Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.


Contents

[edit] Fair Use Question

I have recently uploaded Image:7-2007-gmc-sierra-chevrolet-silverado.jpg to Wikipedia under the {{Promotional}} tag. The picture of future automobiles which have not been released yet, therefore are no other way to obtain photos than through promotional press images. I received a notice saying the image would be deleted in seven days if I did not provide copyright status. Is there more information I need to include other than the {{Promotional}} tag and if so what would it be? I'm not mad if this picture isn't allowed and I'm not going to throw a hissy fit (like some Wiki members) if it has to be deleted, but I am still quite new so I guess I don't know the policy as well as I should. Any help would be greatly appreciated. -HumanZoom 03:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well the reason for that is that you aparently picked "some website" from the licence selector (wich results in an "unknown" tag beeing added automaticaly), and put the promotional tag in manualy via the upload summary, that is easily fixed. You still need to add the actual source and a fair use rationale though. --Sherool (talk) 05:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. I added the URL and a fair use rationale. I hope this fixes the problem. Thanks, HumanZoom 20:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Promo

Image:communic.jpg

This image came from the media section of the band's official site, along with many others that serve for promotion. I've seen many bands on Wikipedia with photos like these and there's no problem. Why is mine tagged with those questions? What to do now? Thanks in advance for the help--Serte 11:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You need to add that source information to the actual image page (an actual URL to the page for starters). You also need to add a fair use rationale to it. --Sherool (talk) 11:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Milvirtha Hendricks

Hardly anyone knows who this woman was during the Katrina disaster. However, I do know that it has gone around the world, and that it has been used by MS-NBC and other media outlets.

I don't know how I would tag it for Wiki, though. I think that it would fall under free use--that it is not being used for commercial purposes.

Please let me know.


--gab 19:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How do I tag an uploaded png version of an existing jpg image?

I just converted the jpg image, Image:Fractionator Overhead System.JPG, to a png image, Image:Fractionator Overhead System.png. During the process of uploading the new version, I did not enter anything into the Summary nor did I select any license ... because I thought that simply converting from jpg to png would automatically leave the new png version with the same Summary and license as the old jpg version had.

Now, I have a message from Orphan Bot telling me the new png version will be removed if I don't summarize the new png and select a license. Where and how do I comply with that? Please tell me in step-by-step detail what I must do now. Also, should I delete the old jpg image? If so, how? Thanks, - mbeychok 22:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe you just upload it under the same license as the original. I've always done that, and made a note at the top saying "Cropped/Converted/Whatnot" from whatever version the original is.

[edit] (Bass Reeve) Image of person who died in 1910

Hi. I want to copy the Bass Reeves image from this webpage[1] to illustrate the Bass Reeves article. Reeves died in 1910, so the photo must have been taken before then. But I have no way of knowing when it was first published. Would it still meet the 1923 cut off for public domain? And even if it does, is it OK to just take it from the website (since, presumably, the photo wouldn't have been digitized until much later)? I think this is all fairly common stuff for you folks, but it's all new to me and I couldn't find anything that covered all my concerns in the FAQ. Thanks, --SiobhanHansa 01:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems highly unlikely that it would be taken during his lifetime and then not published until 13 years after his death. I know we would prefer it to have the facts in hand, but I think in this case it would be safe to tag this as {{PD-US}}. howcheng {chat} 03:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MySpace image question

Image:CelphTitled.jpg was an image I found on MySpace.com (http://myspace-250.vo.llnwd.net/00855/05/24/855454250_l.jpg to be exact). My question is who does the copy right belong to? The artist or the MySpace people? And what tag would I use? And would i need their permission to distribute his image?

The image is almost certainly owned by the artist, the photographer, or the company that they work for. I do not see any indication on the myspace page that the image has been released under a free license, so we must assume that the copyright holder retains all the rights to the image. As it is possible to take a free photo of this person, we can not use a restrictively copyrighted image. ×Meegs 21:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another image question

I have found an image of Thomas Whythorne to accompany his article. Whythorne died in 1585 and so the portrait was presumably produced before then. However, the source of my image is from a 1961 book. Is the image copyright under these circumstances? --Roisterer 09:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Check the back of the textbook and the end of the chapter to see if there are any credits for its illustrations. I'm curious, is this the same portrait? If it was painted in the sixteenth century, then it is in the public domain and a faithful reproduction of the work in a textbook is not protected by copyright in the U.S. If this is the case, use {{PD-art}} when you upload it. ×Meegs 21:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
That's the one I was looking at. Thanks for the information. --Roisterer 06:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to copyright a thumbnail of a newspaper article

I have a thumbnail jpg of a newspaper article - I have listed the copyright of where it came from generically speaking (copyright name of newspaper) but since it isn't in a specific copyright tag format it's incorrect. How do I copyright this item, as it's not really a newspaper or an article but a user-created jpg (unreadable except for the title of the story)?

beep_thumb

--Hudson2001 02:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't copyright it. It's a derivative work of copyrighted material, and is at best fair use. Correct fair use depends on the context. I sincerely doubt it applies as this image is being used. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inherited Photo Collection Copyright Question

I'm getting a little befuddled with some of the photos I want to use for an article I'm writing. I haven't uploaded any yet because I'm not sure exactly how to handle them. The subject of the article is a WWII historical figure. He has since died, but I've been in contact with the heirs to his estate, his sons. They emailed me specific photos from the family's private collection and said they would have no problem releasing those photos into the public domain (yes, I explained to them exactly what that would entail and they still have no problem with it). Some of these photos were published in a biography about their father, all labeled "S****** Collection" under the photos within the book. The father is the subject of all the photos and all the photos are labeled as his personal collection. But it never says exactly who took the photos in many cases, just that they "belong" to the subject of the article, the father. So how do I tag these? And do the heirs of his estate have the authority to release a part of their inherited photo collection into the public domain? Who truly owns these photos? --ScreaminEagle 15:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The copyright holder of any photo is usually the photographer, but those rights can be assigned to the subject (for example if the negatives are transferred too). If these are family photos, then I would say the family owns the rights to them and can release them to the public domain if they wish. Use the {{PD-release}} tag and make sure the image description page of each image from this collection clearly states the circumstances of the release. howcheng {chat} 17:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] help with image posting.

