According to the Berne Convention, works are copyrighted when put into a fixed form. Whether or not there is a tag is meaningless. We use works here at Wikipedia based on legality, and as noted, watermarks don't affect this. Some images with them may be used under fair use, and others may be licensed. The image you provided, however is an orphan. Was it unused when you found it, or did you delete it from an article? Superm401 | Talk 22:57, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't mean legally a no-no, just aesthetically! *grin* It was in use on Ford Mustang and I removed it because of the content - the watermark claims a copyright, and there was no notice of the license on the image. Also, the original poster was just link-farming. So others have no problem with watermarked images? --SFoskett 02:46, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

• • • As far as legal images go, generally the most informative win out. Obviously, if two were functionally equivalent, one without a watermark would win. Superm401 | Talk 04:07, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Since the watermark in this case says where the image came from, you can send it directly to WP:CP--nixie 02:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Philippine copyright tags

I've taken the liberty of making the following Philippine copyright tags:

Philippine public domain tags

{{PD-Philippines}} - for all images in the Philippines that are now in the public domain under the following provisions:

• The image's copyright has expired
• The image is ineligible for copyright
• The image has been released into the public domain

Why is this necessary? Are we to have a PD tag for every country works were originally copyrighted in? That's pointless. Superm401 | Talk 15:25, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Considering the variation in what constitutes "public domain", this tag is useful because: 1) It indicates what law the image is public domain under, and 2) It indicates what the law says. --Carnildo 19:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

And considering the huge number of tags for instances specific to the United States, I think there's room for a tag for Philippine public domain images.

{{PD-PhilippinesGov}} - for all Philippine government images and other works (which are not eligible for copyright)

That's reasonable, because each country has different copyright terms for gov. works. Superm401 | Talk 15:25, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't matter though. All that matters is the legals status in the United States. Superm401 | Talk 22:22, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

This "All that matters is America" is counter to the spirit of Wikipedia. TheCoffee 18:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Philippine fair use tags

{{Philippines-fairuse}} - for all images being used under the fair use provision of Philippine copyright law.

Bad precedent. Images must be usable under US fair use law, because the servers are in the US. Superm401 | Talk 15:26, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia has servers in France and Amsterdam, with plans for Belgium and South Korea. TheCoffee 18:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

But the English Wiki isn't on them, is it? Anyway, this tag is nonsensical if we don't have servers in the Phillipines, especially so because fair use is context dependent. It only means, "If this server were instantly moved to the Philippines, this would be fair use." --Fastfission 11:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Philippine copyright tags

{{Philippinecopyright}} - for all images copyrighted in the Philippines

Unnecessary. See my comments above. Superm401 | Talk 15:27, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Additional comments

It is highly recommended that all government images use the Philippine government tag ({{PD-PhilippinesGov}}), all Philippine fair use images use {{Philippines-fairuse}}, and all public domain images taken in the Philippines use {{PD-Philippines}}.

The above recommendation is disputed. Superm401 | Talk 15:28, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Additional information on Philippine copyright may be found on the Philippine copyright law article and on this website:

• "The Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines". IP Philippines. Retrieved 2006-09-16. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |accessyear=, |month=, |accessmonthday=, and |coauthors= (help); External link in |publisher= (help)

The only rationale I can think of for having separate country language tags is to aid in the re-porting of Wikipedia content to other places. But I think it's a bad path to go down, since there are hundreds of different copyright policies which could be contended with to figure out that criteria. As far as Wikipedia's own legal status, "the United States is all that matters" is correct. As a general point, of course, we don't want to be U.S.-centric, but as far as legality is concerned, the servers as hosted in the U.S. --Fastfission 20:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

EU images

Images from the website of the European Union are listed under the "Any-purpose" copyright section. However, the "audiovisual services" section of the EU website contains this rather explicit license, saying:

This material is offered free of charge for EU-related information and education purposes.

For any other use, prior clearance must be obtained from the Central Audiovisual Library of the European Commission.

In no case may this material be sold or rented.

NB: Pictures containing buildings and artworks may only be used to meet the needs of current news coverage.

