Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2007/December

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Facebook images

Does anyone know the appropiate licensing for pictures from the online site Facebook.com?EgraS (talk) 08:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Depends whose pictures they are. If they're yours, license them however they like. If they're someone else's, you'll need to get them to grant license for use. There are very very few free images on Facebook. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Does it matter if the subject is deceased and self-loaded the images?EgraS (talk) 08:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Unless there was some sort of arrangement otherwise (e.g. the subject hired the photographer to take the pictures with the subject owning the copyright), ownership rests with the photographer, not the subject. If ownership does in fact rest with the subject, the copyright is still valid until seventy-five years after the subject's death. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Last I checked it was 70 years, not 75, also if the "true identity" of the copyright holder is not publicly known the copyright term is 95 years since first publication (since it's hard to determine when a unkown person died). On a sidenote it's interesting to note that when someone sign up for a Facebook account they agree to give Facebook a non-exclusive right to use all material owned by them that they upload for basicaly any purpose. They keep the copyright as such, but they have to authorize Facebook inc to use the material as they see fit. Knowing that you'd think Facebook users would not be hard to convince to also release stuff under the GFDL or whateer, but I suspect most of them are oblivious to that little fact... --Sherool (talk) 13:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Public domain postcards, but with watermarks

I realized that there are a lot of old postcards on the web. Reproductions of two-dimensional works from before 1923 are in the public domain. So I got a postcard image from cardcow.com and uploaded it. However, the only problem is that there is a watermark with the website name in the bottom right corner. I'm pretty sure this isn't a copyright issue but I'm wondering if it would be against Wikipedia guidelines to have a watermark there. --Michael WhiteT·C 03:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just removed the watermark with GIMP so I'm going to upload that. --Michael WhiteT·C 03:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm impressed that you waited a whole 19 minutes for an answer before doing it anyway! Autodidactyl 14:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Selecting Copyright tags for work by Folke Heybroek

M'aider please, Having done some editorial work on the Folke Heybroek page, I have been asked by the copyright owner to upload 3 low resolution images of works by the artist. (1 Photo of Stained Glass window, and 2 photos of Paintings.)

I added the self explanatory text summary - "This is a low resolution photograph of a part of a stained glass window that was created by Folke Heybroek for the chancel of church at Oglunda in Sweden. The original photograph and its copyright is owned by Michael Heybrook of FolkeHeybroek.com. This low resolution image is released into the public domain on the specific wishes and instructions of Mr Heybroek and his family." to the Angel Gabriel image.

The image copyright tags page has left me completely bamboozled, and ImageTaggingBot advised me to leave a question here... so ... What tag should I select? Many Thanks Autodidactyl 14:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:selfeval.jpg

Image:selfeval.jpg I created this image in microsoft excel. How do I copyright it? I don't care who uses it or when. Please help me. I have tried many different tags and I receive the same error message and threat of deletion every time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marywar (talk • contribs) 00:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Uploaded Image, [i'm sorry i'm a N00B]

All right, i've uploaded this image: [[1]] the image was taken from this site: [2]

and so, i found that the images can be used(but not edited/commercialized) since the rights are given to Jesper Kyd[composer], and for Nano Studios NYC [Publisher] but, since i don't find a way to put this on the Image Page, i though you guys can put there to me. thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by PlissandrO (talk • contribs) 04:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Copuyright rules for city archive photos

I found on the site of a newspaper many photos of Melitopol, Ukraine. The photos are taken by different photographers, some of them are not photos, but postcards. All of them are old, some were taken from 1903 to 1930, others from 1941 to 1980-s. They are property of the Melitopol Public Museum and may be copied by anybody. So, the journalists copied them and placed on their site, I downloaded them. May I upload them to Wiki? Demidov2007 (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you link to the terms where it says they can be coppied by anybody? FWIW Ukrainian copyright is life of the author +70 years.Geni 01:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Image --- Don't Know which Copyright Licence

Hi,

I have uploaded this imagefor an article on the Sony Ericsson M600I Phone, from this website. I was wondering what licence it would be?

The Helpful One (Talk) (Contributions) 12:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The closest is {{promophoto}} but there needs to be a fair use rationale. The JPStalk to me 13:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Article problem

Hello Wikipedia.

I want to know how you upload an article about an Actor or film or something. So please give a link where I could edit it, or explain how, or could you upload it for me?TK(film) 13:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite to reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.
Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.
If you still think an article is appropriate, see Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. --teb728 t c 05:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong use of fair use rationale?

I put this image some time ago and am now unsure how to either describe it under 'fair use' (see message below), or place it in another category. The photographer doesn't mind where it's used as long as she's credited. Though I've done that on the image page itself and that's acceptable to her, it doesn't seem to fit Wikipedia's policy.

Can anybody help, please? abafied 02:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"Fair use rationale for Image:Wk1.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Wk1.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. After Midnight 0001 04:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)"

Images for the new article Gini Laurie

I have uploaded four images for the article "Gini Laurie." I can no longer figure out how to find them to correct the copyright information. They are all in the public domain, so the credit line should read, I guess, Template:PHI archives. Public Domain. Please advise. Posidonious 02:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page. --teb728 t c 04:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Music (1932) by Rudy Vallee

NvrmdCollegebookworm 04:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

No "Edit" link for photo

I uploaded one of my own photos without selecting a license for it. I've been notified that I need to add a copyright tag to the photo or it will be deleted. I go to the image description page and there is no "Edit this page" link or "edit" links on the page. It's on my other image pages, but not this one. I have the copyright/license, but how do I get it in the photo if there's no edit link? Reactionary89 08:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You’re referring to Image:Rickprofile2007.JPG, right? I see an “edit this page” tab; it is is the top half inch of the page. --teb728 t c 20:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reactionary89 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Audio

What about an audio recording of natural phenomenon, taken from a government web site and edited for clarity (noise reduction, pitch, speed, etc.)? Infrasound 08:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Which goverment website?Geni 01:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi

This is Rianon, I put a file up called Josh Winning, I put a new one up they way you said, but I don't know how to delete the other one and I don't know who to go to to say I did so. I'm so sorry for the inconvinience I must of missed it. I will make a point of doing it and again sorry.. And thank you for making me aware of it, I really appreciate it...... Have a wonderful day!

Rianon Burnet 21:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Hi, I though I was following the copyright guidelines by posting a fair use copyright on this image, but apparently not. Can someone who is not so new (this is my first post) check it out and tell me what is wrong with it? Thanks! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Morphine_-_The_Night%2C_album_cover.jpg Idyllhands 03:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

TVB-Phoenix_Rising.jpg‎

I transfered the picture from the Chinese wikipedia and inserted all the copyright information as per that page. But it keeps saying its still violating the WP:NONFREE. So What can I do? What did I miss out? Thankyou. If there is a reply, please notify on my talk page. Dengero 06:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

my first image, a logo

Hi, sorry I am just a starter. Wanted to include an image, its a logo, for a database. The logo is used for illustration in the article about the database. I got the message: "This image or media is claimed to be used under Wikipedia's policy for non-free content but has no explanation as to why it is permitted under the policy. Non-free images need a rationale each time they are used in an article." And I looked for examples of logos for similar database/services and included the "logo fur" completely, I think now the rationale for Image:Prosite.png is OK. But then it still mentioned : "Please remove this template if a rationale is provided.", but I cannot manage to remove that message. Please could someone help me to get the rationale clean in the image? Stone geneva 13:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the warning template. --teb728 t c 20:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I hope next time it'll be less complicated Stone geneva 10:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:VasasSC-Budapest.png - disputed FUR

BetacommandBot has again a whinge here. The image uses exactly the same fair use rationale as any other football club logo. Can somebody please sort that out. I no longer have got the nerve to deal with the proprietary Wiki copyright nonsense. Thanks! -- Oalexander-En 06:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Being at it, may I suggest that it might make good sense to have besides the copyright hounds such as the sforementioned 'BetacommandBot', someone who sorts the copyright questions out before at a final stage annoying the generally well meaning uploaders. They will be in a far better position to know common solutions, precedents, and all that sort of stuff. At least somebody who can provide the practically applicable advice in common issues such as trivial logos, screenshots instead of just referring to lengthy proprietary constructs by Wikipedia - which to boot are inherently illogical, lacking consequent consequence in application and are in a broader environment bluntly inconsequential. -- Oalexander-En 10:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Aquarium photographer policy

We have a few free-licensed photos taken at the Vancouver Aquarium. I suspect that they are in many articles as the aquarium has lots of different animal and plant species. I went to the Vancouver Aquarium recently and I noticed that my receipt for admission says at the bottom, "Photographers: You are welcome to shoot still photos, video or film for personal use. Any reuse or reproduction for commercial purpose without written consent of the Vancouver Aquarium is strictly prohibited." I can't find any details on this policy on their website and I don't know if the policy was in effect when the photo was taken. I also don't know if, under Canadian law, this policy is legally enforceable. I suppose I could approach the organization and ask nicely if they can give some kind of blanket authorization (they're an educational organization like us, after all), if you could suggest how to do that I would appreciate the help. If we have to ask for each picture one by one... I'm not looking forward to it. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 08:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Most likely the photograph has no copyright problems. You can't copyright a fish. I doubt they could copyright the arrangement of the arrangement of the tank or the interior decor. Any image that happens to catch a copyrighted element (e.g. the text of the signs, logos, etc) is incidental and de minimus under US law. Canada probably either follows the US system or has a panorama right as in the UK system. It would be like taking a picture of a street scene that happens to have a billboard in the background. A straight-on photograph of a sign or painting and no more would have problems. I'm guessing it's wishful thinking on the part of the aquarium. Just a guess though. Wikidemo 08:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The situation is a complex one. They could remove you from the site if they caught you takeing such photos but once you have left the site there isn't much they can do (technicaly trespass might kick in but that would be tricky). however do not contact Vancouver Aquarium. They will not be prepared to give us a permission we can use and it will only complicate matters.Geni 17:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you both for the helpful observations! I think I can relax now :) Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 04:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Help - Fair use Rationales

I need somebody to put fair use rationales on the following images:


Thanks!

The Helpful One (Talk) (Contributions) 22:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Incomplete rationale for Compaq logo?

Please see Image:Compaq Logo.png. What about the rationale on this page triggered STBotI (talk · contribs) to add a deletion template and drop a warning template on my user talk page? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 23:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved. It was a malfunction in the bot's parser.. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 00:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Rode_logo.png soon to be deleted. Request copyright advice

Hi. I received a bot message that Image:Rode_logo.png will soon be deleted because it does not contain a fair-use rationale. The bot warning message is also viewable on the article talk page Talk:Røde Microphones. It's just a logo for a company called Rode which manufactures microphones in Australia. I traced the logo myself, using images from the Rode company website as a template to create my replica. I'm not sure how it's not meeting Wikipedia's copyright rules, as the image page already contains a fair use rationale. What should I do to make the image compliant? Thanks, Lester 06:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

{{Non-free logo}} by itself is not a rationale; you also need a {{logo fur}} or another {{non-free use rationale}} for each article that uses the image. As far as I can tell, BetacommandBot (talk · contribs) drops notices when the Article parameter doesn't point to a single valid article. But you're in luck: Rjd0060 (talk · contribs) fixed it using {{logo fur}}. The "false alarm" I was talking about referred to notices placed by STBotI (talk · contribs) even on valid uses of {{logo fur}}; see User talk:ST47#Image tagging bot. But I don't remember any false notices out of BetacommandBot. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 20:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Damian, for your valuable assistance. Much appreciated :) Lester 21:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I made the chart... but the numbers are from a copyrighted publication

I am working an article "Poverty in Canada" in my sandbox: User:Deetdeet/pic. You can see a chart I made from StatsCan numbers. I have made a similar small chart for the "Basic needs poverty measure" graphing the poverty rate from 1973 to 2004. The publication that the numbers are from is http://www.fraserinstitute.org/COMMERCE.WEB/product_files/PovertyinCanada2006.pdf

Can I upload my chart, and what license can I use (can I use public domain?), if the author is claiming "all rights reserved" over the source study.

Thanks. Deet (talk) 03:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You can't copyright facts, but under certain circumstances you can copyright their arrangement. As long as you are just using the numbers to make the chart there is no problem with that. Megapixie (talk) 02:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

in over my head!!

Image:CorneliaFlatishler.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by US-TAKETINA (talk • contribs) 10:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Oh my god, I'm so confused!! See the message I received below. The images I am using in the three entries I've created:

  • Reinhard Flatischler
  • Cornelia Flatischler
  • TaKeTiNa Rhythm Process

The copyright holder is my teacher, Reinhard Flatischler. I am a certified TaKeTiNa teacher, and as such, have contractual permission to use these images for educational purposes. These images are several years old and have no "tag" or "license number" or such associated with them that I know of. Is there a way for me to have Reinhard Flatischler, the copyright holder to grant written permission? What can I do?? Tonight is my first Wikipedia experience and I'm really stumbling around the site blind. I'm not even sure if I'll be able to find any response that you send. Eek. Is it possible for you to copy your answer to me at taketina@geckomoon.com ?

thanks!!Deborah

 ====

Thank you for uploading Image:CorneliaFlatischler.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 09:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC) US-TAKETINA (talk) 10:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Changing license instead of deleting image?

