Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
Skip to the bottom

Welcome · Tutorial · Cheatsheet · FAQ · Glossary · Help · Help desk · Media copyright questions · Reference desk

Welcome to the
Media Copyright Questions page

A place for help with image copyrights, tagging, STBotI, non-free content, and related questions.

For all other questions please ask them at Wikipedia:Reference desk.
Caution

If you have a question about a specific image, please be sure to link to it like this: [[:Image:Example.jpg]]. Thanks!
Frequently Asked Questions for BetaCommandBot and its warning messages
Shortcuts:
WP:MCQ
WP:IMAGEHELP
WP:ICHD
How to add a copyright tag to an existing image
  1. On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts Image:), click Edit this page.
  2. From the page Wikipedia:Image copyright tags, choose the appropriate tag. For work you created yourself, use one of the ones listed under the heading "For image creators".
  3. Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{GFDL-self}}), not forgetting {{ before and }} after, in the edit box on the image's description page.
  4. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}})
  5. Hit Save page.
  6. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below.
How to ask a question
  1. To ask a new question hit the "Click here to ask your question" link below.
  2. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end.
  3. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page.
  4. Don't include your email address, for your own privacy. We will respond here and cannot respond by email.


Click here to ask your question

Contents



Caution This talk page is automatically archived. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive. Sections without timestamps are not archived.


[edit] Link to videos on YouTube

I have a question regarding linking to videos on YouTube from an the Demos from the Basement article. The videos are unnofficial, and consist of a music track over a still image [1]. I understand that linking to an unnofficial video is not allowed due to copyright, however the question here is whether these songs are indeed copyrighted. They are from a demo album of which only a limited number (200 I think) were made and distributed for free, which has led some to believe that they are not copyrighted. Personally, I still believe that there would be a copyright associated with these songs even though they were given away. Thus, my query is basically are these songs copyrighted and can we link to these videos or not? Cheers Nouse4aname (talk) 09:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you on this one. The fact they were given away for free doesn't mean anything. My guess is they are still copyrighted. Just my opinion though. Landon1980 (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's just let the admins answer this. --Pwnage8 (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone point to where it's documented that they gave the songs away? I can't seem to verify the protection one way or the other, so the automatic assumption is that it is protected and those videos would be copyvio's and unlinkable. "Giving the CD's away for free" is not the same thing as releasing the songs with a free license (public domain, GFDL, etc). Generally speaking, it's not likely they were placed in the public domain, it's more likely they were released for promotional purposes (which usually still has a copyright). Remember, copyright protection is automatic, a free license releasing it must be explicit. – Zedla (talk) 00:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
If I'm reading Image:Used_demo.jpg correctly, I see a "(C) Copyright 2001" notice there, case closed... – Zedla (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Then how come I keep seeing videos linked in album articles? --Pwnage8 (talk) 00:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Example? Problems in other articles don't mean they can be repeated here. In this case it's clearly a copyright violation on youtube. – Zedla (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
They are music videos though. Maybe that's different. I'm not sure --Pwnage8 (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On Copyright

[edit] Works by the government of Afghanistan

Hi, I just came across a newly-created article at Amirzai Sangin, which is a direct copy'n'paste of http://www.president.gov.af/english/cabinet/bios/amirzai_sangin.mspx. Most pages on that site (e.g. http://www.president.gov.af/english/cabinet.mspx) assert "© 2006 Office of the President", however list of countries' copyright length suggests that Afghanistan has no copyright law (it's probably not at the top of the Afghan government's list of priorities) which would imply that the text is in the public domain. What's the best approach in this situation - delete as a copyvio on the basis of the asserted copyright, or treat it a PD source based on the apparent lack of any copyright law? -- AJR | Talk 23:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it appears there are no copyright relations with Afghanistan. Opinion follows: Since it is probable that eventually there will be copyright relations with Afghanistan, it is better to get permission or delete it as a copyvio. Since writing a new article in Wikipedia's own license is straightforward and avoids possible future problems, the choice seems clear. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The US and Afghanistan are definitely in the process of establishing intellectual property relations (see [2] from 10-2007), its only a matter of time before copyright is restored. – Zedla (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image from a PD TV Broadcast