on the nwo, wcw storyline page, there is a reference to a rumored dx vs nwo poster, i have uplooded that image, and cant get it to work on that page, also that image may be the official poster for wwe survivor series 2006, and i'd like to upload it there also, can i be helped?

user:cooterpuppet september 6th, 2006 1:18 Pm Eastern Standard US

I assume you mean Image:Dx vs nwo.jpg, right? To add it to an article, please see Help:Images. I've also updated the license tag for you. howcheng {chat} 17:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Derivative images

please see the gallery of passport covers here. Many of the images have been taggad as images under gnu etc but as they are copies of images owned by the country that produces the passports are these tags accurate? If not, can I have some advice on how to go through an re tag them? Thanks --Spartaz 00:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newbie

Hi, I'm fairly new to Wikepedia and I've uploaded an image Image:Thebugradiowhite.jpg. I found it under an eBay listing (www.ebay.co.uk) - what is the copyright?

First of all, I was not able to find an eBay seller named "yonoo ltd". Regardless, you can't just take a photo you found on eBay (or anywhere) and use it on Wikipedia. Additionally, the eBay watermark makes it unsuitable for use here too. To me, this image looks like a product shot by the manufacturer, but it's possible the seller took it himself. You should contact the seller and if he took the photo, ask if is willing to license this under a free license, such as the GFDL or a Creative Commons License (Attribution or Attribution-ShareAlike). Please make it clear that this means the photo could be used by anyone for any purpose, including commercial use. If he agrees, then you should get the original image file (not the eBay version) and upload it. Then edit the image description page to include as many details as possible and finally add the appropriate license tag. howcheng {chat} 17:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

sorry the seller was yoonoo_ltd. If I find a picture from the manufacturer or on the products website then what is the copyright?

Then it's still copyrighted by the manufacturer. Because this is just a consumer product, the best thing to do in this case is to take a picture yourself. If you don't have one, go to a store and a take a picture. Then there's no licensing problem whatsoever. howcheng {chat} 18:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

ok thanks alot.

[edit] Derivative images/edited images

I've got an image, well someone else's (this one to be specfic) which I edited to make it look clearer and less drab and would like to use the improved version in an article rather than the current one. How would I go about tagging it as a derivative work of the original picture. Do I have to upload it seperatly or can I update the current image.  YDAM TALK 23:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

If all you did was color correction and general image processing, I would just upload it over the original. However, this image is on Commons so you will have to register for an account there and upload your replacement on the image description page there. In the edit summary, please note what processing you've done and you can also add that to the image description page. howcheng {chat} 00:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks  YDAM TALK 01:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright/Source question

Hi, today I made my first page and after uploading the following images Image:Aphrodite-breast-fire.jpg, Image:Aphrodite-A.jpg, Image:Sayaka-suit-2.jpg I received a message telling me the source was unspecified. I've gone through several guidelines for media copyright but I'm a bit daunted, and I would like to know if you could please tell me what to modify in order to correct the situation. These pics were captured from the DVD version of an anime TV series. What kind of information should I attach to them? I added the fairusein tag to the Image:Aphrodite-A.jpg entry, should I do the same with the others?

Thank you!

--Mikaine 01:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

For television screenshots, the name of the series and production company who owns its copyright is probably sufficient for the source, but the more information the better. Please make sure to write a fair use rationale on each of the image's description page and state the reasons why the screenshots are needed in the article (e.g. to illustrate the commentary about the character's weapon system). ×Meegs 09:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Stadion2006.jpg

I keep adding this image Image:Stadion2006.jpg and putting the appropriaet tag on the page. This tage does not appear on the page the image displays on. Why not? Before you say 'did you tick the box', yes I did each time... Ozdaren 08:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It's impossible to say why it's not working for you, but it's simple to tag the image on your own. Go to the image page and edit it. In the editable text you won't see the image, but you'll see the other text that you put on the page. Insert one of the templates listed here that best describes how you're licensing it. Based on the description you added that might be {{No rights reserved}}, but you might choose to release it under the GFDL or one of the free Creative Commons licenses instead.
By the way, in order to link to the image instead of inserting it, follow the directions in the bright orange box at the top of the page. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
When you upload an image under a filename that is already in use, as you did here twice, the new summary and licensing selection are discarded. To update an image's information, you need to manually edit the description page as TCC describes above. ×Meegs 09:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Want more info regarding "Fair Use In" tag

Here's the deal: I have an image that I am doubly using as a source for the article it is in. It was recommended to me that I use a "fair use in" tag instead of "book cover" (it's not a book cover at all). Could someone please point me to the right place to learn more about the "fair use in" tag so I can do this right? Thanks. --Guroadrunner 13:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

If it is not a book cover, then certainly do not use {{bookcover}}. "Fair use in" refers to {{fair use in}}. It is a template that takes one parameter, which you specify after the name of the template, with a pipe character in between. For example, if Image:Nixon.jpg was not a free image, we would need to add {{fair use in|Richard Nixon}} to its image description page. If the image is being used under fair use in two articles, then there's a different template, {{fair use in2}}, e.g. {{fair use in2|Richard Nixon|Nixon's Enemies List}}.
Make sure that you provide a fair use rationale for each article that the image is used in. Let us know if you have any more questions, but make sure to tell us the name of the image in question. ×Meegs 15:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The image I was talking about was Image:Benccontest.jpg , but it appears Megapixie fixed it for me, which is appreciated. The article uses this image as a source for Bill_Elliott's_NASCAR_Challenge#Contest. Believe me, it is very unlikely that there is another usable source for the information presented. --Guroadrunner 03:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How should I tag this?

The image Image:Simcopter.png is listed as a computer screenshot, but it seems to be an exact copy of one of the official screens from the back cover of the game. How should I handle this? --Guroadrunner 14:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it; treat it as a screenshot. ×Meegs 15:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Will do. --Guroadrunner 02:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of celebrity?

