Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/Archive 7

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] I need help on an image tag

I recently added an image,Image:Vin Diesel 3.jpg and i need help on a tag or copyright thing. I just need to know what tag or whatever fits my uploaded image. You can reply on my talk page if you like. Although, the image itself was a wallpaper type image, doesn't that mean it's of the "free-to-use" variety?

--Pece Kocovski 10:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Wallpapers are rarely suitable for use on Wikipedia (and this is probably no exception) unless the spesfic wallpaper is actualy beeing discussed in the article. Wallpapers are usualy provided for free personal use, wich does not mean it's free content. Like all other unfree images the only way to use it would be to make a suitable fair use claim, but this image wold probably fail several points of our fair use criterea (first of all it is possible for someone to take a photo of him during a public apperance, and secondly wallpapers like this are typicaly used as "bonus content" to drive trafic to official websites, so by hosting the full sized wallpaper here we would effectively be competing with the copyright holder). --Sherool (talk) 11:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

So, which tag to i use?

Pece Kocovski 00:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

none really since it isn't really sutible for use in wikipedia.Geni 01:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

So is it going to be deleted?

Pece Kocovski 09:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in about a week. Andrew Levine 15:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Derived image

If I derive an image from an existing Wikipedia image, for example by clipping and enhancing contrast or reducing noise, and the license for the original image is one under which anyone is free to make derivative works (for example Create Commons' Attribution 1.0), what license tag should I select from the drop-down menu? None seems to fit the situation. For clarity: I do not want to claim any rights for myself. There is a template {{Attribution}}, but I don't see it in the list.  --LambiamTalk 15:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Use the work's original license. For example, if the original work is Create Commons' Attribution 1.0, select "Attribution 2.5" in the dropdown box (the respective CC licenses are compatible with one another for our purposes). Andrew Levine 15:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GNU / CC image with a copyright on it (what is it)

Image:Papierosa_1_ubt_0069.jpeg This image says it's GNU, but it also says it is Creative Commons. It also, however, has a listing of "© 2005 by Tomasz Sienicki," who is the Wikipedia Commons user Tsca -- so can it have a copyright if it is under GNU? Basically I see two conflicting things with the image rights, but I also think it is a sweet image (so don't delete it because of this).

Is it free to use anywhere, like the GNU suggests, or is there a copyright? -- Guroadrunner 22:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

GFDL and CC licensed material is still copyrighted (only public domain materual is actualy copyright free), otherwise there would be no way to legaly enforce those licenses. So the owner does not sign away his rights to the original when he release it as free content, he merely says that others may legaly do all sorts of things to it asuming they follow the conditions of the license, so saying the image is copyrighted and available under the GFDL or whatever is not mutualy exclusive (though it is redundant). Giving people more than one license to choose from is ok too, so as long as they are all free content licenses we don't have a problem with it. --Sherool (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
For that matter, as long as at least one of the licenses is a free content license, we're fine. I've seen some stuff go by that's dual-licensed under the GFDL and CC-BY-ND. --Carnildo 08:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging others' images

Is it considered bad form to add appropriate tags to somebody else's images? Yesterday, a new user uploaded a few album covers, but didn't tag them with {{albumcover}}, and though I left a message on the user's talk page, I'm not sure if s/he'll take care of it. I'd really hate to see them get deleted, because they're nice additions to the articles where they belong. I refer to Image:Volume magazine 8.jpg, Image:Volume magazine 13.jpg, and Image:Volume magazine 17.jpg. — Wwagner 15:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not bad form at all. What you did was right. Andrew Levine 16:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion about two images I added

I added Image:RakshasaWarriorINK.jpg and Image:VetalaINK2.jpg as there were no appropriate images depicting demons from hindu mythology available for use. I obtained the permission both from the author and the copyright holder.

I recived an automated message asking me to "go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale." I'm kinda confused, what do I write ?? I have already stated appropriate facts in the summary. Any help on what is required to be done by me at this stage would be well appreciated.

Best regards.

Freedom skies 19:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How do I add a copyright tag to an image that is already uploaded?

