Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2008/February

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

Gladiator mosaic photo -- Public domain?

Is this image in the public domain? It comes from this National Geographic story. As a faithful reproduction of a two-dimensional piece of art that was created c. AD 130, I would think it is PD, but then maybe the cracks and missing bits of the mural make this 3D enough to be a copyrightable work. What do you all think? Thanks! — Dulcem (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

  • That particular image is not PD -- the copyright is owned by the photographer and/or National Geographic. However, if you were to go and take a photo of the artwork, you could declare that photo to be in the public domain (as National Geographic doesn't own all images of the mural). Jaysbro (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Why does it matter that it's a photograph? Where's the artistic interpretation that makes a photograph of a flat artwork a new work? It is my understanding that photograph of the Mona Lisa is PD no matter how you shake it. What's the difference here? — Dulcem (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Additional note: Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. seems to agree with me. Why isn't a photograph of a 2-d piece of PD art considered PD in this case? — Dulcem (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I would also hesistate a little. The problem is that it's not quite 2D - i.e. the difference between Image:Mona-lisa-through-glass.jpg and Image:Mona Lisa.jpg. The bit broken off down the bottom, etc. There is enough non-2D slavish reproduction in the image to make me nervous about using that image. Megapixie (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Waterdome

The image for the Florida Southern College Waterdome [1] is listed as public domain, but it is from the local newspaper, The Ledger. On the image's discussion page I linked to the original photograph. I am not familiar with editing images that are under copyright. I hope someone reading this could let me know the usual procedure in cases like this. Thanks, Chuck Welch (talk) 05:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone already appears to have tagged this as {{copyvio}}. It should be deleted shortly. Megapixie (talk) 05:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Whose rights is this?

I've uploaded an image at wikipedia, at least i've tried to. It's a picture taken of one of the greatest Brazilian writers ever: clarice Lispector. This picture has no copyright information, and that's why it might be deleted. I believe this copyright information does not exist, once this picture(i guess) is a personal picture of the writer itself. Maybe it was taken when she lived abroad, in many contries because of her husband diplomatic career. I believe the rights, (if they do are avaible) may belong to Rocco printer (or to her family) which publishes her books, at least nowadays. Maybe the informations about such pictures, might be found at www.claricelispector.com.br I hope there is a copyright singnature by someone or a by an instituition, somewhere. Because I could not find it, but I'd also would not like to have such a beautiful picture of this unique writer, not shown to those who seek her work and her image at wikipedia.org Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thiago A. Boaventura (talk • contribs) 01:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to the picture? It probably is copyrighted, but may be usable anyway under fair use. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyright confusion

Hi,

I wanted to add some pictures about some dog breed species that do not have any picture and found a website with alot of picture with the following legal info listed on the web site: http://www.molosserdogs.com/modules.php?name=Docs

Molosser Dogs authorizes you to view, download, and interact with materials, services, and forums on this website. Unless otherwise specified, the services & downloads provided by Molosser Dogs are for your personal and/or commercial use, provided that you retain all copyright and other proprietary notices contained in the original materials. The materials at Molosser Dogs are copyrighted and any unauthorized use of these materials may violate copyrights and/or trademarks. These documents are for our protection and yours as well. Please read them carefully.

I am having trouble finding out if it is ok to upload some of these picture to compelte wikipedia info. Can you help me with this matter? Thanks alot! —Preceding unsigned comment added by SkinnyV (talk • contribs) 03:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems pretty vague. Looking at the site, I'm not clear that they actual own the copyright of the images, or it's just a random collection of images from the internet. Probably best not to upload. Megapixie (talk) 03:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Actuelly, peoples send their picture to this web site and give them permission to use them so I doubt they collect them from the web —Preceding unsigned comment added by SkinnyV (talk • contribs) 03:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that we can't be sure that the people who uploaded/sent the images to the website actually took the images in question, or released them appropriately. If the image credits the uploader/photographer, it would be best to contact them directly and ask them to create an account on wikipedia and upload the image here - or to mail a declaration of consent to ORTS see Wikipedia:COPYREQ#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries. Megapixie (talk) 05:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Post-colonial copyright

If the jurisdiction of a locale where an item was published changed due to the end of colonial rule, does the new country's copyright law apply? DurovaCharge! 03:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Tricky. Some changes in law are retroactive, some aren't. Soviet successor states are an absolute nightmare as a result of retroactive copyright law ammendments. Additionally many post colonial states tended to crib from the laws of the former occupying power anyway (see Indian copyright law). Basically it's hard to be specific without specifics. If you have the example image/country, it will be much easier to answer. Megapixie (talk) 04:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The source in question is a book that was published in Calcutta in 1921. The author died in 1958 or 1959. DurovaCharge! 10:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Per Hirtle that would be public domain in the US, but not elsewhere. In India I believe it would be protected until 2019 (as far as I can tell). Okay to upload here under PD-US but not commons. Megapixie (talk) 12:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleted images

I have uploaded, and posted on two of my articles (Vladimir Vdovichenkov; Sergei Makovetsky) the images of the two. These were photos of the two actors, that I found on Google! Yet they got deleted by a bot for reasons I can not comprehend... Is Google copyrighted now? I always thought it was a public space???--SergeiXXX (talk) 06:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The pictures aren't actually *on* Google; they're on websites. Google just finds them for you. Any photo taken that isn't specifically released into the public domain or under a free license is non-free. Note also that they weren't deleted by a bot, but by a human admin after being tagged by a bot. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Phrateres

I would like to add an image of the the crest of Phrateres to the Phrateres page. (Image:Phrateres.jpg) Phrateres is a university club (now at only one school but used to be all over North America). I am a current member of the club. We have had this version of the crest made a couple years ago so we could use it on documents and our website. I do not know who exactly created it, but it was made for the club's use and is not owned or copyrighted by anyone.

