Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2007/October

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

Upload an image from the Web?

What license applies to this image on this page? At the bottom of the page, this is written in Serbian: A further publication of the texts and contents of this site in the original form, is allowed if no profit is gained thereby, and with citing the site Друштво српско-руског пријатељства и руске дијаспоре as the source. Please answer on my talk page. --VVVladimir 22:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Replied on talk page. Calliopejen1 12:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hooverphonic: Single '96 - '06

I was notified that the image I uploaded of the album cover of "Single '96 = '06" by Hooverphonic wasn't allowed or something like that. I don't really understand what I've done wrong as I followed exactly the same proceedure (or at least I believed I had) as all the others who have uploaded.

Something about "rationale"; how do I add it for the image? If I just add rationale, will all be well with it?

Please notify my on My Talk page as am rather new at this... :)

--James Who 03:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Replied on talk page. Calliopejen1 13:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use Disputed

Hi. I got a message that the fair use for Image:Eyesofanangel.jpg was disputed. After looking it over, it appears to be because I forgot to include the name of the article it was used for? I redid the fair use rationale. Now what do I do to see if it is okay now and to remove the notice from the image and from the article's talk page? Collectonian 06:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, you were right. Once you've fixed the problem, you can just remove the tag yourself - no oversight needed. (If there's still a problem, Betacommandbot or someone else will tag it again later.) Calliopejen1 12:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks! Collectonian 12:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

one hell of a problem - political logos

I'm from Canada and restrict most of my edits to political things. One thing I noticed a while ago was that certain pages did not have party logo's. I therefore uploaded them. Well, within the last year I've been having one hell of a problem. Bots chasing me down, telling me the rules have been changed, and I have to do it all over again. So I did. Then they come after me again, telling me that, yet again, the rules have been changed. Oh there's nothing wrong with the images I've uploaded, they are fair use, but they want me to write that in a thousand different places and in a thousnad different ways. I've managed to get it down to one image (all the other images have since been updated by someone else). that is this image: Image:NSNDP.JPG. but, surprise surprise, a bot chased me down today to tell me I only wrote fair use in 999 places. Anyway, I've done what I can, so I'm asking for help that's twofold. If I did it right - please tell me in my talk page. if I did not - delete the damn image, I'm sick and tired of dealing with this much crap when I'm just trying to make this place a little bit better Nickjbor 10:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps take a little time to learn the rules? Use rationales are explained at WP:NFCC and WP:FURG. You can either derive it from the rules or find a comparable example and use it as a model. Wikidemo 10:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the rules have changed somewhat since 2005 -- or rather they've been codified; we've never encouraged the use of copyrighted material. But they've been pretty stable for over a year now, and since then we've become better at detecting when they're not being followed. (They certainly have not changed at all since 16 September of this year, when you uploaded the logo in question.)
To really make the place better, we must 1) obey intellectual property laws; and 2) work toward the project's stated goal of a free content encyclopedia. #1 means we can't go running around willy-nilly grabbing other people's copyrighted material without a reason justifiable under fair-use laws. If we must do that, it's the least we can do to present some kind of justification for it, and we don't do that just by saying "fair use" no matter how often. But it's #2 that tends to put most of the roadblocks in the way. It's more restrictive than the law is when it comes to fair use, since every piece of non-free media detracts from the goal even when they're necessary to complete an article. The rationale you put in place still isn't in compliance, since you don't say where you got it from. We don't really care where it might be obtained; we need to know the source of that particular image. (see WP:NFCC 10a.) If you got it from the party website, surely it's not a lot of bother to link to a page there where it's shown. I'm personally not going to flag it for that, but don't be too surprised if someone else does.
By the way, you will need to retag your election maps. The rules haven't changed there either; just the tags are more specific, so it's not an urgent matter but just something that should be done at some point. If you drew them yourself from publicly available data, then the tag should be {{PD-self}}. If they're taken directly from government websites, note these may not be PD under Canadian law as government works generally aren't. (That hasn't changed either.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

BetacommandBot message

The rationale given for Image:Lg dc10.jpg isn't to the liking of the bot. What can I do? __meco 16:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

About "Italian Military Coat of Arms" pic

WIth regard to your ridicolus charges of using the Italian Military Coat of Arms in violation of some imaginative copyright, I have the honour to inform you that the only copyright that I am violating is the copyright on anglo-american stupid and absurd obsession for copyrights. Do you seriously believe that there is a copyright on this sybol? Are you kidding? You admins of wikipedia have deleted many of my contribs with this absurd obsession. I'm sick of this stupid rules! What do you expect from me, that I phone to Mr. Arturo Parisi (our Minister of Defence) and I ask him for a oath asserting that Italian Military Coat of Arms are not protected by a copyright????????????? Symbols of italian institutions are not of private property (as all things in your country) so there are not copyright over symbols that belong to all the Italians. It is clear? Or do you want to talk to Mr. Prodi? So I will delete my account, cause wikipedia is really pastering. Auguri di cuore per la vostra enciclopedia delle cavolate. Quando voi americani imaparerete a liberarvi dalla vostra ossessione per la proprietà privata sarà sempre troppo tardi, non potrete mai essere liberi come noi europei. Goodbye.

--Conte di Cavour 17:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have the situation exactly backward. Contrary to your assertion, any such symbols associated with the US Government, including its military, are public domain by a specific provision of US law. This is not generally true in other countries, and where such a provision is lacking -- as in Italian copyright law -- works of a government are protected by copyright just like everything else. Legge 22 aprile 1941, n. 633 (as amended) Art. 67 seems to govern here, but it seems to cover only legislative acts, works related to public safety, and administrative, parliamentary, and judicial procedures (proceedings?) and not, for example, the contents of a government website or symbols of governmental agencies.
But even if that were not the case, you tagged that coat of arms as a fair-use audio recording. The basic information you were given, that the image was mistagged, is perfectly true. And given that your government does in fact own the copyright to its own symbols (absent any information to the contrary, which ought to be publicly available without contacting any high government officials) we do need your fair use assertion to be properly justified. Sorry if that upsets you, but that's the situation under Italian copyright law and international treaties to which both Italy and the US are party. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Photos of books

Hello there. Allow me to apologize in advance if the answer to this question is provided elsewhere; I've been looking around and can't find it.

I'm working to improve the article on Chinua Achebe, and I need to provide some pictures. Obviously any cover of Things Fall Apart is unfree (first published in 1958), but I wonder what the rules are for my photographing a stack of books? What are the copyright restrictions on such a thing – is there a certain amount of the books' design that I can or cannot show? Thanks in advance for your assistance. – Scartol · Talk 18:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It's unlikely there's sufficient artwork on the spines for there to be any copyright issues, but it's a case-by-case thing. Keep in mind that things like titles, variations in typography, and background coloration are ineligible for copyright under US law and you should get some idea of what you can freely do. But even the cover might be freely reproducible, depending on the artwork. You, of course, will own the copyright on any photograph you make, and should release it under a free license when uploading. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Smashing. Thanks much. (If only I had brought the books home with me! You mean I have to wait until tomorrow? Yeesh!) – Scartol · Talk 01:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Using a logo, specified why I think it's public domain, now what?

I'm trying to use a company logo at the top of my page about said company. I think I'm in the right about it being acceptable material, but I'm also a newbie at Wikipedia, so any advice would be much appreciated.

Anyway, in the image description I stated why I thought it was fair game as per the Wikipedia:Non-free use Rationale Guideline, so what do I do now? Am I free to use the logo until someone complains?

Aar.Phi [e-mail address removed to avoid spam] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aar.Phi (talk • contribs) 19:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you link to the page you're referring to? I would expect that nearly every company's logo is not a free image. You might have a legitimate fair use rationale, but the two phrases are not the same. Show us what page you're referring to and we'll be able to shed more light. – Scartol · Talk 19:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
This user has only uploaded one image, Image:Uponor logo.JPG. -- But|seriously|folks  19:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
This is actually a somewhat complicated case. Copyright laws in different countries set the threshold of creativity at different levels, and I've at least seen arguments that under U.S. copyright law logos composed solely of text might in fact not be eligible for copyright. However, the safe thing to do would be to assume that the logo is in fact copyrighted, and follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content. In particular, that means you need to write a non-free use rationale for each use of the image in articles. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Library

I was wondering what the licensing would be for a picture taken from a library's website (specifically a shot of the interior, if it matters). Would the picture be any different than a fair use license? Thanks! Icestorm815 20:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, very different. It would be a copyright violation, unless we're talking about a library in a US Government institution like the Library of Congress. Any time it's possible for a free image to be made, the non-free image policy disallows upload of copyrighted material. Any editor can walk into the library, take a picture, and release it under a free license. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, say I still wanted to use those pictures. I think I heard about some sort of permissions statement that can be filed to the library to use those pictures. How would I go about doing that? Icestorm815 00:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. If the library doesn't say yes, you can either take a picture yourself, place a {{reqphotoin}} tag on the photo's talk page and hope someone in the area takes a picture (e.g. {{reqphotoin|Florida}} for a library in Florida - see Category:Wikipedia requested photographs for more), or place a request on Wikipedia:Requested_pictures. Hope this helps! (By the way, this is exactly what our policy of not accepting nonfree images is supposed to encourage--thanks for being so cooperative!) Calliopejen1 01:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! Icestorm815 01:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Picture copyright problem

I've uploaded a picture to this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_sign#Imitations. It's a picture of a Hollywood-style sign in Hammarstrand, Sweden. The picture is taken from the municipality of Hammarstands website i can't see a reason why they whouldn't like their sign on wikipedia. How do i prevent you from removing the picture in a week?

--HenrikLarsson 20:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean i can take my own picture of the sign? That whould be a good solution? --HenrikLarsson 06:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't. There's no way the inclusion of this copyrighted image can be justified without an explicit grant of a free license from the copyright owner. You are free to seek such a license -- see WP:COPYREQ -- but we can't even use it as a non-free image because it would be a trivially easy matter for a Wikipedia editor in the area to make a free image on his own. Note this is in fact what was done for the other images in that section. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

deleting on image

I uploaded an image that is too big and would like to have it deleted so that I can upload a smaller one and add it to the information page for the documentary. The image is titled A Fair to Remember postcardAdvert.jpg

I am the intern working on uploading information for Media Projects Inc. I am also in the process of gathering the information for the pictures I upload.

---L. Silguero —Preceding unsigned comment added by CynFilm (talk • contribs) 22:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Another problem with it is that it appears to be an invalid format. The easiest thing to do is to add {{db-author}} to the image page, and then re-upload it when it's gone.
But please do not do that until you get the copyright issue settled. You should know whether or not you have the right to freely license it before you upload. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Obsolete images from websites.

We all know that we should be cautious about using images found websites because most of copyrighted. I wonder, is it okay to use images which are NO LONGER being used websites. Because they have applied newer pictures to their pages, it is unlikely that the ones they formerly use still have copyrights. --124.106.201.225 23:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

unless you have an explicit statement otherwise, assume all work you find on the internet (or anywhere for that matter) is copyrighted. This still applies if an image is no longer being used. It still belongs to the person who created it. --YbborTalk 23:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

So what exactly am I supposed to write?

I have three images currently pending a speedy delete for possible free use breeches. They are Image:Mayhemicdestruction.jpg, Image:MortalSin-MD.jpg and Image:Last stand dvd cover.jpg. As album and DVD covers, there really isn't anything that can replace them, so what am I supposed to put in the description? If this is going to be applied to every album and DVD cover I've uploaded then I'll just stop doing it.--BrianFG 00:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The links in the tag tell you exactly what the problem is if you follow them. WP:NFCC#10c says the rationale must be related to a specific named article. You need to say what article you're justifying fair use for. This makes more sense if it's used in more than one article -- which can always happen at some point. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah ok, that's acceptable. --BrianFG 03:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Are line diagrams of items of clothing derivative works or IP infringement?

Since football (soccer) replica kits are licensed for production both by their manufacturer and the club they represent, is a line drawn image of these a contravention of those groups Copyright and Intellectual Property? e.g drawing (red kit) and Photo of the real thing. The logos are not used as they are definitely copyrighted, but as the design of the shirt itself (the lines, shape etc) are possibly covered by UK IP and Copyright laws (specifically either a Registered designpage 6 or an Unregistered designpage 8) would a line drawn representation in this form of it be allowable for use on wikipedia? Nanonic 00:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Under US copyright law (which is what matters for wikipedia purposes), clothing designs are currently not protected by copyright because they are considered primarily useful as opposed to decorative. (Recently, fashion designers have been lobbying for copyright protection, but they haven't succeeded yet.) As long as we are not copying any particular drawing of the shirt, it should be fine. Calliopejen1 01:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Help?

I don't know how to make my fair use rational more acceptable than that. Replies on my talk page would be appreciated. Millancad 01:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for pasting from my answer above, but it's exactly the same siutation. The links in the tag tell you exactly what the problem is if you follow them. WP:NFCC#10c says the rationale must be related to a specific named article. You need to say what article you're justifying fair use for. This makes more sense if it's used in more than one article -- which can always happen at some point. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sony photos

I have recently posted a screenshot of the Pursuit Force: Extreme Justice video game (Screenshot), put a copyright tag and fair use rationale but I keep getting messages on my talk. I even emailed Sony and asked for permission to use Sony pictures on Wikipedia and they said: "Dear Tim, Thank you for your recent email. The Public encyclopedia website Wikipedia, is free to public opinion, you do not need permission to post pictures relating to any sony products on the wikipedia site as it is a not for profit organisation. Thank you for enquiring with us before making a decision. Regards,Maximilian PlayStation Support Centre Have you registered for PlayStation 3? <http://au.playstation.com/ps3update/> Telephone : 1300 365 911 Email : support@playstation.com.auFax : (02) 9450 9011"

I even sent this email to Wikipedia in regards to my other picture and I thought that would cover them both, and any other pictures I put in regards to Sony products.

What do I do? Reply to my talk page please Scorpus57 02:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The permission above is not sufficient, as it is limited to Wikipedia and noncommercial use. The copyright holder has to grant permission for subsequent reuse, including commercial use, etc. Please see WP:COPYREQ for more details. Thank you. -- But|seriously|folks  04:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Many different people associated with this artist use the same editor's user name (PennyLane100): the use of aliases

Many of the images used in the "Nathaniel Street-West" Wikipedia page have been self-produced by a number of different persons, each of whom uses the same editorial username (PennyLane100) to log on and edit the page. In the case of images, these self-produced entities are uploaded independently by the creator after logging in as editor PennyLane100. We have now began making it clear which individual has self produced each image by adding in information such as the creator's name as an alias of the editor PennyLane100 at the time of upload. This gives proof that the editor is the person who has self produced the image, credits their name (as an alias) to avoid confusion, and also allows all of the fair use options and simplicity of the GNU Documentation License. Our PennyLane100 editors have just met to discuss this and it has been brought to our attention that the use of the GNU License in this way is rather convoluted and, in addition, is perhaps not in our best interest as a policy. (Hey this stuff is complex and we're not legal scholars!) So, to make it simpler for everyone we have decided to return to our original policy and find a different way to license or copyright these images. Please give us a week to upload new images and change our current licensing policy.

Thank you!

Penny Lane —Preceding unsigned comment added by PennyLane100 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I had a wikistalker, who used a number of sockpuppets. Eventually she started getting admonishments from administrators, received a few temporary blocks. She responded to these blocks by publishing her passwords right on her user-page. And this resulted in her being permanently blocked. I didn't know this when I signed up, but apparently part of the fine print is that wiki-ids are not to be shared. One wiki-id is only supposed to be used by one real life person.
So, IIUC, the several individuals who share this wiki-id are not in compliance with the fine print. Sorry. Geo Swan 13:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:USERNAME:

For reasons of attribution and accountability, you are not allowed to share your account or password with others. If you do, and this becomes known, your account will be blocked. Please also note that "role accounts" associated with an office, position, or task are currently prohibited with the following exceptions:

  • Roles that directly represent the Wikimedia Foundation and internal Wikipedia committees

Role accounts for the purposes of conducting public relations or marketing via the encyclopedia are strongly discouraged and will be blocked for violations of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines.

Please stop using an single account in this way. There will likely be no particular extension of any policy. Our deletion systems are somewhat distributed, and any ongoing processes will continue. If you have any questions please let us know. I am not blocking the account right now, but be aware that any continues shared use violates the policy and other's may or may not block you. - cohesion 21:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
And furthermore, it is not possible as far as I know to withdraw a free license once it's granted. If it's deleted from Wikipedia's servers, or if they're relicensed before they've escaped into the wild, as it were, then you may achieve your aim, but otherwise the images may continue to circulate with the original license attached.
Please note that if you re-license the images in such a way as to prohibit commercial re-use or derivative works we cannot use them and they will have to be removed. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use

Is the tag Template:Non-free media rationale not satisfying when adding fair use in any uploaded photo? Some users do use this template on other photos but I was just surprised when BetacommandBot posted comments on my talk page regarding the Disputed fair use rationale for Images. BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 08:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a requirement that each fair use rationale name the article that the image appears in, which hasn't been enforced too much until now. In the past couple days, I've noticed that Betacommandbot is going through images and tagging them for deletion if they don't name the article the images appears in. So just make sure you do that and hopefully your rationales will hold up. The template is fine as long as you put it under a section header or some other way refer to the article it deals with. Calliopejen1 12:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
It was done actually. The other photo i mean. BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 11:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Reduced picture.

I think it doesn't violates if the photo is being reduced. Photos need to be reduced or expanded to comply the standard size which as far i knows, 200px X 200px to 300px X 300px. Then why does Image:OralFixation2.jpg is being tagged with (non-free reduced|October 1, 2007)? the concern their if the uploader added fair use or does the fair use meets the criteria orif it's invalid. Thanks.

Currently, i put a speedy deletion tag on the photo because it's fair use may not be valid. The other tag is still intact. BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 11:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
No, there is no standard size for images. You size images for an article using the extended image syntax, not by reducing the image itself. This image as it stands is of sufficiently low resolution for fair use considerations. BritandBeyonce, if you feel fair use is not justified here, then list it at WP:FUR and add one of the tags listed there. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

What are wallpapers considered?

What are wallpapers that can be downloaded off internet sites considered? Can they be used as images? I spacifically would like to upload a wallpaper from http://www.halowars.com/Media.aspx to the article Halo Wars, and the technology area of the United Nations Space Command page. Can I do this?S II 087 00:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It says very clearly on the bottom, "©2007 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved." They're essentially allowing downloads for your private use, and you have no license to upload them here. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Oregon State Senate.jpg

This picture is tagged as public domain, but I doubt the uploader had the authority to release the image into the public domain. Aboutmovies 01:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed he did not. It's mistagged. It's at best fair use, but then only if it's impossible for anyone to take a picture of the floor of the Oregon State Senate. If it's not, then it needs to be speedied. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The uploader was likely confused by the rule which makes federal government images in the public domain. This, however, does not apply to state governments. --YbborTalk 03:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Redundancy

What tag should we put if photos are redundant (e.g. identical photo)? BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 08:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

For exact duplicates, you can use {{db-redundantimage|Correctimagename.jpg}}. Calliopejen1 12:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
if not that exact? The size is different? BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 03:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a specific example? There's usually no reason to do that. If you have a higher-resolution version of a free image, just upload it in place and no further action is necessary. It's always better to use a high resolution image if possible. If it's a non-free image that was too high resolution and you've uploaded a reduced version in place, then tag it {{non-free reduced}}.
By the way, why do you keep tagging certain images as having invalid rationales? And why did you tag Image:OralFixation2.jpg with {{non-free reduced}}? The old versions are not higher resolution. The original might appear to be, but it's more compressed and therefore lower quality. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
My fault. Wasn't able to read the desciption of the tag and i presumed that the template for the fair use is not valid. Ok, let me clear. I was not the one who tag {{non-free reduced}} to Image:OralFixation2.jpg. It was Spellcast. See the photo's history. I am not sure but i was able to read some policies that says the photo should not be lower than 200X200 px but not exceeding 300X300 px. Sorry but i cant cite where is that page. BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 11:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Images now tagged; now what?

OK, so I added rationale templates to Image:Sweetheart Cover.gif, Image:NPC logo.jpg, and Image:HuntsmanCancerInstituteLogo.jpg per the betacommandbot posts on my talk page. Am I allowed to remove the "images for deletion" tag? Or does someone higher up than me have to do that? —ScouterSig 15:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no one higher up involved, and of course you can. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks TCC. So many people are held up on conventions I'm leary of being bold sometimes. —ScouterSig 14:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Cross Canadian Ragweed

How is posting about the story behind the songs copyrighted?