I have an image I'd like to use on the article for Let's Join Joanie. I've checked various websites and I've confirmed the broadcast is PD. I'd like to upload the image, But I don't know what license to use. Retro Agnostic (talk) 05:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It depends why it's public domain. Is it because the copyright wasn't renewed? Then use {{PD-Pre1964}} --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!! Yes, It's because it's copyrights were not renewed. Retro Agnostic (talk) 09:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright status for flags

How are we able to use relatively new flags without any fair-use rationale? For example, Image:Flag of Kosovo.svg, Image:Flag of Iraq.svg, and Image:Flag of Lesotho.svg are all less than 2 years old, but I can't imagine that they are in the public domain, yet we use them widely, without fair-use rationales. Each of those three is on Commons with licenses such as {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} from the editor who created the SVG files and uploaded the images. Is that correct? Can I just look at a photo or web image of a flag and redraw it myself and then release it as a free image? I certainly wouldn't think that I am the copyright holder under those circumstances. We recently had an image deleted from Commons and put back up on en.wiki for fair-use only (3 articles), namely Image:Flag of NATO.svg. That SVG file was created by the same process as those flags, but something is different between the two licenses. What's the difference? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the copyright of the original creator of the flag does have to be taken into account unless there is a specific reason otherwise. Image:Flag of Iraq.svg may be an exception, because it consists only of simple typography and basic geometric shapes and thus ineligible for copyright. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Your last comment is interesting. I didn't see anything in Wikipedia:Public domain#Works ineligible for copyright protection that would seem to apply to flags, but perhaps that is still the case...? What is the boundary for a "basic geometic shape" vs. a complex one? (For example, the Kosovo flag consists only of stars (basic) and a map outline, which might be considered "common property".) Would {{PD-ineligible}} be the right image tag for flag images like this? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
My comment about it being ineligible is more about what's on the flag than it being a flag. From WP:PD#Fonts, basic typography is ineligible. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

←Ok, here's a semi-hypothetical but specific question to help me understand the legal status of flags. Suppose I see a photo or graphic image of a real flag that represents a particular geopolitical entity (i.e. not a commercial organization), and then make an SVG file by myself that best represents that photo. What license tag can I attach to that file? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I know that some flags are too simple to be copyrighted, some countries specifically exclude official flags from copyright, and some flags are old enough that any copyright would have expired. The remaining ones I assume are still eligible for copyright (although I'm open to any new information people can bring up). An accurate reproduction of a two-dimensional work does not create a new copyright; it just inherits the copyright of the original. See Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp., which considered a more difficult decision(photographs of paintings, which can be difficult to do), and still came to the conclusion that accurate reproductions were not eligible for copyright. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 08:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:NHM

Would one of you kind folks enlighten me as to what {{NHM}} actually means. Only a few images are tagged with it, all with free (PD, GFDL) license tags as well as this tag (which says it forbids commercial use). I am having a hard time reconciling this tag and the license tag (they seem quite contradictory to me). Thanks. - AWeenieMan (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be functioning as a warning tag, i.e. the image starts out with a PD or GDFL tag then an editor notices that it's a photo of the interior of the British Museum and puts this tag on it, presumably as an indicator that an admin should delete it since images licensed for non-commercial use only can't be placed on Wikipedia as PD/GFDL images (or on the Commons at all). If I'm right then it's not very productive for people to do that. They should just nominate the image for deletion instead. -- Hux (talk) 04:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
What is odd is that commons has their own version of this template (commons:Template:NHM). Based on its wording, it seems they don't know what to do with the images. I left a note for the creator of the en.wiki version, we'll see what he says. - AWeenieMan (talk) 04:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
What's really odd is that the NHM claims to put a burden on what people can do with photographs that they take there. Stifle (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No permission template

I would like to move Image:Garrybarry6.jpg to the Wikimedia Commons so that I can use it at the Norwegian Wikipedia. However, the permission for free use is missing, and the Flickr version says © all rights reserved. At Commons, I would have tagged such an image with Template:No permission since, but I can't find such a template here. What is the correct procedure at the English Wikipedia for requesting documentation of its licensing status? --Kjetil r (talk) 09:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is an equivalent for the npd template on Commons. This image can probably be nominated for deletion with {{subst:rfu}} though, as I imagine it could be replaced by a free image (and it isn't free itself). giggy (:O) 09:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
But the uploader does not claim fair use, why should I tag it as replaceable fair use? I guess I have to take it to Ifd instead.--Kjetil r (talk) 12:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] copyright and image deletion

hello. I received an instruction message for my newly uploaded image. I'm not really sure how I can handle this situation because I'm not well aware of copyright rules and laws. I found the from a website and it doesn't seem to provide source information on the image. If it is insufficient to just reference the webpage address where the image was found, then please let me know how to delete the image.