Because I got the message telling me i need a tag, but dont know how —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zg11 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Go to the image page (follow the link in the message you got), click "edit this page", and put in the apropriate template code. See the list at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags, and remove the {{no license ... or whatever message that is already there once you are doine adding the required information. --Sherool (talk) 06:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
It's a picture of a school, there's no way it's under copyright...but I'm not sure which tag to use. School logo —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zg11 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
All photos are by default copyrighted, and there is no exception in the law for pictures of schools. The school photos are probably not acceptale for use here since it would be possible for someone in the area to take free licensed photos of those buildings rater than use these you got from theyr website. Have you tried asking them to relese the photos under a free license? If they agree we can use them (read that lined page first). The actual logos you can tag with {{logo}} though, they are pretty straight forward. --Sherool (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
So if i went and took the pictures myself, I could put them on...lame —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zg11 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
That's how it works I'm afraid, the person who takes the photo hold the copyright and we can not simply use stuff that is copyrighted by others unless they have given permission for it to be used as free content, you can naturaly ask them to do that, but it's often easier to take a replacement photo yourself and release that instead. For things we can not make free (as in speech) replacements for (like logos or photos of historic events etc) we can apply fair use, but for photos of current buildings and stuch the policy is to wait for someone to make a free (as in speech) replacement for us to use instead. --Sherool (talk) 05:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, it was on the school website. Is it still unable to be used? Or is there some tag I can give it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.162.129.175 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Unless the school have explicitly agreed to release the image as free content in some form, then no. They are not historicaly significant photos, just some shots of the buildings, so we can't justify a fair use claim on them per our policy since anyone in the area with a camera can take some pictures that convey the same information. If you are uneable to take some photos yourself try leaving a request for some at Wikipedia:Requested pictures. --Sherool (talk) 22:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photograph of Sir Michael Dummett

In September, I cropped a photograph in my possession (a photo a friend had taken of me in conversation with Sir Michael, in Schaffhausen, Switzerland, in 2004), because it was a good, current photograph of my friend.

Because this is simply a vacation snapshot that someone sent me, there isn't really a copyright issue, even less so because the person who took the photo happens to have passed away last year.

I don't quite understand why it was deleted by an administrator; I didn't know how to make it clear that it is my photograph and I was happy to contribute it, particularly as Sir Michael Dummett is quite a character, and looks it!

The article in question is called "Michael_Dummett" and I am Robert S. Kissel, of Hamden, Connecticut, U.S.A.

If you tell me what it is you require in such a situation, in order to satisfy your legal obligations, I'll try to provide it.

I suppose I can re-create the photograph for you, if you have lost it in the deletion process.

  • Please assist.
  • I am _totally unfamiliar with replacing an image "tag" for an image that already existed on Wikipedia._
  • I edited it for a better showing of that image. The image I replaced was overly (all) RED.
  • I edited it hoping for a better display of the professor Joseph Henry -but I do not know how to add a tag to an image that was already on Wikipedia. It stated it's own source and linked to the RED image elsewhere -- a ghastly "color" (all RED) Portrait of a famous man and scientist -- the first superintendent of the Smithsonian, Joseph Henry.
  • The tag information was with the original image. I know nothing about the process of, and a proper, replacement tag.

Kindest regards, Maury


--MAURY 06:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)



The following was placed on my area:--


License tagging for Image:Joseph Henry.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Joseph Henry.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Wikipedia:Image use policy Wikipedia:Image copyright tags This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original creation, or not?

Image:Triffid_3.png

I am uncertain about the status of this image and the correct tag to use. I created the image based on a pre-existing character from a BBC television drama. What is the correct copyright tag to use?

perfectblue 10:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

derivative work so a fair use claim would have to be made.Geni 10:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Right, now how do I go about changing the tag?
perfectblue 13:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting the removal of a picture of me

The picture is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:JohnYowan.jpg and I don't want it on Wikipedia. It was taken with my camera and was found on my old website but was uploaded by somene else. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jowan2005 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. --Sherool (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Heavenly_kid_dvd_cover_amazon.jpg

Requesting copyright info help with this one. It is the DVD cover for The Heavenly Kid I had thought I read it was ok to use images from Amazon.com for this purpose. I recieved a no copyright info notice on my talk page. I am not sure how to mark this so it doesn't get deleted.RedBirdI55 19:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Appears to have been a hangover from the way you uploaded I've removed the tag.Geni 19:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Hal Abelson.jpg Tag

Can someone choose Tag of the image for me. I cannot find suitable tag for it. However Professor has told me (by email that) that I could use it on wikipedia because the image is under "Creative Commons license". Any help in this regard will be great. ---- ابراهيم 20:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Acording to the webpage it's the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License, that would be {{cc-by-2.5}}, tagged. --Sherool (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Danke schoen! --- ابراهيم 23:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Elizataylorcotter01.jpg

Image:Elizataylorcotter01.jpg - my Spidey sense is telling me this is a blatant copyright vio. PMA 20:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

um yes I just killed another image uploaded by the same user.Geni 02:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm unsure what I've done wrong here/

I've added two pictures to Clifford (muppet) Image:Clifford.gif Image:Old_Clifford.jpg and tagged them with Tv-screenshot, and the bot is giving me a warning. Was that not the correct tag to use? At least one of them definately is a screenshot. HalfShadow 01:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The tag's right, the bot reacted to the complete absense of anyting else on the page though and flagged it as failing to identify it's source. Just write "screenshot from The Muppet Show copyright The Jim Henson Company" or something to that effect. --Sherool (talk) 14:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so nothing was wrong, I just wasn't thorough enough for the bot. I was pretty sure I hadn't done anything wrong. HalfShadow 15:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Opsie, one little thing though, aparently Henson company sold the rights to the muppets to Disney. I'll update that bit. --Sherool (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image used with permission?