Credit © European Community, 2005

Since the European Commission, in the photo library of its own separate website, also limits its licensing to non-commercial use with credit given, it looks like more or less standard practice for the EU. It looks like a parallel case to the UN case mentioned above, and this tag, too, should probably be moved the deprecated tags section. / Alarm 01:01, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Don't use GNU Licences for Images

The following interpretation by Johndarrington (talk · contribs) on GNU licenses has been removed from the project page and posted here by Lupo 17:32, July 25, 2005 (UTC).

"Contributors should think very carefully before placing an image under a GNU license. These licenses are not intended to be applied to images, and whilst they can be used for images, doing so will present a lot of very inconvenient and probably unintended problems for the licensee.

"In particular, GNU licenses require that a complete copy of the license be distributed with every copy of the work (the image). The GFDL even goes so far as to require the license be included within the work. Thus, unless the image you uploaded has the license contained within it, nobody will be permitted to make verbatim copies of the image. If there is no practical way to embed a copy of the license within the image, then nobody will be able to make derivative works either. Hence the image cannot be copied at all."

There's no requirement that the derivative work must be an image, therefore the part about "Hence the image cannot be copied at all" is incorrect. anthony 22:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Per Jimbo on the WikiEN mailing list [2]:

Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
> That's exactly as I feared then - GFDL isn't a very
> suitable license to make free images with. And someone
> who wanted to make a postcard series out of the
> featured pictures would indeed have problems since
> many of them are only licensed under the GFDL.
> 
> This is a problem and we need to address it. 

It is being addressed at the level of the license itself in a
forthcoming update to the license.

--Jimbo

Dunno when that will take effect (a quick survey of the GNU Project and FSF sites didn't turn up anything on next version), but it's at least an end in sight for the current problem. In the meantime, encouraging people to dual-license with CC-by or CC-sa is helpful. — Catherine\^talk 20:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The good news here is that you can fit the entire text of the GFDL into the image comment of a JPEG file. --Carnildo 20:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Images from internet newspaper which allows reproduction with attribution

I found the site[3], whose image I would like to upload. The copyright statement (in Russian) sound something like this:

"Reprint of material in full or in part only with written authorization. For internet publications - no restrictions provided that the name and the address (hyprelink) of our resource is quoted."

(Original: "Перепечатка материалов в полном и сокращенном виде - только с письменного разрешения. Для интернет-изданий - без ограничений при обязательном условии: указание имени и адреса нашего ресурса (гиперссылка)".)

Nothing is said about modification either. I assume, the images cannot go to commons, but should be fine for Wikipedia. Could anyone please advise, what tag to use? Thanks! --Irpen 17:01, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

No. This is unacceptable. Our images must be legal for print publication as well as online. Superm401 | Talk 18:42, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

They say written authorization is possible, so you could try asking for a GFDL license using a Wikipedia-recommended form letter. Superm401 | Talk 18:45, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I assume that {{PermissionAndFairUse}} is safe then. Placing it into online Wikipedia is permitted use by copyright owner. --Irpen 04:21, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Our images have to be usable by third parties. This is usable only by web sites, but our images should be republishable in print as well. Superm401 | Talk 21:29, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Well, we have FairUse tag and even an approval process for a fairuse for a reason right? Fair use leaves the responsibility for reusage to the third parties. Until the policy is changed to eliminate fair use completely from WP, there is no way to have a third party reusability absolute. --Irpen 22:23, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

PermissionAndFairUse is a strange tag which will probably eventually get deleted. If it fits under fair use standards, just tag it as fair use. Otherwise don't use it at all. And Superm401 -- Wikipedia images have to be reusable. Except fair use images. For now. --Fastfission 00:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

True, but "permission and fair use" is just useless, because permission has no value to us. You might as well just tag it as fair use. Superm401 | Talk 22:11, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:PD-awio

Template:PD-awio has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:PD-awio. Thank you.kmccoy (talk) 06:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

U.S. Copyright and Public Domain of Published Photographs

I'm a little confused with the rules Wikipedia seems to use for PD images. For published books, everything copyrighted before 1922 is public domain ( 1963 if the copyright wan't renewed). U.S. government-produced stuff is PD.

Wikipedia seems to use PD-old, PD-old-50 and PD-old-70 tags where the author died 100/50/70 years ago. Are these rules because photos are treated as unpublished manuscripts? (in this case it has to be 70, not 50 years for the U.S.).