It seems I dont have file deletion right. How can i delete it?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Als0605 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You not only have to provide source information, you need to make sure that anyone can use the image for any purpose. Since it is a graph, it means any Wikipedian could redraw it and release it freely. It will get deleted through regular process if you do nothing, or if you ask, I'm sure some admin will delete it ahead of time. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
You can probably put Speedy Deletion template {{db-g7}} on the image's description page. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contributions from User:Jm0371

User:Jm0371 has uploaded quite a few images, among them some aerial imagery. All of the user's contributions, including the aerials, are tagged with {{PD-self}}. However, it seems likely that the images came from an imagery provider, and could be a copyright violation. The user has not responded to at least two requests for more information about the source of the images, and has done things like tagging an FAA airport diagram as his/her own work, making the other contributions suspect. Suggestions for next steps? - Eureka Lott 23:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Bring them up at WP:PUI --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images at Detachment 88...

There are some rather high quality photos at this Indonesia related page. Copyright is often a big problem with this part of wikipedia, and I'm suspiciuos about the origins of the photos.

  • [3]. One of two images by this apparently retired editor. This image says it was taken during counter terrorism raids(!?!). It means the editor was right in the middle. Another in the article uploaded by the same editor was apparently taken during Indonesian independence day parade which sounds (and looks) a bit more feasible.
  • [4]. This is by another editor and I am waiting a reply from them. It is claimed as public domain.

many thanks --Merbabu (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like they are both copyvios, shows up as a set here [5] credited to AP Photo/Bayu Pamungkas. You'd need to be able to search the apimages.com site to definitively confirm it. – Zedla (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image sourced to web pages that go away or change

I have several pictures I uploaded as non-free fair use from the www.transformers.com web site. Here is one example - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cannonball-cybertron.jpg - Now since then www.transformers.com has become a redirect to www.hasbro.com/transformers, and then they changed the site a lot, removed things, updating pictures, etc. I had sited a pictures source as www.transformers.com, which is now is obviously incorrect. I had a complaint that I was giving the wrong source, so I looked, and the picture is gone from the site now. I then removed the mention of www.transformers.com, and now people are posting that the pictures have no proper source and should be deleted. As of right now the only source for this image on the internet is Wikipedia's copy, I can't point to the original source. How do I handle a source for an image to a web site that has changed since I got the picture? Mathewignash (talk) 01:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You can see if has been archived at http://www.archive.org/. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 02:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Nope, not there. Mathewignash (talk) 02:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I looked around, too, and couldn't find the Cannonball pictures (although I'm not too familiar with the Transformers so I might not have looked in the right places). Too bad you didn't point to the URL the picture came from, then it would be easier to look up.
I looked at http://www.flickr.com and there are some photos there. Unfortunately, the ones I saw were all copyright. It might be possible to talk to the uploader and have it re-licensed under the Creative Commons ShareAlike license. In flickr terms, that's the "Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons" option. ("For an image to be considered 'free' under Wikipedia's Image use policy, the license must permit both commercial reuse and derivative works." -- WP:ICT) If you can do that, the picture would still have copyrighted material in it (the Cannonball character design) so you'd still need the fair use rational. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 16:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The source is still the source even if they took the image down. You should list where you found it, roughly when, and make a note that the image was taken down by the owner. With an image like this, I don't see any reason to seriously doubt you if you say it came from the manufacturers' website. That ought to be fine. Sourcing is mostly about identifying who owns the image, and I think that is clear here. Dragons flight (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me. I do have the date on the original files I copied onto my hard drive, and the home page it was taken from. I hope that is enough then. Mathewignash (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Keeping control of posted pictures