(nevermind, took care of it, thanks anyway!)

--Nicholas Custer 13:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging known copyrighted images that have been uploaded as {{PD-self}}

I occasionally run into images like Image:Mclyte.jpg which, with some brief research, I find to be improperly tagged copyrighted images (in this case, see [1]). I'm not sure how to approach the removal/deletion of such images. Since there is no claim of fair use and a source and license have technically been "provided" (erroneously), I'm not sure if there is a template that specifically addresses this situation. Any thoughts? -Big Smooth 20:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well there is {{wrong-license}}. Though in clear cases I will personaly generaly just skip ahead and strike the fake tag like so: {{PD-self}} write a brief explanation why the tag is wrong and go straight to {{no license}} and drop a note on the uploaders talk page (unless they have a gazillion simmilar warnings or haven't been active for a while). If the uploader is actively fighting you it might be better to use {{imagevio}} and list it on Copyright problems (follow instructions on tag) on the off chance that he's right, or you can just plain list the image on Images and media for deletion. There is also the Possebly Unfree Images process, intended more for investegating images that might be free, but who's source or status is disputed. --Sherool (talk) 21:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. Sounds reasonable to me. -Big Smooth 21:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daredevil (Golden Age)

Hiya. I believe this image of the Golden Age DD is useable, since I was pretty sure I'd supplied the copyright info by checking the "comic book cover" box and supplying the details given below.(Also, the cateories on this page include "public domain character," though I'm not the one who added that and cannot verify.)

In any case, it's not even a full cover, but a cropped detail from a cover, to illustrate the character in closeup detail, which from my understanding falls under fair use.

Soooo ... here's the info I'd supplied. (Please note that "image reversed" is leftover text from my first attempt at uploading so that the character didn't look off the page; I belatedly realized that that reversed his symmetrical color scheme, and I reuploaded the correct image without removing the words "image reversed." Otherwise, all accurate.)

Cover detail, image reversed, Daredevil Comics #5 (Nov. 1941), art by Charles Biro. (Lev Gleason Pubs., defunct co.)
Source: http://www.comics.org/graphics/covers/235/400/235_4_005.jpg

Thanks! -- Tenebrae 14:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

See top of page. The info you supply during the upload is only actualy used the first time, for any subsequent versions of same image you upload you have to go to the image page and edit it like you would any oher page and update the info manualy. What seems to have happened here is that you didn't pick the right license the first time so the "no license" warning was "stuck" there though your subsequent uploads since you didn't actualy edit the page itself. It's a common "newbie" mistake. I've fixed the image for you by the way. --Sherool (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] baseball card question

how would i tag this.. the image of the cards are everywhere.. but what tag do i use. Image:Cv255.jpg‎ its a topps card,1952. thanks Webbelot 16:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

some form of fair use but it is best to avoid useing them if posible.Geni 16:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:ALoan#Unspecified source for Image:Seacole - Challen.jpg

(cut and pasted from Template talk:No source, as suggested)

First, O Oracles of Copyright Status, what is the "source" of a scan (by me) of a print (in a book) of a painting (hanging in a public gallery) painted by a painter who died in 1881? The image page already says:

Portrait of Mary Seacole (1805-1881), c.1869, by otherwise unknown London artist Albert Charles Challen (1847-1881). Original held by the National Portrait Gallery in London.

Is this not enough? Who cares which book it is published in? Pace debate over Bridgeman v Corel, the copyright status is obvious (clearly PD) and any other copy of the painting would be pretty much identical to this one.

Secondly, best beloved, why is it "questionable" whether it is public domain? Is this simply a Bridgeman v Corel quibble? If this image is not public domain, are any of our images of old artworks public domain? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Relax, your sourcing sounds good to me (IANAL and all that), the person who tagged it must be having a bad day or something. Oh and for future reference Wikipedia:Media copyright questions is just down the hall, and a more apropriate forum for this kind of things. --Sherool (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bob the builder.jpg

This image has been tagged for deletion due to not having a source. Its copyright status is known as the "Bob the Builder" character is © 2006 HIT Entertainment Limited and Keith Chapman. The source of this image seems to be a press kit that was released at some period in time. However, the current batch of press artwork does not include this image. It is noted that images will be removed after a certain period of time, so can it be safely assumed that this image is from either HIT Entertainment or provided through Wieck Media? Does it even matter as the image is fair use and its copyright easily verified? Should one of the newer press images be added in its stead? Can anyone find this image currently on the internet? Thanks in advance. --Keitei (talk) 10:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about usage of copyrighted work.