Yesterday, I attended a lecture by Jeremy Rifkin at my college. While I was there, I took two pictures of him during his talk. Although they were not posed pictures, they are faithful attempts to show what he really looks like, not demeaning or embarrassing at all. My question is this: am I allowed to post either of these pictures to illustrate his biographical article? I've not discovered conclusively if I would need his permission to post either of them. If such were allowed, I would use a copyright-released tag, as with this picture. FYI, I've not posted either of these pictures online. Please forgive me if I've missed an obvious policy statement on this subject :-)

I tend to be somewhat forgetful, so I'd appreciate it if you answered my question on my userpage. Thanks! Nyttend 14:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please do upload one or both of the images. No laws were broken taking the images, their copyright is yours, and you may release them to the public domain. If you upload them to Commons, as you did with the Belle Center photo, they will be accessible to all of the projects. Thanks a lot; we have great need for free images of celebrities. ×Meegs 15:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time Magazine photos

I'm in contact with someone who sent me a photo of his father that was published in Time Magazine during the 50s. He said that all images used within magazines like Time are public domain by their very nature. Is that true? Or would I have to use Fair Use tags/rationale in order to use it? --ScreaminEagle 19:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No, that's a fundamental misunderstanding of what public domain is. That said there is a "loophole" in American copyright law for material published in that era, copyright registration was still required back then I think, so if the copyright holder failed to display the proper notice or renew the registration on time the work might have fallen into the public domain for that reason, movies like Night of the Living Dead and Plan 9 from outer space are examples of this. However you can't simply say that anyting published in the 50's are public domain, and you sure can't say that anyting published in Time or anyting else is automaticaly public domain. --Sherool (talk) 09:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:XL ring.PNG

The fair use and copyright tag of this image has been contested, can anyone help? A discussion has been started on the user page. --WillMak050389 04:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is a prime example of WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #2 and cannot be used on Wikipedia in this manner. howcheng {chat} 16:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Mai_Phuong_Thuy.jpg

i have uploaded this image. She is new miss vietnamese. You can search her name in the internet. I dont know how to make this image license? i believe this picture is freely.

Unfortunately, unless you are the photographer or you know that the photographer or agency s/he works for has released it under a free license, then it's most likely copyrighted. Just because you find a picture on the Internet doesn't make it public domain. We can't use this picture on Wikipedia unless you know for sure it's freely licensed. howcheng {chat} 16:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ddfentonuserpagepic-simpson.JPG

Above image is tagged as a logo with fair use but is really a cartoon. Currently only used on Userpage. I am pretty sure it is dodgy under copyright but not sure which tag to use. - SimonLyall 08:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it from the user's page and tagged with {{subst:orfud}}. howcheng {chat} 16:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Thankyou - SimonLyall 19:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Um, question about Copyright tags-- my picture is to be deleted...

So 1. I uploaded a picture for an article. 2. I got permission from the copyright holder, 3. and he(the copyright holder) gave me a tag 4. I listed the tag

Apparently i am doing something wrong because the image is up for speedy deletion.

What I am doing wrong, and what can I do to fix it? The image is Image:DonaldMiller.JPG

The box on the image description page is fairly clear. We cannot use images where there is permission "for Wikipedia only", but require a free license such as the GFDL, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike, a release to the public domain, or simply a license to use freely for any purpose. This is because Wikipedia content is supposed to be available for anyone to use freely. Without such a license from the copyright holder, we must unfortunately delete the image. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Its quite silly that a picture released for use on Wikipedia can't be used on Wikipedia. If we want people to have access to pictures for anyone to use freely, they can easily rip them off any website besides Wikipedia. There is nothing illegal about using images for educational and informative purposes with the permission of the copyright holder. This is an unnecessary rule.

It's not illegal for us to use, no. But it is illegal for anyone else, whether it's easy to violate someone's copyright or not. Content on Wikipedia must be free for everyone to use without encumbrance. That's what the entire project is for. Including non-free content, even if we have permission to do so, defeats our very purpose. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image for which I own the copyright

I have been trying to find the right tag to attach to an uploaded image for which I own the copyright. See Image:ChubVenables.jpg in Jack Hargreaves Sibadd 10:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, assuming you realy do own the copyright by virtue of re-publishing the book (IANAL) and wish to release that image under GFDL, the "right" tag would be {{GFDL-no-disclaimers}}. --Sherool (talk) 10:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HELP

I need to edit this Image:DSC00880.JPG... I want it to be searched as well. i have a copy right problem, im new here, i really am not sure if I could understand how this thing works,

I would just like to start over..can this post be deleted? Tnx much!

[edit] About {{Noncommercial}}

Copied from my talk page.

The reason I am interested in editing this is because I am marking most of the images in Category:FOTW images with {{Db-noncom}}, and I have run across a few that have the proper fair use tags, so I left those alone. However, the template {{FOTWpic}} includes the {{Noncommercial}} template. Therefore, even if there is a good fair use tag and rationale, then one of the tags states that it "will be deleted without further warning", although the fair use tag and assertion means that the image is allowed here. Jesse Viviano 00:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this. It's a very tangled subject. Regarding fair use of these images - I would find that very unlikely, as fair use of such an image would have to make a good case why that specific image (make by the FOTW contributor, etc.) was notable, historical and irreplacable, and we therefore needed to have a copy of it. I'd like to review the fair use ones you accepted. The whole FOTW thing is somewhat unclear, but as far as I can see, the case is clear that Wikipedia should not have any images uploaded from that website, as that website claims images on it are not licensed compatibally with Wikipedia's license policies. So the Noncom tag isn't wrong. Anything in that cat should be deleted on sight. I look forward to your response. And I've copied this to the Wikipedia:Media copyright questions page for further discussion. JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I do not remember which ones I have left alone as fair use. First, I have not gone through the whole category, so there are many that need to go that I have still not tagged. Second, there are some that are uploaded from before or on May 19, 2005, which is the cutoff date. These do not qualify for CSD I3 and must be taken to IFD to be removed. Some people do not have the artistic skill needed to recreate flags, so they would feel that those flags could be taken as fair use. I am not an expert on fair use, so I will need to read the fair use policy when I do not have too much homework. Since there are more that need to be speedied, I could use some help in tagging them. Some of them have copies in the commons that need to be tagged as copyvios there as well. Jesse Viviano 23:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify, an image that is tagged {{Noncommercial}} can be used as fair use on Wikipedia, just like any other nonfree copyrighted image, if it has a valid rationale. In the specific case of flags, however, it takes minimal artistic skill to create this sort of image, and so the FOTW-tagged files cannot be validly claimed as fair use and must be deleted. But obviously, being "free for non-commercial use" per se doesn't give a copyrighted image immunity to being appropriated for fair use if the use is justifiable, an immunity that "all rights reserved" works don't have. Andrew Levine 02:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help with deleting two images