I have not uploaded any pictures to Wikipedia for some time because every time that I look at the licensing conditions I can never make any sense out of them without reading lots of documentation which probably means that anyone lifting an image from a page will also not understand the licensing conditions. I basically want to retain copyright of any picture, I do not want it used elsewhere without my permission and I want "copyright" "my name" displayed on the image. As far as I can see this is not possible which is a pity as it means that I will not upload any more images - I have a number of photographs that would be useful additions to articles. --jmb (talk) 12:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, what you want to do is not allowed on Wikipedia. All images uploaded must be able to be used elsewhere, even for commercial use. Whan you say it should not be used anywhere else, that goes against Wikipedia policy. Soxred 93 16:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
That is what I thought, pity as it just means that I will not post any more on Wikipedia. Is it possible to remove pictures already posted on Wikipedia? --jmb (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
You could remove all article links, blank the image description page, and request a speedy deletion (only if you are the original uploader/author) under the G7 criteria by adding {{Db-g7|rationale=}} to the blanked page.– Zedla (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Though the free licenses that Wikipedia uses are not retractable. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Ummm, heck no, you can't delete them. It appears about two dozen pics were uploaded, from July to February, all declared your own work, all under a free license, and most used in an article. G7 was intended for cases where somebody makes something that nobody else improved or used (so it's loss would go unnoticed). You can't go back in time and take away things that articles have been partly built on. --Rob (talk) 03:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
You may request that your name be listed next to a picture, however, once you click Upload with a tag declaring its yours and you release it under a free license, it is free forever. MBisanz talk 04:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
It just seems a poor policy, I took some pictures last week that I had intended to upload. These were of some very rare old objects that I found in a cupboard and would have been a very useful addition to the relevant article but I will not now be uploading. There are many other contributions that I could make but will not now being doing. Wikipedia's loss not mine. --jmb (talk) 07:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
A creator can clearly retain copyright and re-release elsewhere under a different, possibly restrictive, license (see WP:COPYRIGHT#Contributors' rights and obligations) but can never retract the license for copies uploaded here under the GFDL. All copies derived from wikipedia retain the GFDL/CCA. The basic consideration of G7 deletion for an image should be no different than its application to an article/text (which is also under GFDL). A G7 could still apply if the image went sufficiently unused in article space but 'sufficiently unused' is a separate issue. – Zedla (talk) 07:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New York & Ottawa Railway map

My image was tagged. I own the Time Table from which this map was scanned from. I plan to use it in a future publication on the history of the subject railway. It was given to me by a man named Gary Villeneuve, whom passed away a year ago. The Time Table is from 1930 and is older than 75 years old (the age used at the Canadian National Archive for material allowable to be viewed by the public). I also will be uploading this map to my New York Central - Ottawa Division web site, which I own all the material for as well. My question.....is this enough to clear the image for the NY&O entry? I described where it came from in the description when i originally uploaded it, but your bot does not think it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonfire34 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I assume the company that created and published it was a US company, correct? If it was published without a copyright notice, then it is public domain and should be tagged {{PD-Pre1978}}; if copyright was not renewed {{PD-Pre1964}}. If both formalities were complied with, the copyright expires 95 years after publication. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lou Gramm picture

I recently uploaded a picture of Lou Gramm, but I do not know what tag it should be. What would be the appropriate tag for a picture of a rock musician? --IceSickleSHAKE (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The notice at the site says the whole site is copyrighted so the image can't be used at Wikipedia. If you want to try to get permission, see WP:COPYREQ --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] photo from 70s?

I uploaded a photo of Image:Sarolta Monspart.jpg. Author is unknown. (it was made in about 1972). What licence I should use?

Dnikitin (talk) 02:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there any proof that the image is licensed under a free license? If not, it may be deleted as copyright violation. giggy (:O) 02:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
If you know it was first published without a copyright notice, you can tag it {{PD-Pre1978}} --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 04:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, I thought it was a photo created in the US, but after looking more closely, it's unlikely. Do you know where the photo was taken? --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
from this site http://www.szszbtfsz.hu/images/monspart_sarolta_fut.jpg Dnikitin (talk) 07:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
You may be in luck; see {{PD-Hungary}}. You'll need to make sure it was really created in Hungary though. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 07:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adding pictures from other language Wikipedias