Hello. My question is about this IFD. The reason for the proposed deletion is, that the license on the image page says it is free to be shared, while the original source says it can only be used to non-commercial use. Is it appropriate, and legit, to just change the license on the image page? Sorry for asking this here, but i couldn't find any guideline, or links to guidelines, on the IFD page. Thank you. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 10:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Is lightening a picture acceptable?

Umm, yeah. That's pretty much the question. As seen in this pic Image:MrBennet.jpg it is quite dark and could use some lightening. There are several like this in the Heroes project alone. Is lightening a picture an acceptable change? Padillah (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


Yes, I should think so as you are enhancing this image, however I am not sure, any admins am I correct? The Helpful One (Talk) (Contributions) 20:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes. It's okay to modify fair use images. But be prepared to be reverted if someone doesn't like your change. Megapixie (talk) 02:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyright holder prefers anonymity

I'm working on obtaining an image for an article. I found the image through a web search, contacted the webmaster and verified that he owned the photo and would be willing to release it under a CC license, but he does NOT want to be attributed publicly on wikipedia. Is there any way to accomplish this? Perhaps he could release the image to public domain outright, and I could email that release to permissions AT wikimedia DOT org, but then not use his name publicly on the image page? Rpresser (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Either suggest they release into the public domain (i.e. no requirement for attribution) - or suggest that they request attribution to their website instead. Megapixie (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale help for a non-free (?) book cover

Folks, I have uploaded the cover art for the book Red Primer by Victor Vashi. BetacommandBot has asked me to clean up the fair use rationale or face deletion. I would love some help. Here are some details...

  1. The book is no longer published, as the publisher is no longer in business
  2. The author drew the cartoon for the cover art (though it may have been reproduced for printing)
  3. The author is dead
  4. I can get permission to use the image by a next of kin (a nephew)

So, I need help determining

  1. Is it still a non-free image?
  2. If it is, am I conflicting with the copyright holder (unknown, possibly dead)
  3. What should I fill in the Description and/or Replaceable sections of the template
  4. Is there any reason to lower the quality (and does this change the "source", technically?)
Should be resolved now. Have expanded the rationale a little. Appears to meet NFCC 10. Megapixie (talk) 02:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

image jpeg: Joey Dedio

It is a personal picture from photos I own and have the copy right. joey dedio —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeydedio (talk • contribs) 22:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I have tagged the image as {{GFDL}} and added to the article page. If you have any questions about this please contact me via my talk page linked on my signature. Megapixie (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Image Size and Video Game Cover Art

Recently, I had the bot BetacommandBot inform me that Image:Risk_II_Cover.jpg which I had uploaded didn't have the necessary fair use rationale. I figured it meant that I didn't have all of the information about why it was fair use, like with Template:Non-free_use_rationale. I'm pretty sure I understand everything that I need to add, but I wasn't sure about the "Low Resolution" field. According to this, no image should have more than 300 pixels on any side. However, there are obviously many pictures on Wikipedia that do. Moreover, I have not seen a single video game box cover art picture on here that is indeed less than 300 pixels. For example, the picture of the box cover art for StarCraft is 300 x 351, and apparently that's fine since the article is a featured article. So my question is, should Image:Risk_II_Cover.jpg be scaled down so that no side is greater than 300 pixels? Or am I misunderstanding the whole idea? Thunderforge (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think 300 pixels wide is the criteria. Basically it should no larger than we need it to be. Most of the infoboxes are hardcoded as 300 pixels wide, thus we don't need an image larger than 300 pixels wide. Megapixie (talk) 02:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The image should be just large enough to show the required information. There is no hard limit but you would need a very good reason to go over 600 pixels. (And be ready to defend it.) No one questions a 300 by 300 pixel image. The 384 × 534 pixel baseball card of Billy Ripken Image:Ripkenffcard.jpg is used as an acceptable image example on Wikipedia:Non-free content WP:NFC. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 05:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Trouble with tags

I've had a lot of trouble properly tagging pictures. Just got another message that I must say just makes my day. I've uploaded over a hundred images but I've probably had a few dozen taken back down for one reason or another. I'm getting better but I'm still having some problems.

1. After many letters I've been sent some photos from India. The letters express that the photos can be used without limit on WP and everywhere else. I don't know how to tag the photos with this message. I put this in the summary but the copyright police have given me notice that the image will be deleted.Image:Auroville Solar Bowl.JPG
2. What kind of tags do images from National Laboratories get? NREL, ORNL, Sandia, Livermore, PNL etc. These are all federal facilities that are run companies by engineering corporations. I've written to the webmaster at Sandia for permission to use some archive pictures and received permission as long as Sandia is credited. What kind of tag should I use? Mrshaba 18:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Image:Moody Sunburst.jpg


Hello... Can someone please respond to point #1 above. Mrshaba (talk) 08:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
1. Assuming the original author wants to be at least attributed - I would tag with {{attribution}}
2. Is more complicated, and can only be answered on a case by case basis. Megapixie (talk) 09:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I tried the attribution tag on this picture Image:Auroville Solar Bowl.JPG. Did I do it correctly? Mrshaba (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Zamalek article

Hello. The pictures I have added are my own photos, but I don't know what license that would fall under. Can you please help me as soon as possible? Than you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basedas2 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Those are some really low quality images. Were they taken with a camera phone ? You may use any license you like if they were created with your own camera (I would suggest {{GFDL}} or {{PD-Self}}. However if they are captures from a television program then they are not suitable for upload here. Megapixie (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Picture of Cyrus the Great =

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Webcyrus.jpg

I was wondering what the copyright on this is? I found it at another website, but this picture is a very public image found almost anywhere so what I should I label it as? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yami Sasha (talk • contribs) 22:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone has messed around with the image enough for it to possibly be a derivative work. Best to find it in an unaltered form somewhere. Megapixie (talk) 06:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I use an image from this site?

I'm writing up an article on Interactive Customer Evaluation (ICE) service. It's website is here http://ice.disa.mil/. I was thinking of adding an image to the article, and I got to this page: http://ice.disa.mil/index.cfm?fa=security

Seeing nothing saying anything about the usage of images from their site, I clicked on the additional information link and ended up here: http://www.defenselink.mil/warning/warn-dl.html

Looking at number 2 it reads: Information presented on DefenseLINK is considered public information and may be distributed or copied unless otherwise specified. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested.

I'm afraid my legalise is not up to par, and I can't tell if that's saying I can use an image from the ICE website (considered public information) but then the last sentence threw me off. I thought I'd run it by someone first before uploading the image.

Thanks for any help.--revotfel★ 23:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

My question was answered elsewhere, thanks--revotfel★ 01:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


Request help finding license and tag for the above image for "Olga Maynard" article. This is a picture of the mature subject of the article, to accompany the existing youthful picture illustrating the article. The particulars on Image:Author, 'The American Ballet', c..jpg are as follows:

Subject deceased. Negative made in the 1950s by a photography studio in La Mesa, California (Florence Arts Studio) which is no longer listed. Print of negative appeared on rear dust-cover of book by subject, 'The American Ballet' (1959), which is out of print. Its publisher was Macrae Smith Company, Philadelphia, which is no longer listed; apparently out of business.

This positive image was from the original negative, but not what was used for the book cover. Copyright of the book was held by the subject. I have permission by the subject's estate to use the image in the Wikipedia article.

With thanks for your assistance, Alethe (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Help finding license for an image owned by author.

Request help finding license and tag for the above image for "Olga Maynard" article. This is a picture of the mature subject of the article, to accompany the existing youthful picture illustrating the article. The particulars on  :Author, 'The American Ballet', c..jpg are as follows:

Subject deceased. Negative made in the 1950s by a photography studio in La Mesa, California (Florence Arts Studio) which is no longer listed. Print of negative appeared on rear dust-cover of book by subject, 'The American Ballet' (1959), which is out of print. Its publisher was Macrae Smith Company, Philadelphia, which is no longer listed; apparently out of business.

This positive image was from the original negative, but not what was used for the book cover. Copyright of the book was held by the subject. I have permission by the subject's estate to use the image in the Wikipedia article.

With thanks for your assistance, Alethe (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

sounds like a wikipedia only license thus not really free enough. A fair use claim could be made.Geni 01:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Free license?

Are images from this site in free license? This is their copyright information page http://ecoport.org/ep?SearchType=displayHelpInfo&type=I&id=-1056. And what license tag should I use? Vinhtantran (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Do not upload. Not free enough. It's non-commercial use only. No good here. Megapixie (talk) 06:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Window decoration copyrighted?

Image:Mozilla Windows Thunderbird 2 Beta 2.png is listed as copyrighted/fair-use, since "[c]opyrighted aspects include the Windows interface whose copyright rests with Microsoft". Is that correct? That is, is the screenshot really not licensable under the Thunderbird license if it contains Windows' window decoration? -- Ddxc (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft wants companies to develop software applications for the Windows platform. Microsoft produces development software and allows the "redistribution" of certain run time libraries. Microsoft does this so all third party applications look and work the same. The "File Save As" dialog is the same in most programs. The copyright of the resulting program belongs to the developer, not Microsoft. If you look at the documentation for any third party Windows program it will have screens shots of the program. The copyright on the document will be that of the developer. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. Perhaps someone (not me ^^) should integrate that into some Wikipedia screenshot guideline article. -- Ddxc (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:American jewish university logo.PNG

This image is the logo of a university. The fair-use rationale is the same as the one used for the university's old logo, actually, that this image replaced. This rationale was tagged as "disputed" by the bot, and this is my first time with this process. It's not clear where there is a discussion about that (here?), the source/nature of the dispute, etc. Thanks for a pointer in the right direction. --joeOnSunset (talk) 07:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like someone has fixed it for you by adding an article specific fair use rationale. Megapixie (talk) 08:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Uploaded Pictures

I uploaded four pictures of album sleeves (Oddeven.jpg, Signs.jpg, Seasidebandw.jpg and Seasidereissue.jpg) from the official Cardiacs website. Am I wrong to do this? How can I use them without contrevening Wikipedia rules?

Drterror666 (talk) 09:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, they have to be low resolution images. If they are, you'll need to tag them with {{Non-free album cover}} and then include a fair use rationale for every page on which you want to use them. For information on when it's appropriate to use non-free media (such as album covers), read WP:NOTFREE. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Security Camera Video

Which license should I use to upload a still from a CCTV camera? Are they even copyrighted?  — Noah¢s (Talk) 23:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That depends. Need more details. Basically - which country, what does the image show, etc. In general every image is copyrighted automatically in the US. Megapixie (talk) 01:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Box Art for computer game

Hi, would it be fair use to use the image at the bottom of this page in this article. It's labeled "Tanarus Box Art". Tanarus is a computer game that was originally sold as a box product. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcpdad (talk • contribs) 00:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

That would seem reasonable. Reduce the size of the image so it is 300 pixels wide, and save it as a jpeg file. Upload the image with a fair use rationale and make sure to indicate that it is for use in the Tanarus article. More advice at TF:VGI. Megapixie (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ann & Eddie jpg

The photo was taken by me {{GFDL-self}}tag, and is fine to use on the Ann Forster page if there is one. Forster is a known publicist and writer within the PR & Media industry having spearheaded campaigns including the motion pictures Gandhi and The War Room as well as advocacy campaigns for the UN and numerous NGO's and corporations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ann Forster (talk • contribs) 13:19, 26 October 2007

To make it easy, there seem to be several comments on User talk:Ann Forster on this topic. Patche99z (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

how to find mms

i receved mmsn message on mms.mtctouch.com.lb,i got the password,so how can i read it

Is this a copyright question? Patche99z (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Please, help me.

Image:Carrascosa.jpg I found the Image in an old-newspaper (February) and it hasn't got photographer. Also, it don't say anything about public domain or copyright laws or private image. So, I thought that it was free. What do you think??.... Oh, Also, I have cut the image. Thanks for answer me.Frankedjsjs 01:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

February is not "old" in copyright terms - the photo is almost certainly copyrighted by either the photographer or the newspaper, so you should not use it on Wikipedia. Who is it of, anyway? Can you find another, free, photo of him? Patche99z (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

What tag for fair use image copied from Arabic Wikipedia ?

I uploaded an image which was on the Arabic Wikipedia (here). I don't speak Arabic, but I think it was listed as fair use there. I tried to select a license tag for the image, but none of them seemed to say "fair use". So I had no option but to leave it blank. Please can someone tell me what tag this image needs, and how I could have done it for myself? many thanks Rocketmagnet 18:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It isn't listed as fair use on the arabic wiki and would probably be a copyvio.Geni 18:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Why does it say "Fairusein" on its image page, and why hasn't it been deleted? Rocketmagnet 19:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I speak Arabic. It's {{PD-old}}. Taric25 (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Kamtejames trophy.jpg

I found this image and it says that it was the user's own work However i also found the image here. Therefore is the usage claim true? Eddie6705 19:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The web site photo is a cropped version of that on Wiki, and further, the Wiki version has the camera metadata included. So it all seems good to me - there is no reason not to assume good faith. The user has put the same photo on a web site, that is all. Patche99z (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Photos I take

I am not sure how things work so I must ask this question just to be safe.