This [2] image I have uploaded from a BBC picture gallery has been tagged as not providing a fair use rational. The rational I gave was that of a lower resolution version of a copyrighted image for which there is no free use alternative. It seems fine to me as the image is relevant to subject of the article while adhering to all points of the fair use policy that I read prior to uploading the image. Please explain to me if/what I have done wrong. Thank you :) Jean-Philippe 15:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

A free version could be created.Geni 16:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
No, it was a temporary event, as explained in the article and current image caption. Jean-Philippe 16:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
So? BBC wont have the only photo.Geni 16:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
What's with the attitude? Then I must have failed to understand correctly what you meant when you argued that "A free version could be created" so please elaborate, thanks. I don't understand how "BBC wont have the only photo" is relevant at all to the issue. Jean-Philippe 17:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
A bit hard to make a fair use case where there is more than one image that could be used.Geni 17:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we're on the same wavelength. You're saying there is others, free use photos of the sign in that school window, is that so? I very seriously doubt that. I want to understand what prevent the image I uploaded (from the BBC webpage) to be fair use when it fits all points of the fair use policy and is appropriately used in the article I stated it should be. Unless of course I'm wrong and it doesn't work quite that way. Jean-Philippe 18:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Since you are not useing the image for critial comentrly an claim is going to be based on historical importance. The problem is that in that case that is almost certianly not the only image you can use which would weaken any fair use claim.Geni 19:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:TMIL.png

It's a promotional image, not fair-used. That was my mistake, If you could, can you not delete it. How is fair-use disrupted? -- Mr.Mushnik 21:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:TMIL.png

It's a promotional image, not fair-used. That was my mistake, If you could, can you not delete it. How is fair-use disrupted? -- Mr.Mushnik 21:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

there is no evidence that it is under a free lisence and a free version could be created.Geni 12:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I.L. Peretz

Orphan bot informs me that Image:I.L. Peretz postcard.jpg has a problem. I don't see what the problem is. It was published circa 1910. The tag I used says that "it may be under United States copyright if it was first published on or after January 1, 1923 and was still under copyright in a successor state to the Soviet Union on January 1, 1996." These conditions do not apply.

If this should be differently tagged, feel free. I don't understand why this template exists if it is not a useful tag to indicate acceptable copyright status for pre-1923 images. But clearly there is no copyright problem with the image, and clearly I haven't the foggiest notion what tag would be more appropriate. - Jmabel | Talk 07:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that it's tagged as {{PD-Soviet}}, a tag that it turns out is based on a misunderstanding of law. If the image really was published around 1910, then the {{PD-US}} tag is an appropriate replacement. --Carnildo 07:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:USSROfficerTT33.JPG

Like the above poster, I've got a message from Orhpanbot about how the image concerned may be under copyright. The photo was published as a propaganda piece in the USSR and elsewhere, by the Soviet Government, in 1943. Where's the problem? --Commander Zulu 10:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Further investigation of the issue of copyrights in the USSR has shown that the normal rules apply and that in this case the image is almost certianly covered by copyright.Geni 12:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow you- surely, as the work of a Government, the copyright lapses after 50 years under the "Normal Rules"? --Commander Zulu 13:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


You were originaly useing a tag that made a claim on a different basis.Geni 13:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rationale?

Okay, don't call me stupid, but what is "Fair Use Rationale"? --AAA! 11:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

A "Fair Use Rationale" is a description of why it is thought that the use of the image is covered by US fair use law.Geni 12:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Most specifically, it needs to explain why the image meets the rules at Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. --Carnildo 21:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Adventuresdentist.jpg

Why has Image:Adventuresdentist.jpg "been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image" by OrphanBot? I put a tag on it and everything, and there are tons of similar film screenshots on wikipedia which are used in film articles for identification and critical commentary (as allowed by "fair use"). Can anyone help? Esn 01:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:LeonardoCiampa.jpg

Hi. I may not have tagged this correctly. This is a publicity still of a living person. Thus, it is certainly not a copyright issue -- however, what, if any, tag do I need to add? And how do I do it? (Baby steps, please -- I'm a little thick when it comes to this sort of thing.) Best, LorenzoPerosi1898 09:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You preface the name of the image with a colon to turn it into a link instead of including the image.
This certainly is a copyright issue, since publicity photos are copyrighted just like every other creative work. Use of it is Fair Use, where the image is used to illustrate an article about the subject and where there is no free alternative. See Wikipedia:Publicity photos, an informative (but non-policy) essay on the subject. If the image is usable, tag it as {{Promophoto}} -- which you have done. You should identify the source in the image description, include any credits that might have been required as part of a license to use it, and include a fair use rationale. The promophoto template itself lists everything you need to do. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tag

I don't know what the proper copyright tag is for this image. it's my sorority's crest. I do know the person that designed it, it wasn't me. the image is Image:SigmaAEPiCrest.JPG. Please let me know what the proper tag is.

--MrsSarahW 21:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, i don't know the copyright status for the image Image:Lemesurier.jpg, it was found on a website.

How come there's loads of images like adidas, coke and nestle comtaining their logos? What is the justification for using these, when they are clearly copyrighted?

[edit] What's good for the goose?