Sfft 2108 03:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It would help to link to the article in question, which appears to be Mission California. It's a copyright violation because it's a verbatim cut-and-paste from [1]. They're not your words, they're someone else's. Write up the information in your own words with no more than very brief quotations from the band members, and cite the web page as a source. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Southampton-FC.png

This was tagged for deletion as the fair-use rationale was fully completed. I filled it all in afterwards - but the image has still been deleted. Why is this? Dan K 06:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you remove the {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} (or whatever) tag when you were done? TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tms-online.gif

Hi

I'm pretty new to this, would the following be sufficient or is there anything further that needs to be added? Please advise..

--
== Licensing ==

{{Non-free logo}}

== Fair use rationale ==

{{Non-free use rationale
|Article= Tms-online.gif 
|Description=Logo of  Tms-online.gif .
|Source=Copied from {{#if: www.boonsoftware.com | www.boonsoftware.com  | Tms-online.gif }} web site, and intellectual property owned by {{#if:{{{3|}}}|{{{3}}}| Tms-online.gif }}.
|Portion=Whole logo used to avoid misrepresenting brand image.
|Low_resolution=Logo was selected in order to maintain the quality intended, without being unnecessarily high resolution.
|Purpose=Identification and critical commentary in the [[ Tms-online.gif ]] article, a subject of public interest. The logo confirms to readers they have reached the correct article, and illustrates the intended branding message.
|Replaceability=Logo is protected by copyright and trademark, therefore a free use alternative won't exist.
|other_information=
}}

=== Fair use in [[ARTICLE NAME]] ===
This image is subject to copyright and is used as the primary means of visual identification of the article topic.
--

--Dleewh 06:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

First, please don't add those templates to this page.
There was a problem and User:Sherool came along and fixed it for you, but he didn't remove all the weirdness. I have no idea what those parser functions and template parameters are doing in there. I suppose it's not impossible they happened as the result of a subst:, but you shouldn't do that with these templates. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, when providing a URL, include the protocol (the http:// part) so that it can be recognized and made into a link. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

license for recent scan of nineteenth century photo

I've made a good scan of a CDV photograph that I own of James G. Blaine, who died in 1893, and would like to add it to Wikipedia. Is this "My Own Work", or is some other license applicable? Tim Ross 11:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what a CDV photograph is. If the photograph was taken and published before 1923 in the US (which would seem reasonable), then tag the image {{PD-US}}. If the photographer died more than 70 years ago, then tag it {{PD-old-70}}. Provide as much source information as possible on the image description page, and if possible credit the source of the scan - i.e. whatever CDV is. Megapixie 14:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
CDV is an abbreviation for Carte de Visite, usually applied to the visitors card sized photos which were very popular in the late 1800s. And, yes, the photo is old, clearly taken about 1885-90 and printed at that time. So, I'll use the {{PD-US}} tag you suggested. Thank you very much, Megapixie. Tim Ross 15:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Items used

I added some info. I assume things are okay now? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 16:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Steve, Sm8900. A non-free use rational template is available for use on the image page for non-free content use in Wikipedia that lists all of the required components necessary to establish fair-use. You might also want to read the image help page where it talks specifically about developing a use rationale. Oh and wait, there's even more information about Wikipedia's non-free content policy here. After you take a look at some of this stuff, you might find that you want to more fully explain your rationale of that image in that particular article. -- Ltvine | Talk 21:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I've adapted someone's map

I have taken the base image of someone's map of the US (user:Wapcaplet - Map of USA with state names.svg) and have removed the state names and put in all the state capitals. Can I now upload this to Wikipedia? Blueturtle01 18:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be Image:Map of USA with state names.svg, just to make it convenient. (Note how I make the link.) It's licensed under the GFDL, so you have to follow the terms of that license. Link to the original in the image description, and license it under the same license yourself: tag it {{GFDL-self}}. The original is actually on the Commons, so consider uploading your new map there too so that it's available to all Wikimedia projects. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I've acquired non-copyrighted images

I asked the Wits University personnels for a non-copyrighted image of the campus and they emailed it to me. The author is aware of Wikipedia and knows the image's purpose and that I would upload it on Wikipedia (giving due credit to the university). How do I tag this picture given the above information?

Samuella99 20:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not enough information to be able to tell you. What does he know of the image's purpose, and what permission did he give exactly? Does he know it might be used for commercial purposes or in derivative works? In other words, is the image licensed for any purpose? TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
This page might be a good starting point to look over, but as Csernica implied, you will likely need to get another e-mail clarifying in no uncertain terms what they're realeasing. That page should give you some direction on how to go about that. --YbborTalk 02:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I didn't imply that, although it may well be the case. We need the terms clarified. If the permission is "Wikipedia only" or "non-commercial only" or "educational only" or "no derivative works", we can't use it. If the person understands what Wikipedia needs and is allowing all those things, then it should be {{attribution}}. And do forward that email with permission to the foundation as it says at the link. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

copyright

what is copyright and how do i find it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxas255 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyright is everywhere, and you find it in anything creative anyone makes. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Animated ASCII art

copyright for these gifs?


Lollerskates

ROFLcopter


I thought they'd be cute in the Leet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotorius.kool (talk • contribs) 04:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No doubt they've been floating around for a while, but the photobucket user "shockedstupid" probably didn't create them. Strictly speaking we can't use them. On the other hand, there certainly seems to be an implicit free license, doesn't there? This is probably wrong of me, but try uploading them, tagging them as {{PD-author}}, and see if anyone complains. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

fair use rationale

I've been told that the fair use rationale for Image:Karin logo.png violates WP:NFCC#10c. Reading 10(c), the only thing I can see is that I didn't give the name of the article it was uploaded to within the rationale itself, instead the article name is listed in the file links section lower down. I have now added the name of the article to the rationale section, is that all that is required? The image is simply the logotype for the story title. Can I remove the deletion tag?

Yup. The file links section says where it is used; the rationale says where it should be used. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Hall Seal.jpg question

I was told that my Image:Hall Seal.jpg wasn't proper. I used then Non-free logo template,just as was done with Image:LamontCrest.gif. I see no reason why my image should be deleted if I used the same template as the Lamont Crest. --Lord Balin 22:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions at the top of this page for linking to images. Boldface isn't useful.
With heraldry any particular instance of the arms or a part of the arms may or may not be copyrighted depending on whether it's taken from an older source or is recently produced. Although all examples of a particular arms are very similar, there's enough leeway in the exact expression of the blazon to allow for copyright.
In this case the Lamont badge is clearly copyrighted because it bears a notice and a specific non-commercial license, which we cannot use here. This is not true of the Hall badge, but it's unsafe to assume that any particular expression of a blazon of arms is free without positive information of the fact.
The answer to your question may be simply that the bot doing the tagging hasn't found the Lamont badge yet. {{non-free logo}} is a fair-use template and a rationale is expected. However, no valid rationale can be offered in either of these cases, since any Wikipedia editor of sufficient skill can make a free version. It's therefore replaceable. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Image Question

I uploaded Image:Karl Kasten - Campus Drypoint.PNG. I tagged it with the same tag as the other images on the page that I've uploaded. The bot has told me I need to tag it. The questions that are asked of me on the referenced page have all been answered by my comments. I'm trying to do the tag correctly. I want to know what I've done wrong with the tagging. I'm getting pretty good on wikipedia but I apparently still need to work on tagging. With all due respect, directing me to the tutorial page doesn't work for me. I'd like examples. Please direct me to a page of examples. Mrshaba 05:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I have fixed the page for you. I think what was going on is that the bot is flagging all images that don't have any text on their pages except the copyright tag, so since you put the source info inside the copyright tag, it was having problems. (If it gets tagged again, come back here and we'll try to figure it out again.) However, what you need to do for this and all the other Karl Kasten images is to have Mr. Kasten send an email to permissions@wikimedia.org specifying all the image names he is giving permission for and the license he is granting, so we have a record of his actual permission and don't just have to take your word for it. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for the form that email should take. Calliopejen1 13:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed link to video footage about Bruges

Hi there,

Yesterday I published my first article in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruges. I put a lot of effort in covering copyright issues. As a matter of fact the external link consisted of a copyright case study within itself to be covered in several chapters of Wikipedia. That video was critical in an effort made by dozens of people.

How can I find out who removed this article and what can I do to avoid this kind of vandalism?

For me as a starter, I took me half a day to wade through the Wiki forest to get there.

Tx a lot for your swift reply.


MindStein —Preceding unsigned comment added by MindStein (talk • contribs) 07:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The removal was on grounds of WP:LINKSPAM, not copyright. All of the links you inserted were to metacafe videos. I don't have the time to look through all of them, but in general links to youtube, metacafe, etc., aren't considered useful. Take a look at WP:EL for the external linking policy. In addition, you added a bunch of disorganized text at the very top of the page where the WP:LEAD is supposed to go. Normally you would add text to the appropriate section describing the article, and if necessary either reference external sites as a source for the material you added, or sometimes an external link. It looks like your edits caught the attention of a person who has spent a month or more doing major edits to the article. He or she probably reverted the new material because it hurt the article. Bruges is a 3-year old article about a 500+ year old city city with 100,000 + residents, and already a "B" class article, meaning it is already pretty good and not a whole lot of drastic improvement you can easily make. You might want to start out a little slower, adding one link or image at a time, making small corrections, or bigger projects on articles that are relatively new. Wikidemo 08:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


The Fifth Estate (band)

I am having trouble inserting a picture image i took myself. It was autimatically deleted. Would like to restore the one originallty there. Could use a {{GFDL-self}} coypright designation.

Ken Evans Kenneth Evans 14:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it didn't look like any of your pictures had been deleted--you just had a notice that it might be deleted later. You did a good job tagging the image before you left your message here. However, you did upload two identical images. I deleted Image:THE FIFTH ESTATE.JPG, but Image:The Fifth Estate.JPG still exists and looks good. You might want to specify on the image page that you took the photo yourself, so later people don't wonder whether it is a scan of someone else's picture. Calliopejen1 15:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Buildings Copyrighted

I read in the Copyright FAQ, it says "In the U.S., buildings built on or after December 1, 1990 are also eligible for copyright." I know you just can not take a picture of these buildings and use them in your intellectual work, but I know a couple of these buildings are in Wikipedia that are copyrighted like the Denver Art Museum I was looking at the pictures in those articles and some have CC licenses and other tags, is this correct labeling? GWatson • TALK 1w:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, yes you can. Architecture is the one area in US copyright law where freedom of panorama applies. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Do we have a cite for that? I'm not questioning the conclusion, but it comes up often enough that we should probably explain it and in the Copyright FAQ and support it somewhere. Thanks. -- But|seriously|folks  20:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
17 U.S.C. §120(a) TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Marvelous. Thanks! -- But|seriously|folks  21:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I guess my lawyer was sorta wrong when he told me that a picture of a copyrighted building was protected, even if it was taken in a public place.GWatson • TALK 04:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
There are other factors that might apply, assuming he was talking about a specific picture and not in general. Any art on the building, such as a mural, is protected. But next time you have occasion to, mention this part of the law to him and see what he says. IANAL myself, so I'd be interested to know. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Public police records?

I am trying to upload a mugshot from a public police record. What kind of image copyright tag should I use? The image relates to the article, since the article makes reference to the person's very unusual appearance at the time of his arrest - See David Hahn.

And the image in question: [[2]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdsouza (talk • contribs) 22:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

{{Non-free mugshot}} should do the trick. Calliopejen1 12:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. That worked. I looked around all the gazilion different copyright tags, and somehow never found this one. --Jdsouza 21:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

HAVING TROUBLE

Having trouble understanding what to do with the copyright situation for my two images! COULD SOMEBODY PLEASE HELP ME!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malesiano (talk • contribs) 00:30, 5 October 2007

Image:Mflogo.jpg needed a fair use rationale, which I added, so now it should be fine. Image:Mf.jpg, however, is a replaceable non-free image, since anyone could take a new picture of a MedFlight helicopter and release it under a free license. Check out our guidelines for the use of non-free media here. I tagged it for deletion, and it should be deleted after seven days. Calliopejen1 12:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Image on website in National Portrait Gallery Permanent Collection

I would like to use the image of Theodore Hesburgh & Martin Luther King Jr shown here[3] in the Hesburgh article. It states the image was taken by an unknown photographer, and now resides in the National Portrait Gallery. I'm not sure what licence applies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swstadel (talk • contribs) 13:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Without knowing the author, it's impossible to include it here. Just being included in the National Portrait Gallery doesn't say anything about its copyright status. All works are copyrighted by default, so unless we have some evidence this is by a government photographer (or some other specific reason it's PD), we have to assume that this photo is copyrighted too. Calliopejen1 14:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
We don't know the name of the photographer, but we don't have to. It's captioned "Tribute photo", meaning that it's from the South Bend Tribune's files. Since it was probably published soon after it was made, it's still copyright to the Tribune and we can only use it as non-free media. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Attribution

Where an image is tagged with a license like cc-by-sa, which requires attribution, is it enough that the image's page identifies the author, or does one need to ad 'Photo by ....' to the image caption on the page it is used? I'd probably rather do the latter, to be honest - is this acceptable? Cheers. 4u1e 13:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The license only requires the attribution "be implemented in any reasonable manner", so the notice on the image page is sufficient. We generally don't put credits in the captions. If you feel strongly about it no one can stop you from adding credits to the captions, but that's a matter for editorial consensus and not copyright. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Ta. Putting it in the caption would really just be a way of saying thank you, but I also wanted to be sure I was meeting the requirements of cc-by-sa. Cheers. 4u1e 18:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Alison Waite naked picture

I am trying to put in a picture of Alison Waite into her profile which I need some help on?

You generally cannot use other people's photos of living people on Wikipedia, unless you obtain their permission. -- But|seriously|folks  20:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I did get approval to use the photo through http://spatisadultblog.blogspot.com/2006/11/may-2006-playmate-alison-waite-photos.html which gave me the approval to put into Waite's Wiki page.
OK, she's hot, but no need to post the image here on this page. The blog you cited was shut down for violating the host's TOS. Alison Waite is a Playboy Playmate, so it is doubtful that the blog owns the copyright on that photo. If it doesn't, it can't give permission to use it. You need to follow the instructions at WP:COPYREQ to confirm that proper permission has been granted before using that photo on Wikipedia. Thank you. -- But|seriously|folks  20:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
The image is from Playboy. Only Playboy Enterprises, Inc. would be allowed to give you permission to use it, and I very much doubt they would in this case. But if you want to try it, see http://www.playboy.com/help/legal_notices.html#permission —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdsouza (talk • contribs) 21:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, Let's put it onto Waite's page which is fine with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armattock (talk • contribs) 21:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Is it okay with you as well for the Waite page?• contribs) 21:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Huh? No, you can't use it anywhere on Wikipedia without Playboy's permission. -- But|seriously|folks  06:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
They gave me the permission to use the Waite picture for her Wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armattock (talk • contribs) 21:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Even if this is true (which I'm really doubting, frankly), Playboy needs to give permission for more than just the image's use on Wikipedia--they have to release it for anyone to use and modify, even for profit. Please have Playboy email an explicit release to permissions@wikimedia.org, if this is the case. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for more info about what the release must say. Calliopejen1 21:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Image from Associated Press

Image:Jammiethomas attorney.jpg is an image of Jammie Thomas and her attorney Brian Toder of the RIAA VS. Jammie Thomas case of October 2007. The image is from the newspaper Associated Press. It is a current event that just settled. But I don't know the legality of pictures from newspapers that have the image posted on various news sites like news.yahoo and such. Sorry if I did something wrong! Please forgive me!!! Tubeyes 03:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless the image itself becomes notable, there is almsot no way to use this image on Wikipedia. Fair use does not apply to living people, and it doesn't excuse us frompaying royalties like other news organizations who use AP photos have to. Sorry. --YbborTalk 03:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Ha! Sounds about right. So, should I delete it now or is there a verdict or...? Is there any news sites that have all open source pictures? Thanks. Tubeyes 04:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
It looks like it's been deleted already... For current events pictures you can try
  • http://flickr.com - click search, then advanced search, then put in your search terms and check the boxes for "Only search within Creative Commons-licensed photos," "Find content to use commercially," and "Find content to modify, adapt, or build upon."
  • http://www.agenciabrasil.gov.br/ - in portuguese unfortunately but a major paper that releases all its content under a creative commons license. Mark any photos you upload from here as {{ABr}}.
  • http://www.whitehouse.gov and other .gov sites - all US government photos (with a few exceptions in the DOE, and perhaps elsewhere) are {{PD-USGov}}.
Good luck! I didn't see any pictures of Jammie Thomas at these sites, but if you're looking for other pictures these are a good place to start. Calliopejen1 22:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Images released to the press

I recently posted an image of LDS Apostle Henry B. Eyring downloaded from the newsroom of lds.org (screen and print versions released to the press for download). Is this then violating a copyright when it is released to the press for publication use? I'm confused as to why it cannot be used here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Retenney (talk • contribs) 18:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone will let us know if I'm wrong, but a photo released to the press does have copyright protection. Copies have been made available to "the press" and whether there is a clause in copyright law or not, "the press" expects any judge to laugh at a challenge of press use of press release photos. Wikipedia is not a news organization so it's harder to claim to be part of "the press". Also we try to have republishable photos which can be used by anyone, not photos with restrictions whether explicit or implied. (SEWilco 19:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC))
This is correct--the photos are copyrighted. Though it's unlikely that the copyright holder would care that Wikipedia was using the image, or that Wikipedia would ever get in trouble with a judge for that reason, Wikipedia policy is not to use such images because we'd rather have a gap in our coverage that encourages users to upload photos that are unrestricted and can be reused by anyone. Calliopejen1 22:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

About Image: Stars

I don't understand what you meant. Can you make it more clearer for me to understand. That would be a great help. Thanks! CRBR 23:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

What was missing was the name of the article associated with the use rationale. I added it, so you should be good to go. -- But|seriously|folks  02:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this copyrighted? If so can it still be used under fair use?

I've found this image via the University of Houston's website. I was wondering if this image is considered copyrighted, and if it is, would it be possible to use in the University of Houston article in the history section as fair use? It would be a great way to illustrate the smallness of the university at this time.

The only copyright information for this image I can find comes from this page, where at the bottom it says: Unless otherwise indicated, all photos courtesy of the M.D. Anderson Library Special Collections and Archives.

Thanks for your help! Brianreading 02:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You should assume any image you come across on the Internet is protected by copyright unless you have a specific reason to believe otherwise. This particular image is not old enough to be automatically excluded from copyright protection, and there is no indication of a license or release of copyright, so we have to assume it is protected.
I would say, though, that it can be used under Wikipedia's non-free content policy (which some still refer to as "fair use") because it shows temporary buildings that can no longer be photographed. -- But|seriously|folks  02:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your help! Brianreading 02:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Art of the Third Reich

I'm trying to help improve the article Art of the Third Reich. A picture tells a thousand words and would seems especially important in an article about paintings. I've had a look on Commons but haven't been able to find anything useful. The Otto Dix picture from his article asserted fair use for an important painting, can we do the same? There are a couple of websites with what are important examples of Nazi art such as Adolf Wissel's, Farm Family from Kahlenberg, on three different websites, can we copy from those websites without copyvio problems? Or is there a better way to acquire such a picture, for example if I was able to scan from a book on the topic would I be breaking copyright laws.KTo288 14:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You can at the very least use images of these paintings, however acquired, under fair use as long as they accompany relevant criticism or commentary. You need to be careful in terms of the amount of art you use, and should restrict yourself to pieces actually discussed, or as exemplars of work by artists actually discussed in the text.
I have been unable to discover the copyright status under German law for work published under the Third Reich. German copyright law was extensively revised in 1965, but whether it affected the status of these works or the duration of their copyrights I don't know. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your time and efforts, I'll bear in mind your advice when adding images, but I think I'll have another go at going through Commons first. KTo288 16:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

About Thai royal emblem

I've uploaded image:Thairoyem1.gif, image:Thairoyem2.gif and image:Thairoyem3.gif to English Wikipedia. I've added copyrighted tag for all images as they're Thai royal emblem. I just intended it to use on article Emblem of Thailand. I'd like to ask these questions:

  • Do all images above have appropriate licensing tag?
  • Is "free use rationale" of each image appropriate enough?