If I take pictures of buildings (from the outside), do I need permission of the owner of the building to upload it on Wikipedia? Who owns the copyright to the photo? The owner of the building or the photographer? Thanks. --Kushalt 01:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I have uploaded it now ... See it at [14] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushal one (talk • contribs) 02:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC) or [15] --Kushalt 02:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You own the copyright. No permission from the building's owner is required. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I hope this image will be useful to East Texas Baptist University. (You can help!) --Kushalt 16:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Correlation Chart Created from Head Shots of Scans

I created a correlation chart for the characters from a comic based on the head shots that i scanned. Does the chart itself meet the fair use rationale? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenlee80 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite clear on what you created from these head shots. If the head shots don't themselves appear in the correlation chart - and I can't see how they would - then the chart is your own property and you needn't provide a fair use rationale to use it (provided you release it under one of the applicable licenses). If it's not your own property, whether it meets the criteria for fair use depends in part on which articles you intend to use it in (a rationale must be provided for each article in which the graphic appears). Could you elaborate further? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I plan to use it in the introductory article of the comic itself in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenlee80 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you tell me a bit more about what you mean by "correlation chart"? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

can you take a found pic & edit it

i take pics & edit it with other pic i thought you could do that messege me the answer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayjay47 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No. You have already been told, on your talk page, that using photoshop to add a few sparkles to a copyright image does NOT make it a self-created image that you can use without a fair-use rationale. --Icarus (Hi!) 18:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging

How do I add a tag to my Image at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Clifton_lake_south_view.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmanstl (talk • contribs) 01:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

First select an image tag: If this is a photo you took yourself, select one of the tags at WP:ICT#For image creators. If it is a photo by someone else, see WP:COPYREQ for how to handle a license from the photographer.
Then follow the instructions at the top of this page to add the tag to the image description. --teb728 t c 05:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyrights: Can I pay money to people to get them to "liberate" their photos to the public domain?

I'm seeing images of products (i.e. old computers) on auction sites like eBay and I got to thinking, if someone is not willing to put the image they obviously took themselves into a free license, can I pay them a nominal amount of money for the rights to the photo so I can "liberate" the photo into the public domain ? Guroadrunner (talk) 09:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You are scertainly free to negotiate with the copyright holder if they are willing to transfer the rights to you for a small fee. Just how big a fee they would want is a metter of negotiation in each case though. Generaly we reccomend to just ask nicely if they would consider releasing the image themselves (we can hardly ask voulenteers to go around buying images for the project), but if you are willing to spend some money to outright buy the rights and then release the image yourself you are scertainly welcome to do so. Just make sure it's clear that you want a transfer of all the rights, not just a limited right to use the image, and send the nessesary details to the permissiones ORTS que so it's all on record if someone starts asking questions later on. --Sherool (talk) 13:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ancient coins

I have noticed that Betacommandbot has tagged Image:Valentinian_obv.jpg and Image:Valentinian_rev.jpg to be deleted after 10 December. The images were uploaded and used on History of the English penny (c. 600-1066) by User:Arichis with the {{non-free currency}} template and a note that they came from his own collection. In view of his obviously-knowledgable edits to articles on ancient coins, I have no reason to doubt that he does not have a substantial collection of his own. The template used says "If the image is copyrighted, please add a detailed fair use rationale..."; obviously there is no inherent copyright in a 1600+ year old coin, so no FUR has been provided. What is the suggested method to avoid having these useful images unnecessarily deleted? -- Arwel (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to get on it by making fair use rationales and removing BetaCommandBot's tags. There was some paper money that BetaCommandBot tried to kill when it actually counted as fair use. Guroadrunner (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
As an aside, the reason the bot tagged them is because there was no section called "fair use rationale" so since it didn't "see" that it thought there was no rationale involved. Obviously these are public domain coins, and I will assume good faith that Arichis would be okay with releasing those images from his numismatic collection. Guroadrunner (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyright status of signatures

Some input on the copyright status of signatures (including for living or recently dead people, the effect of not being published with a copyright notice, possibility of ineligibility for copyright, whether it genuinely "identifies" a subject of an article if fair use is claimed, or requires criticial commentary) would be welcome at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Fair use of signatures. Any help appreciated! Purgatorio (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use question

apparently i "can't use non-free images in userspace" the issue came when i put a Dr Pepper log on my user page. Am i allowed to take a pic of a Dr Pepper can and use it under {{PD-Self}}? Ctjf83 talk 21:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It might work but then you'd need to put the image on the Dr. Pepper wikipedia article, because otherwise someone else will badger you saying "you can't put images up just for your personal userpage" . Guroadrunner (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Truck

Does commons:Image:MuncyTruck.jpg have copyright-issues because of the image on the truck? (If yes, I apologize for moving it to Commons, and it should be speedily-deleted from Commons — leaving the version on en with a fair-use rationale?) -- Ddxc (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Public Domain tag when released by someone else

I'd like to tag Image:Odaiba015-landscape.jpg and commons:Image:Odaiba015-landscape.jpg (I'll ncd-speedily-delete the first image later, but let me sort out the copyright questions first). The image apparently has been placed in the public domain by the website it was published on. When I tag the image on en with {{PD-release}}, it comes out right, but on commons, the template PD-release redirects to PD-self, which is not what I want. So is {{PD-release}} the right tag on en? And what tag should I use on commons? -- Ddxc (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

PD-release is right here. You'll need to ask at Commons for the correct tag to use there. Stifle (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what to say

I got a picture from a video. I did a snapshot the video and took out the picture that i wanted and uploaded it, I don't think thats a copyright infringement but if you think it is delete it. I didn't think it was. A picture from a video can be copyrighted? Sora17 (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if the video is copyrighted, then individual frames taken from it are definitely copyrighted, too. -- Ddxc (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree - it will certainly be copyright. But you might be allowed to upload the image under fair use provided it is low resolution (less than 0.1 megapixels) and is used to illustrate a single relevant article. Take a look at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free and Template:Non-free image rationale. Patche99z (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

adding images of logo with proper fair use declaration

I've been trying to upload some images of company logos and I have repeatedly been told that i Have not specified a rationale. I have been using the wikipedia logo rationale template to provide the fair use justifications. This template seems to produce a paragraph that explicates all of the fair use justification relevant to a logo, and yet I continue to get a message saying I haven't listed a rationale. What do I need to change to prevent getting this automated message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Munificentdesign (talk • contribs) 22:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the rationale of one of your logos; see here for the changes. Notice I changed the capitalization of the article to match the exact title of the article and I changed the capitalization of the use to match one of the four possible values. --teb728 t c 10:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Where to report potential license issues

Hi, I have a general question: When I see that an image may have copyright problems (for instance, Image:PUP.JPG, whose summary doesn't match its license tag), but I don't have time to take care of it myself, where should I report it? -- Ddxc (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Like you did just now, posting here is a good location to raise these issues. Guroadrunner (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Data copied from library manuscript archive

I entered a number of references to the corporate history of the Spokane, Portland & Seattle Railway. The original data is at the Minnesota History Center. The material was originally typed by the railroad itself more than 50 years ago.

What do I need to do to put this up on Wikipedia?

Regards


Paul Hobbs <email removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Hobbs (talk • contribs) 02:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia—not a manuscript archive. If Image:Oe chronology3.pdf is typical of what you entered, I can’t think of any encyclopedic use for your data. --teb728 t c 09:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, if the material is available under a free license or is in the public domain, it may be possible to put it on Wikisource. Stifle (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Images at Melicious

I uploaded several album cover scans to the article at Melicious and now all of them have been tagged as questionable. I thought album covers were fair use, especially since the photo image of the covers was done by myself. How do I properly attribute these so they do not get deleted? TheGoonSquad (talk) 07:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

All non-free images need a non-free use rationale as described at WP:NFURG. (The fact that you made the images yourself does not make them free; the copyrights are still by the album publisher.) --teb728 t c 09:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


Image:Portrait of Kim Hwangi-Lim Eungsik-1961.jpg

I uploade this picture and think that I wrote the enough rationale how the image is being used. I provided the source such as website and copyright holder. The portrait picture of Kim Hwan-gi, a top Korean Modernism artist, was taken by Lim Eungsik, a famous Korean photographer and is stored at National Museum of Contemporary Art, Korea. I don't know as to why it doesn't reach the rationale. --Appletrees (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You put in a fair use rationale without putting in a image copyright tag. I've done this for you. Stifle (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I've only uploaded cc-by-2.0 images to Commons except a couple of pictures including this one. Apparently, I missed the mandatory tag for the photo to be existing. I have to re-read the help image page.:)--Appletrees (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Post-process for replace fair-use image

I replaced photo for Xbox 360 Elite(Image:Xbox 360 elite.jpg -> commons:Image:Xbox360Elite.jpg), but I don't recognize post-process to delete Image:Xbox 360 elite.jpg.

In past time, I put comment "Obsolated fairuse image" to Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion, but it seems this situation is out of Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion now.--PiaCarrot 14:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The usual action is to put {{subst:orfud}} on the image description page. However since the image is superseded and is no longer used in any articles (and was replaceable to start with) I've deleted it. Stifle (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Uploading videos

please how can i uplond vidios ]]iam a leaner of the computer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.207.9.26 (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Just create an account, then click upload file. But please note that you can't upload copyrighted videos here unless they meet our non-free content criteria or are available under a free license. Stifle (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Mach 5

At Mach 5, I removed an overabundance of non-free images, and Diceman reverted me, calling my removal "vandalism". However, it is quite clear that there is an excess amount of non-free images used in the article per criteria at WP:NFC, especially considering that the supporting information is mere plot detail. Can I please get clarification on if my removal is truly appropriate? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The same user has uploaded a decorative non-free gallery at Street Rod 2 and Persian Gulf Inferno, too. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyright status of a somewhat "derivative" map

Recently I had been given permission by John Alroy, the creator of the Paleobiology Database to use that site's maps for Wikipedia articles. However, he briefly mentioned that they should be used for non-commercial purposes. Unfortunately, Wikipedia requires images to be fully in the public domain and available for use commercially or otherwise. So, I decided to make my own maps based on the Paleobiology Database ones.

However, I have not been able to get in touch with Dr. Alroy to get his blessing. So, I've come to you to check and see if what I'm doing could conceivably be seen as a copyright violation. This image shows what I'm talking about. The top image is the original PBDB map, and the bottom is my map, made with public domain materials I found through Wikipedia.

Personally I don't see how it could be a copyright violation, or even a truly derivative work, since no element of the original image has been used, and the information used to make the map is publicly available for whoever would want to look, but I just thought I'd check first. Thank you. Abyssal leviathin (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hate to be bumping my own posting, but it would be nice if I could get a response. This question is holding up a lot of editing that I want to do, and if it gets archived, I'm pretty much screwed in that regard. ;) Abyssal leviathin (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Recanting photo donation?

I'm not planning on doing it to anything I've already uploaded, but I'm curious before I select photos for future uploading: If I have taken a photo, upload it to wikipedia, and later decide that I don't want it up anymore, do I have any policy supporting or prohibiting me from having it deleted on the grounds that I, the author, don't want it up? I'm guessing that legally once I upload it with a Free Document License, it becomes forever legally usable to all(?); however, I know wikipedia doesn't always stop at pure legal/illegal (limiting use of fair use images, for example), and I was curious if there is any policy regarding the wishes of the author that might allow this. Also, I assume if the grounds were to permit the author to have the photo deleted, it likewise prevents anyone who has downloaded the photo from re-uploading it?

Thanks - TheHYPO (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Uploading a photo into a free license is something not to be taken lightly, because you can't take it back. In short, policy prohibits you from taking it back. That's why I always have to think whether a photo is of value to me before I give it away to a free license. Guroadrunner (talk) 13:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Most free licenses are irrevocable. In general an admin would consider requests to delete images on a case by case basis if there is good reason for deletion (i.e. it shows an ex-boyfriend, etc..) - but if you upload a photo under a free licence you should assume that you won't be able to get it deleted. Megapixie (talk) 13:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
And of course, our countless mirrors will keep such an image for eternity, even if Wikipedia (or Commons) deletes such an image. For example, if you uploaded a family picture for your user page (which user's are allowed), I'm sure you could get it deleted later from Wikipedia, but it will stay for ever on some of the mirrors, who often seem to have no mechanism for content removal (since they profit from quantity, not quality). --Rob (talk) 13:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Nassos Vakalis

I want to upload un updated image of Nassos Vakalis, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nassos_Vakalis Sine I'm Nassos Vakalis I have a number of pictures of myself and I'm using as promotional and press release material. These are pictures I have paid to get and the photographer released them to me for such uses. What kind of licensing I must use? It is very confusing. The original picture is here: http://www.nassosvakalis.com/resume.html uploaded by me at my own web page, but I plan to upload a higher resolution version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nassosvakalis (talk • contribs) 20:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Answering on the users talk page. Megapixie (talk) 13:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Need copyright help

So, I uploaded an image, Image:Rohrbaugh R9.jpg, that I downloaded from this site. I have no idea as to its copyright status and would like some input. Thanks, Cerebellum (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)t

We can’t use that image on Wikipedia unless you can get permission of the copyright owner. See WP:COPYREQ for what kind of permission is needed and how to get it. It probably would be a whole lot easier to go to a gun dealer and ask to take your own picture of an R9. --teb728 t c 01:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Can't upload pdf from my computer

I have a file beneficial to Red Deer, Central Asian Red Deer, and Elk wikipedia pages...