I'm wondering about the case of a published photo. I've always assumed if the book's copyright has expired (i.e., is now PD), the entire contents are PD, including photos. Is this true? Dananderson 16:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

There are a lot of complicated criteria for when things enter into the public domain. Any works which were published before 1923 is now in the public domain (in the United States). After 1923, things get a little complicated. For things created before 1923 but not published, things get a little complicated. This page I've found very helpful, esp. the "Is the work protected?" section. As for photos published in a book which entered into the public domain because of age, by default they will have also entered into the public domain. --Fastfission 20:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

camera photo of board game

If I had a board game (Stratego), with pieces laid out, and I take a photo of it myself; can I tag it as "public domain" (it's my photo) or do I have to tag it as "fair use" (as it's a proprietary board game, with presumed copyright). If this was a computer game, I know it would be "fair use". So, should board games be treated the same way? For now, I assume it's "fair use", and can be used in an article describing the game. --rob 10:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure of the copyright status of the board. You could do something that allows for several interpretations, though, such as putting on the image description page something like this:

"This is a photo of a copyrighted board game. In as much copyright can be claimed on the game itself, use in articles about the game is asserted to be a 'nominative' fair use of the design. In as much as copyright can be claimed on the photograph, I, User:Thivierr, the creator of the photograph, release it into the public domain, or otherwise release all rights to it."

Then you could also stick a PD and fair use tag on it, just to make it clear. Of course, if you used the image somewhere other than in an article about Stratego, the fair use claim may not be valid anymore.

Please keep in mind, IANAL, TINLA. Thanks. :) kmccoy (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I think you are in a grey area. It is a question that has come up a couple of times before, see for example Image talk:Monopoly Game.jpg, but this picture has generally been accepted as GFDL and uploaded to the Commons (that might not be the correct decision). As I understand it, your photograph is a derivative work of a copyrighted image. It is probably only the printed surface of the board that is copyrighted and your photograph isn't sufficiently clear to allow the board to be reproduced directly, so you are probably OK as far as a copyright infringement goes. Nevertheless, the copyrighted board and game is clearly the primary (and only) subject of the picture, so it could be argued that the photo entirely derivative and so is effectively still copyright of the game manufactures.

The suggestion by kmccoy on tagging and description seems sensible, and I don't think we have much of a problem using this on Wikipedia, unless the manufacturers complained. However, if it were tagged {FairUse} & {PD} I doubt it would be accepted by Commons. -- Solipsist 20:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I should have been clear -- the solution I offered is only for en. I don't do much stuff on commons. :) kmccoy (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

A somewhat related question: is a low resolution image of the 'cover' or 'box top' of a board game considered fair use on en, the same way an album cover or DVD cover are? if so, what tag should I use for this? is it possible to create a template tag for this purpose? Wookipedia 06:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

As long as you used the image in an article about the board game, I would think this would be a fair use of the image. You could make a template tag for it, if you want, just copy the formatting from one of the other similar tags and make a new one. :) kmccoy (talk) 08:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I added a Boardgamecover template. Wookipedia 09:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I used it, since it now seems the obvious choice. --rob 09:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Promotional and PromoPhoto tags

I wanted to ask for some clarification about what kind of images are allowed with the 'Promotional' or 'PromoPhoto' tags.

I'm assuming that if I take a press packet / press kit (the folders that companies send out to promote artists, movies, tv shows, etc) and scan in the photos or images for use in an article about the subject of the photo, that would be considered fair use. Is this correct? Does it matter if the photo is copyrighted and says "All Rights Reserved"? Does the photo I upload have to be a low-res version of the photo? Is there some special text that has to be included (specifying what the press kit is, giving the copyright information that's in the press kit, etc)?.

Now here are some other related scenarios (these are all based on concrete examples of photos that I'm considering uploading but I'm phrasing these in general terms so maybe this can be useful to others):

1) If I don't own a physical copy of a press kit but I have seen it and I know that the press kit contains a certain photo, and I find this photo online somewhere (presumably scanned in by someone else) can I upload it and use the Promotional tag?

2) Do the same rules that apply to physical press kits also apply to "online press kits" or "digital press kits" in the form of either a "press kit" / "press release" website, a PDF file or another kind of printable document, or the kind of digital press kit that includes a CD with images? Can high resolution images found on these be uploaded as fair use?