If an image is being used on a different language version of Wikipedia, can I add it to the English one? Would the copyright rules be the same for all language versions? --Cexycy (talk) 11:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the best practice here would be to copy the image from the other-language 'pedia to the Commons (CommonsHelper can do this for you), then the same image can be used in multiple places. But yes, you can copy the image here under the same license if you like. Kelly hi! 12:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Let me just add that before you upload anything either here on on commons, make sure the copyright status declared on the source wiki is actually plausible. I see that in your case you were transferring something from the Macedonian Wikipedia. I'd strongly recommend against doing that – mk-wiki is full of copyright violations, nobody on that wiki gives a damn about copyright, even the admins are blatant serial copyright offenders. My estimate is 90% of all images over there are falsely tagged. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Ugh, you're right. That's a messy wiki. Kelly hi! 14:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi.

How do you know all this about the Macedonian group? Anyway I think we need a good Tose picture for the article, I think he deserves that. What's the best way we can go about it? --Cexycy (talk) 23:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

About mk-wiki: I sent them a complaint a couple of months ago [6], pointing to cases where even the admins themselves had been uploading whole series of obvious copyvios. They promised to clean up their act but didn't. Even those ones I specifically proved were copyvios are still there as of this minute. Their deletion log was almost totally blank until recently; they were deleting only images that had been moved to commons. I think they didn't even have a proper mechanism in place about how to nominate bad images, or if they had, nobody had ever used it. It's only today that a new admin happens to have started deleting some images. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't find any free images using the CC search. So, I'd say use an image with a known copyright (as opposed to one of unknown origin) and give it a fair use rational. Maybe get one from this "official website" or this "official website". --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Best thing would be to contact somebody who has some private images (like, from concerts) on flickr or somewhere, and ask them if they would release them under a free license. Second best thing would be a fair use case. I'm not sure how our general stance on fair use images of recently deceased persons is. I guess it could only be a promotional image whose copyright belongs to Proeski's heirs or agency (i.e. something from his official website) and that's not currently being used commercially. Images from news sources are taboo. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] book image

What do you do with an image inside a book (not a book cover)? Thylacinus cynocephalus (talk) 03:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It depends on a lot of things. Can you give us more details? --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 05:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS

1  want a short  note on DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS121.245.138.233 (talk) 08:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
2  WANT A SHORT NOTE ON DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRIC POWER121.245.138.233 (talk) 08:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
3  WANT A SHORT NOTE ON INDUCTION HEATING121.245.138.233 (talk) 08:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

WANT A SHORT NOTE ON DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS121.245.138.233 (talk) 08:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Try reading Transformer and Induction heating. If you need addition information on these topics, try posting a more specific question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. —teb728 t c 10:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Canadian pre-40th election polling up to Mar 2 08.PNG

I've been told there is some sort of concern regarding the chart I created for the up coming Canadian federal election (see subject/headline).

I created the chart MYSELF - and took quiet a while to do it, too. The data I used are available from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40th_Canadian_federal_election

Please advise. --Can-eh-dian Redhead (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If you created it from scratch, then you own the copyright, and you choose the license. See WP:ICTIC --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 01:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] logo image

I want to upload some logos of Orienteering Championships.

What licence I can use for logo of championships?

Dnikitin (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Use {{logo}}. Easiest way to do it is to click here, and on the drop down menu at the bottom, choose "logo" (and obviously, choose the file to upload a bit above where the "browse" button is). giggy (:O) 10:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification of Template:PD-Art, vis. 2-D art

One thing I've been wondering: how do the provisions of {{Template:PD-art}}, and by extension, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. (which explicitly mentions only two-dimensional works), cover things that are debatably two dimensional?

The two examples I am specifically thinking of are 1) coins (ancient ones, not current ones that are still within copyright), and 2) vase painting (again, thinking mostly ancient Greece). The former case is basically but not exactly two dimensional, as coins feature a certain degree of relief; the latter case is exactly two dimensional, but occurs on a three-dimensional surface. I assume that a close-up photograph of an ancient painting on a vase, one that was close enough and cropped enough to make it difficult to tell on what surface, exactly, the work occurs, would be covered by PD-Art, while a slightly wider frame, that reveals the painting to be on a curved surface, or that reveals the vase itself, would not. Or maybe not even that. I don't know; that's why I'm asking.