I'm really a stranger here, and I hope I'll have a clear answer. Thank you. Tangmo 23:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

They look good to me. The only thing I might suggest is that you clearly label the rationales "Rationale for inclusion in Emblem of Thailand" or something similar. I know you link to the article in the rationales themselves, but you don't say in so many words that it's this article for which the rationale was written, and it's better to be crystal-clear about that.
I should note that Image:Thairoyem1.gif may well be public domain if it's really an "ancient" symbol and was a print from an "old royal seal". How ancient, and how old was the seal? So may the others, depending on Thai copyright law. If they were made prior to 1923, they'd be PD under US law. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clear answer. All of emblems are create prior to 1923, so I'll change their licensing as quick as I can. Tangmo 12:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The Painted Lady (Katara) image

I'm very confused. I had the permission of the website to use this image. But, if it's against Wiki policy, please delete it soon; I don't want to cause trouble. Thanks! :)--Freespirit1981 00:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you didn't add any indication of what license there is for the image's use. See Wikipedia's image use policy for how we host images in general.
Please note, however, that the webmaster of wherever you got this from (that you didn't say where you got it from is part of the problem as well) probably didn't have any authority to give you permission anyway. Unless it was the actual Nickelodeon website, that webmaster doesn't own that screenshot himself. It belongs to the copyright holder of Avatar: The Last Airbender.
You need not necessarily delete the image, as it might still be usable as nonfree media. But that use needs to be properly justified. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not sure that I can get proper permission from Nickelodeon, or that I can get it justified. Please delete it, if you can. Thanks! :)--Freespirit1981 18:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It's Painted Lady (Katara). Thanks! :)--Freespirit1981 18:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

See how new I am? I can't even do a proper link to the image! --Freespirit1981 18:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying again to link. Image:Painted Lady (Katara).jpg.jpg--Freespirit1981 18:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Painted Lady (Katara).jpg.jpg--Freespirit1981 18:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Freespirit, the proper way to link it is Image:Painted Lady(Katara) .jpg.jpg - I think you just had the spaces in the wrong spots. I had a look over the Katara page, and it looks like there are probably enough nonfree pictures there already. We do accept a limited number of nonfree images though, so if you're interested in that for the future you can read our policies at WP:NONFREE. I'll delete the picture for you for now (only admins have the delete button), but if you want to delete a picture in the future you can tag it with {{db-author}} and an admin will be along shortly to delete it. Thanks for your contributions! Calliopejen1 19:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the image was uploaded so that we could use it for the Avatar episode article, "The Painted Lady", but thanks for deleting it. :) From now on, I'll let professionals do the image uploading. --Freespirit1981 19:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

help me out, plz!


im starting to hate your image bot...
Image:Kal2.jpg
Image:Kal3.jpg
Image:Kal4.jpg
Image:Kal_Skill_01_01.jpg
Image:Kal_Skill_01_02.jpg
Image:Kal_Skill_01_03.jpg
Image:Kal_Skill_01_04.jpg
Image:Kal_Skill_01_05.jpg
Image:Kal_Skill_01_06.jpg
Image:Kal_Skill_01_07.jpg
Image:Kal_Skill_01_08.JPG
Image:Kal_Skill_01_10.jpg

those are the pictures i uploaded, i was granted the right to use them by inixsoft, i posted their reply to my copyright question on the discussion page of the kalonline wiki page.
can u please make those pics appear as LICENSED?!?!
damn image bot... Fallax 04:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The permission you obtained does not run to the full extent of the GFDL, so it is not enough for use on Wikipedia. Please see WP:COPYREQ if you want to try again. For now, those images can only be used if they satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content policy. -- But|seriously|folks  04:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, let alone public domain as they're currently tagged. The email you received didn't even remotely suggest a release to the public domain. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Article with footnotes

I would like to copy some of your articles into a website. I understand the citation process and the checking to see if the images have copyrights. The questions I have are. Can I copy an article with footnote references with proper citation. If I can do, I need to include the footnotes in the included text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.189.193 (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ#Can_I_reuse_Wikipedia.27s_content_somewhere_else.3F for help with this. Wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL, which basically means that you can use wikipedia content as long as you credit the article's authors and release the website on which it is used under the GFDL also (which means that others in turn can reproduce and use your website). The GFDL allows you to modify the Wikipedia text as you like, so you can take out the footnotes or do whatever you'd like. Calliopejen1 19:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Images from State Agencies

I noticed that images from Federal Government Agencies are allowed on Wikipedia, but state/city agencies was not automatically permitted. I wanted to include an image (diagram) from the New York City MTA, but attempted to remove it because I could not be sure it was allowed.

The image is called Project-map.jpg.

By the way, how do you delete an uploaded image?


user:mnw2000 08:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

That image will get automatically deleted after 7 days if you don't tag it, but if you'd like it to be deleted sooner, you can tag it with {{db-author}}. Calliopejen1 19:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
mnw2000: Just to confirm your suspicions, the original image is indeed not allowed. That image is copyright to the MTA, but any sufficiently skilled Wikipedia editor could make a free map showing the same information. ("replaceable fair use"). I encourage you to give it a go. It has the advantage that you can make it high-res as you like, or scalable as an SVG.
The rule about works of the US government is not arbitrary, but because by US copyright law any work of the US government is automatically public domain. The same is not true of state or local agencies lacking a law or ordinance to that effect. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Greystitle.jpg

It's two lines and then GREY'S ANATOMY in some font. Would it be best to move this to the Commons and tag it with {{PD-ineligible}} and {{trademark}}? 17Drew 03:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Same for Image:Moloko logo.png. 17Drew 04:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

There's some resistance around here against tagging even PD-ineligible trademarks that way, but IMO you're correct at least as far as the Grey's Anatomy logo goes.
The other one is more of a judgment call. I'd say it would be safest to treat it as non-free. Ordinarily typography is ineligible, but I'm not sure this qualifies. That the shapes are to be interpreted as letters is not obvious out of context, and assembling them in a way that suggests they are letters may well rise to the level of authorship necessary for a copyright. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. I agree with TCC. When in any doubt take the safe approach and assume it's copyrighted / non-free. In the case of logos the non-free use argument is so straightforward that there's no harm at all in doing so. Wikidemo 11:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, I went to upload it, and it looks like someone else already uploaded it to Commons and tagged it with {{PD-textlogo}}, but just didn't tag the one here for deletion. 17Drew 23:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Kim Beazley

Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:310058560_2aeb0cff89_o.jpg - as per the cc-by-nc-sa-2.0 license, any of the conditions can be waived if permission is gained from the copyright holder. This has been achieved through flickr mail correspondence, and as such the author has waived Wikipedia, and it's associated mirrors, from this portion of the license, as can be seen beneath the image on the source page. However, as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_politics#Kim_Beazley - somebody thinks this isn't sufficient. Why should OTRS come in to it? The source page has my request on it, and below the image specifically says Wikipedia and associated mirrors are fine. Comments appreciated. Timeshift 08:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Two reasons. First, an nc license is unacceptable here. We need some record that this license is no longer applicable, since it's the one shown on the source. That's the OTRS connection. Forward the email correspondence to permissions-en at wikimedia dot org. This will create a record in OTRS of the license. Be sure to say which image in Wikipedia it's for.
Second reason is that even as phrased, the permission does not appear adequate. Distribution of Wikipedia is not limited to mirrors. Anyone who wants to could, for example, create a print version of Wikipedia and sell it. The photographer needs to understand this and be OK with it. I honestly don't see how what you have said here converts the license into cc-by-sa. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I will repeat it again. The license, per http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ clearly states "Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder". The only difference between cc-by-nc-sa-2.0 and cc-by-sa-2.0 is the nc (non commercial) bit, which as per the license says that this can be waived, and as per the comment and caption below the image on the source page, this has been done. Quite simply, the source author is happy for Wikipedia to use this image, but she does not want to remove the nc bit of the license from her image. As per http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ and "Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder" this is clearly not an issue. Again, as the redheaded Hanson once said, please explain. Timeshift 09:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
But it's not waived for downstream users. This isn't really uploaded here under cc-by-sa, it's uploaded as cc-by-nc-sa with a waiver for Wikipedia. This amounts to a Wikipedia-only license, which we cannot have either. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
So, short of removing the nc portion, what else can the author of the photo do to allow Wikipedia/mirrors to use the photo as intended? Timeshift 09:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Nothing. We cannot have it with the nc portion whether it applies to Wikipedia or not, as long as it applies only to Wikipedia. Ask the photographer this: If the image were mirrored on a for-pay site that charged for access to Wikipedia material, including this image, without compensating him, would he be OK with that? If not, then it's an overly restrictive license for our purpose. TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
It gets worse than that. A for-profit mirror isn't necessarily using the image in a "commercial" sense. But what about a truly commercial use - would the photographer be agreeable for someone to run off posters to sell? Create a derivative work that changed the background? Use it as cover art for a book? A billboard? That's what free use means - free to do anything (subject to laws other than copyright). Wikidemo 11:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Resolved. Timeshift 15:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use of architectural photograph

I have found a photograph of an architectural work that I would like to upload. The architectural work itself is almost certainly copyrighted, but I'd rely on fair use provisions surrounding images of 3D works of art. Freedom of panorama does not apply - these are shots from on the property, mostly interior.

My problem: I didn't take the picture. Is there a separate copyright to the photo itself, held by the photographer? If so, and if I can't get an appropriate license from the photographer, then is there a fair-use rationale that would apply to the photo itself? Is the assumption that there are other possible sources for the photo, even if there's no other possible source for the architectural work? OR, is the only copyright the one on the architectural work, and therefore the fair use rationale for the image of the building is the only one I need. --Ipoellet 15:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The photographer owns the copyright. Just think of it as if somebody takes a picture of you, you still can't use it without their permission. You need permission from him to release it into the public domain I hope that helps. Million_Moments 09:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
This is mostly correct, but the photographer has a few options for free licensing besides public domain. See WP:ICT for a full list of his/her options, and WP:COPYREQ if you're interested in writing the photographer to ask for a copyright release so we can use it. Calliopejen1 14:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Tubbs-Carlisle House

I stumbled upon this page by accident but knew immediately what the subject is as I live there. There is very little written word about the house in question other than as given by me or my father or his relatives to writers at the Lubbock county Heritage Society, City of Lubbock Heritage society or the United States Registrar of Historic Sites and Places. This same information has been given on occasion to the local Newspaper, now a Knight Ryder concern called the Lubbock Avalanche Journal. I am not sure why you have referred to it as the Tubbs Carlisle House, though it is accurate, it is somewhat archaic(WA Gus Carlisle died in the 1920's. The State of Texas placed an historical marker for Tubbs House here in 2002, yet my granfather Fancher Revier who married Lucy Tubbs, lived in this house for 40 years and my father, Paul Revier, was born here in 1928 and died here in 1999. Isham Tubbs died in 1948. The Picture I have posted was taken by me and is mine to give to whom I want and so I thought it would be good for the site and this page. I have seen images of the house used in TV commercials from time to time and most have been in good taste. I would hope that any use hereby attained of the image of the house would be in good taste according to common sense.

If you took the picture yourself, you should explain that on the image page. For us to use your picture, you have to release it under some sort of free license. Your options are listed at WP:ICT. The easiest to explain ones are {{PD-self}} (you retain no rights to the image), {{cc-by-3.0}} (essentially, anyone can use your image in any way as long as they credit you), and {{GFDL-self}} (the same license that wikipedia text is released under--essentially, anyone can use your image in any way as long as they credit you and also share their work). Add one of these tags to the image page and you should be all set. Note that when you release your image under one of these licenses there is no requirement that others exercise "good taste"--they can do whatever they want with it. Calliopejen1 14:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Use of Ecunet logo

I uploaded the Ecunet logo Image:Ecunet Logo.jpg in order to ask this question: Wikipedia guidelines appear to allow only images that are in the public domain or that have a free license. Yet I see logos on plenty of pages (cf. Chevrolet, CompuServe, which clearly are owned by the companies in question. Please tell me how to use a logo with permission. InkQuill 01:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

First, although they're tagged with a template that suggests they're copyrighted, most corporate logos actually aren't. According to the Copyright Office, logos are generally ineligible for copyright protection as they contain insufficient "authorship"; that is, they're composed of details of coloring, typography, and/or simple geometric shapes with no original artwork to speak of; and these things cannot be protected by copyright. However, they are protected by the trademark laws, so we still need to be cautious in how they're used.
We really ought to change that template, since its confusing in that way. Copyright-ineligible logos hosted at the Commons are generally tagged with {{trademark}}, as many "non-free" logos here really should be. But it's a bit of a judgment call in some cases, so better safe than sorry.
Second, we don't use non-free media with permission. That's why they're non-free; either that or the permission we have isn't acceptable according to Wikipedia policy. The non-free media guidelines are helpful if you want to find out how we do this. The legal basis is fair use, but non-free media are contrary to the basic goal of the project so Wikipedia policy is actually stricter than the law requires.
Third, you didn't need to upload anything just to ask a question here. We don't answer general copyright questions, but this one was rather pointed.
If, however, you have a legitimate use for this logo, tag it {{logo}} and then {{logo fur}} for each article where you are using it. Read the documentation for the latter to find out how to use it, since you need to provide some information in the parameters. If you're not planning to use the logo anywhere, you can expect it to be deleted as is the policy on unused non-free media. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Where do I put the {{logo}} and {{logo fur}} tags? Do put the first on the discussion page of Image:Ecunet logo.jpg? Where does the second go? InkQuill 03:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, I really didn't know how to find out what the issue would be with this logo. I didn't mean to violated the policy against pointedness and I apologize. The rules are rather difficult to navigate. Even your explanation and the non-free media guidelines are confusing to me, or just too complicated for my feeble brain. I understand the efforts to keep Wikipedia's content open, but print encyclopedias have long used non-free content. I'm not sure how we'll ever be able to use the Ecunet logo on the Ecunet page under the guidelines. InkQuill 03:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, Wikipedia names are case-sensitive. Image:Ecunet Logo.jpg is not the same as Image:Ecunet logo.jpg. And when posting here, please add a colon before "Image". Otherwise you won't link to it, you'll insert it into this page and we don't really want that.
Yes, print encyclopedias have long used non-free content, but Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Encyclopedias have also traditionally been non-free themselves, but that's not what we're about here.
The issue with this logo is the same as with every other logo here. You can use it to identify the organization in an article about them. You just have to jump through the hoops to justify it.
To place the tags, go to the image page and click the edit link. This doesn't edit the image; it edits the text describing the image. Add both tags there, and make sure that you fill in the parameters for {{logo fur}}. Policy requires that we include a rationale justifying each use of non-free media, but logos are so commonly added and all for the same reason that we now have a template to make writing rationales for them easier. Essentially we need to know where you got it from, who it belongs to, and in what article you're using it. The rest of the text in the template should suffice. It will look something like {{logo fur|article=Ecunet|use=org|source=<say where you got it from if not the website>|website=http://www.ecunet.org<if that's where you got it from>}}. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I would add the following comment Gordon Laird 14:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Gordon Laird:

This Ecunet Logo has been provided to me by the President of Ecunet, Inc. who own the Logo. It was commissioned by the Board of Ecunet, Inc. by a motion made by that Board November 10, 1993. The person who was commissioned to design and execute the Logo was Phil Porter, who is a creative United Church of Christ consultant, workshop leader and co-founder of InterPlay (http://www.bodywisdom.org). I assert that we are acting on behalf of Ecunet, Inc. and have a 100% right to the use of this Logo. signed: Gordon Laird

I tried to put in {{logo}} and {{logo fur}} tags, but it's not working. It says there's no article name, even though it has article=Ecunet (I tried Ecunet and {{{Ecunet}}} too). And I can't figure out how to put in a Purpose of Use. It's hard to fill out a form when you don't know what the questions on the form are! InkQuill 18:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Gordon Laird 18:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Thank you, InkQuill, I am right with you. Could someone please explain to me the downside of making an image free for use for anybody? I can't see an obvious downside.

the field "article" needs to be capitalized - use "Article=" instead of "article=". Most of the fields in the template are like that, it's just a simple template. And be sure to spell out the article name precisely, without brackets. Very few people would be willing to give a completely free license to their logo, or donate their logo to the public domain, because that would allow people to use exact copies of it for other purposes. For example, consider AT&T's logo here Image:Att_svg.svg. If it were free I still couldn't use it for a telecommunications company. But minus the wording it sure would be a nice logo for a gumball company. Companies don't want to release their rights any more than they have to. Therefore, we pretty much assume that no grant of permission to use a logo is broad enough for our purposes, and we don't even have to ask - the "non-free use" is so well accepted we can just use it without permission. I hope that makes sense. Wikidemo 19:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think this confuses copyright and trademark issues. You can grant a free license for a logo as far as copyright is concerned -- as I said, most logos aren't eligible for copyright anyway -- without compromising your rights to it as a trademark. Copyright is all Wikipedia cares about. Even the Commons will host a PD (with respect to copyright) logo that's still protected as a trademark. As long as we're not using it for anything but identification of the organization it represents, and don't claim we're speaking for that organization by virtue of displaying its mark, we're within both the law and Wikipedia policy. (As far as I know anyway. I have never seen a policy about trademark per se making a logo non-free as we mean it here.)
The question is, has Gordon Laird actually granted such a license? He hasn't said so above. It needs to be something like {{PD-author}} (he's not literally the author, but it's a work made for hire owned by the organization he speaks for) or {{GFDL}} or {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} or one of those. In that case, we'd still identify it as a trademark by including {{trademark}}.
On another note, I can't believe someone wrote a template that only accepts parameter names in title case. That's not good design. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we are ready to proceed to use the Logo in the "non-free use" way. Yes, Ecunet is willing to grant that kind of licence. I think this logo fits under the category of 2 dimensional art work. Gordon Laird 00:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

We are ready to take the next step. What is the next step? Gordon Laird 15:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I added the {{non-free logo}} tag, so your page looks all set. Thanks for your contribution! Calliopejen1 02:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Forestimages.org

In my hunt for public domain plant pathogen images I came across Forest images, an educational collection of images. When photographers upload images they have a choice about how they want there images used, and many are in the public domain and just require the appropriate image reference to be used. I just wanted to check that I can actually upload these images, with appropriate citation, to commons or if I am breaking some copyright thing I haven't figured out yet. Could you please let me know on my talk page. Million_Moments 17:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the image you are referencing? - cohesion 03:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Question/comment

Image:Chase2.jpgwas shot by GIO Photography and all rights were released to Chad Cary aka Chase Evans —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaseevans (talk • contribs) 19:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Please add the source and license to the image description page. For help on adding tags to image pages please see the help section at the top of this page. - cohesion 03:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use for Jack Daniels picture

I want to use this picture for Jack Daniels. Jack Daniels is deceased, and after searching for a long time, this is the only picture I could find. It is a state-run website (run by New Mexico.) -- Minute Lake 21:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

US state governments do not license their material in the public domain as does the US federal government. If you were to use this image it would need to conform to our non-free content policy. If you have any questions about specifics please let us know. - cohesion 03:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I realize this. I want to know if it's fair use. He is deceased, there are no other pictures of him on the Internet (as far as I know), and it would only be used in his page (here.) Thanks. -- Minute Lake 03:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Is Forbidden Planet in the public domain ?

There's this movie called Forbidden Planet. On the Leslie Nielsen page, someone put a movie screenshot image of Nielsen up under the GNU, which I know is incorrect. I think maybe this was a rookie mistake of thinking "I made the screencapture, and I'm releasing the screencapture to the GNU".

Before someone goes and kills Image:Commanderadams.jpg, could we check if it's PD ? Otherwise, the image needs its copyright tag changed a lot. -- Guroadrunner 05:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If Forbidden Planet is public domain, I don't think just taking and cropping a screenshot is enough to make the screenshot copyrighted. (as for that, if it was released before 1964, and not renewed, it would be public domain - don't we have people who do renewal searches? or where does that data live?) —Random832 12:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It was renewed in 1984 [4]. The image is currently tagged as fair use. It will be public domain in 2051 if my math is right, unless the laws change... - cohesion 04:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Misinformed uploader

Also, I think this person doesn't understand that even if you make the screenshot, it doesn't mean you own what's in the screenshot. There are a few other images tagged as incorrect licensing. See User_talk:Music2611.

Discussed this on the user's talk page and fixed his uploads to date. Calliopejen1 15:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Nirmala.jpg

The photograph is taken by me. (Nirmala jpg) and the copyright is with me —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mthelly (talk • contribs) 12:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Restored image and wrote on user's talk page that he needs to add a copyright tag. Calliopejen1 14:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

lincoln lancers

Image:LincolnLancers.jpg

The image I posted at Abraham Lincoln High School (Denver, Colorado) is from www.alhs.dpsk12.org, our school's web site. It's okay with our webmaster for me to do this, so does this fit Wikipedia's image policy?