I just finished updating the article about the club and would like to add the image, but am new to working on Wikipedia. Can someone please help me out? Thanks!

Magenta Emily (talk) 09:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The copyright owner would be whoever created the image, unless she/he was creating it as work for hire, in which case it would be owned by the club. To use the image as a free image on Wikipedia, you will need to get the copyright holder to either release it into the public domain or license it under a free license (such as the GNU Free Documentation License).
However, even if you can't get the copyright owner to so-release/license it, it would likely be usable under fair use in the Phrateres article.
Let me know how you want to proceed with this, and I'll help you with the tagging, etc. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Art competition submission

I've located Maya Lin's original proposal for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. It's a single image containing three sketches and a one page typed description: her submission to the selection committee. The Library of Congress lists this as "No known restrictions on publication". All United States Government works are public domain so the memorial itself is a public domain artwork. In all likelihood, the terms of this competition required the winning artist to sign over creative rights to the government. Can we affirm this with enough confidence to upload with a public domain tag? DurovaCharge! 10:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Not so sure see the merchandising around the three soldiers. Might have to ask either relevant government department or the artist involved.Geni 14:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

picture of a bluray player

I am in the process of writing an article about the Panasonic DMP-BD30K, and I would like to include a picture of the device in the article. However, I do not have access to one so that I can take a picture of it myself, and I could find no free images anywhere on the Internet. Would it be acceptable for me to use the image here, on Panasonic's website, in the article? J.delanoygabsadds 19:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No. A free image could be created it is just a matter of waiting.Geni 20:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Russian images from the early 20th century at the US Library of Congress site

Are the images at http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/gorskii.html public domain? Corvus cornixtalk 20:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

See here re. rights and restrictions info. I'm not sure given that the heirs have expressed concern about commercial use. BrokenSphereMsg me 20:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess we could use them with a "sue and be damned" attitude, but out of politeness, should probably not use them. Corvus cornixtalk 20:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. As a matter of fact, many of these images are being used already. Moreover, I don't think we should give undue deference to this man's heirs when it comes to rights they sold away and a matter of a record of an important part of human history. If the Library of Congress says "There are no known restrictions on the use of these images", then there are no restrictions. I am fine with attaching the addendum that they are "concerned" and here is their contact info if you are feeling nice, but I don't think it is fair to the rest of mankind to not use these pictures because of concerns with what looks like little to no legal basis. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Vectorising copyrighted images

Is it legal to vectorise a copy-righted logo from a raster format, that is being used on Wikipedia under "fair-use" rationale? Exhibit A ----Seans Potato Business 21:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It might be but it is generaly best not to upload such svgs to wikipedia.Geni 23:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

copyright status

hi! So today I uploaded this image Image:Halo Demo.png, unofourtanetly I seem to have the wrong tag on it for a copyright status. I have no idea what this means.... I reauploaded the file and I think I did everything right but I can't tell..... HELP! thanks! --Talk to Stealth500 (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It’s not that Image:Halo Demo.png has the wrong tag: it doesn’t have any tag at all. What it needs is a copyright tag like {{Non-free game screenshot}}. It also will need a use rationale for each use. See the non-free use rationale guideline for that --teb728 t c 08:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe I corrected it but now it looks really weird, what do I do now or is it correct and it won't be deleted? --Talk to Stealth500 (talk) 10:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Nrjawards2008b.jpg

hey i just uploaded this image [[2]]. I have been told some details and tags are missing. I have left quite a detailed description of the picture and was wondering if you could help me establish what I need to do to ensure its usage on wikipedia. --Realist2 (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, this photo cannot be used because we do not know who the copyright holder is. For photos of living people to be used on wikipedia, we need an explicit release from the copyright holder releasing the image under a free license or releasing the image into the public domain. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

FIRST TIMER: Why was my edit removed?

SUBJECT PAGE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Pryor

This is more of an educational question (learning experience) than a complaint. I added a section to the above page titled "2008 Election: Opposing Candidates" last night and today that section is gone. There was a "copyright warning" associated with my photo of me. I am not sure if I correctly responded to the warning and the section that I added might have been removed because of my incorrect "fix" to the copyright warning notice.

If that is not the reason the added section was removed then please email me what the reason is. This was my first time editing a Wikipedia page and I am sure I did not do something correctly.

Thank you.

Don Hamrick [email removed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donhamrick (talk • contribs) 16:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

We don’t reply via email; so I will reply also on your talk page.
Your edits to Mark Pryor were removed because they were not about Mark Pryor. (They were also inappropriate because they were written in the first person and because they were about a person (you) who is not notable enough to be covered by Wikipedia.) --teb728 t c 19:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

PDF file/image of two newspaper articles

I tried uploading two PDF file/images of two different newspaper articles. I uploaded them under fair use and they still got deleted. I have all the information, author, date, title, subject and from what newspaper. I included all that infomation in the file name and in the description as well. What am I doing wrong?