I'm sorry, i don't know the copyright status for the image Image:Lemesurier.jpg, it was found on a website.

How come there's loads of images like adidas, coke and nestle comtaining their logos? What is the justification for using these, when they are clearly copyrighted?

See Wikipedia:Fair use. Your image would be a {{tv-screenshot}}, however I believe using it to ilustrate the article about the actor himself (rater than the fictional character he played) is somewhat problematic since fair use is only permited when used for commentary related to the copyrighted work itself (in this case the TV series), rater tha just showing how a person who happen to appear in it looks like. -Sherool (talk) 10:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images found in websites

I uploaded a picture of The Pretenders to their profile, but forgot to point out I found it on the Pretenders 977 Radio site. Which tag should I use? --Omdfg 17:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Rebbi_Levi_Yitzchak_Schneerson.jpg

I've gotten a warning from OrphonBot for my uplaoded image Image:Rebbi_Levi_Yitzchak_Schneerson.jpg. It states "The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image". Hoever there is already a tag in place which I believe is correct. Is something else wrong? Shlomke 17:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

There are some problems with the accuracy of the {{PD-Soviet}} tag, it contains some wrong info so images using it is listed on Category:Images with unknown copyright status, where OrphanBot found them and did it's thing. I see this image have already been migrated to the more acurate {{PD-Russia}} though so problem solved I guess. --Sherool (talk) 08:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My performances Photo

Hi I upload some photos like for example : image:W.f.G.jpg of my theatre perfomances that took place in Iran in my group and I have the right of publish them everywhere. but when I put the tag of Self made photos. some other users claimed that these photos are going to be deleted soon, becuase the copyright holder is not you. so, I don't know how to prove them but we have our own website www.naqshineh.net and all of our images are on the net already. Please help me what to do Thanks Vahid Rahbani user:vrahbani

The tag currently on that image is incorrect. It's for older images that once were copyrighted but have falled into the public domain because their copyrights have expired. This happens 30 years after an image is first published. The picture is obviously newer than that, since your theater group was only formed in 1997. Whether or not the images are on the web does not affect copyright.
The notice that was added doesn't say that you're not the owner, only that you haven't said who the owner is or where the image comes from. Wikipedia needs this information to ensure that a release to public domain is valid.
If you want to release the image to public domain, use {{PD-self}}. If you want to license it under a free license, use one of those listed at WP:ICT#Free licenses. In any case, you need to add text to the image description giving the source and ownership of the image, and if you do not own it how it is that you have the right to release the image under whatever conditions you'd like. Please note that Wikipedia cannot use images that are licensed for use on Wikipedia only; it must be a free license. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How do you tag a sports card image?

The Wikipedia tags are a nightmare...could somebody please just edit Image:Fischer1.jpg for me, so I can see for myself which tags are appropriate for a sports card image? Please don't ask me to look at such-and-such page, because I already have been reading the help pages for 2 hours, and I just can't figure out what any of that means--I'm not a lawyer, and I don't understand copyright law at all. So if someone could just edit it, I'll learn from example for future reference.

Thank you!! :)

Given how you're using the image, the only proper tag is {{delete because|Invalid fair use claim}}. The only way it would be acceptable to use that image on Wikipedia is if there was something encyclopedic about the sports card that was discussed in an article. This is probably why you can't figure out what the correct tag is: there is none. --Carnildo 08:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me get this straight...it's okay for other people to use sports cards as images, but not me? Here are some examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Baseball_cards.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Baseballcards.jpg

Topps is a currently-operating company that clearly owns the copyright to these images. One person claimed it was "fair use for now until I contact Topps" in July 2006--no update since, so apparently he/she didn't contact Topps. The person who put up the other image claimes he/she is the "creator" of the work and "grants permission" to modify the document. This is copyright infringement in both cases.

My card, on the other hand, was made in 1969 by a company whose name isn't even on the web; it's highly unlikely they're going to slap you with a lawsuit, especially when the card is just being used on a web site. So apparently the way to post sports card photos on Wikipedia is just to lie about them, if the above examples are any indication.

I removed the reference to the picture from my article, but I'm not going to delete the picture myself. I've wasted enough time on this ridiculous, convoluted site, and I'm not going to spend another two hours trying to hunt down the info on how to delete a photo. Do it yourself, and while you're at it, delete the pictures posted by those liars in the URL above.

I don't mind playing by the rules, but I don't appreciate having rules applied to me, while other people get away with clearly violating copyright laws by claiming someone else's work is theirs.

It's not what it's an image of, it's how the image is used that matters. Image:Baseballcards.jpg is a picture of baseball cards, used to illustrate the concept of "baseball card". This is acceptable. Image:Fischer1.jpg is a picture of a football card, used to illustrate the concept of "Pat Fischer". This is not acceptable. --Carnildo 19:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Which copyright tag should I use for this message?