The author mailed me a CD on the Symposium on Red Deer Taxonomy and allowed me to use it on wikipedia.

I have saved the pdf file onto my desktop, and have been trying to upload this file to wikipedia.

Everytime I try and upload this file, I get two errors:

1. Computer tells me that I am possibly not connected to internet (which is false) 2. My firewall settings...may be prohibiting me doing so...

Anyhow, can someone PLEASE!!!!!!!! help me.

Thanks

dlc_73 (dlc_73@hotmail.com)

I don't think you can upload pdf files to Wikipedia. Have a look at Wikipedia:Uploading images. You will see that the preferred formats are JPEG for photographic images, SVG for drawings and line-art illustration, PNG for non-vector graphic iconic images, Ogg Vorbis for sound and Ogg Theora for video.
So you need to convert the pdf to jpg, but I am afraid I don't know how you do that. Sorry not to be more helpful. Patche99z (talk) 17:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
You seem to have problems with your internet connection, which are unrelated to Wikipedia. I believe you can upload PDF files to Wikipedia, they are just not quite as suitable for article pages because Mediawiki cannot generate thumbnails for then. Also, note that "allowed me to use it on wikipedia" is not a sufficient license for Wikipedia; they'd need to be released under a free license. -- Ddxc (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Screenshot of GPL licensed software tagged as missing "fair use" rationale

A screenshot of a GPL licensed software package that I took and uploaded (Image:Opie 1 2 launcher.png) has been flagged by BetaCommandBot as not meeting fair use guidelines (see my talk page). Since this image is surely not "non-free", and there is already a license notice attached to the image stating this, why is there a concern here? What more do I need to do? -- BlueLightning (talk) 12:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You initially tagged it with {{non-free software screenshot}}. Someone has since inserted the correct tag. --teb728 t c 21:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually I tagged it as linux-software-screenshot. It was BetaCommandBot that changed it to non-free, without really giving an appropriate explanation as to what it did and why (although I now understand the reason). In any case I guess the situation is now resolved, thanks for the clarification. --BlueLightning (talk) 06:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Help

say i want to put in a picture not a link how do i do that

--Mr kc (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You can’t use a picture directly from another site (like Uncyclopedia commons): In order for a picture to appear on Wikipedia, it must be uploaded to Wikipedia (or Wikimedia commons). And in order to be uploaded here it must have a free license. If you did not take the picture yourself, see WP:COPYREQ for how to handle licensing.
When a picture is uploaded here, you can put it on a page with wikicode like [[Image:Example.jpg]]. --teb728 t c 21:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

eye color

i was wndering if green eyes might develop darker (hazel) in winter...does it go back to it's natural color (green) ? thx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.235.131.223 (talk) 01:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Try asking about that at the reference desk. People who answer questions on this page only know about media copyright questions. --teb728 t c 02:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

If I take a photo of a photograph in a book (with my own camera) and then correct the size, lighting, and then upload it, who is the owner? If I am not, then how should I add the correct summary? --andreasegde (talk) 05:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You have created a derivative work (see article). You do hold the copyright of the resulting image in the same way that you wouldn't own the copyright of using a camcorder in a movie theater. At best the image might be usable under Fair use (but probably not). Can you provide a link to the image? Megapixie (talk) 06:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The image can be found here... --andreasegde (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Photos of the Flying Dutchman (Pirates of the Caribbean ship)

Posting a question that I asked on the Commons helped desk in November as I'm still not sure and seeking additional input given the greater flow of traffic here. Basically I'm asking if I can post these pics to Commons or do I have fair use issues even though I took the pics myself since it's of copyrighted/trademarked material. Thanks. --BrokenSphereMsg me 16:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a couple photos of the Flying Dutchman from the Pirates of the Caribbean movies that I took in the Bahamas last year when it was moored in Freeport following shooting and before being relocated by Disney. I saw it on a shore excursion of the island and there was nothing to prevent people from driving to the canal on the opposite point where it was moored and photographing it. However I'm not sure if I can upload them here because of copyvio/fair use/derivative issues. Thanks. BrokenSphere 18:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If you made the photos, I doubt there's are copyright problem with it. Maxim(talk) 02:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
A week or so ago I ran a search for "pirates of the caribbean" and one of the results was a photo of the Black Pearl which I can no longer find. I don't know if it was deleted because of copyvio issues in some way or what though, which is why I'm not sure. BrokenSphere 06:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not the best person to answer this question but I can link you to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Derivative_work [16]. Hope that helps. --Kushalt 16:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have uploaded an image and i would like to find a suitable copyright tag

I would like the image to be veiwable but not copyable. They can veiw it but not copy it onto their own site —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrblbshrtz (talk • contribs) 20:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to Image:Imperial Commando.JPG? What is it; a screenshot from a video game? Since Wikipedia has a goal of creating freely reusable content, it does not accept content that cannot be copied to another site. --teb728 t c 23:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:M-A Fog.jpg

Image:M-A Fog.jpg

Used in the article Massimo Altomare (m:A Fog)

I got this photo from Massimo Altomare himself, to be used as a promotional photo in the above mentioned Wikipedia article. What do I need to do to prevent it being removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulgakoff (talk • contribs) 22:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Bulgakoff (talk) 08:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

copyright postcard pre 1911

What copyright should I use for an image of a British postcard, origin/author unknown but originally produced about 1911. Thanks Palmiped (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

From what I can find out, pre 1923 images are copyright expired. Mjroots (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Artwork Photo

I'm a little confused. I want to upload an image of a piece of work for the artist Noche Crist. It is not a free image but my rationale is:

1. This is a historically significant work that could not be conveyed in words. 2. Inclusion is for information, education and analysis only. 3. Its inclusion in the article(s) adds significantly to the article(s) because it shows the subject, or the work of the subject, of the article(s). 4. The image is a low resolution copy of the original work and would be unlikely to impact sales of prints or be usable as a desktop backdrop.

How do I go about adding it. I can't find an uploading form for a photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional work.

Ks9887a (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You have the right idea, but your non-free use rationales should explicitly link to the article where they are used. And the article should clearly use the images “for critical commentary on the work in question, the artistic genre or technique of the work of art, or the school to which the artist belongs” and not merely for decoration. --teb728 t c 00:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:VillaRicaSeal.jpg

The City of Villa Rica's seal was removed by a bot because "fair use wasn't sufficiently documented." I used Logo fur this time to document fair use and I'm still getting tagged. Any ideas? Optimistmb (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

All images need a copyright tag; non-free images need also a use rationale. You provided a rationale but no copyright tag. I added a {{non-free logo}} tag. --teb728 t c 20:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah! Sorry I missed that. Thanks! Optimistmb (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Photoshop Font

I created a picture file in Adobe Photoshop, it consists of text (it is my username in a cool font), and I am wondering if the font I used would be under copyright. Or if it would fall under fair use if I want to use it on my userpage.
Thanks,
AlcheMister (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If your image is text only, it is ineligible for copyright, so tag it with {{PD-ineligible}} or {{PD-self}}.
(By the way “fair use” means “non-free.” You can’t have fair-use content on your user page. Fortunately your image is not fair use.) --teb728 t c 23:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

M2W Image

Please help me prove that I have the right to use the image I uploaded the image for the company wikipedia page. I even listed the contact information for the person that gave me permission to use the image on wikipedia.
Image:M2w logo color trans.gif
Thank you
--M2W (talk) 23:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You need a non-free use rationale as described in WP:NFURG for its use in Mail2World. The {{logo fur}} template may be useful. --teb728 t c 00:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

A picture of the cover of a publication...

Does a photo of the cover of an issue of the Willamette Week that have any copyright protections? It's very similar to the image on the publications article, only with the new design... And again, it's just a photo of a free weekly publication. I could apply it to the publications article and Sam Adams (Oregon politician) --travisthurston+ 00:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is undoubtedly copyrighted by the publishers. By Wikipedia’s policy on non-free use it could be used only to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question, which excludes your proposed uses. --teb728 t c 01:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Figured as much. Thanks! --travisthurston+ 03:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Disputed fair use rationale images

Does the displaying of non-free images on Category:Disputed fair use rationale images comply with Wikipedia rules? and if so, is a fair use rationale required for the category page? Dbiel (Talk) 01:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Picture of Wonderswan Color

The wikipedia page for the Wonderswan Color is lacking a picture of the system, so I did a Google Image Search and found a picture of the Wonderswan Color from http://www.engadget.com/.

What license do I put on the picture?

Wiitbred (talk) 03:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

{{delete}}. It's not under a free content license, so Wikipedia can't use it. --Carnildo (talk) 04:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Le Paradis Massacre

I need help on deciding the copyright on these images, they are posted on this website but they were not taken by the owner of the site:

http://www.minordisaster.fsnet.co.uk/strips_farrow1/massacre_scene.jpg

http://www.minordisaster.fsnet.co.uk/strips_farrow1/ocallaghan_pooley_hamburg.jpg

http://www.minordisaster.fsnet.co.uk/strips_farrow1/farmhouse.jpg

http://www.minordisaster.fsnet.co.uk/strips_farrow1/massacre_site.jpg

The last picture according to the website was taken by a German soldier in 1940, and the others between 1940-1949. The persons taking all of these images are long-dead, they were likely not copyrighted at the time, and they have been used elsewhere on the internet suggesting that they are not copyrighted.

So can I use them? Mattyness (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Come on, please? A little help? Other people's questions have been answered...:) Mattyness (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Clear as mud. You assert that the people who took the images are long dead - but are they 70 years long dead ? When were they published ? A large number of WWII era images are still protected by copyright law, since the extension of copyright to life+70. Additional this looks likes someone's personal picture site... Megapixie (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Extracting images from public record documents

I found the following document May 7, 2007 - Regular Meeting Community Development Division Rezoning Application No. 100276 which contains schematics and blueprints of a building. I want to take some of those images and use them on an article (or two). I do not know if because the image is part of a public document, they can be used. The document is for the township of Langley, British Colombia, Canada.

The images uploaded from the document are:

  • Image:Vancouver front.PNG
  • Image:Vancouver temple basement.png

I would like to upload at least two more images, but will wait until I know the status of the copyright. Bytebear (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, these images would be protected by copyright. They are part of public record, but not public domain. Megapixie (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Rk74rg1.jpg

Image:Rk74rg1.jpg appears to me to be in serious violation of copywrite and fair use rules as applies to Wikipedia. It is currenly being used in article The Carpenters as the Infobox musical artist image to represent The Carpenters. It is a great image, and I wish it could be used; BUT the source is indicated as:

Richard and Karen Carpenter, the Carpenters - early 1970s. Photograph by Annie Leibowicz for Rolling Stone Magazine.

I can see no way this image can be legally used without a release from the photograph / Magazine. The fair use rules just do not allow for this type of usage. I had tagged the image for a speedy delete, but that tag was removed by an adminstrator. He does agree with me that there are issues regarding the use of the image, but felt that the speedy delete method was not the correct way to proceed. Is there any way to use this image legally? Or does it need to be deleted? Dbiel (Talk) 01:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I have tagged the image as being unacceptable fair use {{dfu}}. No way that is fair use in that context. Megapixie (talk) 23:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Images & copyright question

I've been trying to find the answer to a question about images without success. Pictures created before 1923 are copyright expired from what I can discover. Does that mean that I can download a picture of a (pre 1923) postcard from the internet to my computer, and then upload it to Wikipedia, or must I actually have the card in my possession, take my own picture of it, then upload my picture that I took myself? There are pictures that I want to add to articles, but I don't want to break the rules in order to do it! Mjroots (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If you are based in the US, then I would say that an image of a pre-1923 postcard is in the public domain - as long as it's just straightforward reproduction (i.e. scan or photograph). If someone has spent time restoring the image, then that work may qualify the image for new copyright. In general it's better that you have the original photograph. If the image contains trademarks then the trademarks themselves may still be protected. If you are not in the US, then things aren't quite so clear. More details (i.e. specific image) would be helpful. Megapixie (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Drawings of Ships

I am currently in talks with a group of artists who specializes in drawing naval vessels. I understand that they would have no problems releasing the pictures (low res) in Wiki with proper attribution.

However, what should be the correct license to be used? Should it be creative commons 3.0 or GNU?