Thank you

carrtCarrt81 (talk)

[email removed] Carrt81 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Houston.1.pdf was deleted because it was not used in any article. According to WP:NFCC#7 a non-free image may be hosted only if it is used under fair use on at least one article. --teb728 t c 18:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Image:Waco.Trbune.Herald.Police.Used.Airplane.to.Halt.Sniper.4-23-1967.pdf and Image:San Angelo Standard Times Article. August 1 1986 Houston McCoy.pdf were deleted for the same reason. --teb728 t c 08:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ernst Ludwig Kirchner

He is an artist, who died 15 June 1938, so will his work fall into the public domain per PD-art-life-70 on that day this year, or does it start at the beginning of the next calendar year i.e. 1 January 2009? It's being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Ernst_Ludwig_Kirchner. Tyrenius (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It is the beginning of the next whole year, i.e. 1 January 2009.[3][4] Tyrenius (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Panthers Team Photo 1981-82

I have uploaded image. It is a picture taken by unknown volunteer. how to I list this and justify this?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisitnedrabick (talk • contribs) 20:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that that image is probably unsuitable for use on Wikipedia, unless you're aware of the copyright holder (which would be the photographer, unless she/he was taking the picture as work for hire). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

uploading picture

I am having problems uploading a picture,to my details,warren ellis(musician) I am trying to add a photo,Latvia 2006,can you give me any tips thanks warren Wallywanoo (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You should start by making sure that the image is suitable for use on Wikipedia. Do you own the copyright to it? If not, has the copyright holder released it under a free license? If not, does it meet Wikipedia's fair use guidelines? Once you've made sure that it's appropriate, visit Special:Upload. Let us know if you have any problems from there. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I see that you uploaded four different copies of the same image, and you seemed to have figured out the image tagging process. I went ahead and added the picture to the article Warren Ellis (musician) for you (and deleted the three extra copies). For future information, read Wikipedia:Images to learn how to put images into articles. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

copyright

Hi,

I added a copyright GFDL-self tag to the description section of my self made diagram [5] and I keep getting an alert regarding the missing copyright specification. why? how can I resolve this problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xsdenied (talk • contribs) 16:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem may have been that the tag was inside the description box. I've moved it out - hopefully that solves the problem. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Which tag?

Hi, I uploaded Image:AndrewSchlafly.jpg, and I'm not sure which tags to add. The owner released rights to it, and has allowed reuse with a free license, but I'm not sure what it would take. HALP! --Wikinterpreter (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

With which free license has he allowed re-use? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I just saw the page. My interpretation would be that he's releasing it into the public domain, but I'd wait to see if somebody more knowledgeable than I am thinks otherwise. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I would say that you should contact the creator and not assume that it was a public domain release. Conservapedia doesn't require that users release their images under a free license[6] and it seems reasonable to think that someone who uploaded their image to conservapedia might only want the image used in conjunction with conservative causes etc. I don't think that "I release rights to it" necessarily means "I release ALL rights to it" and may just be "I release rights to it so it can be used legally on Conservapedia". Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

From Google Maps?

If you take a picture from Google Maps are you allowed to put it up? Flamingtorch372 (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you cannot because it is copyrighted. There are other places you can find freely available equivalents, however. For street maps that are freely licensed http://www.openstreetmap.org/ is a good resource. There also are many public domain USGS satellite images. UK OS maps pre 1958 are also okay. There is also a good collection of general maps that are all PD at http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/ . Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

image

i made the image why can't i use it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubbydude (talk • contribs) 02:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Which image are you asking about? --teb728 t c 02:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
One assumes this one. And in answer to your question, you need to specify under what free license you're releasing it (although, to be honest, I'm not sure what article you envision using this in). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

sajed.ir images

There are several images that source sajed.ir and claim GFDL. One such image Image:Vincennes shot.jpg is linked to this page. The site appears to be a collection of photos and does not indicate a photographer or original copyright holder, or even an image caption. The images are all watermarked with the sites name and the license is copied from the bottom of the site, which has both GFDL and Copyright © 2006 - www.sajed.ir on it. Should these images be removed? --Dual Freq (talk) 03:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The GFDL requires a copyright notice. I think it looks OK, but we need a translation from the Arabic to be sure. MER-C 07:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think sajed.ir is the originator of the images or the original copyright holder of the images. The text may be GFDL, but the images belong to what ever press photographer took those images. Since we can not be sure of the original copyright holders, I don't know how these can be GFDL. --Dual Freq (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
How can we prove the images are GFDL if the "source" doesn't even give the true copyright holder. Its an image gallery and does not appear to be the original copyright holder. The GFDL note looks like a general claim for the site and likely refers to text, while image copyrights are maintained by the original copyright holder (which is not even given). --Dual Freq (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The GFDL applies to all continents of the site(Photos, sounds and texts). That's a governmental site and all of the press owned Photos in Iran are governmental, because there is no private press agencies in Iran.This Persian text باز نشر کلیه مطالب این سایت شامل مقالات، اخبار، صوت و تصویر و ... به طور کامل و یا چکیده آن، با ذکر منبع بلامانع است.«کلیهٔ مطالب تحت مجوز مستندات آزاد گنو (GFDL) منتشر می‌شوند» means : re-publishing all of the subjects of this site including articles , news , sound and image and ... as a whole or partial , is allowed with mentioning the name of the source. All of the subjects of this site are released under the GFDL licence.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Gibson, Violet.jpg

I have upload Image:Gibson, Violet.jpg. It is destined to be deleted 12th February. It is a photograph of Violet Gibson who died in 1956, there may be a case for fair use on the article about her as it is the only image that seems to be available of her and she is dead. Please can someone help me determine if this image can be used on Wikipedia, I got it from this website (Italian) today. --Aimaz (talk) 11:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Should be usable, and I've made the necessary edits to the image page. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, very speedy too :) --Aimaz (talk) 12:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, there's also the part I didn't tell you about: you need to put that image in the relevant article quite soon, or it might get deleted as an orphaned fair use image. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Mao.jpg

Dear Sir/Madam:

I am a writer and I almost finished writing a book (Dialog) in which George Washington amd Mao Zedong are talking about their experiences in the American and the Chinese Revolutions.