--Aikibum 16:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Aikibum

Not unless they told you there was a free license. See WP:COPYREQ TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

use of pictures

Sir/Madam:

I appreciate your noble goal of freeing information, photos and artwork. Society and civilization will be greatly advanced as a result.

My personal experience so far is that there still remains an impenetrable wall between a person who wants to use photos in Wikipedia and those who place photos on Wikipedia. I would say, 90% of photos are unusable because of this wall.

The wall is made of esoteric legal terminology. Why not simply state whether a photo can be used or not? If a photo needs a photographer's name, why not provide the name? If it needs additional information, why not provide the information up front? Why lead people off into dead-end websites and non-existent email addresses in search of names and legal requirments? If a photographer uses a foreign language, there is absolutely no hope of contacting him.

Why state that I must contact the photographer without providing an email address? If a photographer wants information to accompany his pic, why doesn't he simply provide the information with the pic. If there is a reason to contact a photographer, the system has failed because it is impossible to contact him.

As it is now, the only pics in Wikipedia that are usable are those with the copyright sign crossed out. Only a fool would use any other photo because of the very real possibility of a lawsuit. Is it possible photographers are using Wikipedia as a means to sew people?

My experience is that the devil does his best work in confusion because that is where predators hide out.

I think predators are hiding out in the dark shadows of Wikipedia. edsketch@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.145.160.12 (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Any information required by any of the free licenses is already on the image description page. Any non-free media shouldn't be used anyway. What's the problem? TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

SPAMing user talk page every time a bot runs through

God Dam guys can't you fix the problems of the uploaded images to make them comply yourself instead of make a bot spam the user page every so often. There are images that I uploaded a year ago that are being spammed to my userpage. --Cs california 18:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

We take copyright seriously. These are problems a bot can't fix, and to the extent that it could, probably wouldn't be legal (although IANAL). If you don't want to have your talk page filled with these kinds of messages, follow copyright law regulations and Wikipedia policy when you upload pictures. --YbborTalk 18:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Can't you guys make an automated bot to tag certain image sizes and logos? I dont think I should get copyright notices for submitting these logos. Google has larger pictures and they have very few copyright lawsuits --Cs california 22:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
"You guys" are not necessarily here. Try contacting one of the bot developers.
Besides, you're making two mistakes. One, Google has no pictures. They're a search engine, not an image host. When you click on one of "their" images, you're sent to the page where the image is actually hosted, not to someplace within Google. They do have thumbnails, but none of them are anywhere near as large as your logos. (Image:Brlogo.jpg, for example.) Second, as far as I can tell you're not being dinged for the sizes anyway, but for failure to provide use rationales on your uploads. For a logo (not box cover art, but logos) there's a template {{logo fur}} that can help you write one, as logos used to illustrate articles on the things they represent are fairly common.
Smaller is better, of course. When using material owned by someone else under fair use rules, there's usually no reason for the image to be larger than the size actually displayed on the page. For logos, this is almost always true.
What it boils down to is that you are responsible for making sure you're adhering to policy when uploading, not the bots, the admins, us, or anyone else. The messages on your talk page aren't spam, they're alerts that you did something wrong. Calling them spam is like calling a parking ticket littering. If you park your car legally, you don't get tickets. If you conform to the law and Wikipedia policy when uploading images, you don't get these messages on your user talk page. It's as simple as that. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

US Government image repeatedly bot-flagged

Image:MASINT-XM93-Fuchs-NBCrecon.gif is a US Army photograph. Each time I loaded it, I both checked the pulldown that it was a US government work without copyright, and, the second time, also added the government information in the description. I've had other government images go in with no trouble, so I don't know what is happening here. The image goes in Measurement and Signature Intelligence. I'm also confused why the bot says it was removed today, when the other messages were saying it would be removed by October 14th if the information was given. Please notify me on my talk page. Howard C. Berkowitz 13:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, you must have missed what you were aiming for in the pulldown menu the first time because this image has never had a copyright tag. If you need to add a tag, you don't re-upload the image, you edit the image page and type it in manually. As a US Army image, the correct tag is {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}}. There are more specific tags for various groups within the army, but this one should be OK regardless.
You also have to say where you got the image from. Add a link to the web page where you found it to the image page.
The image has not actually been removed from the servers, just from the article. Once you correctly tag it, you can remove the warning tag from the image and replace it in the article. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Help needed to identify correct image copyright tag

image:Caldwell close1.jpg I had added an image on the Robert Caldwell page entry (updating on behalf of my father) The image (a portrait (4" by 5½") was taken about 130 years ago (ie. 1877- so copyright would not apply) by 'Wiele & Klein of Madras', and was bequeathed to my father by Caldwell's daughter, Mrs Mary Emily Mayne. My father allowed the portrait to appear on the front of Caldwell's 2007 biography, on the associated Internet site [www.britishempire.co.uk/article/faithandfamily.htm], and on the WIKI biography.

It was removed as I had not provided a suitable tag. Can you help me identify how to correct this. Please notify me on My Talk page. Thankyou

--SarahApps 14:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking for source and copyright permission

Hello,

I'm looking for the source of the English translation used for the Tamil poem Kuruntokai 234 in the wikipedia article on Sangam landscape (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sangam_landscape). Here is the translation, which appears about halfway down the page I linked to above:

The sun goes down and the sky reddens, pain grows sharp, light dwindles. Then is evening when jasmine flowers open, the deluded say. But evening is the great brightening dawn when crested cocks crow all through the tall city and evening is the whole day for those without their lovers.

In the article, all the English translations are unattributed. I've been unable to track them down -- the English translation above is quite a bit different from Ramanujan's translation of that Tamil poem in _Poems of Love and War_. Could someone help me identify the source of the translation above? I need it urgently in order to seek copyright permission to quote this translation in my novel, _Evening is the Whole Day_, forthcoming in May 2008.

Thank you very much.

Best, Preeta Samarasan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preetabird (talk • contribs) 16:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The translation was added by User:Venu62, as can be seen on the article's history tab. You should probably contact that user on his/her talk page to confirm that the translation wasn't copied from somewhere else. (That would be a violation of Wikipedia policies, but of course it happens from time to time.} For information on reusing Wikipedia content elsewhere, see Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ#Can_I_reuse_Wikipedia.27s_content_somewhere_else.3F. You also could talk to Venu62 to see if there are other acceptable terms for the reproduction. Good luck! Calliopejen1 16:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
This was not at all difficult to track down. The source was http://www.penkatali.org/cankam.html. The site is offline these days, but the wayback machine has it here: [5]. The question is if the webmaster of that site gave permission, or if the webmaster was in fact the editor who added them. If not, then these are copyright violations and have to go. Or, since Venu62 can presumably read Tamil, she (I'm guessing) can make new translations herself. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

image copyright message, can't figure out how to proceed

Greetings: Uploaded

Image:Robert Kennicott in Furs.jpg

from Smithsonian Institution which is of course U.S. Gov't Picture.

Photo taken in the 1860s. There should be NO COPYRIGHT as it is long out of date.

Cannot figure out how to get this thing to take. The warning box doesn't permit editing and I followed all the steps in the upload wizard only to hit a huge error message.

I'd get more pictures up if the system would stop deleting them. I have a lot of old images from original prints (such as this one) and it would really really rock to get them on WikiPedia.

Wiki has even deleted photos which are MINE and which I indicated were my own work. I am totally confused even though I don't feel like a stupid person. I don't think the instructions are very helpful.

I understand your concerns about copyright - understand them completely. But do the instructions have to be impenetrable and the wizards not produce the desired result? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellin Beltz (talk • contribs) 21:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


Ellin. I've added a tag to the image {{PD-US}} which is used for images first published in the US before 1923. If you could provide source information on the image page (a url, the name of the book it's from). Megapixie 22:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This photo is so old that it seems safe to assume it's in the public domain by virtue of age, but I want to dispell the idea we can use any Smithsonian Institute images. The Smithsonian was set up by the federal government as a separate institution. It can and does maintain copyright of works (see [6] for their copyright statement). If we have a bunch of images people have tagged as PD-Gov because they're from the Smithsonian we should be changing these to fair use where applicable and deleting where we can't make such a claim. -- SiobhanHansa 20:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

image: John Moore House, Sparta

I appreciate your careful regard for copyright. I have tried very hard to comply. I have attached a certificate from the photo creator/owner releasing the image into public domain. What else can I do? Thank you. BroadcastingliveBroadcastinglive 14:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem was you hadn't put your public domain declaration into a machine-readable format. I added the text {{PD-self}}, which is what you needed. However, your PD release is kind of confusing because you say you want to be attributed, which is inconsistent with putting something in the public domain. If you want to be attributed, you should change the license to {{attribution}}, and if not you should delete those sentences. Calliopejen1 20:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

deleted pictures

[Image:Europe_map.gif [Image:180px-Flag_of_Europe.svg.png

You have deleted two pictures we used from wikipedia common. We have read the notice, and have read how to add copy rights it is very muddling - can you explain in simpler form - we cannot even trace the wikipedia common page we got the picture from. There must have been a liscence attached to it.

We have spent 4 hrs with this work - we do not get paid for it.

Can you at least put the tag example for one of them and we will try and emulate/copy what you have done.

Oh there is another problem, you upload window are different http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Upload One can get straight at the wikipedia work. Your reply will be appreciated Grandlarousse 19:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The upload windows are different because they're two separate (but related) projects.
The basic problem here is that you screwed up for reasons unrelated to copyright. That these images are apparently not tagged correctly is a side issue.
There's no reason whatsoever for Image:180px-Flag_of_Europe.svg.png to exist. The EU flag is on the Commons in .SVG format. This is a scalable vector format and works well at any size. As it's on the Commons, all you have to do if you want to use it is to link to it as if it were local to the English Wikipedia. Like so: Image:Flag_of_Europe.svg If the default size of the image is too big for where you want to use it in the article, the thing to do is not to create a new version of the size you want. Instead, use the extended image syntax to scale it to the appropriate size on the page.
However, according to the log it was deleted because it contained no fair use rationale. That means you must have tagged it as a fair-use image. That was incorrect. The Commons image is public domain; simply scaling it does not create a copyright. But since you tagged it as fair use but apparently didn't provide a rationale as required by policy, it was automatically deleted. Which is just as well, because as I said it's quite unnecessary. But if it was appropriate for you to have uploaded, since it was based on a public domain image but had insufficient work added to create a copyright, it should also have tagged as public domain. Exactly which public domain tag to use is a bit of a conundrum, but it's also moot.
Image:Europe_map.gif has not in fact been deleted, and I don't understand why you think it is. but was only removed from the article. You can put it back once you get the copyright issue sorted. There are a number of possible originals for it at the Commons, but you do have to say which one. Some of them have licenses that impose requirements for reuse for derivative works. They're free licenses, but they still have conditions attached such as attribution. If you can't do that you are not in compliance with the license -- it would have been clearly marked on whatever page you got the original from -- and this image should be deleted. But see if it wasn't one of these. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

How can I upload this pic

The image was in a book titled The Kennedy Women by Laurence Leamer. The publisher received permission to print this photograph in the book from Peter Lawford Collection.

A friend of mine edited the photograph, which is to say she took that one and enlarged it. Then she sent it to me through a private message on the Kennedy family forum (thekennedys.confourms3.com).

I would like to use this photograph in an article here on Wikipedia. How would I write the summary, and which heading under licensing would I click on?Ajsoa 07:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Who is it a picture of? When was it taken? TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Dennis Shulman Image

To Whom It May Concern:

An image of Dennis Shulman that I posted has been removed twice.

Mr. Shulman has given me permission to post this image on Wikipedia. But, as it keeps being removed, I must be posting it incorrectly.

Can you please help figure out what I need to do to keep this image posted?

I'm a new user and have every intent of following Wikipdia's rules and regulations. I'm just not certain on what I need to do.

Thank you in advance,

Daniel Goldstein —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel A Goldstein (talk • contribs) 19:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, permission to post an image on Wikipedia is not sufficient for use on Wikipedia. The permission must also permit re-use and modification by others, even including commercial use. Please refer to the instructions at WP:COPYREQ for more information on the type of license that is required. Thanks! -- But|seriously|folks  20:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Photo of William P. Foster

I've located a photograph of Dr. Foster with his entry on the Florida Artists Hall of Fame website. [7] Would image be usable on Wikipedia and if so under what license. The website and the program are products of the government of the state of Florida. CJ 19:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

In order to use this image at Wikipedia, you would have to persuade the copyright holder to license the image. There is some excellent guidance for doing so at this link. Good luck! -- But|seriously|folks  20:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks CJ 22:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

How to handle images with questionable licensing claims?

I could use a little advice from more experienced users. I have come across two images Image:Gc-quality.jpg and Image:Default-GC.jpg both uploaded claiming they came from websites and are released under cc-by-sa or public domain. But a specific URL for each photo isn't given. I've looked on the sites given for the photos and can't find them, neither site appears to release any material under an open license or into the public domain. I've left a message on the uploader's talk page asking for clarification. Should I also tag the images somehow - and if so how? Or list them somewhere - and if so where? Thanks -- SiobhanHansa 19:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The images should be listed at WP:PUI - thanks for working this! Videmus Omnia Talk 19:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I listed the two. The same editor uploaded what looks like one of the same photo at image:Default-myspace.jpg with a cc-by-sa license and this time listed the actual link. But the page does not provide any release under any license. I placed a speedy tag on it and informed the uploader. An IP address (likely a sock given the edit history) came along removed the tag and claimed the subject's publicist says all photos of the subject on the internet are available under public domain. Where do I go from here? I feel like I'm being run rings around. Now an entirely new account has been created who has added commons:Image:S01_074.jpg to Commons claiming ownership of the image. This could well be true (we suspect several accounts are socks COI editing on the article). But it doesn't seem like this should be sufficient to establish licensing for an image that has already been published on the internet - how do we know to whether or when to trust a claim of ownership? -- SiobhanHansa 00:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyright tag?

How can i add a copyright tag on my picture? Avgoustinosc 05:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mornington_tourist_railway_station,_October_14,_2005.jpg

Any idea why this was tagged by User:STBotI as unsourced? I would've thought that looking at the summary, it was fairly clear where the image came from. --ozzmosis 09:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This bot is not coded well and is causing all sorts of problems. I removed the tag for you. If it readds the tag, just remove it again. Hopefully the bot will be stopped soon if it hasn't been already. See discussion about this bot at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#STBotI. Calliopejen1 20:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! --ozzmosis 12:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyright

Is there anything that is specifically not copyright protected?, if so please list examples68.193.126.223 11:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

By definition, everything not copyright protected is public domain, and vice-versa.Wikidemo 12:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Use of image: Ian Chappell

I have uploaded an image of Ian Chappell (Image:Chappelli.jpg) which is owned by the National Archive of Australia. I requested permission from the NAA which was granted in an email. Can you advise why I received a message saying it is missing a copyright tag, and what tag I should put on it. Phanto282 13:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You were informed the image is missing a copyright tag because it's missing a copyright tag. That should be self-evident. If you want to know what a copyright tag is, look up image copyright tags.
See here for what you should do on receiving permission for releasing an image under a free license. I note that's not actually the permission granted here, which appears to amount to "Wikipedia only", so it'll have to be deleted anyway. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Cruzvillegas.gif

The image for Abraham Cruzvillegas is taken from an art gallery which was selling his work. Does this count as advertising, or free licence or anything of that sort? Thewikiman 15:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Thewikiman, 15 October 2007, 16:48.

It might or might not count as advertising, but without an explicit release saying so it's not a free license. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Image: Poland Jan. Uprising107.jpg

I still cannot figure out how to add anything about a newspaper copyright as it is not in your column. I chose what I thought was closest and in the description wrote it is from the Webster Times in Webster, MA. Your directions seem to be for folks who are vastly computer literate. Please advise. My email is <email removed>. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sedoanne (talk • contribs) 16:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed your email because writing it on pages like this one will cause you to receive lots of spam. We don't have an image tag for what you uploaded because it is not acceptable according to our policies. Because the newspaper was published in the 1940s, it is still under copyright and we cannot reprint an entire obituary here. See WP:NONFREE for more on our policies. This image will be deleted soon, but what you can do instead is write an article in your own words about this person, citing the newspaper as a source. Good luck! Calliopejen1 18:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

EBPP - Sorriso Technologies sample pic

I have recently loaded a final copyright choice for this editorial/picture addition to the EBPP section. Can you please help getting this posted?

Image:Sorriso screen.jpg

Jeffco 1;40pm Oct 15 ------

Getting what posted? The image is there. What license do you want to grant? TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Image Violations on Twitches Too

Ok, so the new Disney Channel Original Movie Twitches Too recently aired, and a user by the name of User:Karsh-ileana has uploaded multiple images in the character bios section that he screenshotted from a copyrighted website by Disney. However, I have no idea what to do to report the images other then asking here, as I haven't located the article describing what to do yet :/ I'd prefer a response on my talk page, but here would be fine. Myzou 00:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You can simply retag them so that they're correct. Assuming their use in the articles is valid, they should be {{non-free film screenshot}}. Be sure to include a use rationale for each article in which they're included, showing how it conforms to the non-free media policy and gudelines. If it turns out they cannot be used as nonfree media, see Wikipedia:Copyright problems for how to proceed.
Just with a casual inspection, it looks as if at least some of the uses are invalid. We cannot use non-free media to show what living people look like, as a free image can be made instead at public appearances and so on. So to use this to show what the actor looks like, as opposed to what the character looks like in the article about the movie, is wrong. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Dejima in Nagasaki harbor

It uploaded two images, both of which were tagged by a robot. Obviously I should have done something different, but I don't know what the problem is:

  • 1a. 01:31, 16 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:Harbor_view_nagasaki.jpg‎ (uploaded a new version of "Image:Harbor view nagasaki.jpg": Any use allowed by owner This is a Japanese postcard from before 1920 Courtesy New York Public Library Picture Collection) (top)
  • 1b. 01:18, 16 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:Harbor_view_nagasaki.jpg‎ (This is a scanned postcard from the Picture Collection of the New York Public Library. The library grants permission for any use. NYPL does not require, but does prefer an acknowledgment -- something like "Courtesy of the New York Public Library Picture)
  • 2. 01:56, 16 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:Nagasaki-harbor 2006.jpg‎ (This image comes from Wikipedia Commons -- "Dejima"; but nothing happened when I tried to link "Image:11177052 048a37914f.jpg" ... so I downloaded the image to my desktop and I'm uploading it again with the proper attribution and source indicated)

There were limited options from which to choose; and I did explain exactly where these images came from and why they were appropriate for posting. What else was I supposed to do?

If these need to be deleted, okay -- go ahead. I'll figure this out at some other time. This is certainly not an urgent matter as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't have even bothered if someone hadn't put the Wikipedia Commons gallery on the Dejima main page ... and I noticed that a current photograph was just like one of the postcards I'd found at the New York Public Library. --Ooperhoofd 02:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Tag the old postcard {{PD-Japan}} and {{PD-US}}. That second one might be redundant, but it couldn't hurt. You do have to give the source by Wikipedia policy. (Something like, "Picture Collection of the New York Public Library") Also give the date if you know it.
I don't know what went wrong with the Commons image, but please don't do what you did. Use the original and ask at WP:VPT if you're having trouble with it. I've tagged the local version for deletion. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Great Stella

Will people knowledgeable on copyright issues please comment at Template talk:Great Stella. This template was proposed for redirection a while ago and the redirect was actually done, but it was reverted. The author of the software is trying to assert a copyright over any images produced with it, and I believe this to be invalid. But there was no discussion at all on the TfD, so informed comments are needed. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Company logos

What copyright should be used on company logos? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judef (talk • contribs) 03:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Almost any kind of logo should use the {{logo}} tag. --Hdt83 Chat 04:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Picutre question.

Is this picture ok?

Image copyright problem with Image:07-5-24-LisaGerrard.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:07-5-24-LisaGerrard.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. Ineversigninsodonotmessageme 03:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you take it? -- But|seriously|folks  03:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


No, I didn't. Is it against the policy? If so, I'll take it down.

Ineversigninsodonotmessageme 03:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Ineversigninsodonotmessageme

Yes. It's against the law too, unless in the place where you found it, it was explicitly licensed under the GFDL. But in that case you're in violation of the license because you don't link back to the original or preserve the original copyright information. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


All right, I'll take it down. Sorry about that.