I have uploaded picture of my son for my user-page but later decided to delete it to keep privacy. Can you please delete two images I have uploaed. That is please delete Image:1_changed.JPG and Image:Deleteme.JPG . Thank you. --- ابراهيم 14:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. ×Meegs 16:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Btw can I delete the image I have created myself? --- ابراهيم 01:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Only administrators can delete images, but you can request the deletion of your images — especially ones that are not used in encyclopedia articles — using the {{Db-author}} template. ×Meegs 23:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Dawson assailant's gun.jpg

Is it okay now? -- Zanimum 20:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] My Tekken pics

I uploaded a few pics and they've all gone. Does copyright have anything to do with it? - The 4th Snake

What images are you talking about? Were there others besides these? TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

That's them. The 4th Snake 17:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, those images have not been deleted, but only one of the five is currently being used in an article. Unfree copyrighted images, like video game screenshots, that are not used in articles are routinely deleted, though. ×Meegs 23:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Have I tagged them right? - The 4th Snake 18:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Tagging them isn't the problem. The problem is that fair use depends on the context in which an image is being used. These aren't being used at all. They simply exist on the server. So no, they're not tagged correctly because there's no theory under which fair use currently applies to them. And for fair use, the tag alone is never sufficient. You need to explain why the images are needed in the places where they're used. See WP:IDP#Fair_use_rationale.
However, if they were being used, and if there was a valid rationale provided for them, the correct tag would be {{game-screenshot}}. You don't need {{character-artwork}} as well, which would be for artwork from packaging, manuals, promotional materials, etc. TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I see. What could I do to make it alright with the Baek pic for example? - The 4th Snake 17:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Flowerfairiesjpg.jpg

IANAL, however, the claim that the image source cannot object seems to be false, and fails as a fair use rationale.

Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. states that this case "ruled that exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright".

But from the copyright notice on the same page, the image isn't in the public domain: if it's copyrighted, then by definition all copies of it, licensed or unlicensed, absolutely ARE "protected by copyright". Making unlicensed "copies of copies" of a copyrighted work is simply not permitted.

Someone who's made a licensed derivative work from a copyrighted work (as appears to be the case here) absolutely *can* object to copies being made of their derivative work, even where it is closely similar to the original. So the copyright listed may also be incorrect or incomplete, since this appears a copy of a derivative work, with copyright belonging to the cited source,

Sure, the use of the image may still be "fair use" (is using the entirety of a work EVER "fair use"?), but this citation certainly fails as a fair use rationale for that use.

Also, I'm unsure about the claim that US copyright law applies, since they're the IP of a UK company, and the internet *does* extend beyond the borders of the US. Wikipedia does appear to serve content to UK IPs, so you are publishing this copyrighted image in the UK.

Also I'm unsure if the claim that "it's fair use because it's used on the Cicely Mary Barker page" is valid: I found the image featured on its own page, following a link from a discussion of the image, on a user page. I never even read the name "Cecily Marie Barker" until I started writing the above. Clearly, any image which has its own page (all images, so far as I can tell) is not just being used "in context", it's also directly linkable: I feel that Wikipedia's claim that the images are only being viewed or used "in context" is flawed in this respect, and that images where the "fair use" relies on the context for should probably not show the image, but should instead provide a link to the context where the image is shown.

But like I said, IANAL. --DewiMorgan 00:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

For the purposes of Wikipedia, which is hosted in the U.S., an old published image is in the public domain if one of the following is true:
  1. It was published before 1923 (with exceptions as below);
  2. It was in the public domain in its country of origin as of January 1, 1996;
  3. It was published in the U.S. between 1923 and 1949 and the copyright was not renewed (usually hard to determine).
The third one we can toss out because it's almost never easy to find out. The second is obviously not true, as it is still under copyright in the U.K. That leaves the first one. If the picture was published before 1923 in the U.S., or before 1909 in another country, or between 1909 and 1922 in compliance with U.S. copyright formalities, it's in the public domain in the U.S., as are any exact photographic copies of it, and whatever the website says doesn't matter. If you can show that the publication is within these dates, you can replace the fair-use tag with {{PD-US}}. Otherwise, the U.S. copyright is probably still in effect. Andrew Levine 06:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LOOK Magazine Photograph Collection

The Library of Congress possesses a collection of photographs from Look magazine that were donated to the public domain as Instrument of Gift by Cowles Communications, Inc., the publisher of the magazine. According to the Rights and Restrictions information on the LOC's website, Cowles "dedicated to the public all rights it possessed in the collection," with the exception of photographs that were not taken by LOOK staff photographers (rights which Cowles did not own). Now, this seems like straightforward public domain. But according to the Rights page, "Cowles has also expressed its intention to the Library that works not be used for 'advertising or trade purposes.'" The page uses the phrase "expressed its desire" for the same thing later down. My question is, can we consider these images as free? I would say yes, because to me Cowles "expressing its intention" against advertising/trade use seems non-binding from a legal standpoint, since they have released the rights into the public domain. To me, this is the same deal as Carl Van Vechten's photos, which were granted to the PD as an instrument of gift, with the request that their artistic integrity be preserved. We have dozens of Van Vechten images on Commons, even though they would not be free images if the estate's request were considered legally binding. So I think the LOOK photos in the LOC's collection (those which are by staff photographers) are GFDL-compatible. Agree or disagree? Andrew Levine 05:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree, but I wouldn't say "GFDL-compatible". I'd just call them PD and tag them as PD-author with a link to the rights description page at the LOC. I agree it's the same with the van Vechten photos. Lupo 21:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I also concur, except that it's PD-release on en-wiki, not PD-author. howcheng {chat} 16:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Rather than use PD-Author, I have made the template PD-Look on Commons and started to upload images. Andrew Levine 04:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oops! Sorry about that huge picture!