3) If a promotion webpage or document is available online for some time but then is taken down or no longer available, can an image from it still be used on Wikipedia with the promotional tag afterwards?

4) Can photos on artist / tv show / tv personality or celebrity / movie official websites or the website of a record label / tv channel / promotion agency etc be used with these tags? Obviously these websites are created with the purpose of promoting the artist, just as the press kits are. But does this imply fair use? In many cases these kinds of websites have explicit copyright pages or "terms of use" pages but it's unclear to me how fair use would relate to these. If a copyright or terms page on a website puts explicit restrictions on how the materials on the website can be copied or used, does this mean that "fair use" can not apply?

Here are two example "terms and conditions" pages from companies that seem to have place a lot of restrictions on how the materials on the website can be used - so I assume materials from these websites can not be fair use unless someone tells me otherwise:

Sony Music terms and conditions

Comedy Central terms and conditions

(These questions are all for uploading images onto en, not commons).

thanks. Wookipedia 18:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, you've asked some good questions. I'd like to first emphasize that there are no easy answers when it comes to fair use. Despite the legislation and extensive case law on the topic, it is never certain how a court will rule. Therefore, always avoid using fair use if possible. That said, it is appropriate to copy images under fair use in certain circumstances, which is why the tags you referred to were created. However, there is no guarantee that ANY promotional photo is usable under fair use. Always use your judgement and refer to fair use and Wikipedia:Fair use for advice. That said, I'll consider your specific questions and answer in generalities. You asked whether all press packets could be used under fair use. The answer is no, but the image being used in a press packet is a good indication that the author wouldn't be losing out if the image were redistributed. That's one of the factors considered under fair use law. Therefore, many press images are fair use. It doesn't matter whether the photo says it's copyrighted or indicates all rights are reserved. Under the Berne Convention, all works are copyrighted upon creation, so a copyright notice is irrelevant. The image doesn't necessarily have to be low-res, but it might be a good idea, because amount is considered in fair use legal rulings. That being said, a low-res image isn't automatically legal. You asked if special text needed to be included. The answer is no, however more information is always welcome. Therefore, if you have that information, please do include it. As for your first scenario, it is irrelevant whether or not you received a copy of the image directly. Regarding the second, there is no legal distinction between online or offline works, so it being a "digital press kit" doesn't matter. It also shouldn't matter whether the image was taken down. The answer to your fourth scenario is that terms and conditions of the copyright owner don't matter. That is because fair use is a defense to copyright infringement, and obviously infringment doesn't occur with the permission of the copyright owner. That said, you might consider it a warning that they don't intend the image to be distributed, which means fair use could be a more difficult claim to make. However, the author's intent is not the most important thing to consider when judging fair use. For the criteria that matter most, see fair use. Those terms and conditions could also be an indication that you're risking a lawsuit, which is always unpleasant, even if we're legally in the right. Superm401 | Talk 02:34, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject:Fair use

I've been bold and started a WikiProject to try and reform Wikipedia fair use policy, and a large part of this is in re-writing the fair use image copyright tags. Those who are interested or curious are invited to see what we're up to at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use. --Fastfission 20:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Poster tags

The {{Poster}} tag should be phased out -- it is overly vague and gives the impression that any posters are automatically fair use. There are a few specific types of posters which could be used in generally fair ways, but otherwise there is nothing special about posters as a medium. Those which are currently tagged "poster" should be shifted into a more specific sub-categories: {{Movieposter}} (for movies and films), {{Sportsposter}} (for specific sporting events), and {{Eventposter}} (for generic "events"). Of course, all should be low resolution and should only be used in the absence of adequate "free" alternatives. If the "poster" in question doesn't fit into those categories of use, they should just be tagged {{fair use}} for now (and treated like any other image). --Fastfission 22:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Create PD-USGov-Military-Celebrity?

I was thinking that it might be a good idea to put all (or most) of the PD US miltary sourced, celebrity images (at least new ones), in their own special tag (and thereby category). The reason is that, for celebrities, it's usually unimportant which service branch they were in. Most of the time, the image is used in a non-military context (those for a military context are fine as tagged).