Koxinga CDF (talk) 01:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Both would be acceptable it would be up to the artist.Geni 15:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Game screenshot/fair use rationale confusion

After having been away for several months (I left probably around June or so of 2007 (I come here in bursts - active for maybe a few days, then I leave for months and repeat)), I returned to find a lot of notices in [my talk page] stating of disputes of the fair use rationale and that it doesn't meet the first criteria for non-free images. If you look at the "game screenshot" dialog, it tells me, quoting from it, "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline, as well as the source of the work and copyright information". If I do add it, the dispute occurs as shown on my talk page, and the image gets deleted without me knowing about it (since I don't bother logging in often for months at a time, and only lasting a few days), but the "game screenshot" tag is telling me to do so and as a consequence to this contradiction, I'm totally confused as to what I should do. I would like to contribute game screenshots, however, but what to do so the image doesn't get deleted is bothersome. Some of my screenshots have "survived" though such as those for Jumping Flash, Bubsy 3D, and one of Super Monkey Ball 2 and I don't know why. The screenshots I've uploaded are all from non-free console games. I record a video of my gameplay and the screenshot I upload is just a cropped still frame from that video. Ulillillia (talk) 13:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

For some time Wikipedia has encouraged uploaders to provide use rationales for non-free media. A month or two ago Wikimedia Foundation adopted a policy which requires deletion of non-free media that lacks a use rationale. They gave us till March 23 to do so. Since then bots have been working overtime tagging non-conforming media. So the reason why some of your screenshots have been deleted during your hiatus is the newly strict policy. And the reason some of them survived is that the bots haven’t gotten to them yet. --teb728 t c 00:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

DroneZone's pictures

I don't know what else you want, but it will be nice if you deal with those copyrights, because i Do Not know how, and you keep wanting more and more permissions. I specified that these pictures are property of this and that place and i provided the adresses from where they are, so everybody to knows who's master them. Now, these are free pictures after all and after i specified the owner, What else makes problems. Where i got these pictures. Well, it's hard to remember, but i'm sure they were from the Internet with free access. If you want these amazing photos and this rare information in your site, please you do the thing that you what from me(i say again, i don't know how - so many rules and english is not my firs language unfortunately, i'm trying to do my best, and i want it here, in english wiki). Don't let my hard work be for nothing. I will delete everything if you are not able or willing to help (not with instructions though). Give me right away your answer at my e-mail : maus192tons@yahoo.com

I'm very disappointed. All this was for Nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DroneZone (talk • contribs) 16:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

emailed.Geni 17:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

copyright for the international version of the RADURA-logo

Image:RADURACX.JPG

As explained when uploading the new file, and as explained in the corresponding WIKI-article about 'radura', there is no copright for this version of the symbol. It is used at many places and instances, since the copyright was granted (probably in the 60ies) from the original owner, the former Gammaster, today Isotron, Ede-Wageningen, Netherlands to everybody making a 'responsible' use. It is also contained in the Codex Alimentarius Standard for Labelling irradiated food as an optional symbol.

Hence it might be in the UN-domain likewise. However, I am not sure which TAG to use. Thanks for your attention and help. Dieter E (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT: STOLEN IMAGE: REMOVE IMMEDIATELY

I am the copyright holder of this image. It has been stolen off of my server. It is registered with the Copyright office and is protected and according to Copyright law 's right of creation and placing into copy by me the day it was shot. The disk was sent the day after the images were shot prior to it's theft.

It's illegal theft has resulted in a breech of contract with it's release prior to publication. I have verifiable documentation of illegal entrance into my private files to obtain it. I have released ZERO right of use to anyone.

It is to be removed immediately.

Further action is pending.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizzy_Bone —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tglodt (talk • contribs) 06:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi there Tglodt, welcome to Wikipedia. The image in question (Image:Bizzy Bone.jpg) has been uploaded by a user who hasn't justified the source nor the license, and therefore I deleted it. Note that these images are usually deleted 7 days after being uploaded, after warning the user who uploaded them. I want to also point you to one of our policies, Wikipedia:No legal threats. If you have a complain about an image, mail the Wikimedia Foundation directly, providing the required information. As I just said, the community usually acts between 48 hours and a week of being uploaded, and since we usually have a backlog of images to delete, it may take even more. If you want a faster resolution, contact the Foundation directly. Best regards. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 06:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Generaly we shortcut the process when we recive requests from copyright holders. Contacting the foundation would actualy produce a slower result.Geni 10:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
But there is no way we can verify we are talking with the copyright holder unless we make an off-wiki contact, and the Foundation is prepared to do that. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 11:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
We generaly don't really care. Any outsider pointing out copyvios will generaly be responded to.Geni 12:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Help!!!

I have 3 questions: firstly, I want to know if I want to upload a picture that's from my own camera, what license would that fall under?

Secondly, on the Zamalek article, the pictures had been removed because they were "too many" and you have accused me that several are screenshots (not all of them were); the fellow that edited the Al Ahly (Egypt) article has put many photos which are all screenshots, so either remove those pictures, or put mine back.

Thirdly, I am a member of the official Zamalek fan club (Z.L.U) so I don't see why I can't place screenshots they took - they even gave me permission to do so! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basedas2 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi there! For the first question, if it is your picture from your own camera, then you could consider it uploading via Wikimedia Commons instead (use this form then, but only if it was you the one who took the picture—you would need to create a login there... or you can upload it here, and wait for someone to move it later to Commons). For license, you could choose Public Domain, Creative Commons or GFDL.
About Zamalek, I notice this modification. Wikipedia articles should use as few non-free images as possible, and if indeed all were screenshots, it was unnecessary. Also, consider that most of those images can be obtained by anyone using a camera. About El Ahly, those images are not screenshots but instead pictures taken from a fan (apparently), and released under a free license. There is a watermarked image, but a first glance reveals the images have EXIF camera information. There is noting wrong with those images (although one would say that even when they are free, there are too many images to be useful when all are showing the same idea, in this case a group of fans). Note also that the fact that someone else did something wrong first doesn't mean it gives you right to do the same.
Finally, if the screenshots were taken from TV, a DVD or a web transmission, they are copyrighted by the network that transmitted the match or the event, not by the one who took the screenshot. It is like photocopying a page of the latest Harry Potter book and saying you are the copyright holder because you made the photocopy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReyBrujo (talk • contribs) 12:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

pasting images to guestbooks

I cant figure out how to post images in guestbooks... i always thought it was the same as WFO but it doesnt seem to work..

thanks for answers :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.54.40.202 (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Doubtful licenses

I have not been able to find an online source for Image:Tuka.jpg or Image:Rodobrana.jpg, so i cannot properly fill out a {{copyvio}} template. I doubt very much, though, that these images are PD. The uploader claims that they were released, but how, why and when? All images the uploader has contributed have been marked PD, including at least 1 blatant violation (Image:Rahowa-band.jpg). What procedure do I follow to get listed for review? --Storkk (talk) 14:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You can list them on WP:PUI. Megapixie (talk) 14:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Joe wickham.jpg

It's a scan from a 1964 newspaper cutting. OK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richie2020 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

image from out of print Collectible Card Game

Hello, I sort of adopted The_Wheel_of_Time_Collectible_Card_Game wiki page, and added an image from one of the cards.

The original owner, Precedence Entertainment, went bankrupt in 2002. The license hasn't been resold to a new company. The image is freely available online, among others and primarily on: http://wotccg.mahasamatman.com/

The owner of http://wotccg.mahasamatman.com/ has given me permission to use the file on the WoT CCG wikipedia page. It has purely illustrative function.

My question: Is this allowed?

link to file: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rand_al%27Thor_I_%28Wheel_of_Time_CCG_-_Premier_Edition%29.jpg

Kweniston (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia does not accept permission for use on Wikipedia only. The only acceptable permission allows reuse by anyone for anything. Without such permission images may used only under the highly restrictive non-free content criteria. --teb728 t c 01:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

John Lennon

Somebody needs to check the copyright of Image:LennonNYC.jpg. I see no OTRS ticket on it. And did the photographer of one of the most famous photos of Lennon really release his copyright on it, and give it to us GFDL? If so, there needs to be better documentation. It would be great if he did, but right now I think it's a copyright problem. --David Shankbone 21:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The person who uploaded it has less than 500 edits. User:Hotcop2. --David Shankbone 21:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
My understanding is that HotCop obtained the rights fromt he person taking the image to use. After the big Bag o' Crazy™ served up by SixString1965's multiple fraudulent images, i can understand why people might be a tad hyper-vigilant with any image of Lennon. HotCop apparently knows the original photographer of the image, and seems to have obtained his written permission to use the image. He has stated that he has followed protocol to utilize the image correctly. Maybe the image should be reinstated while HotCop's assertions are investigated. If it turns out that the image was used fraudulently, it will be important to know, and we can take immediate and community-based action to remove him. I think he knows what's at stake, and considering that he seems to be doing what he's supposed to, maybe we could AGF and undelete the image until we know what's what. Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 11:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 December 14#Image:LennonNYC.jpg, OTRS ticket 2007121410018321 closed unsuccessfully. --teb728 t c 00:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
From that discussion, it appears the permission was wikipedia-only, rather than being a free license. —Random832 15:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Use of state and local government documents/images

It is mentioned in many places that documents developed by the U.S. government are in the public domain and can be used freely but state and local government documents are not and the same rules do not apply. It is also mentioned in some of these places that most states have some kind of freedom of information act that allows copying of some state and local documents but the discussion stops there - no examples of fair use are given. When you actually try to upload a file, the only thing the Upload file page says is It is from a U.S. federal government source (NOT state or local government) which might lead someone to believe that you simply can't use state or local government material. So.....

Question #1: Is it generally possible to use some state and local developed documents/images?

Question #2: If so, what license would generally apply and what fair use rationale would generally be appropriate?

Notice my use of the word generally. I realize that each state has its own rules and that within those rules there are always some documents that are restricted. As the submitter, I realize that it is my responsibility to make sure I comply with those laws. For instance, I am working on Villa Rica, Georgia and I would like to upload a map of the historic gold mines from the Villa Rica Comprehensive Plan. This document meets all the requirements of Georgia's Open Records Act.

If there is a discussion of this topic somewhere, please point me towards it. Thanks.

Optimistmb (talk) 04:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be under a misconception that fair use is a good thing—it is not. Fair-use images are those for which there is no acceptable permission (except a basic right of freedom of speech). The use of fair-use images is highly discouraged on Wikipedia—subject to Wikipedia’s restrictive WP:non-free content policy.
What is good is either public domain or free content. US Federal government works are special because they are almost always public domain. Most state government works are not public domain. See Requesting copyright permission for how to request copyright permission from a third party. Notice that permission for use only on Wikipedia or only for non-commercial use is not acceptable to Wikipedia.
If you have no alternative but fair use, there is no “general” answer—it depends on the specific use. Try to find a tag from Image copyright tags/Non-free. If you can’t find an appropriate tag, the use is probably not permitted by Wikipedia policy. For example, for a logo or seal, use a {{non-free logo}} tag, and use {{logo fur}} for the rationale. --teb728 t c 07:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
So how do open records laws effect use of state/local documents? Best I can tell they constitute "acceptable permission." Optimistmb (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, the open records laws say that the state must provide access to public records but do not say that they must allow reuse—much less commercial reuse and derivative works. Wikipedia does not accept permission unless it includes commercial reuse and derivative works. --teb728 t c 17:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. That answered my questions. I guess now I have to figure out how to draw my own maps... Optimistmb (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ki 45 001.jpg

It appears tht this image is causing a fight because the copyright status is unsure.

The image is claimed PD as per Japanese Public Domain rules, and the picture is sourced from

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Ki_45_001.jpg&action=history

Sourced from:[17] http://www.ww2incolor.com/gallery/japan/ki_45_001

So can someone figure out what's going on? Guroadrunner (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

images with no mod clause, are they 'free'?