The situation is described in the file summary of Image:Example.jpg. Please let me know on my talk page. Thanks,--TheKro 11:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Copyrighted Imgages

Image:Altaf Hussain 2003-apmso25-4.jpg and Image:Police-4.jpg copyrighted images uploaded and added to Muttahida Qaumi Movement. Siddiqui 14:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kashmir child.jpg

The copyright page for image:Kashmir child.jpg claims that the owner has given permission but this seems a dubious since it's obviously a scan from a magazine or newspaper (the moire pattern is clearly visible). Should it be deleted? How do I do that? --Lee Hunter 19:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ask the uploader to get the license release sent to permissions AT wikimedia.org so that we have a record of the release. Jkelly 20:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright on old images

I would like to upload this image from McGill University's website. The information page credits two people as the artists, both of whom died over 100 years ago. So it should be in the public domain, right? But when you click on the image to get the larger version, it has a "Copyright McGill University" tag stuck on the bottom. How can they claim a copyright on something that is clearly over 100 years old?

The uncopyrightability of straight copies of 2-dimensional public domain artwork is a matter of US caselaw. (Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., which seems to be relied on here even though it has not been specifically cited at the appellate level.) McGill University is a Canadian institution not bound by US law. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The copyright notice is most likely boilerplate text that appears on all of their image popups. Canada follows the 70 years pma rule, so those images are not copyrighted, regardless of any text on the web page. howcheng {chat} 18:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding Image

http://wwwimage.cbs.com/primetime/survivor13/images/survivors/299x623_becky.jpg

I would like to add this image to the Becky Lee article because I downloaded it to wikipedia and it said it was an okay image but I am having trouble getting it into the article, can an administrator post it for me or give me directions on how to put this picture into the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BlackFrostFan (talk • contribs).

Image:299x623 becky.jpg is the uploaded copy. Where did you get the idea this was okay to use on Wikipedia? Did you in fact get permission from CBS to use it on Wikipedia only? If so then we cannot use it. See the current image tag for details.
It might conceivably be some form of fair use, depending on how it will be used. See WP:FU, especially WP:FU#Images, to see if it meets the criteria listed there. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Copyright Tag seems to remain

Image:Relativistic_Dynamics.png

I have drawn this image and have said as much, adding the tag. But the "no copyright tag" remains under the image in the textbox! Can anyone help please?

See the #How to add a copyright tag to an existing image at the top of this page. --Sherool (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tram network maps

Hello, I´d like to know how to classify this image:

Image:Tramlinestf.gif It is indeed a map of the tram network in the city of Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain. The image itself is to be found in the official site of the public company running it(www.metrotenerife.com) and has been freely distributed all over the city in all sorts of advertisment. As it is much of public domain i dont think it´s breaking any rules, but you must know better.

Thank you very much for your time

Foxbasealpha 19:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it is in the public domain. Probably copyright the tram company and thus can't be used.Geni 20:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prevention of non-free image tags

Hi, if a user chooses a non-free image tag (such as "non-commercial use only" or "for Wikipedia only") from the drop-down list of image tags, could a warning be displayed saying that such images are not allowed? I mean, why let someone upload an image if it's to be speedily deleted?

IMHO some measures should be taken to prevent non-free images from being uploaded. If this isn't the right place for these suggestions, where should I make my proposal? Thank you. --Kjoonlee 01:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

See the thread #Why the boobytraps? above. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. :) --Kjoonlee 03:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What tag would i use

I uploaded Image:Francis Joseph Cole.jpg the other day but forgot to put a licence on it. But i am not sure which licence would be right to use. The image is a photograph which must have been taken about 50-60 years ago, so i don't know what licence that would be. chris_huh 11:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The author died in 1959 so that is a copyvio and will continue to be so untill 2029.Geni 11:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WRONG COPYRIGHT SELECTED

Hi, I added an image just now - Image:MARION MONTGOMERY 1987.jpg and selected the wrong copyright alternative and got the huge "Speedy deletion" box.

I'm sorry, I cannot understand how to change that to GNFU self. Could someone take care of that for me, or tell me how to do it? With thanks, Musicmaker 11:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Problem is that you only appear to have permission for the image to be used on wikipedia.Geni 11:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No rights reserved template

Hi, could someone explain about this template: Template:No rights reserved? It seems to me that the template is contradictionary and prone for abuse, as it says any exploitation is allowed. I don't think there is any copyright holder who wants to release with this kind of license. Is the template officially recognized? — Indon (reply) — 02:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

There are actually a good number of people who release their photographs under this license. It's essentially the same as {{PD-author}}, but there were some concerns that people may not truly be able to release something to the public domain, so this is just a rewording of the same concept. howcheng {chat} 03:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, all right, but the wording is too aggressive, IMO. Why can't it just says: "This file is copyrighted, but the copyright holder has released all rights; thus no rights are reserved, and attribution is not required."? — Indon (reply) — 07:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The more explicit it is, the better, so it's clear to anyone looking at the image what's allowed by the license. howcheng {chat} 16:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
But, it seems that Wikipedia is advocating anyone to do whatever it takes to gain profits from the image. — Indon (reply) — 08:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I think this discussion needs to move to Template talk:No rights reserved so you can involve the template's creators. howcheng {chat} 18:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Debian Logos