Then, a seperate category for these pics could be created. It would be easier to find celeb PD pics, when people are adding image to their celeb article.

The reason for doing this exclusively for military celeb pics, is that this is actually a common legitimate source of PD images, with verifiable source. Other PD designations are often erroneous. I wouldn't do a "PD-Celeb" tag, since I know it would be misused. But a "PD-USGov-Military-Celebrity" tag has a better chance of being used properly (even though not all military sourced pics are PD).

It's quite a nuisance to browse through a hundred pics of battle ships, to find a pic of a celeb one is adding an image to.

On the upload page, we might mention this tag. Personally, I suspect the largest copyright challenges come from celeb pictures. This might diminish the number of "fair use" celeb pics a bit (admittedly not for most celebs).

I know I could just go and create the template, but it's pointless unless many others would use it.

--rob 03:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

If you have images of this type, just put them in {{PD-USGov-Military}}. It's ridiculous having tags four levels deep. If you're trying to prevent false tagging, that's futile. Superm401 | Talk 04:12, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Copyrighted images provided to media

I have uploaded two copyrighted images provided by the copyright holder "for use in print and web graphics" on their media resources page. These images are obviously provided for publicity purposes but no license, restrictions or non-restrictions are mentioned. I'm concerned that these images may not be appropriate on Wikipedia. I need an opinion. Is there an appropriate template? If not, should I create one? The images are:

• Science_Museum_bernoulli_exhibit.jpg
• Reuben_H._Fleet_Science_Center_Exterior.jpg

They were found at:

• http://www.rhfleet.org/media/images/

Rsduhamel 05:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• • I visited the site and read this, which prohibits commercial use of images, and seems to require permission for even non-commercial use. Plus, on every page it says "All rights reserved". Now, in my non-lawyer view, I would say that wiki can't use the images unless a) you get special permission (which must include commercial use) or b) they're used under "fair use". I don't think anybody can tell whether they qualify for fair use, unless they know exactly what context they would appear. In any event, the statements of the web site do nothing to make it easier for wiki to use images, in my opinion. Denying commercial use, is denying wiki use, based on what I've read here. --rob 06:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• I e-mailed the public relations representative at the Reuben H. Fleet Science Center and asked if the images on the Press Images page are restricted from commercial or non-educatianal use. The representative thanked me for putting the images on Wikipedia as said they are "approved for third-party use". Rsduhamel 04:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• The 'promotional' copyright tag seems to apply to these images. I have so-tagged them. Rsduhamel 06:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Iowa Free Use template?

There may be a need for a new Iowa (IA) template. When loading Image:Iowa Pleistocene snail penny.jpg I noticed variations of existing templates didn't seem to fit quite right. Below is the source's policy. It's not labeled as copyrighted nor PD, just gives freedom with an optional request. (SEWilco 07:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC))

• http://www.iowadnr.com/policy.html
• "Any person is hereby authorized to view, copy, print, and distribute documents on this site without condition. We ask you to extend the courtesy of crediting the material to the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Any distributed copy of a web document, or portion thereof, is a reproduction and any changes made to any Iowa Department of Natural Resources material will invalidate the document."

Check out the new 'Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Displayed and ranked' page

Dear fellow Wikipedians with an interest in image copyrights,

After being directed to the Wiki-Project-Page-for-image-copyrights in order to learn more about copyright tags, I found it to be quite a confusing page, with precious little guidance provided and what for me was much much information overload. In order to try to help simplify the tag-selection process for image-copyright-newbies, I have created a new image-copyright-tag-display-article at:

Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Displayed and ranked.

I feel that actually being able to see the tag before selecting or using it might be helpful for some, plus actually seeing the rankings laid out plainly like this could be helpful too. If others like this page, then additional links to it might be inserted around where ever they might be considered as suitable. I've already placed a link to it at the bottom 'See Also' section of the project page. Also, I'm not a Wiki administrator, but I think that the page I created might be good to somehow make into a part of this project, instead of remaining as a Wiki article.

Am interested to see what others might think about this page.

Scott P. 19:20, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Free or not?

I'd like to use this photograph from this site - a project run by Sandia for the U.S. Department of Energy - for this WP article. The site's privacy and security page states "this work of authorship was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Accordingly, the United States Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free license to publish or reproduce the published form of this contribution, or allow others to do so for United States Government purposes."