Hello, this is the text from a Falun Gong website, Minghui.net, outlining their policy for images: "欢迎转载传阅本网所有内容，但请注明出处", the English translation of which is "you are free to transfer (for display) and transmit all content, provided use its attributed." (kindly translated by Ohconfucius). I also have other text in english from an email saying basically the same thing for Clearwisdom.net (english version of the same site). Is there an appropriate tag which allows images which are free for any use, require attribution, but which are not free to modify? Your time is appreciated.--Asdfg12345 09:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Without a right to modify / create derivative works it is not free as far as Wikipedia and the free content movement are concerned. It is not 100% clear that this is what the release means, but to be careful we can assume they are not including that right in the license. Thus, we have to treat it like any non-free image here. You might consider corresponding with them if you can, and asking if they will release it under a broad enough license to be considered free. Wikidemo (talk) 10:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your time, I really appreciate it. It's good of you to spend your personal time helping other people. I'll email them and explain the situation, and hopefully the images can be released.--Asdfg12345 11:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

0000jpg246 Jimmy Boyd 2007

I uploaded this image to replace the incorrect image of the actor Jim Boyd (Electric Company) This is a current picture of actor, singer Jimmy Boyd. I work for Mr. Boyd and Wikipedia has his permission to display the image on his Wikipedia page. I do not know what copyright label to give it. If you have any suggestions, that would be helpful. thank you ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camaflage (talk • contribs) 10:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not accept permission to display an image only on Wikipedia. If you took the picture yourself, you can choose {{PD-self}}, {{GFDL-self}}, or any of the WP:ICT/FL#Creative Commons licenses.
If someone else took it, see WP:COPYREQ for how to handle licensing. (It might be easier to replace it with one you take yourself.) --teb728 t c 22:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:TP Falcon.svg

I believe that Image:TP Falcon.svg is using an invalid license. It is the logo of a school and as such the copywrite would appear to belong to the school. The fact that the uploader recreated the image, I do not believe, permits it to be licensed as GNU I believe that the image is fine to use in the article under the fair use rules but should use a different license. The question is what is the correct license in this case? Dbiel (Talk) 01:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably {{non-free logo}} with a {{logo fur}} rationale for each use. --teb728 t c 21:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Wine bottles and labels

Over on the Wine Project, we've been having a discussion about what images we can use to illustrate the wine articles. For the moment, assume we're just talking about photos taken by Wikipedians of bottles, and scans made of labels and such like. We have 3 main sources of image :

  • Photos of bottles - so 3D objects, but the most "interesting" bit of them is almost always the (2D) label. I've never thought of wine as fractal before! As long as the label is on the bottle and hence "curved", it's OK? Does the bottle represent the "whole work" and the label "a portion"? There may also be a few cases where the bottle shape is of interest - vin jaune is a traditional example, Cristal (champagne) an example where there is probably some kind of Coke-style protection by a company on the bottle itself. Is there any distinction between "long shots" of the entire bottle (eg Penfolds Grange) and closeups (there's 2 different sorts on Tempranillo).
  • Scans of labels. Once the label has been removed from the bottle, it becomes a 2D object that can be scanned. Does the label have an copyright existence independent of the bottle? If so, are we then relying on copyright laws in the country of origin - most do not have explicit copyright notices, so US bottles would be OK pre 1978? Obviously we're an interesting case in that some claret labels have essentially stayed the same for 100+ years, although some have dates on the main label, others don't. And many wineries use their labels in advertising materials, and for some old Bordeaux wineries in particular the labels could be regarded as corporate 'logos'.
  • Scans of labels in books. As a Brit this is the one that feels unintuitive, but for US books, this just "reads through" as though you were scanning the label directly, as "reproductions of two-dimensional artwork", but this isn't the case for UK publications?

I assume that "publishing" is assumed by the sale of a bottle. Since most wineries sell their wine to middlemen, am I right in thinking that "publishing" generally happens in the home country of the winery, except in the case of a few multinationals? So we need to find out fast about copyright law in France, Hungary, Chile etc etc! We also have three main classes of articles to illustrate :

  • Wines - very few are notable enough to get their own article, but that seems a fairly clearcut case of illustration like using the cover of a book in a book article
  • Wineries - obviously this gets complicated as they're commercial organisations, it seems that using one label in an article is probably OK, it's not going into "discography" territory?
  • Grapes and regions - our most common type of article at the moment, and as 'concepts' in some ways the most problematic. It feels like one picture of a bottle should be OK per article, to illustrate packaging, but reading the guidelines I'm not quite sure how to justify it. ;-/ It feels like it's OK, as in that Tempranillo article to use bottles that illustrate the use of alternative names for grapes for instance, but that's as far as it gets.

It just seems that wine manages to be quite a knotty problem from the copyright POV - 2D versus 3D, respecting commercial opportunities versus illustrating general concepts. And then you get articles like thisexplicitly encouraging wineries to submit photos to Wikipedia wine 'concept' articles for advertising purposes!!
Be interested to hear views, it might be better over on the existing discussion. FlagSteward (talk) 14:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The search engine land article you refer to is a little frightening from the self-promotion point of view. But if wineries followed the recommendation, at least their images would be clean from the copyright point of view. --teb728 t c 21:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I upload free use images someone else made?

I am attempting to illustrate an article on an old video game that I can no longer play. I found a willing victim on the 'net who has sent me a number of images from the game. I would prefer to spare him the pain of attempting to follow the wiki's Byzantine tagging rules, and upload the files myself. Is this copacetic? Maury (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you are talking about screenshots from the game. Assuming that is the case, your friend has no more right to them than you: the copyright belongs to the developer of the game. Wikipedia’s non-free content policy, however, may allow you to use a small number of screenshots. Use the {{non-free game screenshot}} tag, and provide a non-free use rationale for each use, as described in WP:NFURG. --teb728 t c 20:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes of course. The question was whether or not the person who physically made the images has to be the one to upload them. This is NOT clear on any of the pages. Maury (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
As I said "your friend has no more right to them than you." --teb728 t c 22:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
To be even clearer: no. If the images are usable on Wikipedia, then anybody can upload them However, these are almost certainly not "free use" images, as you suggest in this section's header. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, now I understand the confusion. That is a freudian typo, it should say "fair use". Maury (talk) 00:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Where do I get the copyright for these screencaps from?

I've uploaded the screenshot from logos of local TV shows for their wikipedia pages. Where can I get the copyright for these from? Shameless (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I assume that what you want to know is how to create a non-free use rationale. It is explained in WP:NFURG. --teb728 t c 21:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


AEC maik.jpg image

I have uploaded the picture on the wrong page it is now available on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:AEC_maik.jpg. Can I delete it from the other page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AEC_maik.jpg) somehow?

Well you could put {{delete}}. But I am concerned about the copy in commons: It has an attribution required tag, but it provides no attribution. Also, it has no author information, and myspace is a suspicious source. --teb728 t c 21:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Great Northern Railway Mansfield Branch image of Map

How do i place a copyright on this map? I created the image myself using AutoCAD and photoshop. Please help?

Darrin Nelson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndarrin97 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I assume you refer to Image:Cover_sheet.jpg. The copyright tag goes on the image description page--not the article. If it weren’t for the Great Northern and Burlington Northern logos, you could use {{GFDL-self}} or any other free content tag. But the logos make it a derivative work; so you are not the author. --teb728 t c 22:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Man or boy algorithum

The program that appears here: Man or boy test#Knuth's example, originally comes from here: Algol Bulletin No. 17, July 1964 [18].

Is this a problem?

NevilleDNZ (talk) 03:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm interesting case. I would lean towards saying that as long as we credit the author clearly (which we appear to do), then it would be fair use. One other thing may be it's publication without any copyright symbol pre-1978 (you'd have to confirm), which may have rendered it public domain. Megapixie (talk) 14:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Punisher: War Zone Image

I need some assistance with the promotional photo for the upcoming film, Punisher: War Zone, which I uploaded last week (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Punisher_war_zone.jpg). The source was the Marvel.com homepage and I am not sure what else is being asked of me. Thanks. Equinox137 (talk) 07:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

RTM WP:FURG first. Megapixie (talk) 14:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

image copyright for Image:Kvj.jpg

hi. i've taken the image from a blogspot...http://lordofeverything.blogspot.com/... how to cite? plz also let me know to to go back to the image and edit the copyright. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegepizza (talk • contribs)

RTM Wikipedia:Uploading images first. Megapixie (talk) 14:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Paul flynn.JPG

Doesn't this image qualify under fair usage policy. I've done everything told plus I've given valid rationale. ManfromDelmonte (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Basically no. It's seems unlikely it's fair use under law - additionally it would meet our policy of replaceability. Megapixie (talk) 14:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Images from Google

I found a picture for Tara Strong i found out that you don't have a picture for her so i thought i could help

but i don't know who took it or any other informations it's only a picture in the web why would there be any copyrights ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HeX-4869 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Do not upload random images from the internet. Copyright is automatic in the United states and just about everywhere else. I would suggest reading Wikipedia:Uploading images before proceeding. Megapixie (talk) 03:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

copyright of song lyrics

Do I need permission to use quotes from song lyrics on jewelry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.28.14 (talk) 05:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Depends on when the song was written, almost certainly you do. Moreover, permission for use of the lyrics on Wikipedia is insufficient; they would need to be licensed under a free license of some sort. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sindre Kjeldsberg in 2007.jpg

User talk:Msindrek From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Sindre Kjeldsberg in 2007.jpg Thanks for uploading Image:Sindre Kjeldsberg in 2007.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We requires this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

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

Wikipedia:Image use policy Wikipedia:Image copyright tags Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

i found the image on google

Advice on Asa Baber.jpg

As I indicated in the photo comments, this photo first appeared in the cover of "Land of a Million Elephants." It was released, however, for publication with his obituary. Given that it was part of a press release, intended for distribution and publishing, which license category would it fall under?

It's a non-free image, so you'll need to come up with a fair use rationale. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

What if an image has no copyright at all?

What if an image has no copyright at all? I have an image that is not copyrighted at all and I have to tag it appropriately. It is the emblem of my very small school. I have permission to put the image on Wikipedia, and use it in articles. What should I tag it as? Weirdude (talk) 06:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Please reply before it is removed, the image is Image:BCA EMB.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weirdude (talk • contribs) 06:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

What is your basis for saying that it is not copyrighted? If it's the logo for a school, the copyright is almost certainly held by the school (or school district or similar structure). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the image page itself, I see you're claiming to have permission from the image's creator. If you can get the image's creator (provided the creator is also the copyright holder) to license it under a free use license (such as WP:GFDL) then you can use it as a free image; otherwise, you'll need to come up with a fair use rationale. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Image found on Google.

I found an image of Iftikhar Anjum and there is no picture of him in Wikipedia I thought I could contribute. So please tell me whether I should upload this picture or not. Here is the link to the photo: [19] Khuda Hafiz (talk) 08:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Iftikhar Anjum is a living person, and Wikipedia does not allow non-free images of living people. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Neuroblastoma image from NCI visuals online

Is it permissible to upload this neuroblastoma image from NCI visuals online? Right now the neuroblastoma article has an image of ganglioneuroblastoma from the German wiki neuroblastoma article Thanks, DMLudwinski (talk) 15:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, all images at NCI Visuals Online are PD [20]. --teb728 t c 18:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Heart of Illinois Great Dane Club image

Hello,

I'm not sure what to tag the Image for the Heart of Illinois Great Dane Club. I am the club's webmaster and a member of the club. I'm not sure if it the image is copyrighted or not. However, the Heart of Illinois Great Dane Club gives Wikipedia permission to use the Image either way.

That being said, what should the Image be tagged with?


Thank you,

Joe

21:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)~

Tag Image:Hoigdclogo.gif with {{non-free logo}} and use {{logo fur}} to provide an non-free use rationale as explained in WP:NFURG.
I am more concerned about your article Heart of Illinois Great Dane Club. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must be written from a neutral point of view, and should cite to reliable sources which verify their content. Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for companies and organizations and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.
As it is, the article is in danger of being deleted because it does not establish notability with reliable sources. --teb728 t c 22:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Brisbane Square

Is this a clear enough rationale for the copyright?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:850_385_DCM_Brisbane_Square.jpg

Sorry, but I don’t see anything that vaguely resembles a non-free use rationale. A non-free use rationale is an explanation of why a non-image should be allowed despite Wikipedia’s restrictions on non-free content. See the non-free use rationale guideline. In your case the significance criterion is particularly important: “Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.” It seem to me that your uses both fail this criterion. --teb728 t c 07:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Giant squid

I have writtena short article on the squid giant synapse and have two figs that i would like to append. They are modified from my own work and so the copyright is mine. The images can be found in the publications included in the articles. I would appreciate advice as I think this is an important area of neuroscience research and I am being constantly ask to put something in wikipedia so I don't have to be constantly addressed by students and lay public. Many thanks, Rodolfo Llinas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodolfo Llinas (talk • contribs) 14:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a little bit confused - what is it that you're looking for advice on? If the copyright is yours and you're prepared to release them under a free license, go right ahead. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:EdinburghWaterfront.jpg

I made this image and added a "self|GFDL-no-disclaimers|cc-by-3.0" notice. Yet STBotI says it is missing info. This is the tag I have been using for all my uploads of late. What am I doing wrong? Verne Equinox (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Is the following FUR considered acceptable?