Image:Openlogo-nd-100.png and Image:Debian_Open_Logo.png are currently tagged with "any purpose", but then have a restriction on the purpose for which they can be used, which seems a bit broken. Whilst I don't doubt that Wikipedia's use is okay per the Debian Open Use Logo License, the {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} template seems to contradict itself in this case. What's the right tag to use for Debian logos? - rdmsoft 14:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The restrictions look more like trademark stuff than copyright stuff.Geni 13:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] What tag

sorry way to new I think I posted my question wrong. The picture I used I got at the history libary and they told me that I could use it on my web sites that is was not copyrighted but I am not sure which tag to use?? I have afew more to down load once I go back and get the ones I need for this site but I want to do it right.--Happypixie 17:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The tag will depend on the circumstances of the image itself. For example, if the image creator has been dead for more than 100 years, then use {{PD-old}}. If s/he has been dead for more than 70 years, use {{PD-old-70}}. If it was published (not created -- there's a difference) in the United States before 1923, but the person died after 1936 (i.e., less than 70 years ago), use {{PD-US}}. Could you give us some more details -- who created it, when they died (if known), when and where was it published, etc? That will help us in determining how to tag your images. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 18:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The picture at question and most that I will be posting are going to be old photos or postcards donated to the history Libary in my area they will be older than 70 years and I was told by the libary lady that I am able to use them on web sites that are not for profit but for infomation. I may post a map or 2 that are over 100 years old from the same source.

the problem is that not for profit line. Since while wikipedia is not for profit our resuers are. What country are you in?Geni 20:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] question about tagging

I have retrived a picture from a website of a non-governmental organization. Image:Ob pro dev.jpg

HOw do I tag this image? which copyright tag do i have to use? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.63.145.109 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC).

First, the source URL you gave doesn't have this image on it. Second, this copyrighted image has no real encyclopedic value and may not be used on Wikipedia because (a) it's not free and (b) it cannot be included under our fair use policy. Sorry. howcheng {chat} 18:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Public domain and University Special Collections Material

The image on the right is a letter written in 1769, digitized and published on the Internet in 2003 by Brown University and taken from website. This image is in the public domain because its copyright has expired in the United States and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years or less. However, Brown University indicates in order to receive permission to publish this image on Wikipedia, I will need to fill out an Application to Publish Special Collections Material. The form does not allow free, downstream reuse of the image. What is Wikipedia's policy under such circumstances? Does Wikipedia require that I complete Brown University's form and will that be sufficient for Wikipedia's copyright policy purpose or is the public domain position sufficient without a need to complete Brown's application? Please answer on my talk page. -- Jreferee 18:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. "Wikipedia" (and other WF projects) expects that you follow all appropriate laws when publishing content through the project. It may be in your best interest to look into why Brown University thinks that they can impose restrictions on the use of that image, and come to your own conclusion about whether you're comfortable taking responsibility for the claim that it can be republished here. I'll note that if you decide that you aren't comfortable with it, there are probably a lot of users around who would be. Jkelly 18:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I would like to delete an image I uploaded

Just go to the overlarge image and edit it, placing {{db-author}} on that page and an administrator will delete it presently. -- nae'blis 21:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect copyright tags, how to warn user?

I noticed that User:Jadisofslytherin recently uploaded Image:Parkinson.JPEG, Image:Goyle.JPEG, and Image:Malfoy.JPEG, licensing all three with the tag {{PD-self}}. This user doesn't have a history of responding to talk page messages (I've left a few myself), but (s)he should be warned anyhow, just don't know how to do it… Of course, the tags should be changed to as it is quite clear they are not public domain… --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the licensing can probably be defaulted to {{film-screenshot}}, but they also need to be tagged {{nsd}}. If she/someone doesn't provide the source, they'll be deleted in shrot order anyway, but at least you made the effort to help. -- nae'blis 15:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Todd Stroger

Regarding: Image:Toddstroger.jpg

Can somebody help me out here? It seems to me that using a public picture of a candidate in a political election should have some valid fair use when used to illustrate an article about said candidate. --gavindow 00:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User keeps uploading images with wrong tags