I found Mao's Photo in your Wikipedia on the first page under Mao Zedong.

The image has Mao.jpg tg. That's it. I assume it is free image that I can use.

Please clarify this as soon as possible.

Thanks,

Teddy Kim 718-434-2271 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.185.227 (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The photo is tagged as being in the public domain by reason of expired copyright, so yes it's free to use. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Commons

I am unsure what license to put under images from Wikimedia Commons. Please help!! LB22 (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you taking pictures from the Commons and uploading them to Wikipedia? If so, that's unnecessary; Commons pictures can be used in Wikipedia articles directly.
If that's not what you're doing, please clarify your question. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I've explained on LB22s talk page about usage of photos from Commons. Mjroots (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Image may be deleted

This image may be deleted: Image:Age of Consent International Map.png. Thanks, AGToth (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Images on Travis Lutter

Trying to add pictures of Travis Lutter. It seems as though I am fighting a losing battle uploading and adding images to the page. The image Image:Travis_Lutter_Logo.JPG is MINE, completely made in Photoshop and does not violate any copyright anything. The other Images - Image:Lutter Champion.JPG‎ (This image has no licensing information) I will see about uploading again and adding to page? Image:Travis Lutter UFC Champion.JPG (This image has no rationale) Confused me is all?


Here are a couple more question marks to help relay the way I feel :) ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ?? ?? ?? ?? Jaysully2001 (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

For the images you made yourself, you need to attach a copyright tag indicating what free license you're releasing it under. The other image likely isn't usable on Wikipedia, since it's a non-free image of a living person. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


Sounds like way too much trouble to do just to help someone else out (the world). I think I will find something else to do with my time, thanks. Jaysully2001 (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Uploading photos

How do I add an image from my computer to the website —Preceding unsigned comment added by McRaePR (talk • contribs) 22:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Via Special:Upload. But first you need to make sure it's usable on Wikipedia - who owns the copyright? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding tag to Image.

I have recently uploaded an Image: RC6 Cryptography Algorithm.jpg . This image is owned entirely by me, and I would like to add an appropriate tag for the image, but how could I add tag to the image? I would like to distribute the image under GNU license agreement.

Its easy click on the red words from the image then you open your pictures put the picture in you put in a summary then you select a license from the license bar then you can upload it - Trulystand700 (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

In C

Hi!

I've seen the comments you added to my site. What's wrong about the licensing? User_talk:Saippuakauppias I've provided the articles name, on which the image would be inserted. But there is still a discussion about this topic here. I think to have provided enough reasons for fair use. Please explain and - DO NOT DELETE THE PICS BEFORE 15.02.08. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saippuakauppias&redirect=no —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saippuakauppias (talk • contribs) 14:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The images are present only in the talk namespace, this violates numbers 7 and 9 of WP:NFCC.
We are unable to accept your request to not delete the images for 21 days. They will be deleted in 7 days unless you can bring them into full compliance with WP:NFCC. However, if they are deleted, and you later demonstrate that they are compliant, they can be undeleted by request at WP:DRV. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok now? (see In C) --Saippuakauppias ⇄ 16:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, you need to place on each image's page a comprehensive rationale explaining why that particular image qualifies to be included despite being under copyright. I strongly doubt a gallery of copyrighted images, like the one on the page, qualifies, but you can make your case on the image page. Full explanation is at WP:NFCC and WP:FURG. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Have a look at the image descr. pages and tell me what isn't right! :
Purpose= Showing the cover if ATMA - Riley - In C
  1. This image is a low-resolution image of an album cover.
  2. This image does not limit the copyright holder's ability to profit from the original source, nor will it dilute the importance or recognition of the album in connection with its organization.
  3. This image enhances the article in which it's displayed, as it provides an immediate relevance to the reader more capably than the textual description alone.
ok now? --Saippuakauppias ⇄ 18:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
They're valid rationales for using one or two, but you still can't use a gallery of them in one article because that violates WP:FUC #3a (minimal usage of non-free material). Choose one or two and add them back to the article, but the others will have to go. Stifle (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Toyota Camry Hybrid

Hello,

I bought a 2007 toyota camry hybrid and need air shocks for the rear. I need to carry an elec. wheel chair. Can you tell me where I can find the air shocks at.

68.154.129.148 (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your messsage. However, this is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and not a Toyota dealership. Please ask at your local dealership, or use Google or another search engine. Stifle (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ragnarok Online Images

Hello, I have a question about these two images: [7] and [8]. I'm pretty sure they violate the game's copyright, and both include links to illegal servers in their rationale. However, I'm unsure of the procedure for getting them removed. The user who uploaded them has been extremely persistent in re-adding them to the article they're on, regardless of the aforementioned concerns. Thanks in advance for any advice you can give! --Resplendent (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The fair use claim may be legit and the legality of the servers is not really a copyright issue.Geni 20:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
They are, however, orphaned and tagged as such. Stifle (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Heroes.S1.full.cast.jpg

This image's fair use rationale appears to have been incorrectly entered - the uploader asked me for help, but I just get confused when I try to look at that template. Can someone help out? Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 13:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The correct tag is {{db|Image violates WP:FUC as it is a photograph of living people}}. Stifle (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have applied for IPR at NRDC , New Delhi

dEar sir

I have four more research apart from election-e-card and i have applied for IPR at NRDC , New Delhi , INDIA,please let me know how to include it there while posting own details.