You can answer here or on my talkpage, whichever is convenient. Thanks in advance for the assistance. Ford MF (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] image/figure upload to article

Hello....what format must an Image or Figure be in to be able to upload to an article I wish to write? Thankd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.77.137.57 (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There's some information on this at Wikipedia:Image use policy#Format. Last I knew, however, you will need to register an account in order to upload images. Once that's done, you can visit Wikipedia:Upload to learn more about uploading an image. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crediting CC-BY

Do CC-BY images need to bear a credit line in every article they appear in, or is the credit on the image description sufficient? Is there a resource that explains this? – flamurai (t) 22:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Generally the image's description page is considered sufficient on WP, either by upload history or by naming the author. I'm not sure as far as a specific resource page, but it's briefly mentioned at Help:Image page and Wikipedia:Image use policy. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] image tag?

--Ekweisberg (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)i have an image i am trying to upload. i own the rights to the image but am unsure as how to tag it. Can you advise?

thanks.

The copyright to an image belongs to the photographer, unless there is an agreement in writing(or it falls under the definition of a work for hire). If you own the copyright, explain on the image page how you came to own the copyright, and then choose a tag from WP:ICTIC --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] License tagging for Image:The back of Marchmont.JPG

I am aware thet I didn't add a license to this image but I believe I uploaded a the same image again and licensed that one as I could not find a way os license tagging the first image once it was loaded. Can we delete the first version with no license? Mark J Richards (talk) 13:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

To edit the license on an image that's already been uploaded, just go to the image page and click the "edit this page" tab at the top. Images with no license will get automatically deleted, but I'm sure you can get someone to expedite it if you ask. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

May I use the image from http://www.eas.slu.edu/Earthquake_Center/TURKEY/xx1.jpg for the article Earthquake protector?

Thanks,

Shustov (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless a reason is stated otherwise, images on the web are copyrighted and not suitable for Wikipedia. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is this Plagiarism?

...or a copyright violation? Talk:Anti-Americanism#RFC:_Plagiarism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Life.temp (talk • contribs) 22:28, 12 June 2008

Non-media related questions should be taken up at Wikipedia:Copyright problems – Zedla (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image rights questions

I've been contacted by an advertising agency that wants to use one of my photographs that is posted on Wikipedia with a GFDL license. They are aware that they can use the photograph under the terms of GFDL, but they would like to use it without having to post all that text, and they would like the photo at higher resolution than can be found in Wikipedia. I did not upload the original higher-res version anywhere. Here are my questions:

  1. I haven't found anything in the GFDL license that restricts me from licensing a different version of the photograph for commercial purposes, so I assume it is alright. Is this correct?
  2. I will make it clear in the agreement with the advertising agency that their use is non-exclusive, and that a GFDL version will continue to exist at Wikipedia. Are there any other considerations I should be thinking about?
  3. As this ad will be seen by thousands of people (it will be in a newspaper insert), do I need to do anything to keep the Wikipedia image from being challenged as a copyright violation? Should I note on the image page that commercial rights to a higher resolution version that was never posted on Wikipedia were not GFDL?
  4. Is there anything else I should be thinking about?
  5. Does anyone have an idea what I should charge for the rights? (I'm planning to donate the proceeds to Wikimedia) E-mail me if you have advice about this question.

Thanks. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 01:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

1. That's correct; the GFDL is non-exclusive. 2. That's a good idea; also make it clear that the GFDL version will appear anywhere that is in compliance with the GFDL, not just Wikipedia. 3. Maybe archive the permission with OTRS. 4. You may want to make sure it's clear that you're not transferring the copyright; they can't sublicense it; they can't use your name as an endorsement. 5. Depends what it is before I could even begin to guess. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 08:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spoken Article