Question: does this qualify for {{PD-USGov-DOE}} or not?

Thanks! - Bantman 23:41, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Since it is a photograph that is freely and widely distributed in a government publication, but you cannot say with any certainty that the photo was taken by a government employee, and since it is of a geographic feature, which would tend to make it less likely to be proprietary as well, I would guess that your best bet might be to simply use the simple, umbrella-like, public domain tag, of which all other public domain tags are a subset, and therefore less certain. Just my best guess. If further questions persist, you might try doing some Google searches on that reservoir's name and image, and seeing if anyone is trying to make any copyright claims for that photo or others like it.

-Scott P. 00:33, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

(I am not a lawyer) -- This actually sounds like one of those cases where a work that is connected to the US government is actually produced by a contractor and is specifically not in the public domain, instead being copyrighted to Sandia with a free license granted to the US government. I would say that any PD template isn't appropriate, and the image may not be usable in Wikipedia without further clarification from the copyright holder. kmccoy ::(talk) 06:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

(I'm not a lawyer either), but I think that by doing a reasonable search on the Internet for copies of that image that someone is attempting to sell, and finding none, and especially if also finding it in numerous places where it appears to have already been released to the public domain, such as newsletters, school magazines, etc., then it seems to me that while still never 100% certain that somebody somewhere might be trying to make their living by selling that photo that they took, that user:Bantman would have done due dilligence in determining if that was in all probability a public domain photo, and he could thereby reasonably assert that he believes it to be a public domain photo. Otherwise it would seem to me that the only way that anyone could use that tag would be by actually getting a notarized sworn affidavit from the alleged photo taker that he or she releases his or her copyright to the public domain, which nobody does on Wiki that I know of. No?

Scott P. 06:58, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

If Sandia is the creator of the image, then it is not public domain. Widespread distribution is not the same as releasing something into the public domain. An affidavit (which is by definition a sworn statement and certified by someone such as a notary, so you don't have to say "notarized sworn affidavit", just "affidavit" will do) isn't needed, but a statement from the creator of the image indicating their desire to release all copyright claims to the image is one of the ways that we determine that an item is in the public domain. (There's still some argument about whether someone can release things into the public domain, as discussed in many places on these copyright-related pages, but you could interpret an attempt to release a work into the public domain as releasing all rights, even if it remains copyrighted -- see {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} or {{NoRightsReserved}}.) Other ways that things are public domain are: age (if the image is old enough for its copyright to have expired), too simple or basic to be eligible for copyright, or created without copyright (such as a work created directly by the US government.) In this case, the license on the page, according to the original poster, says that the US government has a license to use the image for their purposes. If the image is licensed, it's copyrighted, and it's not public domain.

If the image is copyrighted, there are a few options. You could ask the copyright holder to release it under a free license such as the GFDL or cc-by-sa. Or you could claim that our use is a fair use of the image, despite the fact that we're not complying with any license from the copyright holder. But in that case, we need to have an argument more substantial than simply arguing that the copyright holder isn't trying to sell the image anyway. We need to justify why we need this image. Is it an image which we can't possibly make ourselves? Our article on fair use explains that to claim fair use is an affirmative defense.

So, basically, to answer the original question, it appears that a PD tag of any sort isn't appropriate. Further research might reveal a justification to use this photo, but I'd suspect that further searching on the internet may reveal a demonstrably PD or otherwise free alternative image to use in the article you mentioned. kmccoy (talk) 08:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you both for your thoughts on the matter. Seeing as there appears to be no consensus, my policy when it comes to copyright issues is "better safe than sorry," I'll just put a link to it under external links. Thanks again. - Bantman 16:36, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Here's a delayed response: Sandia is a DOE National Lab. Some of the labs contractors (in this case, Lockheed Martin), as part of their contracts with the DOE, have their own copyright policies (Brookhaven does, for example). Some do not, and their works are automatically in the public domain (Oak Ridge, for example). Sandia seems to have their own arrangement, and their works can be considered copyrighted. An e-mail to them would clear this up though. There is a note on the talk page of {{PD-USGov-DOE}} to this effect, by the way. --Fastfission 21:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

A generic photo taken from PD object, is copyrightable or not?