Regards

vijay —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijaythesoftwareinnovator (talk • contribs) 10:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

We are not sure what you mean, and you may have found the wrong site. This is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, and not a school, college, or other Indian website. Stifle (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Skokiaanlabel.JPG

I would appreciate someone looking at Image:Skokiaanlabel.JPG and telling me in plain English what I need to do to comply to the request for non-free fair use rationale.

I could not find a tag for a record label, which is what Image:Skokiaanlabel.JPG is, only one for an album cover.

The photograph is of a partial record label which probably dates to 1947.

My rationale for using the image is:

  • This is an partial image of a record label (found on eBay).
  • Its use is central to the article, as it illustrates the earliest use of the song title "Skokiaan" (which is sometimes disputed, see Talk:Skokiaan) and that of the band which played it.

Thank you.

DocDee (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:FURG will answer all your questions and you need to specify a lot more than just those two points. Stifle (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

for showing my city on google earth

←pleas tell me about what methed showing my city name at google earth≥ —Preceding unsigned comment added by M sarwar (talk • contribs) 16:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. This page is for asking questions about Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, and specifically about media copyright issues. Please try asking Google about your issue with Google Earth, or optionally, the computing reference desk here. Stifle (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyright

I have uploaded and image and added a Public Domain copyright tag, but it still says that it will be deleted as there is no information about the copyright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tereva (talk • contribs) 19:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're referring to Image:089 Northern Range, Asa Wright Nature Centre - 28.11.07.jpg (which seems to be the only image you've uploaded), as of now it is properly tagged and in no risk of being deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. How was this done?

Someone went to Image:089 Northern Range, Asa Wright Nature Centre - 28.11.07.jpg, clicked on the “edit this page” tab, moved the {{PD-self}} from the permission line of the Information box to the top of the page, and deleted the {{di-no license}} tag. See the differences here. --teb728 t c 06:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Photographs of paintings and other art work

I was recently given permission to photographt some private art work. What rights/restrictions apply to these photographs? Isn't there a specific rule covering 2D images of 3D art work? How about photos of art work on public display in a museum (presuming museum allows photography) or art work on dislay in a public place?--Orygun (talk) 03:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

They're derivative works. As such both the original creator of the artwork (assuming they still held copyright) and the taker of the photograph would need to release the work under the same free license. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Paulbrook wiki.jpg

Would somebody look at the summary and licensing of this one and make whatever corrective action is necessary? It doesn't seem that the permission is adequate, but I'm no expert on these issues. Pairadox (talk) 04:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Tagged {{subst:nsd}}. Stifle (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

videos

How do I upload a video, with no copyrights in question, without it showing as a link in the main page of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.247.253.22 (talk) 03:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

First, we want to clarify the copyright status of the video. Who made it? If someone else made it, you should ask here for help determining the copyright status. If you made it, you hold the copyright and you will need to release it under a free license or into the public domain (the upload screen will explain your options). Before you can upload a video you must convert it to .ogg format, using the instructions here. Once it's converted, to upload a video you first need to create an account, then click on "upload file" on the left side of the page. You can upload a video just like you can upload a photo. To include a video in a Wikipedia page, you can use the code
[[Image:Filename.ogg|thumb|Description]]
This will embed the video like the video in the article Rock Pigeon. If you have any more questions you can ask here or at the help desk. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ibn al-Haytham

There is a portrait of Ibn al-Haytham which has been tagged by Papa November for deletion, I believe incorrectly. Can someone with access to Wikimedia commons please update the provenance? It came from an old Iraqi dinar note. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 07:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone already did this, but what year is it from? Depending on the age of the note, it may not be in the public domain. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Nitrile

The History section is nearly a word for word copy of an article from Chemical Reviews 1948 [9]. I hidded the section, but I need advice what exactly should be done.--Stone (talk) 10:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this paraphrase is enough to rise to the level of a copyright violation, looking at the last version before you started your edits. They are definitely close, and it is possible to tell that Chemical Reviews was the source for the section, but to my eyes the differences are significant enough to change it from copying the words (not okay) to copying the ideas (perfectly okay). (And even if it had been copied word-for-word it's possible it would have been fair use because it's only four sentences out of an 80-page work.) The section is better now that you have edited it but I don't think we need to worry about removing this from the page history. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I tried to modify it in a way to get away from a word for word copy. --Stone (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Photo License

I want to add a photo that the photographer took and gave me permission to use on Wikipedia. What license tag can I put on it so it won't get deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kic 423 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, permission to use the article on Wikipedia isn't enough. It needs to be released either into the public domain or under a free license (or it needs to be usable under fair use, in which case photographer permission is irrelevant). Can you tell us more about the picture? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Complex case, or maybe easy one, with huge historical value

A couple of weeks ago I won on eBay a length of 35mm film from Germany, and would like to present 2 frames of it to Wiki. What I do know is this film was taken during WW2 of a German Luftwaffe bomber, Do-17z, taxing for take off (I have yet to see the entire roll) circa 1940 (from known operational missions for this type). I have no idea who produced, filmed it, the exact date, or who owned it all the years.