Ineversigninsodonotmessageme 16:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Ineversigninsodonotmessageme

Question about this kind of images

I'm willing to use a computer-drawn picture, to illustrate a particular instance of a data structure. It is a diagram of some instance of the data structure, simple but illustrative. I found an image like this, in a book. I re-drawn that image by myself, but only to achieve a better quality than the scanned pages had. So, I have an image that depicts a diagram of a simple instance of a data structure; it is the same diagram and the same instance of one found in a book. Can I use it in my article? To what extent? Alfredo J. Herrera Lago 04:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That depends on whether it's a standard data structure, for which just about any diagram will be much like another, or whether it's something more unusual. In the latter case, it might no longer be common property and therefore copyrightable even if redrawn. What's the data structure? TCC (talk) (contribs) 11:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a segment tree (there's a stub already). It's not a very complex or exotic structure; it's for computational geometry. I learned it from a book of Computational Geometry (I'll put the reference later here). I guess it's described in many books and courses, and used in many applications. I'm currently playing around with it in my diploma thesis. Alfredo J. Herrera Lago 20:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I just renamed the article for you; you had it at Segment Tree. Article names are case sensitive, but Wikipedia style is that only the first word in a title gets capitalized except for proper nouns.
This is a borderline case. To be on the safe side, I would suggest redrawing it "from scratch" if it now resembles the original too closely. I hadn't been familiar with this particular structure before (which just shows I've been very lazy about keeping up) but from a casual look around there seems to be a number of creative choices in how one might present an example of this structure. Any individual example might therefore be copyrightable, so you'd be better off making it entirely your own work. (You might want to cite the original in context as a reference though.) In that case, please license it from this list. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, dude. I'll follow the and build the graphic from scratch, it will be easy. Thanks for the case fix too, I had not realized that I mispelled the name. Alfredo J. Herrera Lago 00:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

my picutre got deleted

hi, recently i added a picture to the article titled "Thuraiyur". But the wikipedia admin has deleted that because of inadequate license. It is my own work and i have released the picture to public domain. What is your problem in using that image... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samkulo (talk • contribs) 14:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I restored Image:Thuraiyur.jpg for you. The problem was it did not have a source listed, or a copyright tag, two requirements for image uploads. In the future, if you want to release your own photo into the public domain, include a statement like "own work" or "I took this myself" and the copyright tag {{PD-self}}. Calliopejen1 16:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Super Nintendo image?

The photo of a Super Nintendo found at Image:Super Nintendo Entertainment System-USA.jpg is very suspicious. There is supposed to be a gray "Super Nintendo" logo on the controller and console. It looks like this image may have been lifted from an online retail store which removed the logos.--Dwedit 09:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The image was uploaded to the Commons from the Japanese Wikipedia, and I don't imagine the Japanese and American models are completely identical. Unless you have definite information to the contrary, we assume good faith on the part of the user who says he made the image. TCC (talk) (contribs) 11:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
This is not the Japanese model, the Japanese controller has multi colored buttons for A, B, X, Y - not purple. It also does not claim to be the Japanese model, and the picture is of a style often found in online stores —Random832 13:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, the rest of this user's uploads look suspicious. And we get lots of cases where there's a bogus GFDL-self or PD-self tag, and this looks no different. —Random832 14:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
We can't go throwing around accusations of copyright violations without some kind of proof. Proof consists of finding the image hosted somewhere under someone else's copyright. We do get professional-quality photography from time to time, so the style doesn't tell us anything. In this case, all of this user's contributions are in this style, even photographs of food items. It's far more likely that this is his style than that he's carefully stealing only images of the same style, even for entirely different subjects.
I note there's a newer version of this file at the Japanese Wikipedia uploaded by Muband that's not only better quality, but still has the logos in place. (It's an entirely different photograph.) You might want to upload it over the current version at the Commons. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
On further examination, it seems this was incorrect to begin with - the logos were removed by ja:User:Hr from the original picture that did have the logos - this is why ALL versions need to be uploaded to commons, and the entire history needs to be shown - there would have been no confusion here if that had been done. —Random832 13:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Creative Commons licence

I found a photo on Flickr with this licence. Is this okay to upload as long as it is appropriately attributed? Strobilus 19:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Tag it {{cc-by-sa-2.0}}. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Strobilus 23:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Acturally, that's {{cc-by-2.0}}, no sharealike required. Calliopejen1 13:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Images :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Paul%27s_School%2C_Darjeeling

St.Paul's School DARJEELING has granted all rights on images to http://www.zubin.com for online promtional purposes.The same can be contacted for all copyright issues.The Images have been uploaded from the official websites of the institution ,www.spsdarjeeling.com and it's online alumni portal at ZUBIN mentioned above. What is the appropriate copyright tag from the drop down list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanbirgrewal (talk • contribs) 14:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If the images have been released into public domain or a free license, please forward the permission to permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org. For images sourced from zubin.com, this permission should be sent from e-mail address associated with zubin.com (such as somebody@zubin.com). For images sourced from spsdarjeeling.com, the permission should sent from e-mail address associated with spsdarjeeling.com (such as admin@psdarjeeling.com).
Non-free images released only for promotional purposes are not accepted, except in some special cases (such as logos, software screenshots, film posters etc.). utcursch | talk 14:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"Gold's Gym" Logo Update - Source No Longer Valid - Please Assist

Please help me out if you can -

Below you will find a message that was sent to another user about a logo change he/she attempted to make to the Gold's Gym article for Wikipedia. I would like to attempt that same change, but in a verifiable way that is acceptable under Wikipedia terms.

The logo that appears on the Wikipedia page is no longer supported by the referenced source. Is it possible to upload to the current logo displayed on that source (or from another similar source under the same pretense)? If so, how?

Thank you.

ORIGINAL MESSAGE REFERENCED ABOVE:


Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:PrimaryFilled_CMYK.jpg has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case[1][2]. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 17:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 17:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Wayne Newton bio

In one area you indicate Wayne Newton was born in Roanoke, VA and in another it indicates he was born in Norfolk, VA.

Which is it? I am also from Roanoke and my family has always said that Wayne Newton was born in Roanoke but the bio is confusing.

Regards,

Patricia Pendleton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.156.110.33 (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe. Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. - cohesion 03:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
(Belated) Actually, asking at Talk:Wayne Newton would be better, since the confusion is apparently within the Wikipedia article itself. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Question for Thailand emblem

I've changed copyright tag in Image:Thai Garuda emblem.png from fair use to public domain. Since I already know that this emblem was originally scanned from front cover of Thai gazette (official notebook).

Look back to the past, one of users in Thai Wikipedia uploaded this emblem to Wikipedia and tagged as "Copyrighted". When we took this image to English Wikipedia, the copyright status was unclear. I thought the emblem should be retagged since it was from official works. So I discussed with Thai Wikipedia users to retag it as insignia and public domain, and this idea is accepted now.

Can I ask you these questions:-

  • Is the tag below image appropriate?
  • I've also tagged it with {{insignia}}, is it wrong?

Tangmo (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's good to include {{insignia}}. But how are you justifying your extension of the {{PD-ThaiGov}} to include emblems? It says nothing to exempt them. Unlike US law which mandates public domain for all works produced by the US government, Thai law calls out specific categories of works. Emblems are not among them.
That doesn't mean it might not be PD for another reason, but it doesn't appear to be by this law. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I see. Now, I've adjust {{PD-ThaiGov}} for shorter and clearer text. I just intend this tag to be used with a part of Thai governmental documents. Some of emblem and flag of Thailand used here was scanned from governmental documents and cropped for neat image. Thai law only says that they cannot be used in foul ways like many countries.
Is newly adjusted tag appropriate? Tangmo (talk) 13:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
No, this is not ok. In fact, it is worse! The category list came from the Thai law, so it should be included in the template. You still haven't explained how the emblem fits into one of those categories, or why it is PD. So far we have no reason to believe it is not copyrighted. I'm putting back the template to the way it was before. Calliopejen1 14:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

For clear answer, I'm putting the image back to what it was before, wait for new SVG, and delete it finally. Since its information in Thai Wikipedia is too short and unclear. But as I review the law, it is fitted in "by-law" section of Thai copyright law. Tangmo (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it should be "explanations" section, since the emblem (and also flag) came from this.Tangmo (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it does not appear to be included in the law, at least not in the English translation. The kinds of government documents in the public domain are all laws and so forth; the kinds of things that need to be communicated and disseminated to the public. Different kinds of documents are specifically mentioned, meaning the law is limited to them alone and does not have broader applicability. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Espevær - copyright infingement

Hi,

I have made an article on the island my family come from, a small island off the coast of Norway called Espevær. I took the article from Espevær's own website and have requested their permission to use it which I fully expect to receive. I am a regular user of Wikipedia but this is the first article I have created so I don't think I have referenced properley. Please could you help me with this.

Many thanks.

Andrew Long —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.138.205.241 (talk) 10:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have not yet received their permission, then don't use their text. And if you don't receive permission, or if the permission you receive does not include a public domain grant or licensing under the GFDL, then it will have to go anyway. Re-write the article in your own words. Certainly you can use the island's website as a source. See WP:CITE for help with that. Use as many other sources as you can find too. If there's a local historical society, they might be of some help. See official government sources too for things like population statistics. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

 ???

sorry, i was just trying to use my computer and it started going out of wack, i am not computer savy as you, but i do not want my infor. all over the web and definitely not images i have not approved of maybe i should just throw this computer out the door, am i being violated about my personal info. i do not want everyone to know. how to handle? is it a network problem or program on my computer which was given to me as a present about 1 year and a half ago. i am not as computer smart as you, i mean genius as you. thanks for all the infor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.130.54 (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you give us more information? Unregistered users can't upload images at wikipedia, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Calliopejen1 01:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Need help understanding copyright stuff

Being a member of the Canadian Forces, I'm interested in expanding & improving the Canadian Forces ranks and insignia article. However, a problem presents itself. If I understand copyright correctly, images of rank/trade/branch/unit insignia are copyright by the government, even if I create my own illustrations of them. Would small, low-res illustrations created by myself qualify for "fair use"? I'm pretty sure the Canadian Forces has no problem having their insignia displayed in informational articles, but I doubt very much they'd release them to public domain. Thoughts? (Note: I'd prefer replies here so I and everyone else can keep track of people's feedback on the subject)   ¥    Jacky Tar  16:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they should satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content policy, as long as they're used in compliance therewith. -- But|seriously|folks  18:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I have since found the copyright and reproduction policy from the Canadian Forces website (http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/notices_e.asp). The text is as follows:

Copyright / Permission to Reproduce

Materials on this Web site were produced and/or compiled by the Department of National Defence for the purpose of providing Canadians with direct access to information about the programs and services offered by the Government of Canada. The material on this site is covered by the provisions of the Copyright Act, by Canadian laws, policies, regulations and international agreements. Such provisions serve to identify the information source and, in specific instances, to prohibit reproduction of materials without written permission.
Non-commercial Reproduction
Information on this site has been posted with the intent that it be readily available for personal and public non-commercial use and may be reproduced, in part or in whole and by any means, without charge or further permission by the Department of National Defence. We ask only that:
* Users exercise due diligence in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced;
* The Department of National Defence be identified as the source department; and
* The reproduction is not represented as an official version of the materials reproduced, nor as having been made, in affiliation with or with the endorsement of the Department of National Defence.
Commercial Reproduction
Reproduction of multiple copies of materials on this site, in whole or in part, for the purposes of commercial redistribution is prohibited except with written permission from the Government of Canada's copyright administrator, Public Works and Government Services Canada. Through the permission-granting process, Public Works and Government Services Canada helps to ensure that individuals/organizations wishing to reproduce Government of Canada materials for commercial purposes have access to the most accurate, up-to-date versions. To obtain permission to reproduce materials on this site for commercial purposes, please go to Public Works and Government Services Canada's, Applying for Copyright Clearance on Government of Canada Works page. To obtain permission to reproduce materials on this site for commercial purposes please contact:
Public Works and Government Services Canada
Publishing and Depository Services
350 Albert Street, 4th Floor
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada
K1A 0S5
or
Copyright.Droitdauteur@pwgsc.gc.ca
Since I'm still pretty new to Wikipedia, I just wanted to make sure this matches the {{non-free symbol}}. It looks like it does to me. Thanks.    ¥    Jacky Tar  05:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that changes anything. They are still non-free so have to satisfy WP:NFC. -- But|seriously|folks  05:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

DSC 1605

Apparenly, Hypocondriac did not mean to upload this picture and needs to be deleted quickly and asapHypocondriac 16:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- But|seriously|folks  18:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Herbert Boyer Image

You deleted an image I uploaded saying that my rational for fair use was flawed... "Thanks for uploading Image:Herbert Boyer.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid."

This image was taken from the UCSF Public Affairs office who explictly state that they are "...pleased to present to the public and media these images of the faculty, staff, events, buildings and grounds of UCSF Mission Bay. If using an image in a print or electronic publication, please give credit to the photographer or architectural firm where listed."

The Herbert Boyer image does not have a listed photographer, and I've written them to find out who took the photo. From what I understand it's a faculty photo that they have the rights to and release for public use with no credit needing to be given.


So why did someone decide to delete this because my "rational for fair use was flawed"??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xephael (talk • contribs) 17:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You were warned about this image on October 3 and the image was not deleted until almost two weeks later. The thing to do if you really wanted it to stay was to find out what the problem was before it was deleted, not after.
As to exactly why the rationale was insufficient, I don't know since I can't see what was there. AzaToth was the admin who enforced the policy in this case; and as I don't know if he reads this page regularly you'll have to ask him.
But a good fair use rationale was needed in this case because it was not free media. The license granted is for re-use only; none was granted for derivative works. That makes it non-free. (Listing UCSF as the copyright owner is sufficient; they're the "photographer" for copyright purposes since the photos were made by a University employee in course of his job duties.)
Tagging an image as fair use virtually guarantees it will be examined for a valid rationale. The presence of the tag means that one is required. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The image was tagged (and deleted) because the "non-free fair use in" template did not specify which article it was to be used in, which is required pursuant to WP:NFCC#10c. The image page also lacked any non-free use rationale. Permission was asserted per [8], but the license there is extremely vague and, as noted above, probably not sufficient. If this image is non-free, it can't be used on Wikipedia, as the subject is apparently alive, so this would be a replaceable non-free image. -- But|seriously|folks  01:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyright on Mandibular_Advancement_Splint.jpg

I took this picture and give permission to display it on Wikipedia, but do not want anyone to be able to us it. Which copyright tag do you suggest using? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annettew1978 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You may not upload this image to Wikipedia under those conditions. There are therefore no applicable tags that will not result in its speedy deletion. You might as well not waste your time. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyrighting

How do I leave where the image is from, or who it is copyrighted by. I just don't understand. Thanks --Yankeesrj12 02:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read the directions at the top of this page for tagging an existing image. The tag you need is {{non-free fair use in|The Pie Hole}} (as I assume The Pie Hole is where you want it to appear.) Since this is a copyrighted image belonging to someone else, you will also need to add a rationale showing how its use in that article (which you must mention) conforms to policy. Once you do this, you can remove the {{di-no license}} from the image page, which is the bit that's displaying the warning notice there about copyright status. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
You can put source in the image summary. Or if doesnt appear in the image page, create a section called summary then put the source, copyright holder and any description if its applicable. You need to leave a source their because its an important component in the page and the only way to easily verif what is stated in the page, specially the status of the image. Thanks. --BritandBeyonce 03:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Photos of old photos

Hi all,

in a small museum in a village in Botswana I took some digital pictures of old photographs of the village. The original photos date between the late 1910s and the mid-30s. The names of the photographers appear in the captions of the photographs. I think these images are very valuable because they nicely illustrate the changes (or the absence thereof) in the village, and I'd like to upload them to Wikipedia (they'd enrich various articles, in my opinion). Of course I would attribute the photos to the original photographers, but I am not sure whether even under those circumstances it would be legal/fair to upload these photos of photos. I know that one of the photographers just died recently in 2003, the other ones I assume deceased quite a while ago. I forgot to talk to any of the museum staff about this issue (generally, it was allowed to take pictures inside the museum). Communication with rural Botswana is not exactly easy, and I assume that it will be practically impossible to get any sort of statement from the museum on this issue.

Any thoughts about this? Is it okay to put these photos online or do I need to obtain permission? (in the latter case, I probably won't upload them, because the hassle would probably be to big)

Thanks!

Mirko —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirko Raner (talk • contribs) 06:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Montenegrin image

No creations of Montenegrin state officials fall under copyright laws. Thus all the work is public domain, much like the case with Serbia. Image:Nebojsa Medojevic.jpg I don't know how to tag this image for example. --PaxEquilibrium 12:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

First, you need to give the image source regardless of the copyright status. If you found this on an official website, link to the page. For that matter, when a free license is available, please upload the highest resolution version of the image you can find. This is obviously a thumbnail.
For now, tag it with the tag for Serbia {{PD-SerbiaGov}} and explain the situation in a note. I can't find that Montenegro has yet codified its own set of IP laws, and until we can find out that it has we should probably assume it's still operating under the laws it inherited 2003-2006. It really deserves its own tag, something like {{PD-MontenegroGov}}, but we need to have a law to cite before we can create one. If you know differently and have a law you can cite to this effect, please do and we can create the Montenegrin tag. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it inherited those from the state union - and it has no new law of its own. --PaxEquilibrium 11:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Question for Rilya Wilson image

image:RilyaWilson.jpg I don't know what to categorize it as for the copyright tag. Please see Rilya Wilson article for more info. - Cyborg Ninja 21:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't embed images in this page, but follow the directions at the top for linking to it instead.
As with any image we host here, you need to give the source. "Released by the police" is insufficient; we need to know where you found this. We also need the name of the copyright owner, particularly as this is a fair use image. That it was probably released for ID purposes in a missing persons case doesn't affect its copyright status. So it also needs to be {{fair use in|Rilya Wilson}} and a specific

When non-free media is used on Wikipedia, a justification for its usage, called a non-free use rationale (aka use rationale or fair use rationale), must be presented in the image description page, explaining how the image is used in a way consistent with Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. This justification will help other users determine if the claim of fair use could apply to a wide variety of uses or a narrow range of uses. It will also help determine if the given claim of fair use is appropriate for Wikipedia in the first place.

If you are using non-free images or other media, you must include two things on the image description page:

  1. An appropriate copyright tag explaining the basic claim of fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free for a list.
  2. A detailed fair use rationale. A separate rationale must be provided each time the image is used in an article. The name of the article the image is used in must be included in the rationale.

Be sure to examine the guidelines on non-free content before uploading the file. Wikipedia's policies are more restrictive than United States fair use law, in terms of what is and is not allowed.

Note: Non-free images that do not include both a copyright tag and a use rationale may be deleted after seven days.

Necessary components

A well-written use rationale must explain how the use of this media meets the Non-free content criteria and should state:

  • What proportion of the copyrighted work is used and to what degree does it compete with the copyright holder's usage? For example, if the image is a photograph or logo, the entire work is likely being used. A screenshot that reveals the most important discovery of a documentary or the ending of a movie, for example, though a very small portion of the work, may disproportionately compete with the copyright holder's use. In the case of a music sample, the length should be no longer than 10 percent of the song's original length or 30 seconds, whichever is shorter.
  • If applicable, has the resolution been reduced from the original? In the case of music samples, has the quality been reduced from the original?
  • What purpose does the image serve in the article? If applicable:
    • Is the image a logo, photograph, or box art for the main subject of the article?
    • Is the image being used as the primary means of visual identification of the subject or topic? (e.g., a corporate logo or the box art of a DVD)
    • Does it illustrate the topic of the article? (e.g., a screen shot from a movie)
    • Is it used for commentary on a particular topic? How?
  • To what degree is the image replaceable by a free content image?
    • If the image is a screenshot of a movie that for an article about the movie, or a corporate logo, there is obviously no such thing as a "free" version of it - all of the resources in the world could not produce one. If, on the other hand, the image is a photograph, the image is more easily replaced, even if Wikipedians may lack the resources to create a replacement.
  • Any other information necessary to assist others in determining whether the use of this image qualifies for fair use.

Template

The template {{Non-free use rationale}} facilitates creating a use rationale with the necessary components.

{{Non-free use rationale
| Description       = 
| Source            = 
| Article           = 
| Portion           = 
| Low_resolution    = 
| Purpose           = 
| Replaceability    = 
| other_information = 
}}

other_information is optional and can be left out.

There are more specific use rationale templates in Category:Non-free use rationale templates, such as for album covers and logos.

Non-template

Below are some basic examples. Good use rationales might expand on why the non-free item is needed, why a free item cannot be used in its place, and what essential function it performs in each article in which it is to be used. If the image is used in several articles, then you must include a separate use rationale for each article. If the article text comments on the image itself, then write so because that strengthens the fair use claim. Each rationale must explicitly name the article to which the rationale applies.

These are examples only. Do not simply copy them.