Perhaps it was discussed but please respond here. Suppose someone goes to, say, the US National Gallery of Art where he makes a picture of some 19th or 18th century painting. The picture he makes is a plain picture of a painting, no photo-artist collage or anything special. The person then posts it on his web-site. Are the rights of the picture taker protected by a copyright law? I mean the object here is clearly not his work but a 100-200 year old work of an artist. I assume the is no CP protection here, but what specific law states that? Thanks! --Irpen 06:26, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Opinion from non-lawyer: I think you have to assume its copyright. A rainbow is nobody's work, public domain, something anybody can take a free image of; but if I take a photo of it, that's copyright; even if no editing was done. I've heard of special law about government buildings, monuments, etc..., but I've never heard of a special rule for photos of items in a museum. Fairly or not, the mere act of taking a picture, with no editing, with no artistic work, still grants the photographer a copyright to the image created. --rob 06:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• update: Also, some museums may force those who enter to agree to terms regarding the taking of photographs, and effect the legal status of any images taken. But, I don't think there's any universal rule about that. --rob 06:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

National gallery has no such rule. What then? Extension: say I picture a monument, an old one. In public view anyone can see. There is no sunset or special lighting I cought, or a special angle or shadow that makes it look like a whale or an elefant. So, a generic picture of a monument and all value of this pic is the work by a sculptor and not by me. I can claim I own the copyright of the picture. But what would the law say? You see, my feeling is that there must be a difference with the rainbow or sunset. To get these, one needs preparation, waiting, luck, etc. Monument is there 24/365. Point and shoot. But that's just my view on the common sense. The law may be different. Ineterestingly, the Russian law [4] has such provision.

Article 21. Free Use of Works Permanently Located in a Public Place

The reproduction, broadcasting or communication to the public by cable of architectural works, photographic works and works of fine art permanently located in a public place shall be permissible without the author's consent and without payment of remuneration, except where the presentation of the work constitutes the main feature of the said reproduction, broadcast or communication to the public by cable, if it is used for commercial purposes.

TIA --Irpen 07:35, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this the point of {{PD-art}}, which references Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. ? kmccoy (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes. In the U.S., a straight-on photograph of a 2-D object does NOT generate a new copyright, at least, according to Bridgeman v. Corel. A 2-D picture of a 3-D object is another thing altogether -- the transformation there (however banal) does generate a copyright claim. The way galleries regulate what is done with expired art is by denying access to it, but they can't use the copyright system to do it. --Fastfission 21:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for a thorough explanation. So, it means that if I need a pic of the monuments for an article, I can't use a picture I found somewhere on the web (however generic) unless the author of the picture releases it. OTOH, if this is a picture of a painting or a bank-note, I don't even need to ask. Did I understand this correctly? Also, as per a Russian law above, I assume I can use generic pictures of Russian 3D objects. Please confirm, if possible. Cheers, --Irpen 21:51, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Well, you don't need to ask if the image would otherwise be in the public domain. It also means that taking a picture of a copyrighted object does not give you the ability to say anything about the copyright status of your picture. There are situations where this can be more complicated -- if you took a picture of a heavily altered copyrighted image, you'd gain some copyright claims, but probably not enough to trump the original copyright claim ("copyright claims" are statements of "creativity", though how "creative" can be a very low bar at some times and very high at others). Anyway -- I think you get the basics of it. As for Russian law, I'm pretty sure that because the English Wikipedia servers are hosted in the USA, we are subject only to US law. If someone takes pictures of Russian objects and publishes them in the US, they are subject to US copyright law, which would say that they have a copyright claim. If one were publishing a book (or website) in Russia, though, it would not be a problem. (At least, that's the basics of jurisdictions as I understand them, though I'm not completely square with how international copyright agreements affect this). --Fastfission 22:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

But, say, I found the image at the web-site that is located in Russia. I still can't upload it to US WP? The image at the site of its location IS a PD as per Russian law. --Irpen 04:27, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, well, the problem is still that it wouldn't be PD according to US law, which is all that matters here. But I'll make some inquiries on this. --Fastfission 11:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, please let us know what you found out. Also while you are at it, you said about my question on not having to ask if I found a PD art image on the web: "Well, you don't need to ask if the image would otherwise be in the public domain."