There is a proposal at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Polbot 7 that will make use of the following FUR:
{{Non-free use rationale
| Article = actual name of the article inserted here by Polbot
| Description = logo
| Source = intellectual property owned by the organization represented
| Portion = entire logo
| Low_resolution = yes
| Purpose = Used to represent the organization in an article on that organization.
| Replaceability=no
| other_information=This rationale '''only''' covers use in the article on this organization represented by this logo. Any other use requires a different, separate rationale. <small>This rationale was generated by a bot, based on the fact that this is tagged as a logo and is used only in the [[actual name of the article inserted here by Polbot]] article. If this is not correct, please remove.
}}

My specific concern is regarding the source statement. Is this considered an acceptable statement or not? If it is I will make use of it as well. As an example I did use it at Image:MMM circle logo.gif
Dbiel (Talk) 14:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Big Country - One in a Million.jpg

This is not a question, I'm just saying that I don't think that I've got permission to use the image. You can delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A3oertENG (talk • contribs) 20:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Apple Image Use Agreement

Is Apple's "Image Use Agreement" compatible with Wikipedia?

http://www.apple.com/pr/bios/ive_agreement.html

Does wikipedia qualify for "editorial use by press"? Can we copy images from there? -- þħɥʂıɕıʄʈʝɘɖı 22:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. That agreement is not acceptable to Wikipedia. It is not transferable, non-commercial, and not modifiable. In order to be acceptable to Wikipedia permission must allow reuse by anyone (including commercial reuse) for anything (including derivative works). --teb728 t c 22:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


Uploading an image without a licence

I have been getting those warnings that I have uploaded an image file and not marked it with a licence and so it may be deleted in future. Unfortunately the design of the upload form makes it very easy to upload an image without a licnece and the instructions on how to fix the problem aren't terribly clear in telling you what to do, making it very hard to fix the problem. Why not change the Upload file page to force the user to select a licence instead of allowing the licence to be left blank? That would surely be better than the current system by avoiding the problem in the first place. I guess this is more of a suggestion than a question, but I didn't know what else to do with it. --Kerry (talk) 23:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No you cant just leave it blank you have got to give a license to it if you dont know when you upload a photo next time when it gets to licensing you will se a down arrow pick a license from one of these choices and then you can upload it but dont forget you have to put the right license Trulystand700 (talk)

tag warning still coming up

i added the tag {{GFDL-self}} to a photo i uploaded and it still is saying it will delete it? Is this message just slow to go away? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plantman2 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The warning said, “This template should be replaced with the appropriate copyright tag.” You were supposed to remove it when you added the copyright tag. I removed it for you. --teb728 t c 23:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Images I took for my job that I hold the copyright for being disputed as fair use

These photos were either taken by me or a photographer working for me. I hold the copyright or reproduction rights for the photos and chose to put them online as fair use with the logo. If this is the wrong tag, what is the right tag? --Ryanjcole (talk) 02:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I made the GFDL. That should do, right? Photos of mine on the Jack Skille page are marked in the same manner. --Ryanjcole (talk) 02:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
If you're the copyright holder for those images, you can release them under the GFDL. However, be aware that doing so means that someone else can reuse those images under the GFDL. They can reuse them in another Wikimedia project, or outside Wikipedia altogether. You may want to consider using a Creative Commons license if it would be more appropriate for your circumstances, although you would still need to ensure that the image can be used for commercial purposes (since Wikipedia is reproduced in some for-profit sites). As far as the D3sports.com watermark goes, Wikipedia:Image use policy says, "User-created images should not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free use, unless, of course, the image is intended to demonstrate watermarking, distortion etc. and is used in the related article. All photo credit should be in a summary on the image description page." It may be more appropriate to put the D3sports.com link into the image description rather than as a watermark on the photograph, although the keyword from the policy is "should not". I'm assuming that you're the same Ryan Coleman listed at d3football.com. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I don’t understand: If these images were taken for your job, then they would be work for hire, and the copyright would belong to the employer. So are you a photographer/photo editor working for D3sports.com, or are you the proprietor of D3sports.com? --teb728 t c 05:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I am the photo editor. All photos for D3sports.com come under my expertise. In addition to that the photograpy for D3sports.com is a separate entity. Please feel free to contact Pcole2001 for more information. He is the publisher and my direct superior. I am also the photographer of 5 of the 6 photos. They were deleted. I am contemplating removing every single photo and addition I have ever made to Wikipedia. I don't care if someone reuses my photo, that's why I put the logo on there. The practices of the "policers" on this website has gotten out of control. Reinstate those 6 photos please. --Ryanjcole (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Old book frontispiece: fair use

Image:Frontispiece of book published ca 1935.jpg Re this image, I have two questions: 1) I seem to remember choosing the tag "book cover" because I could find no adequate definition corresponding to this particular case. One thing is certain, a frontispiece is not the same thing, so perhaps someone could suggest a more appropriate tag. 2) As for the fair use rationale, I gave as full a description as I could of the image's sources and intended use in WP with the following summary: Frontispiece with initial "B.R." credit; caption (incorrect): "The famous L.N.E.R Pacific class locomotive 'The Flying Scotsman' in Hind J.R. "The Book of the Railway" (Collins clear-type press, London & Glasgow, UK). No Publication date, but certainly around 1935/6. Request inclusion in LNER Class A1/A3 article as book is long-since out of print and no free licence image adequately represents this famous locomotive type in its most iconic form. Once again if this is inadequate, perhaps someone can help me conform to the norms. Another editor has traced the original publication date to 1927, so mine must be a re-edition, however the image would probably date from the first edition. --John of Paris (talk) 13:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Use of book cover of book being described is questioned

Image:Mask-of-sanity-book-cover.jpg is the cover of The Mask of Sanity. Does it not quality as fair use? Mattisse 15:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyright laws/policies for Guernsey stamps

As I know nearly nothing about British (and absolutely nothing about Guernsey) Copyright Law, and very little about the copyright policy of the English version of Wikipedia: Is it possible to publish Guernsey stamps here? Under what conditions? Do Wikimedia Commons accept Guernsey stamps?

And, by the way, does anyone own these stamps or can otherwise provide a better image? I would like to illustrate Sibyl Hathaway with one of these stamps.--Hannesde Correct me! 18:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

question

Image:What is data.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.135.236.186 (talk • contribs) 06:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you clarify your question? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Image: Scaleo P V2.jpg

I've uploaded an image of a Desktop Pc which will apparently be erase, the image itself has come from Fujitsu-Siemens website which i'm trying to create a Section for the Scaleo P's Desktop PC. The current image which i'm using is [[Image:Scaleo P V2.jpg]] although yes, it's the same picture the size was too big. The website didn't say anything about not being able to copy images nor did the image had a copyright symbol on it, if it did i wouldn't have copied the image, however is it alright for me to use the image, i don't really want to get into serious trouble again the original file was Image:2028937308.jpg, i couldn't find a correct copyright status on the list as it only had software copyright, personal copyright, and wikipedia copyright. SKYNET (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Even if the image doesn't include a copyright symbol and isn't accompanied by a warning not to copy it, it's still copyrighted. To put any copyright image on Wikipedia, you need to include a fair use rationale (which explains, basically, why only a copyrighted image will do, why it couldn't be replaced with a free image, why the image is critical to the article in which it's being used, etc.). This image seems like it would be easily replaceable with a free image (all somebody would have to do is a take a picture of one of these units), so I can't see it being acceptable for use anywhere on Wikipedia. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Logo creation

I made a logo using the Magic Kingdom, Epcot, Animal Kingdom and the future Disney's HGollywood Studios logos for WikiPorject Walt Disney World, but I'm not sure what license I should use. Cheers from Malpass93 (talk) 21:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

What you are trying to do is not possible. You combine non-free logos. Any one of them could be used to identify the single entity. By combining them you create an image which cannot be used anywhere in accordance with the non-free content policy. --teb728 t c 22:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC) I don't mean to say it's impossible to make a project logo: you just can't make it out of copyrighted materials. --teb728 t c 22:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Rggi map.svg

My image "Rggi map.svg" got nailed by OrphanBot, but all of the copyright rationales it said were needed were on the description page already? Does anyone know what's causing the false positive, or what I might need to change? - Cg-realms (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2007 (EST)

My best guess is: At the time the bot tagged it, the Image:Rggi map.svg description page said only “{{GFDL-no-disclaimers}}.” The bot asked “Who created this image?” and “Who owns the copyright to this image?” Maybe the answer to both questions was you, but that was not obvious. A {{GFDL-self}} tag would have indicated that. --teb728 t c 07:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Made tag, not sure if correct copyright tag.

Hello, was just reading the copyright tag help, but still can't quite figure it out. I added a link to the source, but am not quite sure now to create the tag. The item in question is image:Oh My Goddess! ~First End~ Cover.jpg. I have made a tag, but am unsure if it is the correct tag. Can someone please take a look?

What kind of publication is it? {{non-free comic}} is the tag if it is a comic book. But if it is a book cover, {{non-free book cover}} would be better. In any case it needs a non-free use rationale for each use. --teb728 t c 09:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Hakmana Zonal Education

Hakmana Zonal education office is 23 Km away from Matara

--Jayathilakamunasinghe (talk) 07:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC) [1]

Neem image posted, but source says "all rights reserved."

The image Image:Neem_Toothpaste.jpg looks like the photographer has uploaded their own image, but they link to a flickr page [21] that has "© All Rights Reserved" and no explanation of the licensing on the photo page. What is the best way to notify this user? Oswald Glinkmeyer (talk) 13:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mother Juana and the cherub 01.jpg

Please help!!

I recived this message, and i don't know what to do....

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mother Juana and the cherub 01.jpg Thanks for uploading Image:Mother Juana and the cherub 01.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I speak spanish, my english is like "me Tazan, you jane"

Ipedreroc (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The main problem seems to be: can the images you uploaded be used legally in Wikipedia. They seem to violate the Fair Use rules; It will probably be easier for you to read the spanish version http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Uso_leg%C3%ADtimo . As far as the tag left by BetacommandBot, it is simply saying that you need to add a fair use statement to each of the images you uploaded. The following is copied for the benefit of others:
Here is the complete original sequence of "Mother Juana and the cherub" (in Spanish).
  • Image:Mother_Juana_and_the_cherub_01.jpg
  • Image:Mother_Juana_and_the_cherub_02.jpg
  • Image:Mother_Juana_and_the_cherub_03.jpg
  • Image:Mother_Juana_and_the_cherub_04.jpg
  • Image:Mother_Juana_and_the_cherub_05.jpg
  • Image:Mother_Juana_and_the_cherub_06.jpg
  • Image:Mother_Juana_and_the_cherub_07.jpg
  • Image:Mother_Juana_and_the_cherub_08.jpg
Used in article The Convent of Hell

Old Sheet Music From 1915

I have some scanned pages from some old sheet music from 1915... Am i able to post them? I was thinking perhaps the copyrights might not apply to them anymore, in the way that old music is now free domain.... purpleidea (talk) 04:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Public Domain?

I've found several photos through the Corbis Images for Education database, and their listed as being from before 1923, but has a copyright as "© Bettmann/CORBIS". Now, the question is, if the date is listed as before 1923, would it qualify as public domain, despite the copyright symbol? Murderbike (talk) 01:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This only means that CORBIS has copyright on the works as they are included in their database. Basically they claim copyright on the scan of the original work. This is somewhat of a grey area in copyright law, but most people have argued that as long as you attribute CORBIS, and not fully copy their entire library, you can upload these images and mark them as PD. However, make sure you properly source and attribute both the original and the scan. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Pls delete a map

I have uploaded by mistake the file: Image:Dniepr-Volga-10th cent-GR.jpg. Is it possible for someone to delete it? --Panagiotis botsis (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Your request has been relayed and an administrator will deal with it this week. Next time this happens, you can add {{db-author}} to the text of the image. Adding this will include a template that will notify administrators that you uploaded the image by mistake. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyright policy on recreated logo's

I am interested in finding out what Wikipedia's policy is regarding the recreating of company or school logos? To the best of my understanding, the simple fact that someone recreates a copy of a existing logo should not allow them to publish that logo as " the copyright holder of this work" using a GNU license. See the following example: Image:NAA Logo Wrap-12-6-7.gif This is just one of a number of images I have run into to where the uploader claims to be the copyright holder. I would think it would be better to use a non-free logo license and FUR noting the recreation of the image. Any ideas or suggestions? Dbiel (Talk) 20:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Its actually both. The copyright on the design of the logo lies with the original creator, but there is also copyright on this rendition of the logo. The original creator of the logo has a "stronger" copyright however, since the other work is simply a derivative of the original (possibly illegal because many works are not licensed as such that derivative works are permitted). So I would say that the copyright statement is incomplete and the license possibly illegal because we do not know enough about the original work. But also remember that it is possible that the original author actually uploaded this image and therefore all the information is correct. It happens. In that case it is best if an OTRS permission ticket is filed for this case. All in all, you have enough questions that ought to be answered in such a case, that the image can be put up for deletion. The author can upload the image again when he provides the proper information that addresses those concerns. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Dont agree - if you look at http://www.naa.edu/bolts the logo is still essentially as published by the organization, and they own the copyright. Addhoc (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

US and State Flags

I was wondering if the US and the State flags are Public Domain images? I would like to used them when creating a design for each State

Thanks

Keith —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwclark (talk • contribs) 05:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Many but not all state flags are tagged with Commons:Template:PD-US-flag, which seems to say that all state flags are PD. It couldn't hurt to tagging on all 50 flags. --teb728 t c 06:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Chak De India! Picture Help

I recieved a message on my userpage about a possible infraction of Wiki's Fair Use policy and I'm not sure where the problem is. A link to the image is here Image:ChakDeCover.GIF. If anyone could help, it would be really appreciated. Thanks ImtiazAA (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What Tag do I use to these types of images?