Because it was propaganda for a vanquished government, would it be considered war booty (typical of war booty, copyright and trademarks are rarely honored)? Since its providence is completely unknown and very likely untraceable, is it orphaned? Does it have ANY copyrights at all?

Value: It is an excellent example of film produced in Europe, using a audio track that is not described about in the wiki on 35 mm film formats. Additionally, it shows a Do-17z armed with a 20mm cannon, a very rare event, so of great historical value.

One last question, could it be on Wiki until and if someone claims copyright?

Links to the images: http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/8365/do17z2framesan3.jpg

http://i2.ebayimg.com/08/i/000/c8/5d/c137_1.JPG

Sincerely --Flightsoffancy (talk) 02:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not nearly expert enough to answer these questions, but this seems very much on point. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
That's a variable density soundtrack. Be cautious - that may be nitrate film. Exposing it to intense heat or light is not a good idea. The front of the film may have a title which may establish that it was a newsreel. Without more information it may be impossible to verify that it would have been a confiscated property. Megapixie (talk) 03:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Reading though the link on German WW2 images certainly leads to come conflicting opinions, however this passage seems to apply:

"In general, wartime German images cannot be tagged as being in the public domain. However, fair use cases can be made in many cases (historical images, no other way to obtain equivalent illustrations)." And that link:

"Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review. It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test. It is based on free speech rights provided by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The term "fair use" is unique to the United States; a similar principle, fair dealing, exists in some other common law jurisdictions.

In that regard, it is permissible to post this work becuase of its scholarly value, and becuase it may be nearly impossible to identify the creators of this film.

Any objections to posting it on Wiki under that rule?

The frames come from the beginning of the roll, I have not yet been able to see the end of it, so I have no idea of what else is on the film. I do agree it is likely a newsreel film. I hope to have the film transfered to digital media. --Flightsoffancy (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that a fair use claim can certainly be made out for this one. See WP:NFCC and WP:FURG for the requirements. Stifle (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Urgent : Remove Picture - Heavy consequences

The following image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg violates islamic principles and beliefs. The above picture depicts a face of Prophet Muhammed and depicting or assuming pictures of the Prophet is forbidden in Islam. Please act immediately. Flyers are already being passed around the internet.Affanak (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Per extensive discussion at Talk:Muhammad and in light of our policy that Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED#Wikipedia_is_not_censored the images will not be removed. MBisanz talk 19:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Is this Wikipedia or Islamapedia? Flyers are already being passed around the internet sounds like a threat to me! Thought there was a rule against such a thing! Mjroots (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
There's a rule against legal threats, which that isn't. That's a vaguely-worded warning that could be interpreted as a threat or as a good faith warning of consequences beyond the user's control. No need to get worked up. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
On top of that the image isn't even on Wikipedia, it's on Commons. Stifle (talk) 12:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Image on another Wiki

Hello,
I have uploaded the file in following format on my wiki server,

  [[Image:Filename.ogg|thumb|Description]]

It displays only Image:Filename.ogg and it does not embed the video like the video in the article Rock Pigeon

The url I am experimenting with is:
http://www.lokniketan.org/index.php?title=Little_Mozart_-_So_Cute
Could you please help me?

This page only provides help with Wikipedia, not with other websites. Please ask at the help section of lokniketan.org for help with that website. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

How to upload a picture/photo ?

Hi It is me salimswati. I have edited an article on saidu teaching hospital swat. I would like to know how to put the pictures/images of the hospital in to the article. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salimswati (talk • contribs) 16:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If your images are available under a free license, then head over to Wikipedia:Upload and upload them, then add in the image by placing its name, including the Image: prefix, between [[ and ]] on the article. Stifle (talk) 10:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Archaeology.

I want to do masters in Archaeology, and I want a good books talks about this subject?

Thanks yssy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yssy (talk • contribs) 12:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Try http://www.amazon.com or another online bookstore. Stifle (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

 ?

I want some one who knows about Archaeology? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yssy (talk • contribs) 12:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Reference desk. Stifle (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

more about a previous article

I researched and posted more, please let me know if I am on right track http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Complex_case.2C_or_maybe_easy_one.2C_with_huge_historical_value —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.124.50 (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Responded above. Stifle (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Album Covers

I'm currently in the process of re-writing, to the best of my abilities, the Fun Lovin' Criminals article. I've reached the Discography section and it currently contains the cover of every album they've released. Is this acceptable under wikipedia guidelines or should I remove them? --Stenun (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Album covers in discographies are not acceptable and should be removed. The relevant guideline is here. Bláthnaid 20:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks for replying!  :-) --Stenun (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem. To save you some time, I've taken the album covers out of the article. Bláthnaid 21:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I saw, thanks.  :-) --Stenun (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Description page

How do I get to the the description page of the image? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexOtey (talk • contribs) 03:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Which image are you asking about? --teb728 t c 04:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Missing copyright Status

I uploaded my company's logo but Wiki is saying that I am missing copyright status. How do i fix that?? Image:Pingsta logo 2008.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwint1222 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I assume the logo is copyrighted and hasn't been released under a free license, so you'll need to tag it with {{non-free fair use in|NAME OF THE ARTICLE YOU WANT TO USE IT IN}}, and then attach a fair use rationale. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, where do i tag it??? the original article? and where to attach too. Thanks for helping
Tag it in the image page itself. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


Thanks, but I don't see an "edit" in the image page itself. Sorry for the trouble. Can you please be more specific on how to edit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwint1222 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Click here, click "edit this page", and insert the fair use rationale. And don't worry about the trouble; it's why this page exists. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


Thanks so much! I just did it and I think its right. Can you please double check on it for me so they won't delete my article? Thanks so much for helping!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwint1222 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I'm afraid that you didn't. You need to actually take the text from inside the box here, paste in on to the image page, and fill it out. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if this logo might be {{PD-ineligible}}; it is just colored text. --teb728 t c 08:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed and tagged, similar to the MS logo. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)



Hi, thanks for double checking it for me! I just update it and can you please double check again for me?