Logo in the article about the topic that the logo represents

=== Fair use in [[ARTICLE NAME]] ===
Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws, and the stricter requirements of Wikipedia's non-free content policies, because:
# It illustrates an educational article about the entity that the logo represents.
# The image is used as the primary means of visual identification of the article topic.
# It is a low resolution image, and thus not suitable for production of counterfeit goods.
# The logo is not used in such a way that a reader would be confused into believing that the article is written or authorized by the owner of the logo.
# It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value.
  • Other text indicating conformance with the Wikipedia:Logos guideline may be added, such as confirmation that the logo has been rendered at a small size and with lower detail if it is a scalable vector image.

Historical photographs

=== Fair use for [[ARTICLE NAME]] ===
Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws, and the stricter requirements of Wikipedia's non-free content policies, because:
# It is a historically significant photo of a famous individual. [To strengthen the claim, consider adding sources to back up this claim, like news articles mentioning this image (and not simply using it)]
# It is of much lower resolution than the original. Copies made from it will be of very inferior quality.
# The photo is only being used for informational purposes.
# Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because the photo and its historical significance are the object of discussion in the article.

Again, the above are only general examples; for more information on what needs to be included in this entry see Wikipedia:Non-free content. The information should be as specific as possible, i.e. why you need to use the image as part of the article. Adding this information is no guarantee that the image will not be later removed, but it will demonstrate a use rationale to others that you may have a valid justification for including fair use materials that can be used under the GFDL.

needs to be added to the image description page. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
How could I find the copyright owner, when it was released by the police to various news agencies? It could have been released by the accused in the case, or by another relative, for all I know. I doubt the police ever mentioned who it was from. - Cyborg Ninja 15:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea, but that's what you legally have to do to use it here unencumbered by non-free media restrictions. It looked like a school photo; probably the photographer actually owns the copyright. But you must have gotten the image from somewhere. I didn't say you had to track it down to the person who originally released it.
In the meantime, it's been deleted. You could certainly have used it as fair use. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Why did you not mention beforehand that it was fair use? - Cyborg Ninja 21:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

What Licence should I select for a project render?

I am currently working on Flower of the East project pages. I recently uploaded the photos of the project renders from the company. I selected the Copyright but free for educational-non advertisement... all photos were bot deleted. what copyright Item should I choose to show the sketchs? Pedramgh 10:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Selecting the copyright tag you did guarantees speedy deletion. It's only on the menu because if it wasn't, people would upload media under false licenses. We cannot use photos with such a restrictions. They must be available for commercial use and derivative works.
So as copyrighted material, these would have to be tagged {{non-free fair use in|Flower of the East}}, accompanied by a fair use rationale describing how the image's use in that article conforms to our non-free media policy. TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Sheriff department mug shots?

The image Image:Image-David Koresh mugshot.jpg, as well as the page I sourced it from, indicate that it is a "mugshot" taken at the local sheriff's office. What would be the copyright status of such an image? I'm hoping it would be a free image, as I can't find any other free images on the subject and would like to have one which could be used in a portal. Thank you. John Carter 19:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyright status depends upon the local/state government rules. Perhaps you should ask the Sheriff's Office. http://www.co.mclennan.tx.us/sheriff/index.html (SEWilco 19:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC))
Thanks for the response. I'm not used to dealing with photos, and like getting whatever help I can. Lord knows I need it. :) John Carter 20:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

keith jarrett midi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.33.231 (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Updating a logo

I'd like to update the logo Image:Lustre logo.gif because the company is now using a new version of the logo shown here - http://wiki.lustre.org/skins/cfslustre/lustre_logo.gif How do I do this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbebernes (talk • contribs) 22:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

karela

Any studies on the long term effects of taking karela (bitter melon)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salimbobat (talk • contribs) 10:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Please ask at the reference desk. This page is for copyright questions. -- But|seriously|folks  17:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Olive Diefenbaker

I have received permission by e-mail to use the current image I uploaded to the page at Olive Diefenbaker as indicated on the image page. I would like someone to check the code I added to make any necessary corrections to avoid its deletion. NorthernThunder 18:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)--NorthernThunder 18:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

What if I got the image from a foreign website?

What if I got the image from a foreign website? For instance from a Japanese site, like http://www.bokumono.com/series/runefactory/chara_heroin.html? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperDragonUltra (talk • contribs) 23:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The images on that website are all copyright, and are unlikely to be usable on wikipedia except under fair use. However the way you are using these images Template:Http://www.bokumono.com/series/runefactory/chara_heroin.html is incompatible with that. Megapixie 01:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

USA law for Russian film copyrights?

I used the PD rationale on this image because the film is in the public domain in Russia. However, another editor said that only Russian films made prior to January 1, 1946 are PD in the United States. I had never heard of this exact date before. Can anyone explain where it came from?

I'm confident that I have a sufficient fair use rationale for keeping the image, but I'd like to understand the rules first. Esn 05:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That's due to the URAA (foreign works that were still copyrighted on 1 Jan 1996 receive copyright protection in the U.S. with the duration set by U.S. law). Also, thanks to a retroactive change in Russian copyright law, the film may be no longer public domain in Russia either, starting next January [9]. --Davepape 02:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Reusing Free Multi-license images

I've found an image in another Wikimedia project with {{GFDL-with-disclaimers}}, {{cc-by-sa-1.0}}, {{cc-by-sa-2.0}}. If I want to use it here, should I tag all the licenses? Or I have to choose one of those to tag? Vinhtantran 16:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You should move the image to the Wikimedia Commons. If you upload it there under the same title, then you can tag it for deletion on that project, and the version at the Commons will be usable by any Wikimedia project. 17Drew 21:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

remove photo

I was trying to add a photo to a page but receive email that it has to be copyrighted. Its a rendom picture of a football player that has no photo on the page. He's a friend of mine and i was just trying to add a photo to update his page. I guess i was not clearly understanding how to go about doing this. So how do i just remove my entrance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klbless2 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want someone to delete an image you've uploaded, you can add {{db-author}} to the image description page. 17Drew 21:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Picture problem

All my picture say they will be deleted on Oct. 28. I don't know why. They are all my own and I released them into the public domain. I chose it as one of the options. Can somenone help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldenmarine120 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Your images appear to all be Halo screenshots. As such, they're not yours to release into the public domain - the creators of the video game have rights to their creation. The images should be tagged {{Non-free game screenshot}} and each given a rationale as to why they are necessary. --Davepape 02:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Pictures of Florida Tech Buildings

I'm trying to improve the Florida Institute of Technology article and take some pictures of some of the major buildings on campus. If I take the picture myself, may I upload it to Wikipedia so long as I sign it with a CC 3.0? Or do I need to have a Fair-Use Rationale stating that the building is part of private property...etc.? Thanks. Jameson L. Tai 20:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you can release pictures of buildings under a free license. Buildings are copyrighted in the sense that you can't construct an identical one, but you can generally still take pictures. 17Drew 21:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
The "generally" here has mainly do do with public art that may be displayed either in, around, or as part of a building. Something like a mural is copyrighted apart from the building, and if it is visible the photo cannot be freely licensed. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, there's all sorts of weirdness when it comes to that. And then apparently it's also possible to trademark a building. Who'd've thought? But cases like these most likely won't apply for the Florida Tech pictures. 17Drew 06:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

adding the appropriate image tag to a photo appearing on the "Taekwondo Hall of Fame" page

There is a photo which was taken and uploaded by me with the assistance of a senior member of the Taekwondo Hall of Fame which appears on the "Taekwondo Hall of Fame" wikipedia page. What is the appropriate image tag and how do I add it

see Taekwondo Hall of Fame —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.193.86.250 (talk) 11:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a logo. You can use the {{non-free logo}} template for proper licensing. For further infos, you can get assistance here. --BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 12:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
No, he's asking about Image:Grup.jpg.
If you took the picture yourself, you need to license it with one of the free licenses whose tags are listed here. To tag it, navigate to the image page, and click on the edit link. This will edit the text around the image, not the image itself. Add the tag (including the double curly braces) for the license you select. Be sure to add a note explaining you made the photo yourself. At that point feel free to remove the {{untagged}} tag.
If you did not take the picture yourself, the person who did needs to send an email to "permissions-en at wikimedia dot org" giving the name of the image and saying specifically which free license he's granting for it. See WP:COPYREQ for an example of what the email should look like. If he is not willing to grant one of those free licenses, then we cannot have the image at Wikipedia. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, i thought it's the logo. --BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 02:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Airport terminals of next decade

I have been asked to do a project on "Airport terminals of next decade". Can anybody help me in doing this project. This project shall contain at least 50 pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.90.123.190 (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You want the reference desk for questions like this. But bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we tend not to accumulate many articles on speculative topics. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

DnD image

I don't know how to classify a picture of a Dungeons and Dragons character.

Kingdomkey01 21:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What is it a picture of, where did it come from, and who made it? TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

stoessner bucha estate photo

Dear Sirs - My family took the photo of our ancestral estate! ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoessner-stines (talk • contribs) 02:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Image problems

Since sourcing is very relative to copyright status verification, I directed here. I recently tagged this image as no-source but when I viewed this again, the tag was removed and the sourcing says, The cover art can or could be obtained from the record label. Is that how wikipedians cite source? Watch out. --BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 03:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Covers to singles, albums, books, etc. are referenced to the singles, albums, books themselves. 17Drew 04:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Really? They don't need source from a certain concrete site? --BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 09:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
It's always possible to scan an album cover. It doesn't need to come from a website. In that sense there's really only one possible source for an album cover image. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it does. However, the way he/she put his/her source, the way it was written is not good and is not acceptable, i think. --BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 10:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Far more importantly, it had no fair use rationale. But "this is the cover art" is perfectly acceptable for source information. The source is necessarily the cover of the album. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok. --BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 01:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Southern Leyte Subang Daku River.png

I recently uploaded this image but it seems that there are no proper licensing for this. Bot currently tag this image. For further info, please try to visit the image and view its summary. Thanks. --BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 03:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Could this be saved if i upload this to wikimedia commons? --BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 03:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Why do you think it's public domain? I don't see any release. It appears to be protected by copyright, so it definitely can't be used at Commons. It can't be used here either, as non-free images of landscapes are almost always replaceable. Sorry! -- But|seriously|folks  04:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
What tag is applicable? I'm nor familiar with this. BritandBeyonce 05:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
No tag is applicable. We do not host replaceable fair use images. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Kindly remove the image. --BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 06:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Question about my downloading of the Image:JemtalentsearchVHS.JPG file for the Jem (TV series) listing

Hello,

I just provided the Image:JemtalentsearchVHS.JPG to Wikipedia. I scanned this cover from my copy of the videotape from my personal home video collection. Is there a way I can keep the image to stay on Wikipedia, since it is my image from scanning my video tape? I just don't know anything about the copyright status/legal issues that Wikipedia complains about regarding images downloaded to Wikipedia, and I just thought it would be nice to provide an illustration regarding the section about Jem video tapes in the listing for Jem (TV series) on Wikipedia.

Thank you.

Bill

Hi, I removed the image in this page because they are not supposed to appear other than the article they are uploaded for; they are limited in use depending on the purpose. On your case, even though you scanned it by yourself, still, its protected by copyright. You may visit this page and choose what fits for the image. In addition, please supply the needed fair use rationale. Thank you. --BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 10:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Question: Own map diagram but map is taken from Google Earth

Hello,

I want to put an explosion map for the 2007 Glorietta explosion Wikipedia page, and I don't know what license it applies. I made the diagram of the explosion itself from Photoshop, and the Google Earth capture of the map is behind it. I showed the location of the places, and the explosion site itself. Chitetskoy 13:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Google Earth maps are copyrighted. You'll have to redraw the map yourself for this image to be acceptable. Copyrighted maps are practically never allowable under the non-free media policy because they're replaceable. Any sufficiently skilled Wikipedia editor can create a free map showing the same information. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Skew Bridge

Hi again all, I have uploaded the image Skew_bridge.jpg and I got a bot warning me about it. I'm pretty sure that the image is free as it is very old and is posted on many webpages. What license should I use? Thanks DoyleyTalk 16:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

How old particularly? Remember that copyright protection takes a long period before it expires. In that case, though its being used by other sites, who knows if they have the permission? --BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 01:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Theme park map classification?

I picked up a map of Epcot and uploaded it after scanning it (Image:Epcot Map August 06.jpg) and it got deleted. Why did it get deleted, and how should I classify Theme park maps in the future? Cheers from Malpass93 18:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You were warned about a problem with this image more than 2 weeks ago. In the future you might be able to prevent problems like this by not ignoring the warnings when you receive them.
Be aware that image names are case sensitive; the file you uploaded is Image:Epcot Map August 06.JPG. If you look at that location, you'll find the entry from the deletion log explaining that the image had no image copyright tag, which is exactly how the problem was described to you on your user talk page.
If the image is appropriate for Wikipedia, since it's copyrighted by someone else it could only be used under the nonfree media policy. This almost never permits copyrighted maps to be uploaded since any sufficiently skilled Wikipedia editor could create a free version showing the same information. To justify using work owned by someone else, you'd have to show that it conveys information it is not otherwise possible to present, but that's very doubtful. If we could use it, you'd have to tag it {{non-free fair use in|articlename}} and provide a specific rationale justifying its use according to the policy. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Meta Knight Image license

I need an image for the Meta Knight page. I want to upload this one from Kirby Air Ride but I don't know if it came from a screen shot, a promotional packet or what. Could someone identify the origin of this image? --Is this fact...? 19:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It's copyrighted of course, so it could only be used as non-free media. The ultimate source appears to be here; if it was available at either the Nintendo or Kirby sites it isn't now. Tag it {{non-free character}} and be sure to add a fair use rationale. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for image: Soraida Martinez.jpg

Hello, Some time ago I uploaded a jpeg image of a photo of the artist, Soraida Martinez. The image was deleted because I did not indicate the source and copyright status. My questions are as follows: 1. this image was from the artist's own website and she gave me direct permission to use this image on wikipedia. 2. the artist is the direct copyright holder of this image, as well as images of her artwork; therefore, which tag do I use in this instance. In other words, I want to upload this image again, as well as a gallery of the artist's artwork, but I want to make sure that the copyrights to her photo and images of her artwork are legally protected. The artist has agreed to allow her own image and images of her artwork to be used for non-profit and educational purposes, but not for commercial purposes. I have read your copyright information, but I am still not certain which tag would apply for copyrighted two dimensional paintings; please advise, before I upload these images.


Thank you.

Victor

P.S., I also see that this article has been labeled a stub...I have alot more information to submit, including magazine/newspaper articles and internet interviews...can you advise on the best way to proceed. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VictorEdgar (talk • contribs) 04:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That image is absolutely non-free since someone owned that. However, because of her permission to you, you feel that its already unbounded by copyright protection. Please note that its still "publicly" copyrighted, in the sense that you have had conversation privately. For you to upload that again, please tell the copyright holder to send her permission to this address "permissions-en at wikimedia dot org (permission-en@wikipedia.org)". If she will send a message stating for a public release, the image will then be a public domain, if not, the image is still copyrighted and there is a corresponding tag for non-free image. You can choose from this list. Thank you. --BandB (talk•contribs) 04:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
To clarify the above, permission for use on Wikipedia is insufficient. The copyright owner must be willing to allow commercial, non-educational use and derivative works. The release most certainly does not have to be to the public domain, but it does need to be one of these free licenses.
Also contrary to the above, we cannot use a non-free image of a living person. In most cases this is replaceable fair use, since it's generally possible to take a picture of a living person, and is therefore disallowed by the very first category of the non-free media policy.
Actually, the artist may or may not be the copyright holder of the image, depending on her agreement with the photographer. Generally speaking, without a specific agreement to the contrary, the photographer will own the copyright. So she may or may not be able to legally release it under a free license even if she can otherwise use it for publicity purposes such as on her website.
The stub template simply describes the current state of the article and marks it as a work in progress, so that no one will be tempted to nominate it for deletion prematurely. Simply proceed with article development as you have currently planned. When it gets long enough -- how long is "long enough" is something of a judgment call -- feel free to remove the template yourself. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Victor for such uncleared statement. I hope TCC made this clear. BandB (talk•contribs) 06:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

clarification

I asked permission from the National Archive of Australia (a government body) to use two images displayed on their website which are part of their collection. I used the request for permission template I found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Boilerplate_request_for_permission and received this reply:

"Thank-you for your copyright request and use of the images on the Wikipedia’s webs site. The National Archives of Australia gives you permission to use the following items on the web site: A6180, 17/9/75/15 A6180, 1/12/71/22

There is no copyright charge for the use of the material whether commercially used or not and can be placed on the website. The copyright is still retained by the National Archives of Australia. We would appreciate the acknowledgement of the National Archives as the source of the image as the example shown below: National Archives of Australia: A6180, 17/9/75/15

Yours sincerely, Gregory F Cope Copyright Officer National Archives of Australia"

My question is, is this sufficient to use the two images on wikipedia, or is there a further process I have to follow? Phanto282 05:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

With that permission, we can still only use the images as non-free media. Permission for Wikipedia only, which is what this appears to be, is not sufficient. While they allow commercial use, it's not clear that they allow derivative works or will allow free distribution from Wikipedia to other users. We need a free license. For some help in requesting a release under a free license, see WP:COPYREQ, which also contains instructions on what to do once acceptable permission is received.
If, on requesting clarification, you are told that derivative works are acceptable and that the image may be freely shared, {{attribution}} would be the appropriate tag. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Just want to know

What is the temp. in outterspace and is there a difference in deep space?

Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexshazen (talk • contribs) 09:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want my opinion, cold is cold. But you should probably ask at the reference desk. This page is for copyright issues. -- But|seriously|folks  04:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

United Nations Resolutions

What copyright applies to UN Security Council documents? Socrates2008 13:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Most UN documents are PD - see {{PD-UN}}. --Davepape 20:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Can I upload this image?

Image is Image:UJATlogo.jpg. This is an image of the Coat of Arms (Logo) of the Universidad Juarez Autonoma de Tabasco, Villahermosa, Tabasco, Mexico. The image can be appreciated at the University's own website "www.ujat.mx" [Home > Conocenos > Escudo Universitario]. The image appears to have been intended for existence in the public domain. I could find no reference at all that the image is copyrighted. The website itself www.ujat.mx is not copyrighted either - at least I could not find any reference/copyright mark/claim that the site and/or the image where copyrighted. I believe the Coat-of-Arms logo was intended for the public domain. Fair use appeat to apply here. Is it OK to upload this image?

Robruiz 19:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The image is, of course, already uploaded so your question is really moot. The real question is what you should do to ensure it stays.
You're confusing several different ideas. The first is that fair use has something to do with public domain. Actually, if we must invoke the fair use doctrine to use an image, that's because the image is copyrighted and not in the public domain. Fair use allows limited use of copyrighted material under certain circumstances.
Another issue here is that you assume that just because an image is publicly available it's "intended for existence in the public domain". Public domain is a legal status of a work where either the copyright has expired or it's ineligible for copyright. An author releasing all rights isn't technically the same thing, but it amounts to the same degree of free use.
Under Mexican law there is no registration requirement for an author to secure his rights to a work. Whether marked or not, whether publicly available on a website or not, copyright exists on all works. We cannot just take it for free use without an explicit license from the copyright owner. This will not "appear" to be anything; it will be stated outright.
Since this logo was created by a university employee in the course of his duties, the university is its author as far as copyright is concerned. They own it. That means that if we can use it at all, we can only do so under a theory of fair use under Wikipedia's non-free media policy and guidelines.
As it happens, {{non-free logo}} is already a fair use tag. You only lack a rationale. Logos broadly all have the same rationale, so there's a second template you need to add to the page: {{logo fur}}. You must fill in at least the name of the article in which the logo is being used and the "use" field with one of the listed permissible values.
You should also follow the advice that's been added and scale the image down. There is no reason for fair use images to be any larger than the display size in the article. You can do this by re-downloading it in Wikipedia and using the scale feature in any image editing software. Paint.NET is free and reasonably full-featured if you don't have anything more sophisticated than the Paint that comes with Windows. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Please help

Please go to Image:Dejen misura da cima W.jpg. Although the author seems to be happy with the PD tag, he also appears to be stating that he would prefer to always be credited. Can you suggest the most appropriate copyright tag? Thanks! Viewfinder 20:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Note how we make the image into a link: add a colon at the beginning.
The appropriate tag here appears to be {{attribution}}. If the author always wants to be credited and is making that a condition of the image's use, then it's not PD. I note the permission granted is actually more expansive than the uploader has stated. He says "he agrees to the use of the image by Wikipedia," which is ordinarily a license we can't use and would result in the image's speedy deletion. The quoted email actually says "pubblicazione libera", which is much more what we need.
The uploader needs to forward the email containing the permission to "permissions-en at wikimedia dot org". TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Invalid fair use?