I just added a spoken article for 2005 Atlantic hurricane season (file here: Image:2005 Atlantic hurricane season.ogg) and now I got a bot telling me it's going to be deleted if I don't let it know where it came from. This is the third such spoken article I've created and the first time this bot has gotten upset about it. Furthermore, it refers to the file as an image when the file is, in fact, an audio recording. I'd appreciate some advice/help here on how to amend this and how to assure it doesn't happen again in the furure. Thanks in advance! Fliry Vorru (talk) 03:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the bot just screwed up because it's clear that you already provided everything it's asking for. I deleted the {{no copyright holder}} tag that it left so it shouldn't get deleted. Feel free to remove those kinds of tags yourself if they show up on any files that already have the requested copyright/licensing info. Also, the reason it's referring to it as an image is because as far as the Wiki software is concerned, it is. This is simply because the software itself wasn't designed to handle audio files. That functionality was just bolted on to the existing image handling framework as a workaround. Just one of the many Wiki idiosyncrasies! -- Hux (talk) 04:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
It looks like you didn't save the edit; the tag was still there. I deleted it. —teb728 t c 08:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I reported this to the bot owner. And he says he has now fixed the bot. —teb728 t c 08:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proper licensing of a picture

I am attempting to update the wikipedia page on my boss, Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, with his most recent official photograph. The photograph is published on our website at http://myfloridalegal.com/picture.html. The photograph is available for public use. I don't know which license to use when uploading it to his wikipedia page. Please advise. Thanks!

Sandi Copes, Press Secretary, Office of the Attorney General Sandisea (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The copyright to the picture will be owned by the photographer, unless there is an agreement otherwise in writing, or it falls under the definition of a work for hire. You will need to get the photographers permission per WP:COPYREQ, or take a new photograph. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, one more question. Was it taken by an employee of the federal government in the course of their official duties? If so, it's public domain and can be tagged {{PD-USGov}} --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] other's photo of public domain object

I'd like to upload a copy of the photo of a Roman die at [7]. The die itself is obviously public domain. What does that mean about the photo? Thanks. Cretog8 (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

A photo of a 3-dimensional public domain object can be copyrighted. (Ref. Photographs of three-dimensional objects) --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 04:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Dang. Thanks, Rat. Cretog8 (talk) 07:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Associated Press?

This photo was likely taken from a news source, which took it from the Associated Press (AP), which in turn took it from a photographer. I don't know which of these entities owns the copyright, but if it is AP, then the address (for requesting copyright permission) is:

AP Images
450 West 33rd Street
New York, NY 10001
http://www.apimages.com
69.140.152.55 (talk) 23:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GIMPS Threads

Is information in GIMPS (Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search) threads subject to copywright protection?

00:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)00:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)~~

First of all, facts or the raw information cannot be copyrighted, only the wording or creativity used to express them. Second, I assume you're talking about the posts at [8]; the footer there says that the content is licensed under the GFDL, so crediting the author(probably by linking the the post) you can copy the content to a GFDL wiki like Wikipedia. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair Use Doct.

What is fair use? what is the test? why is it such a big deal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.89.225.180 (talk) 02:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

See fair use. I don't understand your other questions. —teb728 t c 08:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What do I need to mark this graphic?

How should I mark a graphic given to me by the author so I could put it in an artical. I said it had to be open source and he sent me one. I just can't seem to get it uploaded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KitemanSA (talk • contribs) 02:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

He should have selected a specific open source or free content license(see WP:ICTIC). Also see WP:COPYREQ. If it's the actual upload that's the problem, see Wikipedia:Uploading images --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 04:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

In your opinion what is the impact or influence of mass media portrayals on delinquency in today,s society.? Discuss either entertainment or news sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdul77H (talk • contribs) 04:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] raven_claw14@yahoo.com.ph

define adolescence and what are the 4 developmental stage of teenagers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.52.28.111 (talk) 04:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image postings tagged

The following images I posted were tagged. I indicated they were all from NASA and a U.S. Govt agency.

What else do I need to do?

16 Image tagging for Image:Discov docked.jpg

17 Image tagging for Image:Karen n.jpg

18 Image tagging for Image:Mark at work.jpg

19 Image tagging for Image:242193main kibo-m.jpg

20 Image tagging for Image:245913main image Garan.jpg

21 Image tagging for Image:124 crew.jpg

22 Image tagging for Image:Iss black and.jpg

23 License tagging for Image:Discov june 13.jpg

24 Image tagging for Image:Discov june 11.jpg

Please note, the license tagging is for a file that needs deleted, but I didn't know how to delete. Please delete Image:Discov june 13.jpg