Man, I'm glad to see I'm not the only struggling try to upload my own files!!!--AlexOtey (talk) 03:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC) - hope it worked for you, I spent 5 hours trying to make some headway...

You are not alone now~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.233.231 (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Seth Swirsky picture

The picture of Seth Swirsky[10] that I recently uploaded under the GDFL license has been removed due to a "Lack of licensing information"[11]. I'm not sure what that means as I had a letter from the individual who owns the picture giving me permission to use the picture as per the letter examples on Wikipedia. Could you tell me what I need to do differently to be able to upload the picture and have it stay on Wikipedia?

Thank you. Jheditorials (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)jheditorials

The image was deleted in error; the admin saw that the bot had tagged it, and apparently decided to delete without further examination; I'll drop a line on his/her talk page. The reason it was tagged by the bot is that the GFDL information wasn't in a format that the bot recognized - if you want to re-upload it, just put {{GFDL}} on the page, and you'll be fine. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll try that. Jheditorials (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)jheditorials

I get the same thing all the time!! My content is alweays getting deleted and it is frustrating the heck out og me!!! - how do I use this system?--AlexOtey (talk) 03:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What system? Stifle (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Objections on an article on MUHAMMAD SAS

Hello, I am waqas ali, when i saw the images on an article about Muhammad SAW, i am very dissappointed and wanted to remove from that article. U people should be respect to every religion.In Islam picture of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and other Humans are not allowed.Wikipedia editors are showing illustrations with face illustrated and face is veiled or white washed. All the muslims from all over the world will protest against WIKIPEDIA's action against islam. Waqas ali, Pakistan.

PLease reply me on [email address removed]. I want to know why you have done this, what are the reasons behind this.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vickicreative (talk • contribs) 06:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It may not be allowed in Islam, but this is not Islam, it is Wikipedia. Wikipedia is non-religious, and not censored. This has been debated many, many times before. See the above discussion.Mjroots (talk) 09:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Picture Of Jeremy Beadle

I just added this picture of Jeremy Beadle under free use

am I allowed to keep it on the Jeremy Beadle page ?

I think it's valid for fair use as the image is no longer replaceable given that he is dead. Stifle (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyright on an image I created myself

Hi

I have uploaded an image Image:DPRE_JanFeb08_Cover.jpg but have been told there is some information according to your copyright policies.

This image is the front cover of the latest edition of our magazine, DPR Europe, so it has been created in-house by our design team and then made into a pdf onto our internal server and then made into a jpeg using Photoshop.

What information do you need me to provide?

Thanks Lisa Petter Lisapetter (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Assuming you and the design team created the cover during the course of your duties at work, then it is not yours to release and the copyright will be held by your company.
You would need to have your company release the cover under a free license. If it is happy to do this, then someone with an email address ending in @dpreurope.com or @dprworld.com should email permissions-en@wikimedia.org stating that the image at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:DPRE_JanFeb08_Cover.jpg is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License version 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/) (or some other valid license from this site), and that the sender has the authority to release the image.
Alternatively if you can comply with the non-free content criteria and provide a full fair use rationale, you can tag the image with {{Non-free magazine cover}}. Stifle (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

about uploading company image*

i did the non-free content criteria and provide a full fair use rationale, onpingsta_logo_2008, but the next day someone delete it and put the "eligible for copyright" thing back, why is that? what do i do?--Edwint1222 (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You don’t need to do anything: the new tags are better. The PD-ineligible tag means that the logo is in the public domain, and as such it can be used on Wikipedia. The Trademark tag warns anyone who wants to use the logo not to violate the pinksta trademark. --teb728 t c 22:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
But then how come my article is still not showing correctly? Pingsta--Edwint1222 (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The image seems to show up fine in the article; what exactly is the problem? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


I meant it says the article doesn't meet the general notability guideline. At first I thought its the image that has the problem. Or it is just two different thing?--Edwint1222 (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem now is with the article. In order to have an article on Wikipedia, an organization like Pingsta must meet certain notability standards. See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). And the article must cite to reliable sources which verify that notability. --teb728 t c 00:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, i will look over that!--75.62.233.231 (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyright and uploading question

RE: A Moth In The Darkness image

I want to put an image of my published and copyrighted theatrical play on wikipedia but I don't want to give away my rights to the image and content, please let me know if there is a way that I can upload the image but not give up (or share) my copyrights to it. Thanks. image:'A Moth In The Darkness' Author Laura Jean Dahl 2007.jpg

Laura Dahl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laura Jean Dahl (talk • contribs) 04:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

In order to post your image here, you must grant a license that allows anyone to reuse it for anything. That doesn’t give up your copyright, but it allows use of the image. --teb728 t c 09:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Four Star logo

Guys,

I have a logo for Four Star Television I'd like to use. It was a screenshot from one of their old programs, in black and white. The logo is kind of murky and low-rez, but I think it illustrates the Four Star Television article perfectly. What I'm uncertain about is if it is OK to use it in the article. New Corporation owns the rights to all the old Four Star stuff now, and while the logo has not been used since about 1966 you can never tell about how litigous (sp?) those folks are.... Staszu13 (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Use the television screenshot fair use and provide a fair use rationale and you should be fine. Million_Moments (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Associated Press Images?