Of course, that's what I meant. BUT the bank-notes and old 2-d paintings are PD. So, a jpg file with an image of any of the above found anywhere on the web, can be used in WP without asking the author or the web-site where I found them even if there is a copyright notice at the site (check this for instance. Metmuseum has a cp statement at the bottom, but I can just ignore it for this particular case, and upload the image to WP... or can't I?) --Irpen 18:20, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Somalia

Ok, what copyright status are pictures published in Somalia after the fall of the government? Since there hasn't been a government there since 1991, I would think work there would be un-copyrightable, unless some other nation or international law claims jurisdiction. Anyone know? What would the appropriate tag be? Saswann 11:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

You can either assume that the previous laws are still in effect because they have not been formally revoked, or a new government will pass a law to retroactively cover a gap, or you can take up the question with the warlords of the present system of government. (IANAWL) (SEWilco 15:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC))

I don't think the former government ever entered into an intelletual property treaty. And, there is no "present system of government." Warlords don't make a government. Somalia officially has no government. RJII 16:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Jurisdictional multi-licensing with Wikipedia able to copy back?

Ok, I wasn't sure where I should post this. I get confused by all the copyup/copydown options but I was wondering about whether there was any meaning to dual licensing with cc-by-sa. The purpose would be to allow other kind souls to reuse my work as long as they say thank you and make others do the same. But from reading the multi-licensing stuff, this would still result in Wiki not being able to merge back a derivative work since cc-by-sa is incompatible with the GFDL. I am also from the UK, and I wonder whether the generic cc-by-sa would do me any good, but then I realised it would probably only depend on where the material was released as to whehter the license would be enforceable or not. So, can I use words to the following effect:

Multi-licensed under the GFDL version 1.2 or any later version and the cc-by-sa license(s) under the following additional conditions:

1. If a cc-by-sa license is used, it must be version 2.0 or later and
2. It must be the cc-by-sa license specific to the jurisdiction in which the material is to be released unless;
   • There is no specific jurisdictional license in which case version 2.5 or later of the generic cc-by-sa must be used.
3. If any cc-by-sa license is used, any derivative works must also be multi-licensed in the same way as this work, including under the GFDL.

i.e. You must use the jurisdictional cc-by-sa licensing of the country you plan to release my work in and if you take the work under the cc-by-sa license, you must multi-license it like I have. Is this possible? -Splash 04:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

If you want to make them license derivatives under the GFDL, why dual-license at all? I don't understand what extra rights this would give re-users. Superm401 | Talk 21:48, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

DigitalGlobe sat images

I'm trying to sort out the licencing to use for Image:New_orleans_msi_aug31_2005_dg.jpg, It is from http://www.digitalglobe.com/ with the following conditions:

1. Editorial Use Only. DigitalGlobe products made available in the “Images For The Media” or similar
area of the DigitalGlobe website may be published for editorial use only, in hardcopy, electronic or
in broadcast format, provided that credit is conspicuously provided to “DigitalGlobe” on all such
products as set forth below. For purposes of these Usage Rules, “editorial use” is limited to a
publication relating to a newsworthy event, or which is otherwise in the public interest.

2. Attribution Rules. All DigitalGlobe products published or otherwise used pursuant to these Usage
Rules must be attributed to DigitalGlobe as follows:

    * For print, presentation and Web materials:
      Credit to DigitalGlobe must appear next to or beneath the photo.

    * For broadcast:
      Credit to DigitalGlobe must appear on-screen throughout the entire air-time of the product.
Additionally, if the products are referenced verbally during the program, they must be verbally
attributed to DigitalGlobe.

3. No Commercial Use. Except for the limited rights set forth in these Usage Rules, DigitalGlobe
retains all rights to the DigitalGlobe products, and any commercial, promotional or other use
requires the express written consent of DigitalGlobe, Inc.

4. No Alteration. No image published or otherwise used pursuant to these Usage Rules may be modified,
altered or supplemented in any way without the express written consent of DigitalGlobe, Inc.

5. Limited Grant of Rights. The rights provided in these Usage Rules by DigitalGlobe may be revoked
at any time by written notice of DigitalGlobe.

I've tagged it {{PermissionAndFairUse}}... --Wangi 12:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)