I uploaded a picture I scanned from a book (Crowning Anguish, Taj Al-Saltana, Mage, 1993) which in turn had reproduced it from a 1881-1882 French series, Dieulafoy's Tour du Monde. I'm sure it's public domain, as it's more than 100 years old and it's two-dimensional (no reproduction copyright allowed). However, when I tried to find a matching licence in the pulldown list, public domain was greyed out. So, I got a warning message on my talk page. How can I fix this? I deal with copyright all the time, for Distributed Proofreaders, and I'm darn sure this is OK. Zora 12:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


  • You have to scroll down the menu a little further. Listed below "Public domain" are about seven different reasons why the image is PD. Choose one that applies. Andrew Levine 15:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use question concerning TV screenshot

I've uploaded the screenshot Image:Toyah.jpg from a TV programme that a band appeared on to use on their article, Toyah (band). However, I'm somewhat unclear regarding what constitutes fair use and thought I'd better ask here; the {{tv-screenshot}} notice says it's okay to use to use for "identification and critical commentary [of the] programme and its contents", but I'm uncertain as to whether adding a caption mentioning the programme and classing the band as its contents is possibly stretching the definition somewhat. The reason I've used it is that I'm unable to find any uncopyrighted images of the band. It's not as if it's even a particularly good image, although maybe that'll go in my favour!
—Chris (blather • contribs • e) 13:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I need help on selecting a tag to use on my pic so that my article may be published in wikipedia. Thanks

Gerald Baraza


[edit] The evil PD template

I was looking through Template:PD's "what links here" and I see an awlful lot of old looking pictures (like this, this, and this) which could probably be tagged with {{PD-old}} based on appearence. What is the policy with this? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 17:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Depends, we rely need to know enough about the image first. If you can not reasonably asume the author to have been dead for at least 100 years based on the source or context then simply relying on looks might be a bit dodgy. --Sherool (talk) 19:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
OK. I'll be conservative in using that reasoning, then. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image from another wikipedia with a tag not in English wikipedia

Previously i uploaded Image:Heykal.jpg. As i stated in its summary i found it in the Arabic wikipedia. You can find it here[2].In the Arabic wikipedia the image is licensed under the public domain using the tag {{PD-Arabic}} which lists the public domain conditions in Arab countries. Recently the image was tagged with {{no source}} by another wikipedia user. I'm not sure what the correct licence for this image is. Should i create a new {{PD-Arabic}} here at English wikipedia (translating the same template from the Arabic wikipedia)? Any suggestions?--Wedian 23:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a {{PD-because|reason it's PD here}} tag, you can spell out rare situations we don't have a spesific PD tag for using that. I'm not rely sure what the status of this PD-arabic stuff is though. The US does not observe the rule of the shorter term or whtever it's called so even if the country of origin have a life + 50 rule on copyright the copyright in the US would still be life + 70 meaning it's still considered copyrighted in the US 20 years after it entered the public domain in the country of origin, wich would technicaly make it unfree for our purposes if I'm not mistaken (determining public domain status across borders can be a royal pain and IANAL, so take this with a pinch of salt). Either way the image does need a source, I don't read Arabic so if there is a source spesification on the Arabic version it should be translated, if not the image needs to go (both here and there). --Sherool (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright opinion

Hi, I was hoping that someone could give me an opinion on copyright status of a work. There is a collection of lithographs called the Banks' Florilegium, all the engravers and the artist have been dead for over 100 years. However the plates were never printed in colour (but there were instructions for colour versions from the artist), until a publisher released them between 1980 and 1990. Would the application of colour to the old plates create a new copyrightable work?--Peta 05:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. One can make modifications to a PD image and claim copyright on the modifications, but not the underlying PD source. howcheng {chat} 22:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Would it be possible to take the instructions from the artist, make the colour version, and publish it under a free license? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 19:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] image:Jpmullins.jpg

Hi:

This image came from my website, www.whjp.net. What do I need to do for a copyright tag?

If you took the photo yourself (or otherwise own the copyright to it), you can use one of the tags listed under "For image creators" here. If not, you need the copyright-holder's permission to release it under one of these licenses. Andrew Levine 16:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Federal vs. state public domain

The picture Image:Bill_Sizemore.gif states that it is from the Oregon Secretary of State`s website, and provides the link. However, it uses the copyright tag for a federal govt. work. Are pictures from a State of Oregon website also public domain, and what is the correct tag here? Thanks.--24.20.69.240 03:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The tag is wrong. Oregon is not part of the federal government, and the copyright on that picture might not be owned by the Oregon government. --Carnildo 04:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, it's a photo supplied by a political candidate for a voters' handbook and can therefore probably be tagged {{promotional}}. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
It should be possible to create a free image to identify Mr. Sizemore, so it does not comply with our fair use policy. ×Meegs 05:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the picture under CSD I4 and the license tagging. Let's work to find a free image. Teke(talk) 05:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyrights for a couple of figures

How do I satisfy the copyright stuff for a couple of figures which I generated? I am tired of having my figures removed because I didn't click the right box. Here are the pertinent figures:

      BAB of the World -Converted-.jpg
       DFWsection.jpg
I added GFDL tags for you. Andrew Levine 17:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keeping an image

The image I used for Sonic Hearts was an image I made myself. How can I keep it from being deleted?

In general, self-created drawings which do not include copyrighted characters used without permission should be tagged with {{gfdl-self}} or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}. However, in this specific case, it's irrelevant as both page and image will soon be deleted. Please do not re-create articles that were deleted per the result of a previous Articles for Deletion discussion. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your own fan fiction. Andrew Levine 17:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use and OrphanBot

Hi all. Need a moment's assistance at understanding fair use and how OrphanBot works.

I recently uploaded this image, which I found on a website after some Googling. It's a 19th-century poster used to advertise a commercial product in France and Switzerland. I do not know its copyright status, but I believed that the use of promotional artwork constituted fair use, so I tagged it {{somewebsite}} and {{promotional}}, which I felt best represented the WP:IUP. I also provided a description of the artist and use.