Hi, all, I hope someone can help me with my problem.

Apparently the image that I have uploaded, Image:Rf cd cover.jpg , has an invalid fair use. However, I'm not quite sure what makes it "invalid." I thought I included a valid enough fair use rationale, but obviously a bot disagrees. I was hoping that someone could take a look at it and tell me what is wrong with it so that I can fix it, and fix the ones that I upload in the future.

Thanks, Happyface162 22:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#10c says that The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use. With this edit, the rationale was being claimed for Rascal Flatts where in fact, the image is being used for the article Rascal Flatts (album). Bot changed it already. No worries. --BandB (talk•contribs) 01:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ina what I presume is a similar case, I have been informed that the fair use rationale of Image:WakeInFrightAd1.jpg is invalid (and will therefore be removed in a few days. However, the rationale I used is non-free poster, which is used by a number of other poster images, none of which appear to have been marked for deletion. What is missing from the Wake In Fright image to make it a candidate for deletion? --Roisterer 04:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Please link to images as instructed at the top of this page; don't insert them.
{{non-free poster}} is the tag. The fair use rationale is something else you have to add. The purpose is to explain how the use of the image in the particular article where it's included (and the article must be linked to) conforms to the non-free media policy. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Can I get an example of what to write as a rationale?

I have two images tagged for deletion. They are CD album covers. Can someone please give me an example of what I should include in my rationale? HOw should I word it, what should it include? I've referred to the guidelines but I would like a clear example, rather than just an instruction. --BrianFG 03:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Since it's a non-free image, protected by copyright, they must be well supplied with the required rationale. To further illustrate that, see Fair_use_rationale. By doing so, the given statement must pass the criteria for non-free image, see WP:NFCC. In addition, we have a list of tags that will yield a result of rationale. For albums, see this or to this category. If you dont want a template, you can write it in this way, for instance. However, you must bear in mind that the rationale supplied is applicable and fits to the situation. --BandB (talk•contribs) 04:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I've come up with something as the template is confusing and doesn't seem to work properly. I hope I have covered everything; if not, I'll just stop uploading album covers.--BrianFG 04:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The template works properly. You need to prefix the template call with "subst:" as the documentation explains. But by all means, once you fix the templates don't forget to remove the {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} tag, otherwise it'll get automatically deleted anyway. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
By the way, a better template to use for the rationale is {{album cover fur}}. It does seem to be broken at the moment, but I'm working on it. In the meantime just use it, and it'll probably look OK tomorrow. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
NM. My bad. razzafrazzin non-standard names. See Image:Disembowelment-transendence.jpg for an example. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Just let him use the other so that he could remove the tag anytime. --BandB (talk•contribs) 04:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, that's better. --BandB (talk•contribs) 04:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyright Question photo's ATLANTA BOY BAND

Friday 19th October 2007


I can't understand why the copyright of the two photo's used on the page for ATLANTA BOY BAND are being called into question when they were first uploaded, I confirmed they where my own personal copyright and I completed all the necessary details required.

They where used on the page ATLANTA LIVERPOOL BOY BAND then, but for some reason that page would not show in searches or if people entered the web address that is why the page ATLANTA BOY BAND was opened.

Now two most serious "Libelous" points have been raised to delete the ATLANTA BOY BAND, this I take as a personal slur on my good character that I am not telling the truth. I worked for a Radio Station for 21 years here in the UK and I am not willing to accept serious accusations like this. If the page is deleted by Wikipedia it associates the site also with these libel statements that have been made.

Atlanta Liverpool Boy Band 11:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC) JBS

We have still had no response to this point about the copyright of the two pictures used on the Atlanta Boy Band page, we clearly stated and filled in the relevant pages to state these are Our Own Copyright. Our page has been deleted even though we produced evidence requested, we are current in appeal asking for the page entry to be fully restored, so we would like to clear this photos problems up as well. Thanks Atlanta Liverpool Boy Band 10:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlanta Liverpool Boy Band (talk • contribs)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Motorcycles%40Indy.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Motorcycles%40Indy.jpg needs to be reviewed by Flicker Reviewer bot, or somebody needs to check this image's free use capacities. Description says CC-BY-NC-ND -- which woudl make it incompatible. Guroadrunner 08:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no I checked it (the url is in the description -- stupid me). So I have put prod and ifd on it. Guroadrunner 08:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

gold smells like cheese you rock dude

copy the logo of Nokia Corporation

Hello! I want to know if it is possible to copy the logo of Nokia Corporation. I need it because in my coursework for Economics I decided to choose Nokia as a company to research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Band88 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That logo is hosted here under the fair use doctrine. As long as you adhere to those legal requirements yourself -- and as you are using it for educational purposes that goes a long way toward qualifying it -- then you can use it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Highland Voice image

Sorry I uploaded it three times. The one I would like to keep for the article Highland Voice is Highland Voice masthead.jpg.

The Highland Voice was a student paper. It folded 18 years ago. The paper was located on the Highland Lakes campus of Oakland Community College, Waterford, MI. The campus remains.

There is no copyright. The masthead has been used by another publication at least once (March or April 1987 by another student newspaper, the Orchard Ridge Recorder). It was designed for the paper by a student working for the paper.

I don't know what more you need.

Can I keep it?

Troyvarsity 17:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

First, don't create a redirect just to link to an image. See the directions in bold type inside the box marked with the big orange exclamation point ball at the top of this page to find the right way to do that.
Unless a work is ineligible for copyright by law, there is no such thing as "there is no copyright" for anything made since 1989. This is a borderline case in a couple of ways.
First, it may well be ineligible for copyright, since details like variations in color and typography are normally not copyrightable; and the words themselves are not. In that case you could tag it {{PD-ineligible}}. But with the squares and other arrangements is just might rise to the level of creative work where copyright becomes possible, so it's safest to assume it's eligible and proceed otherwise.
The important point here isn't when the paper ceased publication, but when it started, and when this masthead came into use. I assume this was sometime after 1963, and we know it was after 1989. It is public domain if The masthead came into use before 1 March 1989, and was published without a copyright notice. A copyright notice anywhere on the paper qualifies, so if you find one in the issue then it's not public domain.
It would be copyrighted if it came into use after 1963 even if it was published without notice but was subsequently registered. But I just searched the copyright office database for registrations from 1978 on, and it wasn't in there. So if the masthead came into use after 1978, and there's no notice on the paper, we can safely assume it's PD.
If it was first used before 1 January 1978, tag it {{PD-Pre1978}}. If it was first used between 1 January 1987 and 1 March 1989, tag it {{PD-US}} and add a note that it was first published before 1 March 1989 without a copyright notice and was not subsequently registered. (We don't have a specific tag for that case.)
If the above conditions for the public domain do not hold, then it is under copyright and we can only use it as non-free media. In that case, you'd have to tag it {{non-free logo}}, and add {{logo fur}} to add a fair use rationale. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's arbitary rules with regard to album art

I was informed by BetacommandBot that the album cover art depicted in Image:Sidescover.jpg "does not qualify under fair use" with the following tag: {{Non-free album cover}} I do not see how this is a valid statement, considering that very many album articles use the same rationale and tag for their usage in Wikipedia. Why not this one?

Rules not consistently applied discredit the very foundation of what Wikipedia stands for. Why should the rules apply to some articles but not to all?

Bart 02:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Had you read the tag placed by BetacommandBot? Fair use is something that must be claimed for every article in which the cover is being used, and although you wrote a fair use rationale, you did not specify in which article you were going to use the image. This may be seen as "overkill", but I think it is the minimum we can require for images that do not help Wikipedia in its freedom goal. -- ReyBrujo 02:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I escaped the template so that this page is not included in the image category. -- ReyBrujo 02:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ellroy My Dark Places cover.jpg

An image I uploaded, Image:Ellroy My Dark Places cover.jpg, has been tagged for deletion as having a disputed fair-use claim per WP:NFCC#10c. My fair use claim includes 1) the source of the image (though no copyright information, since none is specified in or on the book, other than for the text and for the author photo on the back of the book; so my assumption was that the source--i.e. the publisher--is also the copyright holder), 2) the correct non-free book-cover license, and 3) the article (My Dark Places (book)) for which fair use is claimed. In what way is my claim deficient? Other than the unspecified copyright info, the only questionable thing I saw was that I erroneously used the ambiguous title My Dark Places in my rationale. I have disambiguated this on the image page to the correct My Dark Places (book). --ShelfSkewed Talk 02:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Have a look here. You're missing a statement about the purpose of the image. You can just say it's for identification of the subject of the article. You need a short explanation of why the image is not replaceable with free content; you can just say that all covers for this book are protected by copyright. You're missing a statement of the portion used; in this case it's the front cover only. Finally, this isn't a very low-res image. There's no reason for a fair use image to be any larger than the size it's scaled to in the article, say 200px wide or so. You're better off scaling it down.
You also need to tag it {{non-free book cover}}. Once you take care of all this, feel free to remove the warning notice from the image page.
{{book cover fur}} would help you here, but apparently someone put it into template space before it was finished. These things should really be developed in sandboxes. {{book rationale}} only anticipates that a book cover will be ripped off a website, not that an uploader will scan it himself, so it won't work for you here. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If used in a different language on wikipedia.

I have uploaded Image:Alice N' Chainz.jpg, and I do not know what tag to use. I got the image from here which is another article of wikipedia in a different language. The fair use lisencing should already be there, shouldn't it. Skeeker [Talk] 05:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the link. You meant to link to the Lithuanian Wikipedia but you got the Portuguese instead. Note how we link to Wikipedia articles in other languages; we don't have to use external link syntax.
At the source the tag is the equivalent of {{non-free promotional}}, but apparently the Lithuanian Wikipedia does not require a fair use rationale. We do, and in any event you need to tag this copy of it as well. (Different Wikipedias have different rules about these things. For an image hosted at the English Wikipedia, you have to follow English Wikipedia rules.)
Incidentally, the only reason you can use this photo is because one of the people in it is dead, and as a photo of the original group it is therefore not replaceable. Fair use images that can be replaced cannot be uploaded according to policy. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

lockbow

I have a picture of a modern skane lockbow and I have e-mailed the contact on the website, who has e mailed back to give me permission to use it and I have forwrded it to wikimedia but I am still told that the image may be deleted. How do I copyright tag it to preserve it from deletion?

Streona 22:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That depends on the permission that you received.
If it wasn't clearly a free license, we still have to treat it as non-free media. In that case, it's clearly replaceable since it's a photo of a modern object that is hardly unique. If you did receive a free license, you need to tag the image accordingly and remove the warning template. If a free license was granted one of these tags will apply.
In any event, it can take a while for the permission to work its way through the system, so don't worry about it yet. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion contested for specimen currency images. Question of copyright status.

I am contesting the deletion of all specimen currency images set for deletion at Malaya and British Borneo dollar. All of the images were tagged for deletion for lack of Fair Use Rationale, but not all currencies need a F.U. Rationale.

I want to know if Malaya and British Borneo dollars are in the public domain. I err on the belief they are, hence the contesting. Guroadrunner 00:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

They're tagged as {{non-free currency}}, which pretty much marks them for deletion if they lack rationale. It is assumed, absent any statement to the contrary, that images so tagged are fair use.
Current copyright status has been very difficult to unravel. This requires a dedicated expert in UK copyright law, so take the following with a grain of salt.
This currency was issued by Board of Commissioners of Currency, Malaya and British Borneo, which as a matter of course owned the copyrights to them under UK law. Presumably the copyrights reverted to either the Crown or Parliament on the dissolution of the Commission, but I don't believe that shortens the term in either case. Copyright on these banknotes therefore expires 70 year after publication. For a banknote issued in 1953, the copyright will therefore expire 31 December, 2023.
So no, these are not in the public domain, and yes, you need a fair use rationale for all of them. Even if I'm wrong this is the safest course of action, and these are clearly examples of valid fair use. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the detailed response. If I have time to do so, I will try to add a fair use rationale for each. They aren't my uploads, but I'd rather not see them deleted because as you said they can be covered under fair use. Guroadrunner 08:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Update : I've put the following on each image. If this isn't good enough or solid, I would like help making a good Fair Use Rationale.

{{Non-free use rationale |Description=Denomination of money from Malaya and the UK Borneo |Source=printed currency |Article= Malaya and British Borneo dollar |Portion= |Low_resolution=yes, and specimen |Purpose=to illustrate this denomination of money |Replaceability=none |other_information= }}

TV Commercial ScreenGrab

Following the addition of this tag {{di-disputed fair use rationale|concern=invalid rationale per [[WP:NFCC#10c]]|date=October 26 2007}} to the image Image:Corona Drink Flavours.jpg, I have updated fair use rational for the image- hope this is better? If not, how can I improve it (and future uploads) further? (I've read the instuctions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline) D666D 18:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
First and foremost, the image the time it was tagged has no Article name. WP:NFCC#10c states each fair-use rationale must include a link to the specific article in which fair use of the image is claimed. The image was retagged with {{di-replaceable fair use}} because Wikipedia do not host replaceable images. For non-free images, it doesn't pass the first criterion for non-free media. It's better to upload another image you own that serves the same information. Thank you. --βandβ (talk•contribs) 06:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Betacommandbot's message re logo on European Research Council

Betacommandbot complained on Talk:European Research Council that the image used in the article (depicting the logo of the organization) does not have a fair use rationale. However, Image:ERC logo.png does include a rationale specific to the article. Could anybody please tell me what is missing, or did the bot make a mistake? Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that it was because the fair use rationale did not have the "Article" parameter with the name of the article. The code, for example, be:
{{Non-free media rationale
|Article=European Research Council
|Description= ...
|Source= ...
|Portion= ...
|Purpose= ...
|Resolution= ...
|Replaceability= ...
|other_information= ...
}}
which it is now, after this diff.  :) Hope this helps. --Iamunknown 12:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
It is because you did not include the name of the article the image is being used. If you can see in this history, the template says NEEDS ARTICLE NAME and WP:NFCC#10c states that each fair-use rationale must include a link to the specific article in which fair use of the image is claimed. Don't worry, its fixed. --βandβ (talk•contribs) 12:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers. It looks like I didn't notice that the page was updated because I confused the file history with the revision history for the page itself. How embarrassing. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It's fine. --βandβ (talk•contribs) 06:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Updated Logos

While working on a project about Railroads in Chicago, I've used some of the images from Wikipedia articles on Railroads. I've made a few edits, and would like to upload these. The edits are:

Added Transparency to the BNSF Logo

Cleared up unwanted white on the CSX Logo

Cleared up unwanted white on the CSS&SB Logo

Converted EJE Logo to .png and added transparency

What licence would these fall under, and how would I reference to the original images on Wikipedia? Would I need to add anything to the old logos to say that I'd uploaded a newer version?

--Danny252 14:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

May i know the link of the image? --βandβ (talk•contribs) 06:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Original images on wikipedia are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BNSF.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CSX_Herald.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Southshore_freight.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:EJ%26E.jpg
I'm assuming they should go under logos, having trawled through all the copyright listings? I still don't know how I should go about notifying people that the old images have been replaced.
Danny252 13:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Central Missouri Athletics Logo Squabble

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Central_missouri_logo.gif

I uploaded that logo from our university's athletics site, and now it is taken down with the message.............

This image or media has a fair use rationale that is disputed because of the following concern: invalid rationale per WP:NFCC#10c. Unless concern is addressed by adding an appropriate fair-use rationale, or in some other way, the image will be deleted or removed from some uses after Friday, 2 November 2007. Please remove this template if you have successfully addressed the concern. Note that, per WP:NFCC#10c, each fair-use rationale must include a link to the specific article in which fair use of the image is claimed. If you think the image should not be deleted, please discuss the matter with the editor who placed this template on the image. You can also place comments on the image talk page.

Administrators: check the image talk page for comments before deleting the image.

   Usage: {{di-disputed fair use rationale|date=26 October 2007|concern=invalid rationale per WP:NFCC#10c}}
   Notify the uploader with: ==Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Central missouri logo.gif==

Thanks for uploading Image:Central missouri logo.gif. 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. NeelyCrenshaw 02:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

   Add following to the image captions: 
This image is a candidate for speedy deletion. It may be deleted after seven days from the date of nomination.


So, are we not allowed to have an image on our athletics page like every other university. This is our athletics mark, and now we are being told we cannot use it.

I need help ASAP on why this happened, and how it gets retified, because thi IS THE MARK WE USE!

NeelyCrenshaw 02:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The image is under copyright protection so it must be fairly used. To do that, supply the page with rationale as to why the image is permitted to be used in Wikipedia. Also, indicate the name of the article it is being used for per WP:NFCC#10c which states that each fair-use rationale must include a link to the specific article in which fair use of the image is claimed. Thank you. --βandβ (talk•contribs) 06:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, it's fine to upload image as long it is supplied with required informations accordingly. --βandβ (talk•contribs) 06:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Non-free fair use rationale template thinks DAZ Studio Article does not exist?

I am attempting top create a fair use rationale for Image:DAZ_Studio_1715_screenshot.png used in DAZ Studio using the Non-free fair use rationale template as it is a screenshot of copyrighted software. However this template thinks that the article DAZ Studio does not exist for some reason. --Aclapton 15:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link to the image: Image:DAZ_Studio_1715_screenshot.png --Aclapton 15:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Got template working at last. It should really recognise wikilinks. --Aclapton 15:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


halloween?

good morning, was anting information, what is the correct calling for the holiday of halloween in romania|? i was told it was sanhaim but ths cant be as this word belongs to the kelts, so what would be the correct calling? they are part of russia or gremany correct so im sure its not sanhaim. helppp lol. thanks fantum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.17.39 (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Good morning to you too. This particular place is not a good place to ask a question about Romanian holiday names. This is a discussion area for image and other media file use on Wikipedia. This could be a good place to practice your research skills. You might want to start with the Halloween article on Wikipedia and see if there is a link to a Romanian language article. You can also search around on google. There is probably a discussion of Haloween like traditions in various traditions. In some countries might find that there are two or more different holidays, first their own old holiday having to do with death, ancestors, or ghosts. Second, some countries have probably adopted the American holiday of halloween as a separate holiday from their own old holiday. It seems like holidays are one of America's biggest exports, along with junk food and television programs. You could also try sites like Yahoo answers, discussion boards about Romania, etc. I think there's a "reference desk" somewhere at Yelp where people research and answer questions for you. If you give up online, you can always go to a local library and ask the librarian. They love questions like that. Hope this helps. Wikidemo 21:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Press Kit photos

What is the copyright for press kit photos - these are dstributed for free use by the media and for promotion. I'm using a press kit photo from a local city on a page about that city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickdrew (talk • contribs) 19:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

In most cases press kit photos are copyrighted, and released on licenses that are not sufficient for Wikipedia's needs. The licenses are enough that using them on Wikipedia pages is probably legal, but they aren't the broad "free" licenses that fit Wikipedia as a project. As a result those images have fot satisfy the non-free content criteria and associated guidelines at WP:NONFREE. The short answer is that the image is probably not usable on Wikipedia because there's almost certainly a free image out there that could be used instead. In a few cases the city press kit may contain an uncopyrighted image. The US government releases nearly all of its material into the public domain. Most cities don't but a few may. Or the city could have found an uncopyrighted picture to begin with. See if the press kit contains any copyright info, and if not you can ask the city press office what the copyright status is of its press kit photos. They ought to know. Wikidemo 21:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you please be so kind and remove

Image:TDB.jpg

When uploading, I confused with another file showing a portrait of Theodore de Bry (TDB)

Sorry for the inconvenience and my clumsiness.

Thanks in advance,

Luc.de.bry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luc.de.bry (talk • contribs) 21:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


Photo Invalid Rationale?