I've recently added an image on Wikipedia that I found on an Arabic news website online. The image was released by the production company in a public Conference for public use for commercial purposes. Usually with Arabic production companies they release a couple of TV screenshots of television series and allow for their fair use by the public and news media for commercial and non-commercial purposes. The images are then posted by the public all over the net without explicit permission from the production company, since the series are not sold later on DVD, but only air on TV for free. With Arabic production companies, I don't know how I can tag or verify the copyright status, especially that they are not subject to US law. As I was not sure about the copyright status of the image and didn't know how to tag it, I've posted it under my work under public domain, which was of course disputed, but I don't know what to tag it under. Please help! Many thanks in advance Nilerose (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The image is:Image:Taim Hasan Sand.jpg

Released for commercial purposes doesn't do us any good. If you think this picture qualifies under our non-free content policies, attach {{Non-free fair use in|name of article you're using it in}}, and then attach a fair use rationale (see WP:FURG for help with that). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Help for proper license tag

Hello, I do not know the proper tag to use. Would someone please help me figure which license to use for this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rlowell.jpg ? BBhounder (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added the generic fair use tag. Could you add details of where you obtained the image, such as the website or book, and who in your understanding owns the copyright? Thanks! Addhoc (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

School portrait

Is a school portrait able to be freely released by the subject or does the release have to come from the photographer? I know there's been discussion of this before, but I can't seem to find any definitive conclusion on this. So could I take my photo from Bob who took the photo on behalf of Jacob's Photography Studios and upload it to Wikipedia with a {{self|GFDL-no-disclaimers|cc-by-3.0}} tag? Metros (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Presumably that Bob is doing work for hire. So the copyright belongs to Jacob’s Photography Studios. --teb728 t c 18:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
That's what I believe too. So then Image:Thisisme.jpg should be deleted or at least tagged to be deleted? Thanks, Metros (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
It is more likely that the photographer did the work for hire for Jacob's Photography Studios. Jacob's Photography Studios transferred ownership of copyright to the school. And (less likely but still likely) that school transfered ownership of copyright to the subject (or subjects parents). Garion96 (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Why was my photo deleted?

I put a picture that I own in an article and it was deleted by some kind of bot. How do I get it back on there and how do I prevent this from happening again?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Willy515 (talk • contribs)

What user name did you use to add the photo? Special:Contributions/Willy515 doesn't show you as having added a photo anywhere, nor have you uploaded any files from this user name. --B (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
The only article I see you've edited is William Kowalski. Looking at that article, the most recently deleted (and possibly only deleted) image I see is Image:Author Photoresized.JPG. It appears that image was deleted per CSD I3. Non-commercial licensed photos are not permitted on Wikipedia. However, I do show that file was uploaded by Jonesy515 (talk · contribs). Are you the same person? If so, why the different username? That username was made aware of the pending deletion in case there was an error. If you own the image, you can re-upload it and use a valid license.↔NMajdan•talk 19:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
If the photo was taken by Robert Hirtle, and he owns the copyright, the image may deemed replaceable, because William Kowalski is a living subject and, at least theoretically, a free image could be obtained. Addhoc (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Design Science License has no Image copyright tag

I contributed an image to illustrate the article about the band Farmers Manual. This band released a huge part of their back catalogue (mp3 recordings and photos) under the Design Science License, which is a free and copyleft license for any kind of data (it allows to "copy, modify and distribute the work"). It seems therefore to meet the requirements for inclusion in a wikipedia article, but there is no specific Design Science License listed among the Image_copyright_tags.

The image in question is: Image:Farmers Manual 2002.jpg --H9x (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Superchunk LP.jpg not needed

I uploaded Image:Superchunk LP.jpg but decided to not use it. I do not know how to delete the imageMac622 (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the image for you. Garion96 (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Uploading an ablum cover image

Just wondering if this image was under copyright, how can you tell? Here is the link: http://www.sanctuaryrecords.co.uk/index.php?action=showproduct&productid=35087&l1=3&l2=0&l3=0&rt=CA&lastpage=

It's the album cover for the Photek album "Form and Function Vol. 2"

Thanks,

--Tnias13 (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is certainly under copyright. --teb728 t c 00:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC) Oh, you asked how you can tell. Well every new work is inherently under copyright when it is created unless copyright is explicitly renounced. There is no reason to think copyright was renounced for this album. --teb728 t c 07:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ourfootyteam 300.jpg

g'day the wiki people

hey, i dont know whats happening there, the image u guys have deleted is logo i dont need permission to use my own logo - ourfootyteam logo 300

also, i have added links to a few rugby league related pages & u guys have deleted the links as well

whats wrong with a link about junior & schoolboys rugby league on these pages

for example one of your brilliant (not) editors deleted a link i made on the manly seagulls page

the seagulls send me info & media releases to tell the world

please get back to me to let me know whats going on there

thanks

steve - (e) ourfooty@ourfootyteam.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ourfootyteam (talk • contribs) 03:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the deletion log and the message on your talk page, the logo was deleted because you neglected to identify the source and creator. --teb728 t c 04:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

DECA.jpg

So i guess that i don't understand why the Image:DECA.jpgimage is impossible to use. I have tried to cite it so many times and now it is nominated for deletion, again, how about whoever keeps trying to get it deleted offers help instead of just getting rid of stuff, it's kind of discouraging to those who are new to wikipedia because it's already confusing to figure out how to use it.

I know that this image is useable on wikipedia and i figure it would probably follow the same rules as FBLA, Skills, FFA, and other clubs like that because they are all very similiar organizations.

Can anyone offer any kind of help with this? Omegablackbelt (talk) 03:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

You provided a use rationale for DECA instead of DECA (organization). Someone fixed it for you. --teb728 t c 06:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much Omegablackbelt (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Parliament Photos?

I would like to know if Wikipedia can use photos of Malaysian Members of Parliament? They are on the official website of the Malaysian parliament (http://www.parlimen.gov.my/eng-DewRakyat_AhliDewan.php click on the name). Thanks. KMChin (talk) 13:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

They could be used if and only if they are available under free licenses. I can’t tell from that site what their licensing status is. --teb728 t c 08:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Image

I have tried to place the copyright sign on my images when i've uploaded but i have problem to do it. I'd like to remove my images. how do i do that? thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doyoufro? (talk • contribs) 02:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You could tag them with {{db-author}}. Or you could do nothing, in which case they will be deleted in a few days for having no source specified. --teb728 t c 08:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Nevada State Route 157

Image:CCF12162007 00014.jpg I've taken this picture myself but forgot to add a copyright tag when I originally uploadded it. I tried adding the GDFL tag to the description, but instead of being displayed in the summary, it showed up as part of the description under the picture. I've never worked with these codes so help is appreciated. Bzargarian (talk) 04:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Add the copyright tag to Image:CCF12162007 00014.jpg not Nevada State Route 157. --teb728 t c 07:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Quik Question

How do you tell who an image is copyrighted to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JSK4T3R (talk • contribs) 08:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The copyright generally belongs to the person who created the image. But if the image was made as work for hire, the copyright belongs to the person who hired the work. Or if the image is a copy or scan of a work, the copyright belongs to the copyright owner of the original.
Did you have a particular image in mind? --teb728 t c 08:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

taking a picture of something

Hi. On Image:Music tour edition.JPG's page, it is stated that the uploader took the image themself and that is why the public domain tag was used. I can understand this being the case if the person took a picture of a tree or something, but does this still apply if a person takes a picture of something liek a cd cover? I have a feeling the answer is no, but I just wanted to make sure. I was going to tag it with Wikipedia:CSD#I3, but it the way that section is worded, I wasn't sure if it applied. Any suggestions?--Rockfang (talk) 04:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

CSD#I3 would be the wrong tag. It has been changed to a non-free tag with a use rationale. --teb728 t c 09:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Image removal

Hi, This image (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jaws_Renovation.jpg) needs to be removed, it's breaching copyright laws for the website amityisland.net "Pages, code or other content from JAWS Amity Island may not be redistributed or reproduced in any way, shape, or form without the written permission of Scott Weller."

60.234.215.101 (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I can’t find the source of Image:Jaws Renovation.jpg at amityisland.net. If you give the source, I will tag the image with {{imagevio}}. (Omit the http:// part of the URL because of the spam filter.) --teb728 t c 08:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

www.amityisland.net/florida/12.jpg found on www.amityisland.net/JAWSridesflorida.php 60.234.215.101 (talk) 08:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have reported the suspected copyright violation. --teb728 t c 09:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

DIA images

Can someone clarify the status of images from the DIA? I believe that the same copyright that applies to images from the other branches of the military would also apply in this case, but I can't find any specific notes to this effect. Maury (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean the United States Defense Intelligence Agency, right? All works created by an agency of the United States government are public domain. --teb728 t c 07:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

deleting

I want to delete the picture I put up because I can't get the copyright information, but I don't want for my account to be deleted. How do I do this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hombi93 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You could tag it with {{db-author}}. Or you could do nothing, in which case it will be deleted in a few days for having no source specified. Don't worry about your account being deleted; that won't happen. --teb728 t c 07:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

adding a copyright tag

how do you add a copyright tag —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezui23 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

See the directions “How to add a copyright tag to an existing image” at the top of this page. --teb728 t c 18:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Kane.JPG

Hello. About a month ago I uploaded the image for Project 86's The Kane Mutiny EP. This EP is only digital (there is no physical copy, it is only available on iTunes) and that makes getting a Fair use image about impossible. Since I can't get a snapshot of a physical cover, why can't we just get the cover from www.project86.com... --TheYellowDart—(T/C) 18:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the deletion log, the reason that Image:Kane.JPG was deleted is because TehY3llowDart (you?) neglected to provide a non-free use rationale for its use on The Kane Mutiny EP as described in the non-free use rationale guideline. --teb728 t c 18:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes. it is me. I actually hadn't logged in in almost a month... so I didn't read the message a bot sent me on my talk page until earlier today. --TheYellowDart—(T/C) 02:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Benigno Aquino,Jr.

Would it be possible to know, what contribution did Senator Aquino gave to the Philippines? Was there a specific legislation he has written that help uplift the daily living of the Filipinos? Since Senator Aquino is so popular among the Philippine Masses, would it be possible to list the laws that he had authored or co-authored?

Thank You so much.

Nonilo B. Abella nonilobabella@bellsouth.net Salisbury, NC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.183.193.201 (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want to know something which is not in the article Benigno Aquino, Jr., please ask at the Reference desk. The forum is monitored by people who know only about media copyright questions. --teb728 t c 23:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

IndustrialnatioN

I'm trying to make sure I'm uploading this correctly, and for the life of me I don't know what I'm not doing. Here are the fast, I've uploaded a Magazine cover for a magazine that I published. What am I missing here? I've gone to look at other magazines and my entry looks just like the others so I don't know what I'm doing wrong. I keep getting the following warning:

Fair use rationale for Image:IndustrialnatioN17.jpg Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:IndustrialnatioN17.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. Additionally, if you continue uploading bad images, you may be blocked from uploading. STBotI (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vigvigler (talk • contribs) 19:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You need to add a non-free use rational to each image for its use on IndustrialnatioN as described in non-free use rationale guideline You could use {{Magazine rationale}} for this purpose. --teb728 t c 22:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so checking in here I think I edited the image "IndustrialnatioN20.jpg" correctly. Let me know if i'm on the right track, in understanding how this all works.. Thanks in Advance.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vigvigler (talk • contribs) 00:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I made a few changes. Most notably the article name.
Oh, and please sign your posts with four tildes, ~~~~. That adds a signature like this: teb728 t c 02:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok that's a big help.. Thanks much for helping out a wiki-nebie. Vigvigler (talk) 06:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Using a picture from another Wiki Language site

I uploaded [image:Rinat Akhmetov.jpg] based on its use and appearance on the Ukrainian Wiki site. Not certain of the rules here, but if it is of fair use there, wouldn't it be fair use here, and is it possible to merely insert the image from The UK/Wiki site without uploading it on En/Wiki?

Thanks Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 04:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don’t know about fair use on Ukrainian Wikipedia, but on English Wikipedia one of the non-free content criteria is “Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.” In most cases this excludes a fair use image of a living person because it should be possible make a free image of him. --teb728 t c 07:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you; And the second half of my question: "is it possible to merely insert the image from The UK/Wiki site without uploading it on En/Wiki?"
Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
No, there is no way to do that. If it were in Wikimedia Commons, it could be used on any Wikimedia project, but Commons doesn't accept any non-free media. --teb728 t c 17:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. Happy New Year!.. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Photo of Painting

I have a painting that was commissioned and paid for by me. who is the owner of the image the painter or myself.--Jim friend (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

If you paid to have created (i.e. commissioned) rather than simply bought then it would be a Work for hire, under US and UK copyright law you would control the copyright of the piece. However there are many factors that could alter this. Megapixie (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

DVD covers on film pages

Ok so I thought I would make an info box for a film (Ladybugs (film)) and got a low res picture of the DVD cover, uploaded it and put a fair use rational in too. I copied the fair use rational from a film poster for Jurassic Park and that hasn't got a warning note on it. I'm a bit annoyed that some people think it necessary to just go around slapping deletion notes on everything they see. What am I doing wrong? The image is Image:Ladybugsfilm.jpg Thanks, Cls14 (talk) 13:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this was handled correctly. You need a statement of rationale for each article the image is used on. See the change I made to the image page to see the issue. Why the person tagging the image for deletion couldn't have done this I don't know. Never been a big fan of that 10c rule since it would be just as easy for the tagging editor to fix himself.↔NMajdan•talk 14:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Languages