Today, OrphanBot removed it from my article infant formula and tagged the image with {{no licence}}. I am wondering if:

  • this is this an error on the part of OrphanBot
  • I do not correctly understand fair use rationale and copyright tags
  • I incorrectly applied the tag

Any explanation or assistance you can provide would be helpful. Thank you! dpotter 14:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I believe I answered my own question. Looks like {{somewebsite}} automatically earns you a slap from OrphanBot. Fixed. Also added fair use rationale to the article where it was used. dpotter 15:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
If this poster was published in 1895, and the artist (Théophile Alexandre Steinlen) died in 1923, that makes it {{PD-old-70}}. Andrew Levine 15:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Does {{PD-old-70}} apply if the artwork was created, published (and presumably copyrighted) in a country other than the United States? dpotter 17:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, see the Copyright Term Chart from Cornell Law. Anything published outside the U.S. before July 1, 1909 is PD in the U.S., and the image is also out of copyright in any country (including France and the rest of the E.U.) with 70 years p.m.a. or less as the term of copyright. Andrew Levine 17:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image of Chaparral 2J

I have used this image some day ago on Wikipedia : image:C2j.jpg. But i had a message about copyright etc.. Well , i received today an e-mail where i have permission from author of image to use it. Unfortunatly i'm Italian so my English it's poor enough.. for me it's difficult to understand many things. What can i do about this image? I have permission from author to use, but i don't know what is my next step in Wikipdia about this image. Can you help me? .... with some easy template maybe?

Many thanks in advance.

Ugo_C by www.ucm-fishing.com 20:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The best thing to do is to ask photographer to agree to the Creative Commons Attribution license (Italiano). If they do agree, post a copy of their email and yours to the image description page and forward copies to "permissions AT wikimedia.org". It is ok if they are in Italian. ×Meegs 21:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PD-Soviet and PD-USSR

Hello, I've just learned that the controversy over PD-Soviet and PD-USSR tags have reached a conclusion and that the decision is that they're not valid. Someone wrote a great start to the Constructivist architecture article recently that was extensively illustrated with images of drawings and photographs of Constructivist buildings and projects. I've re-tagged all the drawings with {{Art}} and given source information. I've re-tagged all the photographs with {{Statue}} because the tag rationale states:"for images of three-dimensional works of art that are still under copyright" to me this sounds like architecture - (architects distinguish the common or garden building, typically just called construction, from architecture which is considered to be art). Could someone please give me some feedback on whether or not they think this might be a valid approach? Thanks.-Mcginnly | Natter 09:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging an image

I would like to post an image on Wikipedia, but I do not know how to add a copyright tag. It is a photograph I took myself, so copyright shouldn't be an issue - I just don't know how to tag it appropriately so that I can display it on a page. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Tim --Timholland 21:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I have responded on your talk page. The information is also at the top of this page. Andrew Levine 22:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair Use images used in non-fair use articles

I had noticed the use of copyrighted images of celebrities in some articles related to race/ethnicity. Most of the images are also used to illustrate articles about the celebrity in a way (I believe) is in keeping with fair use. But I understand that they cannot then be used to illustrate other articles just because they're already uploaded. Before I go ahead and weed out these images I wanted to check my interpretation was correect.

For instance Amerasian includes Image:Maggieq.jpg and Image:Amerie02.jpg. Both images are copyrighted and used under fair use guidelines on articles about the themselves. But in illustrating Amerisians it seems it fails the criteria that we couldn't create or make a Free image. Am I right that they should be deleted from the Amerasian article? --Siobhan Hansa 13:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, and I have removed the images. Andrew Levine 16:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why the boobytraps?

I understand that Wikipedia tolerated non-commercial/only-on-Wikipedia/etc images for a time, and now they can be speedy deleted. I understand that many of these images can be also tagged as fair use, given a rationale, and used anyway. What I don't understand is why we lay a "booby trap" for people uploading new images, by allowing them to select these options from the list and then immediately tagging it as a speedy candidate. Not only does this increase the workload on CSD when a little more education would suffice in many cases (I had a user the other night asking why an image was not showing up, this was the second time he'd uploaded it and would we please check that the servers were working okay?), but the warning shows up (unless I'm vastly mistaken) two screens after the upload, due to the short "So and so has been uploaded. Go to Image:XYZ.jpg to see its description page." message. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that many users never even go to that page, and since the image itself when used on an article doesn't show the CSD tag, there's a vast opportunity for relicensing/education being missed here. Tagging them as "invalid licenses" and then listing them first on the dropdown for Licensing is just bearbaiting IMO. -- nae'blis 16:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree on all points; there has to be a better way to do this. Another possibility is that instead of uploading the image directly and auto-slapping a speedy tag on it, maybe selecting the "non-commercial/Wiki-only/etc." option brings up a screen saying "WARNING: This image will be deleted immediately with the licensing you have selected. If you found this image on the Internet or in print, you may request permission from the copyright holder to upload it under a free license [add link to explain what this is], if you do not explicitly have this permission, do not add the image to Wikipedia." I have been adding my template {{image-warn}} to talk pages of users who upload such images, but it is tiresome and most of the images are deleted within minutes anyway. We should not be trying to trap well-meaning new users just because they aren't familiar with the arcane web of GFDL-compatible licensing schemes. The status quo must change. Andrew Levine 17:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Because experience tells us that by not allowing them to pick such an option they will still upload the image, but label it as "free use" or some other more or less random license instead. Thus making it a lot harder to weed them out. So since most people upload these images anyway we figured it was better to give them the option to pick the most apropriate license, even if that license is not acceptable. I agree it's not an ideal solution, (and there are some "colladeral dammage" with stuff that might have qualified as fair use), but untill we come up with a better system that can reliably handle the amount of "bad" uploads we get it's simply the lesser of two evils. --Sherool (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I understand the reason why, but there has to be a better solution. How about this: Whenever someone uploads under a free license, there's a second screen that opens after selecting the license and clicking "upload" but before the image is actually uploaded. (We used to have one, unless you clicked "ignore all warnings", and I don't know what happened to it). The page would say at the top in big bold letters, "Read the following and do not click Confirm Upload until you understand. If you fail to comply, you will be blocked." And then below that, an explanation of what may be placed under a free license, and a suggestion to use Wikimedia Commons, followed by buttons labeled "confirm upload" and "cancel." Is something like this workable? Andrew Levine 19:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Well that would require a software change for starters. Not saying it's a bad idea, but it's not something we can just set up ourselves with a few templates, but sure, doable if you can convince a few dev's it's woth making. Problem is that despite all the dire warnings on the upload page people still upload images with completely blank description pages, not sure an extra warning page would do much to discourage such people. People have been so numbed by long EULA's (that in fact rarely have any legal force anyway) and ludecris warnings and instructions plastered on everyting (like "caution the coffe is hot", "don't use microwave to dry pets", "side effects may include headaces, paralysis and death" (ever read the fine print on a medicine bottle? scarry stuff) and so on) that many would just instinctively reach for the "comfirm upload" button without the instructions/warnings even registering even if it's big bold red blinking text. That's my theory anyway, but I might simply have become a bit jaded after spending a lot of time doing image cleanup... --Sherool (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, so we can't delete the entry for "non-commercial use only" because people will use a "no copyright problems" tag instead. Nevertheless, I think the MediaWiki software should block all images when "non-commercial use" is selected, and issue a big warning saying "Don't upload unfree images, and don't mislable images or you'll be blocked." IMHO a big bold red blinking full-screen pop-up with sound will work wonders, but maybe a slightly less intimidating warning will work as well. --Kjoonlee 03:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tags