I feel I am being particularly stupid, but I just can not wrap my head about what I am being asked to do here - Image:BuffyAshley.jpg Can someone please explain, in small, easy steps, just what I did wrong, what I need to add and why? Please? Belle pullman 21:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, the same question several times today. The bot must have been busy! You're being asked to not attend so many Andrew Lloyd Weber musicals. To get serious, you're being asked to add the name of the article somewhere in the use rationale. If you go to the image page you'll see that the use rationale template now says "Non-free / fair use media rationale - NEEDS ARTICLE NAME" because the article field is missing. Just edit the image page and add a line somewhere in the template section that says "Article=Ashley the Smoking Car." Also, make a copy of the template, verify that the rationale is truly the same (or change it if necessary) and use it for the other article, i.e. "Article=Buffy the Buffet Car". When you're done be sure to delete the warning tag (the line that starts "di-disputed fair use rationale"). Wikidemo 22:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou! Has this template been changed recently? I SWEAR there wasn't an article section when I put this up. Does it look right now? Thankyou for your help!Belle pullman 22:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it was added sometime around the beginning of October. So far about 14,000 of the 45,000 images now using the template have the article section filled out. The other 30,000 may have the article mentioned somewhere else. The requirement is old, but the field is a new way to encourage people to put the article name in a consistent, easy to find place so they don't get the same warning tag you got and so the image is not subject to deletion. Wikidemo 00:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

North Sea image

This image was published by the government of the UK [10] on this website [11] and the copyright info it linked to (crown copyright) said:

"You may re-use the material featured on this website (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium. You must re-use it accurately and not in a misleading context. You must acknowledge the material as Crown copyright and give the title of the document/publication." [12]

so i assume this is usable but i dont know how to label it, etc. i figured id ask here cause ive had stuff deleted before. thanks Jieagles 16:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This is non-free content, and must adhere to all the non-free content criteria. The government of England does not publish works in the public domain, and puts substantial limitations on their re-use, as well as prohibiting modification. The correct tag is {{Non-free Crown copyright}}, and the image must have a non-free use rationale. - cohesion 01:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The key thing here is that a completely no-strings free replacement image could be created, based on the underlying ideas, rather than this particular expression of them. But if we accept this image, we make it less likely that anyone will create a completely free one. That's why it especially has to pass WP:NFCC #1. -- Jheald 03:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Naval images licensed to Italian wikipedia

The Italian Navy has granted permission for wikipedia to use it's images for non commecial use.

The license can be seen here in Italian: Permission

Since it seems impossible to link to the Italian server, how would one go about creating the licence (which i gather is compatible with the English language wikipedia) ?

The image in question can be found here Cavour image

--Sertmann 22:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't read Italian, but if the license is limited to non-commercial use it is non-free content. Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, which means all of our material is freely licensed. For a definition of freedom in this context see freedomdefined.org. The images may still be used but they would need to conform to our non-free content policy, and the non-free content criteria. If you have any other questions let us know. - cohesion 02:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Image with BLP/privacy issues?

Question about Image:Typical Support Order 0001.jpg. This image, which is a scan of a child support order, has a few identifying details blacked out, but on other parts of the document, the first and last names of the parties in the case are visible, as are the county and state. There's also an older version of the document that isn't blacked out at all. It doesn't appear that both parties have consented to have this on Wiki, and to the best of my knowledge, U.S. family court rulings are not public record. I'm wondering if it should be deleted as a possible privacy violation? Thanks, DanielEng 01:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. That shouldn't be here with any names visible. I've deleted it. Thanks!! -- But|seriously|folks  01:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The Church of Jesus Christ official logo

I just added a fair use template for the logo on The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)'s official page, is there anything else I can/should do to help this template stay and be beneficial here on Wiki? I certainly do not want it to be deleted...71.58.63.246 04:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

First, thank you for taking the time to add a rationale, and for inquiring here!  :) Second, looks good to me. I'll go remove the "di-disputed fair use rationale" template now. Cheers, Iamunknown 05:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Leeward Islands and Windward Islands flags

I replaced the two very small low-res current flags with ones that I have made. I have taken those flags and coat of arms off wikipedia, yet I cropped them and chopped them to create the flag. I don't really know what license to use. Please help - Gibbsyspin 05:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Jigsaw in Japan.jpg

Hi Wikipedia - Can you tell me in simple terms how to get a copyright tag attached to the image Jigsaw in Japan.jpg - My name is Des Dyer and I was the drummer and lead singer in the band and am also a director of Splash Records to which the copyright belongs. I would like to give permission for the a.m. image to be used on a GFDL level. Help me out here. I have already amended a quite a lot of the Jigsaw (band) page as some of the comments were inaccurate. I'm sure you would like your encyclopedia to be as accurate as possible so any contribution to this page from an actual member of the band and a director of the record company on which the band had its most successful hit, would surely be beneficial!! Cheers...........Des Dyer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Des Dyer (talk • contribs) 10:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the image your own work? --βandβ (talk•contribs) 10:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The image was taken by my camera on my film - I didn't take the picture as I'm on stage playing drums. Subsequently this was used by Splash Records Ltd., with my permission. I am a director of the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Des Dyer (talk • contribs) 11:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Though your the director of the company, it's still copyrighted and we have available tags for that. See this. --βandβ (talk•contribs) 08:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
That is not necessarily correct. If it was a photographer employed by your company, the photo may be a work for hire, depending on the contract. If it is a work for hire and you are the copyright owner, please send an email specifying this to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, following the instructions at WP:COPYREQ. Calliopejen1 00:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
That's better. --BandB (talk•contribs) 07:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Troublesome

First I send my greeting to everybody who is going to answer this. I just joined Wikipedia in order to edit the page of my most favorite anime named Otogizoshi I've uploaded many pictures in order to make the page more informative. But as for the policy, I try to add all the details in need for the pictures.However, every week I just have time to online once and I always receive messages that tell me to add more details in pictures' pages, which I must say I'm bothered although I knew I must have done something incorrectly. Image:AbenoSeimei.jpg Image:SadamitsuUsui.jpg Image:Raikou.jpg Image:Cover1.jpg I'm not a natural English speaker.I use Non-free / fair use media which I think it is enough policy to be in a encyclopedia.Maybe I didn't add enough information for pages, but I can't understand what the administrator wants me to complete by only using Di-disputed fair use rationale ? I mean, I don't know which part is in need to complete. Please help me to complete it, and I will thank you thousands times.

M.H. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mansairaku (talk • contribs) 18:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the message is confusing even for native English speakers. It is telling you that you need to use the correct name of the article in the use rationale you wrote for the image. I see for Image:AbenoSeimei.jpg you used the template template:Non-free use rationale. In the "article" field you said "Article=Otogizōshi (anime)." But in fact, you used the image in Characters of Otogizōshi anime instead. So you just need to correct that. Edit the image page and change that line to "Article=Characters of Otogizōshi anime". Then delete the warning line that says {{di-disputed fair use rationale|concern=invalid rationale per [[WP:NFCC#10c]]|date=October 26 2007}}. That will fix the image. Wikidemo 21:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks thousands times for your help.I think I've got what to do now. Good day to you! M.H —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mansairaku (talk • contribs) 10:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:HaydockPortrait.jpg

How do I add the source and creator? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skodoway (talk • contribs) 04:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The quickest way to add the source, creator, description and so forth, would be to simply add the following to the image description page (filling it out accordingly of course):
{{CommonsImageSummary|
|Description    =
|Source         =
|Date           =
|Author         =
|Permission     =
}}

-- Chris B • talk 10:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


How do I get access to this page? There is no option to add any information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skodoway (talk • contribs) 01:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

OLD photos, what do I do?I

I have a large collection of OLD, black and white and sepia images of scientists/naturalists from the 19th and 20th centuries. I have been uploading the oldest ones, circa 1865 to 1870 where for sure the photographers are all dead over 100 years! I have put photographer's names, where they are known - most are not.

Every single one of these images has been flagged!


Image: MegatheriumClub.jpg Image: FBMeekphoto1868.jpg

These are the most recent two. Please help! I'd love to put up more portraits of these very old individuals, but I am getting more than frustrated by the system. I appreciate copyrights, too. I am a photographer and I have a website. But honestly, these photos are LONG past copyright! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellin Beltz (talk • contribs) 06:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If these photographs were published before 1923, than they are in the public domain in the United States and you should use these tags: {{PD-US}}. The tag for the author who has most likely died is okay if it has been 100 years since he passed away but it needs the source info (where did you get the photograph?). Once a source has been put down, remove the deletion notice and everything should be ok. Hope this helps. --Hdt83 Chat 06:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Divine-Comedy-National-Express-CD1.jpg

I have resubmitted the material with a smaller web version of the image along with all of the details about the image including original location and additional features, what else would I have to complete to allow this to be acceptable on wikipedia

SeveredSpirit 13:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use needs to be defined for each article the image appears in, right?

Image:ConePerfecto.jpg is used in Perfect game, David Cone, and Joe Girardi. The image page states that is copyrighted and unlicensed. There is a fair use rationale for perfect game. I have in the past seen comments on images telling their uploaders to specify why the image qualifies as fair use for the particular article in which it is used. There's no rationale for David Cone or Joe Girardi. This is a problem, right? Tromboneguy0186 18:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

There does have to be a separate rationale for each use of the image. It's use in those other articles appears to be solely illustration in any case. This is in violation of WP:IUP. --Yamla 19:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

British Library "copyright" of scans of old PD photographs and artwork

Hi, I'm sure this question has been asked before, but could someone knowledgeable please weigh in? In Fall 2005 or early 2006, I downloaded the image: Image:Pahari women.JPG from the British Library. Sometime later, in Autumn 2006 or early 2007, the British Library began to watermark/tag their images like so. My questions, as you can imagine, are related to how Bridgeman vs. Corel relates to this.

  1. Assuming that the British Library does have a UK copyright on this (reimaged) image, my own reading of the situation (explicated here) is that issue is similar to that of a hypothetical image published in (say) 1909 in the UK alone. According to British law, the image will go into public domain on January 1 following the year of completion of one hundred years of the photographer's death; under US law, however, the image, having been published before 1923, is already in the public domain. According to Wikipedia policy (lead, paragraphs 4 and 5), the {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} template could therefore be applied to this image's page; however, the image could not be added to Wikimedia Commons, where images would be required to meet British standards as well. Is this more or less correct?
  2. If I had downloaded the image today, and then simply cropped off the tag/watermark, would the situation of question 1 then apply to that transformed image? Look forward to your replies!

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I say it's public domain, and you can't use the BL logo, but you can use the rest of the image. -- But|seriously|folks  03:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


Image:Vislogo.gif

There has been a notification to delete this image from the "Vision On" site. How do I contact the relevant administrator/editor to contest this decision? This image was formed out of the letters of the program's title and was commissioned by me as producer of the program. What more can I say? Head Rangdo 21:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It was about to get complicated so I simply added the data the image needs and removed the tag, so it won't be deleted. That's easier than contesting things. Please note that every "non-free" copyrighted license needs a use rationale, and that's all the tag was asking for. You mentioned an artists' license, which I just don't know about and may or may not be enough for Wikipedia (if so, that means it is a free image, not a copyrighted image for which the logo tag applies). Rather than deal with any of that, I just added the use rationale to say that whether or not there's an adequate license, the image qualifies for a "non-free use" under Wikipedia terms because of the nature of its use to identify the show. Please note that being the producer (or the artist, or owner etc) wouldn't give you any special position to give permission under non-free use. Nor could you tell Wikipedia they can't use it. It's all about the way it's used, and the use falling within Fair use law (I forget what they call the UK equivalent) and Wikipedia's policies relating to it. It's similar to the way a newspaper could copy your logo for a story without asking. They have their standards and recordkeeping requirements, Wikipedia has its own too. Hope that helps more than it confuses.Wikidemo 04:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't a magazine cover be used to illustrate an article about that magazine?

Please tell me what I'm not understanding here. Betacommandbot twice has tagged Image:EpochMagazine.jpg as not having an adequate fair use rationale, although I think I've adequately explained that this is a magazine cover illustrating an article about that magazine. Why isn't my explanation on the image page good enough? Noroton 02:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The template contains a clue -- it specifies WP:NFCC#10c as the source of the problem. That provision requires that the name of the article be specified, since each rationale is supposed to pertain to a particular article. What the bot is looking for is a wikilink to the article. -- But|seriously|folks  03:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Noroton 04:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

HaydockPortrait.jpg

I have added a copyright tag. I don't understand what else you need. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skodoway (talk • contribs) 01:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Supply it with source where you have taken that image and its author. Thank you. --βandβ (talk•contribs) 06:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:ACL LOGO.gif

Help, this is an area that I have pretty much ignored/avoided. But one of the images that I loaded has been tagged for deletion. I'm not sure why, but looking at WP:LOGO I thought this would ok. Could somebody help clarify the missing piece?Balloonman 04:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, its ok. What the image needs is the source (where you got the image) and on what article it is fair use on (a fair-use rationale with a wiki-link to the article) --Hdt83 Chat 04:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I fixed it by adding the logo template - I could explain but it's faster just to fix it sometimes. The source was already there but for no real reason other than making sure it gets handled correctly if and when we have automated source fields I made that explicit with a "source=" statement on the image page. The key is that every time you add an image to a page you need a separate rationale for that use. Speaking of which, you're not supposed to add images to talk pages so I added the colon before the image name like this -- [[:Image:ACL LOGO.gif]]. That keeps the actual images from appearing. You just get the link. Wikidemo 04:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks... Balloonman 05:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I tried to fix it to look more pleasing and if possible, specify the source with URL. It would be better. Thank you. --βandβ (talk•contribs) 07:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyright, but use permitted.

I would like to use some photographs in a Wikipedia article from a web-site which specifies that it is copyright, but which also states "Copyright Information - You can copy/print pages from this site and photos from this site as long as the information copied/printed is not used for commercial or monetary gain." Can I use the photographs, and if so, what is the appropriate tag? Tim Ross 18:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

What type of image is that? May I know the source? --βandβ (talk•contribs) 08:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

They are photos of various species of the landsnail Liguus. The source is <http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/Gold/9440/liguus/sitein.html>. Tim Ross 00:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Short answer: No. Details: For an image to be classified as "free" on Wikipedia, it can't be restricted to noncommercial use. And the non-free content policy prohibits the use of images that could be replaced by free images. Since these are photos of snail shells, they could be replaced by user-created photos of snail shells, so they are replaceable non-free images, which are prohibited. -- But|seriously|folks  07:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this a derivative work?

I've taken Image:Chenrezig sadhana text karma kagyu.jpg which currently isn't very good but with the aim of illustrating Sadhana. It's a prayer text in Tibetan Buddhism. I licensed it under the normal free licenses but I reckon this is probably a derivative work of the original text. What license (if any) can I use for this sort of thing? I uploaded it here rather than commons as I expected commons would reject it. I hope it is more than a book cover, and we'll never have an article on that particular text and translation.. Secretlondon 19:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the illustration and the translation are both copyright to someone else. The non-free media policy does not allow non-free images to be used as generic examples. This is also replaceable in principle, since anyone who knows the original language can make his own translation, and there are certainly free equivalents to the image. It is disallowed in that case as well. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how we'd ever get a free image of a prayer, unless some group released an actual prayer text under a free license. I take your point though. Secretlondon 16:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

CC licensed images deleted?

Hi there - I'm a bit confused.

I am new to wikipedia, and I uploaded several pictures to an article. The photographer who took these pictures is a friend of mine, and I had the authority from him to upload them. I licensed the images under a creative commons attribution-share alike license, which I thought was the proper way to upload it.

However, all of my images were removed from the wikipedia entry Fracas! Improv Festival by someone named "OrphanBot."

Can somebody please explain this to me?

Here are links to the images: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fracas_Improv_fourguys.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fracas_Improv_f4sketchpanel.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fracas_Improv_f4ent.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fracas_Improv_f4darwin.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fracas_Improv_f4angelamelora.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fracas_Improv_f3occam.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fracas_Improv_f1HFV.jpg

Thank you Reed.jacob 20:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You haven't said where you got them from. We need to know this to see that it really is creative commons licensed. Secretlondon 21:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
He states above that he received them directly from the photographer. A permission letter to OTRS seems the correct course of action (or have his friend get an account and upload them himself) —Random832 19:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Historical document

ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2006, MY MOM PASSED AWAY AND A HITORICAL DOCUMENT WAS LEFT INTACT WITH ELECTRICAL BILLS THAT MY MOM KEPT. WITHIN THE DOCUMENT ONE OF MY PICTURE WAS INCLUDED.

FROM THE LIMITED CABILITIES OF MY READING OF THE DOCUMENT, I LEARNED SOME OF THE LANGUAGE IN THE DOCUMENT STATES NAMES AND BOUNDERIES OF A PARTICULAR VILLAGE. I WANT TO MAKE THIS DOCUMENT PUBLIC ONLINE.

THE DOCUMENT IS A MANISCRIPT COPY OF AN ORIGINAL THAT MY DAD WAS ATEMPTING TO LOCATE, BUT MY MOTHER KEPT IT FROM HIM UNTILL SHE PASSED AWAY AND I HAVE IT WITH ME, I ALSO SCANED IT TO MAKE IT AVAILABLE ONLINE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS IN MY FAMILY.

I KNOW THE DOCUMENT IS VALUABLE AND I WANT TO MAKE IT PUBLIC WITHOUT ANYONE EDITING IT NOR CHANGE IT IMAGE.

THE DOCUMENT ALSO INCLUDES A SPAINSH STAMP THAT VERIFY IT AS COPY OF AN ORIGINAL. THE DOCUMENT ALSO STATES THAT THE LAND WAS IN THE FAMILY FOR LONG LONG TIME (APPROXIMATLY 375 YEARS).

COULD YOU PLEASE LET ME KNOW HOW I CAN UPLOAD THE DOCUMENT, AS WELL AS MAKE THE DOCUMENT AVAILABLE FOR ANYONE WHO MAY HAVE INTEREST IN SUCH.

ALSO, I WILL BE HAPPY TO SEE IF ANYONE WITH THE NOWLEDGE OF READING THE ARABIC LANGUAGE SCRIPT ON THE DOCUMENT TRANSLATE IT, AS WELL AS FIND ANY HISTORICAL FACTS ABOUT IT IN RELATION TO ISLAM, SPAIN, JEDIASIM AND CHRISTIANITY.

I WILL ALSO INCLUDE A COPY OF MY MOM MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE THAT HAS A STAR OF DAVID STAMP, AND WELCOME ANYONE TO PROVIDE THE HISTORY OF JEWS IN MOROCCO ESPECIALY IN RELATION TO THE STAMP ON THE DOCUMENT, AND VERIFY WHY STAR OF DAVIS STAMP IS THERE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.165.51.229 (talk) 00:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If you don't want the document to be changed, you cannot upload it to Wikipedia. It must be available under a free license, which means you must allow derivative works. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
According to the user-created images policy, such images must have a free license that allows derivative works. However, seeing as you are not the author of the original document or manuscript, there may be potential for it belonging to another category.
Could you please provide the following information regarding this document:
  • Date of the original
  • Country which the document was authored in
  • Type of document (e.g. official U.S. document, private, etc)
  • Any other useful information
If it truly is a document of historical and good educational value, I urge you to pursue adding it to Wikipedia, even if that means giving it a license that legally allows modification of it. See Wikipedia:Upload for further instructions on actually uploading it, once the appropriate license has been determined. --MaTrIx 07:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyrights of scanned historical documents

If someone familiar with the copyright relationship between Wikipedia and U.S. educational institutions would be willing to take these on, it could greatly improve a visually barren article (Colored).

And another vintage one I stumbled upon, which would be suitable for Movies or a similar article:

I was under the assumption that a copyright would likely be non-existent on historical documents of these types, but I really didn't want to upload them and watch them get deleted a few months from now. Whoever reviews these is welcome to go ahead and upload/add them to the appropriate articles. --MaTrIx 06:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

"Historical" doesn't define copyright. It goes primarily by date, and 1923 is the magic year. The broadsides and newspaper clippings are older, so they are in the public domain. The photos may be newer, so we assume they are protected by copyright. The scan from Modern Mechanics in 1935 is still protected by copyright. -- But|seriously|folks  06:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I had taken a look at a couple of the university copyright policies, and they seemed rather restrictive. That's one of the things that had me confused. So in the end, even if a copyright and terms of use are declared on the images prior to 1923, they are legally inapplicable? --MaTrIx 06:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
As long as they are simply copies of the older, public domain documents, yes, per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. I suppose you might be violating the websites' terms of use, but there's no copyright restriction to be concerned about. -- But|seriously|folks  07:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Images copyright

I have images that I would like to upload onto a number of pages. My company owns the rights to these images, what is the correct way to tag them so that they do not get removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Creativesheffield (talk • contribs) 14:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Your company would need to release them under a free license. The preferred one would be {{CC-BY-SA-3.0}}. It would also be useful for an email to be sent from an address associated with your company to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, and more details on the text of that email can be had at WP:COPYREQ. Stifle (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: specific person

Can you help me find this person? His name is Julius M. Plamos. He lives in Tandag, Surigao del Norte. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.215.116.14 (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're in the wrong place. This is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, not a genealogy search website. Perhaps you should consider using a search engine or a genealogy website. Stifle (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)