What is Wikipedia's stance on Associated Press images being used in articles? I occasionally find images here that are clearly AP images, Image:Berlin-wall-dancing.jpg is one that I noticed that was taken by AP Photojournalist Thomas Kienzle and can be found listed in the AP Images Database under ID 8911100132. Here's a screenshot I did showing both images [12]. Alemily (talk) 05:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Our stance is the same on those images as it would be on any other non-free image; see WP:NONFREE. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

In particular, see WP:NONFREE#Images 2, point 6, which specifically mentions AP. The description on the image page in question says it's from the NPS (National Park Service) site and by an employee of the NPS. The page link is dead, but it appears on the NPS site here and here, in both cases credited "Courtesy of AP/ Wide World Photos". Tyrenius (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I've tagged it for speedy delete on Commons. Tyrenius (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

A question on a 1863 photograph.

The photographer was born in 1825. Can anyone claim copyright, as the "Met" does, to these photographs? The Met page states that it belongs to the Gerard Levy (or Gérard Lévy) collection --Jahsonic (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There does not seem to be a penalty for inferring a copyright on a photo and getting someone to pay you for it. The public domain photograph of Elvis Presley meeting President Richard Nixon, Image:Elvis-nixon.jpg, is available from Corbis. It was used in the Wall Street Journal a week ago and the photo credit was Corbis. If you go to the Corbis web site and search for photo NA012820 you will find the photo on a page that is Copyright Corbis, All Right Reserved. There is no hint that the photo is from the National Archives. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/nixon-met-elvis/ -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless the photographer lived till the age of 113, he's been dead for more than 70 years, so his work is in the public domain in the US and no one can enforce any copyright on it. Tyrenius (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarifications. --Jahsonic (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Image Copyright Question

Hi, I was hoping someone could quickly clarify the image copyright rules with relation to a specific issue. I'm wanting to add a picture to the info box on Sara Bareilles, and wasn't sure if pictures in the photo section on Sara Bareilles' official website would be considered publicity photos, and therefore ok to use. Thanks --DonVincenzo (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if they were released as publicity photos, they would not be OK for wikipedia, unless they were released under a "free" licence, such as GFDL or CC-BY-SA, so no they can't be used. You could get in touch with them to see if they would release one on that basis. See User:Videmus Omnia/Requesting free content. Tyrenius (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Logos

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Logos#Modifying logos for display? about adding a provision to current Wikipedia policy on logos. Comments there would be appreciated. Thanks. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Please clarify image rights!

I have some scanned pages from some old sheet music from 1915... Am i able to post them? I was thinking perhaps the copyrights might not apply to them anymore, in the way that old music is now free domain.... can someone please answer? thanks! purpleidea (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Purpleidea - who's the composer? If the composer is an American who died 1933 or earlier, it should indeed be public domain. Otherwise, it will depend on the country and the date of the composer's death. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

computer

What is drive? and types of drives, what is storage device? and types of storage device with examples each, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.229.122.130 (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Ask that at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. This page is for media copyright questions. --teb728 t c 20:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Why did Image:Hard reyne.jpg get deleted?

I uploaded this image, selected the "album cover" fair use category. I was asked to add a fair use rationale [13], which I did, conforming exactly with the rules. Still, the image was deleted without further notice or explanation. Could someone please explain why the fair use rationale wasn't accepted in this case, when it does get accepted for countless other cover art images? Might help me avoid wasting my time as well as other people's in the future. Thank you in advance! Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The only problem I can see with the rationale is that it didn't specify which article(s) the image was being used in. Other than that, it looked fine to me. I'd suggest re-uploading and using this template for the rationale (bots like it, which means they don't go telling you that you haven't included a rationale when you have). I don't think you'll have any problems after that, but if you do please let us know. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
That was real quick! Thanks for clearing this up, Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Scanned images from books with potentially expired copyright status

Before I go ahead and do the work, I would like some feedback on the copyright status of images scanned from Olympic Games official reports. These date back to 1896, and are online at this website. Does the conversion to PDF by the LA84 Foundation alter the copyright status of the original publication? Could I extract images from the PDF files of some of the older reports and use them freely? How old do they need to be (I'm assuming 75 years)? Thanks for any guidance. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Scanning a public domain book does not renew the copyright. Anything published before 1923 is in the public domain. http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/ If it is a simple conversion to PDF you can extract and use the images. If an image was colorized (or extensively modified) the new image may have a valid copyright. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. The two images I'd like to use are from a 1908 publication from the United Kingdom, and a 1912 publication from Sweden. The PDF file I'm using looks to be a straight scan of the original. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 05:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed image

This album cover has been disputed. Image:Tramps Like Us.jpg I'm not sure how to correct the issue. If anyone can provide help I appreciate it. Thanks. kc12286 (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What you need to do is add a use rationale for each use as described at WP:NFURG. --teb728 t c 03:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

White Death Cover

I just got a message saying that for Image:