Today i uploaded an image to wikipedia,but i forgot to add an tag to determen fair use or public domain.Image:Df-website3d.jpg I am Amrykid ,Elite wikistudent and I approve this message. 21:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

{{Web-screenshot}} is what you're looking for here, but it needs to be included in an article, and can't be used in your user subpage. howcheng {chat} 21:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Unless you are the creator of that web site, or the author states somewhere that its contents are public domain, assume that the screenshot is copyrighted. If you were to integrate the image into an article (not merely into a screenshot gallery as you have done at User:Amrykid/OnlineGames/DragonFable), then it should be possible to use screenshot under fair use. In this case, the appropriate tag to add to the image description page is {{web-screenshot}}.
A second issue is that an image may only be used under fair use on a page in the main article space, though it is ok to prepare the article for a short time in your userspace, and then move it to the article space. Be aware, though, that "DragonFable" has been deleted several times before. In the last deletion discussion, the main issue was that the game was not yet complete, so perhaps an article may now be possible if that has changed. I suggest reading our notability guidelines for software before doing too much work developing the article. ×Meegs 21:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Tania lacy 01.jpg

I just uploaded an image ot Tania Lacy (tania_lacy01.jpg) but this item has been listed for speedy deletion despite the fact that Tania (my wife) has agreed to the upload of the image. How can I change this?

--Ulfstein 01:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Read the notice on the image description page: The image was listed for speedy deletion because you indicated that only Wikipedia can use it. If you or your wife is the copyright-holder of the image (i.e. you or she took the photo), you can re-upload the image under one of the license listed under "free licenses" in the dropdown menu on the upload page. If the copyright belongs to a separate agency, you will need their explicit permission to upload it under a free license. Andrew Levine 02:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
This is obviously a publicity photo. It's likely she owns the copyright whether she or Ulfstein took the picture or not. It's not practical for an actress to be restricted in the use of her own head shot. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of Image Oil Refinery

I would like details please regarding the use of your image of the oil refinery at the start of your page accessed through web search on 'Oil Refineries' We run a recruitment agency and are seeking a 'generic' image - among many others - illustrating our involvement with the oil sector. The title 'free encyclopedia' is not understood and preumably does not mean that we can reproduce 'freely' from your site. Thank you for your guidance on this. email to "mjstanley23 AT blueyonder DOT co DOT uk"

[edit] Jan Dzierzon

I introduced the picture Image:Jan Dzierzon.jpg - the colour one in article Jan Dzierzon. This is a scan from a book edited in 1987. Orginaly the picture had been painted in Poland in 1936. In the book which contains the picture is nothing mentioned about the copyright of any pictures except the book cover. Whome I should contact to get proper information regarding the copyright. Unfortunately I am in Canada and my oportunities are limited. Could you give me a piece of advice. Andrew —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Serafin (talk • contribs) 2006 September 27 09:54 UTC.

Are you sure that it was painted in 1936 and not during Dzierzon's lifetime (1811-1906)? Were it older, it would be far simpler to demonstrate that it is in the public domain. Painted in 1936, it is probably only PD in the U.S. (what we mostly care about, since that's where our servers are) if its Polish copyright expired before 1996 Jan 1. ×Meegs 10:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure this is from description put side of the picture in the mentioned book above. It was done on using Dzierzon's photo images after his death. I wonder if I should contact author of the book (most difficult), the publisher, which is a regional one (small thus not especially accessible and informative) or there exists a government office specialized in copyrights. Do I correctly understand that the copyrights in Poland would expire 40 years after creation, but in USA would be still in power? (In fact Poland is presently a part of United Europe thus the 70 years period can apply.) What if I would put this picture into "Commons"? Andrew

In Poland the copyright term ends 70 years after the death of the painter. But you are right, it is possible for an image to be public domain in Poland and still copyrighted in the U.S. Also, Commons won't allow the painting unless it is in the public domain in both the U.S. and the country of origin, so you can't upload it there. So unfortunately, it looks like the image will have to be deleted. Andrew Levine 21:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

What would be the best place to contact regarding the copy rights - author of the book, the publisher, a government office specialized in copyrights? The Image:Jan Dzierzon.jpg in Poland is public domain I found. Andrew

What makes you think the painting is public domain anywhere? (Note that the {{PD-Poland}} tag says that it only applies to photographs.) Andrew Levine 15:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can be wrong but I got the picture from book edited in 1987 thus it was photograf/image and there is not copyright mark around - "that are without a clear copyright notice". I beleave I used a photo not the paint itself on other hand. Beside, yesterday I put the picture on Polish Wikipedia - there is a choice: "at your own description". I wrote there:"Portrait of Jan Dzierzon painted by Stefan Dylewski in 1936 printed in book edited in Poland: "Tracing of Jan Dzierzon's Passion" in 1987." I will see what will happen. Andrew

[edit] Leontyne Price image

Image: Price_Aida_last2.jpg

This was removed because of a lack of copyright. I asked and received permission rom the Metropolitan Opera Archivist John Pennino, who provided the digital image. He had earlier approved and supplied two of the earlier images used in the article that are credited to the Met. He asked that this be credited similarly, to the Metropolitan Archives. I'm a bit clumsy, but I don't see what I should do differently, to see that the copyright is clear for this one, from the others, which apparently pass muster. Nor do I understand what category this comes under. I believe it comes under FAIR USE, and wrote that, then I found the image was gone. Help?!