User:Klaus314 keeps uploading images with wrong tags. He doesn't respond to any of the numerous warnings on his User talk:Klaus314 page, and has even deleted the {{nsd}} template from his problematic images. What should I do? --Kjoonlee 08:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Make sure he has been warned that uploading unsourced images repeatedly is considered vandalism (per Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism subsections Image vandalism and Copyrighted material vandalism). Then if he keeps doing it report him on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. --Sherool (talk) 08:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. :) --Kjoonlee 10:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] unsure if copyrighted or not

image:kenney.jpg

I don't think it is copyrighted or not but I am not sure. JenniferL 17 14:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Always assume an image is copyrighted unless there is a clear reason to believe otherwise. Just because UWash didn't put a © tag on that page, doesn't mean someone doesn't own that picture. Are you able to speak directly with the school/department/professor? They may be willing to release that picture under GFDL (you'll need proof of this somehow), but perhaps not. If you're local to him, it may be easier to get a new picture yourself that can then be released by you and have no copyright questions. -- nae'blis 15:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-1978 American television commercials

According to this chart, any works published before 1978 in the U.S. without a copyright are public domain in the U.S. This apparently extends to movie trailers (screenshots from many trailers of the era during which no copyright notice ever appears onscreen have made their way onto Wikimedia Commons). So what I want to know is, does this also apply to American television commercials prior to 1978 which do not include a copyright notice? Andrew Levine 16:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsure about copyright

I have received consent (by email) from the webmaster to use the following Image:Seymour Knox III, II, and IV.jpg image. I am not sure about copyright details but feel I have sufficient consent. Is this the case. Please send message to my talk page. TonyTheTiger 20:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright Tag

I uploaded a picture onto Wikipedia (secondman.jpg), and you are asking for a copyright. I made the image on Photoshop and there is no copyright, how do I change that?

Thanks, Dan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Ragamuffingunner (talk • contribs) .

Link: Image:Secondman.jpg

  • You need to provide copyright and source info, if you want to keep the image from being deleted.
  • Copyright is automatic, so if you created it from scratch it's already copyrighted by you, Dan.
  • If you didn't create it from scratch, or if it's been made to resemble some other person's work, then there are some problems.
  • If you want to release all copyrights on your own creations, you can tag files with {{PD-self}} and mention that User:Ragamuffingunner made it. --Kjoonlee 04:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] I search

I search Jan a co-pilot in the army ... he live at Danmark and I can juste say that if you can me expide a pist for found him I will be really happy!! mireillelavoie284@msn.com

[edit] missing tag for Parham_Nassehpoor_Persian_Tar_01.jpg

Hi, yesterday the owner of the foto sent his permission for a cc-by licence to the German Wikipedia as you can check at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Parham_Nassehpoor_Persian_Tar_01.jpg. Can you transfer it to the English version? Regards, --VulpesE 19:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taking a screen cap from a website

In cases where we have a Fair Use claim to use a screencap from a TV show, is it a problem to take that screencap from a third-party website?

The work in question is a piece of "satellite art" broadcast only once, in 1984, that to my knowledge has never been published on tape or DVD, so it's not just a question of being too lazy to make a new screencap. —Celithemis 23:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

If the fair use claim is valid and the original copyright owner is made clear, it doesn't matter if you made the cap yourself or if someone else made it. Andrew Levine 17:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what to do with a google map?

Image:Google map hkja.JPG

I don't know how to add the tag!! And any other things that I should add for legal use of this photo.... please kindly help me.....

I usually delete Google Maps screenshots on sight. They aren't under a free license, and they don't qualify for fair use. --Carnildo 08:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can I use a DVD cover image to show a picture of a celebrity on their main page, or just on the page of the actual movie?

Bansal 20:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Just on the actual movie. --Sherool (talk) 21:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this image a violation?

Is the image used in this article a violation of fair use? Goldie Hawn --Bansal 22:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it violates the first point of WP:FUC. --Yamla 00:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use images

I have uploaded several images of Indian politicians under the fair use. I do not think they are replacable by Free-content yet. I want to ask that are they being deleted? There are hundreds of thousands of images are in fair use, will they also be replaced or deleted? Regards, Shyam (T/C) 08:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright

Hi

I uploaded an image (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TatTuamAssi.jpg) for which I hold full copyright, which I also stipulated in the entry and it has been removed from the following entry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davoud_zahed

I´ve kept the article as simple as possible in line with the late artist´s wishes.

Marjan Zahed

If you are the copyright holder, please use the following tag on the image page {{GFDL}}. This will declare that you are releasing the image under GFDL. Without appropriate tags, images are liable to be deleted -- Lost(talk) 11:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] deleting

i uploaded a few pictures, but now i want to delete them. what should i do? thanks in advance!

Tag them all with {{db-author}}. howcheng {chat} 01:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

thanks! oh, wait.. where can i go to find the pictures i uploaded? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 0101ss06 (talk • contribs) .

Your image uploads can be found here. - cohesion 19:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright

I do not understand how this image has been flagged to me as having no copyright tag.

Church_Nagykovacsi.JPG‎

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Church_Nagykovacsi.JPG

shows the licence clearly.

Filenames on Wikipedia are case sensitive Image:Church Nagykovacsi.JPG does have the info Image:Church Nagykovacsi.jpg did not (however since they where identical I just deleted the untagged duplicate). --Sherool (talk) 07:09, 31 October 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_7_5b9f.html"