The tag is fine(if the images can be verified as coming from NASA); if appropriate, it could be replaced with the more specific Template:TlPD-USGov-NASA. All the tag is asking for is a plain english description of how it can be verified that the image is indeed from NASA. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 07:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
So I am OK? They won't be deleted or anything? If you look at these images you'll see they almost HAVE to be from NASA! ; )--Utahredrock (talk) 07:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
All you have to do is tell where you got the images(then anyone who's really curious can research it more), and then delete the tag. If you don't remove the tag, it will get deleted. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 07:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I wrote "NASA" or "Image from NASA" is that not enough? Do they need URLs? If so, is www.nasa.gov sufficient? If I go through a laborious process to add more detail, can I remove the tags? Please note, by saying NASA, I thought that was sufficient as far as the source.--Utahredrock (talk) 07:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
It's probably not enough. There needs to be a way to verify that it really is from NASA. The bare minimum is the URL of the page on the NASA site where you got it(or if it's not on the web, some detailed description of where it's from). --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 07:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is the Barack Obama birth certificate acceptable to upload?

The Barack Obama presidential campaign has put up a picture of his birth certificate on one of its official campaign websites. You can see its small version here:

[9]

The very partisan (but I believe pro-Obama) Daily Kos website has put up a much better version of the birth certificate here (which should be a reliable enough source for simply reproducing a one-page document fairly, especially since the Obama campaign has not complained publicly about it, and Daily Kos states that it received the document from the Obama campaign):

[10]

Click on the picture at the Daily Kos website and it expands enormously, giving a very detailed rendition of the document. I assume a large, detailed version would upload to Wikipedia.

The birth certificate has been said to be a printout of Hawaii computerized government records, so it's more a record than it is an old piece of paper given to Obama's parents at his birth. However, it is an official "birth certificate" issued by a state authority.

If uploaded, I would suggest using it on one of the campaign-related Wikipedia articles, and probably link to it somehow from the Barack Obama article, although I don't think it's notable enough to actually use on that page. The birth certificate decisively, vividly, graphically confirms that various rumors are wrong (for instance, that he was named something else, like "Barack Muhammad Obama"; whether or not we need to actually mention the rumors is a decision to be made elsewhere), it has been made public by the Obama campaign, and the document is of historical significance. It seems to be a valuable document for Wikipedia to be able to show readers. I might try to move it to Wikipedia Commons, as well.

Is there some Wikipedia policy that prevents uploading this document? If so, does that policy apply in this situation where the document has been released voluntarily in a matter of the public interest? Please don't tell me there's any privacy issue here, now that the campaign has published it and given out a copy to be published. Last question: If uploaded, what copyright template should be used? Noroton (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The only thing that could possibly be a problem copyright-wise is the state seal, but Wikimedia Commons has come to the conclusion that it is public domain. The rest is bare facts in point form and therefore not eligible for copyright. The tag for works not eligible for copyright is {{PD-ineligible}} --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Rat! Noroton (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
For fairness and balance, someone should locate John McCain's birth certificate also, to see if he really was born in the Panama Canal Zone, and to ensure that his middle name wasn't originally Bush III. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll get right on that, Bugs! Noroton (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Usage: Day Joyce Sheet.jpg

Day Joyce Sheet image: this has been deleted and I'm not sure what are the criteria for getting it restored. It is copyright of the Imperial War Museum, who have given me permission to use it, free of charge, on a Wikipedia page about the Sheet. Other IWM copyright images appear on the Stanley Internment Camp page. What was the procedure there? 91.125.195.221 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I’m sorry to have to tell you that Wikipedia does not accept permission for use only on Wikipedia. The only permission that Wikipedia accepts is that which allows reuse by anyone for anything. See WP:COPYREQ if you think they grant that kind of permission. —teb728 t c 18:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] If I want to open ngo in kenya for child disability and poor people who cant help themselves.

In —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.244.79 (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are asking about media copyrights. —teb728 t c 19:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Old Picture

We have a picture in our Parish Archive that I have posted to an article. The photographer is unknown, but most likely was a parishoner in the late 19 century. The picture shows features of our church known to have been removed in 1871 so pre-dates that year.

What is the best way to release this for use on Wikipedia...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kneewax (talk • contribs) 20:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)