Thank you,

David Perkins

Our policy require fair use images meet a number of spesific criterea, such as using the proper template, including a fair use rationale and some other things. Simply writing "FAIR USE" on the image page unfortunately fall a bit short, especialy when the image is also tagged with {{don't know}}. That said you where on the "right track", just didn't get all the technicalities right. I suggest uploading a somewhat downsized version (it was a bit on the big side IMHO (resolution is a factor)), tagg it as {{fairusein|whatever article you are using it in}} and add a fair use rationale that explains why we can not get a free licensed image to convey the same information, why it's not hurting the copyright holder's commercial interests, why the image is important to have in the article and so on (follow the link for more info on what you need to cover). --Sherool (talk) 07:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can i upload this?

I own a print produced by the Ministry of culture, Egypt featuring the most important Egyptian characters in the past 100 years. Can i upload an image of this print? If so, what tag should i use?--Wedian 21:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably not, since I don't think that works produced by the Egyptian Ministry of Culture are uncopyrighted. Depending on the specific circumstance, we might be able to use it as fair use. Are we talking about fictional characters which are under copyright, or real historical people? And which article do you think it should be used in? Andrew Levine 23:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
It is a cartoon of real people. I intended to use it in the culture section in Egypt article beside the names of famous Egyptians.Any suggestions? --Wedian 19:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Like Andrew, I suspect that they are protected by copyright. For them to qualify for fair use, they would probably need to be used as a part of commentary about the cartoons themselves, something that I don't think belongs in the main Egypt article. ×Meegs 07:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Desai.jpg

Is the image tag adequate? I'm new to this.

--Fconaway 03:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You needed a fair use template as part of the tag (see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. Otherwise, it was fine. I added the template. Andrew Levine 03:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pd-soviet -> fair use?

I'd like an opinion on this image Image:Laika.jpg. It is currently tagged with {{sovietpd}}, but since the validity of that is disputed, I was wondering if it could be retagged as fair use for use in the Laika article. I believe that, if it is copyrighted, it would mostly likely be copyrighted by the Soviet (now Russian) Space Program via TASS, but I've been unable to find a citation for its original source. It would be the only picture of Laika in the article; used to represent the subject; no free alternative could be found or created; and I would suggest it is promotional material, all of which seem to fit the fair use rationale. If that is acceptable could you also tell me which fair use tag should be applied. Thanks, Yomanganitalk 10:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Try {{fairusein}}, with the credit and rationale you have provided. Andrew Levine 15:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your help. Yomanganitalk 16:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] image removed

Image:Penczner 2.jpg I had inserted this in an article about a well known American artist. It was removed. I would like to know specifically how to label this under copyright rules of Wikipedia. I have permission from the artist to use it. I am an art historian. cgage

If you are not the painter, then you do not own the copyright to this image (even if you created the digitization), and the template {{GFDL-self}} is not appropriate. The first step is to add information about the painting, such as the name of the artist and the date of its creation to its description page.
Second, we do not accept images by permission: all images used on Wikipedia must either be free for all to use or fall under our fair use policy. The artist may not agree to the former option, but the latter may be a possibility. To use the image under fair use, it needs be used in an article as a part of critical commentary about the work, its genre, or techniques it displays. If this is how you intend to use the image, then you should add to template {{art}} to the image description page along with a short explanation of why the image is necessary in the article. ×Meegs 06:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
To clarify what Meegs said, if you can get permission from the artist to release it under the GFDL, you can use a GFDL tag. Andrew Levine 17:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] image from wikipedia russia

Thanks for uploading Image:200px-Dostoevsky_pamyatnik_Darovoe.jpg Why am I getting a message I did not provide a source when I did? LoveMonkey 05:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Every image needs to include information about its copyright status, as it is possible that some images from other projects may not meet the copyright requirements here on English Wikpedia. If you speak Russian, then perhaps you could translate the information provided at ru:Изображение:Dostoevsky_pamyatnik_Darovoe.jpg and add it to the local image description page. Failing that, if you know the date, creator, or location of the statue (or of the photograph), that would be helpful as well. ×Meegs 07:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strange image question

I really don't know what to do with this: a high school apprentice says he got the pictures from his boss [3] at the Westport Country Playhouse, and his friend listed them as promotional. I still haven't figured out how to negotiate image copyrights, and I'm not sure what questions I need to ask to see if he has the correct permission. Sandy 05:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Images of an active playhouse in Connecticut do not meet the first criterion of our fair use policy. Asking User:Rmrfstar to take more photos like Image:Playhouse Rehersalroom.jpg may be the simplest solution. To keep these particular images, though, someone will need to ask the copyright holder to release them under a free license. The important pitfall to avoid is the copyright holder merely giving permission for the images to be used on Wikipedia, rather than releasing them under a license for anyone to use. ×Meegs 06:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm a bit troubled that I'm finding copyvios in the text of the article as I'm peer reviewing it. What kind of tag do I add to those images ? What do I do next on those two images? Do I put a copyvio tag or a fairusedispute tag? Sandy 06:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Put {{imagevio}} on the images if you know the online source; otherwise tag them with {{PUI}} and list them there.--Peta 06:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Alternatively you could see if the owner was willing to licence the images under the GFDL, for instructions see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.--Peta 06:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Peta and Meegs. Sandy 06:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely not the case here, but in general, if you find a recent upload with an indisputably fraudulent tag (e.g. {{pd-self}} along with a Getty Images watermark), striking the old tag, adding {{no license}}, and notifying the uploader is a quicker option. You can also yank the image from the article immediately in such cases. ×Meegs 07:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Meegs. Because I found some copyright issues in the text while I was peer reviewing, I also went ahead and commented the images out of the article: is that wrong? I may learn this area someday <sigh> ... from the diff above, I doubt there is permission or will be. 07:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Nope, good job. ×Meegs 07:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/e/d/Wikipedia%7EMedia_copyright_questions_Archive_Archive_6_47d3.html"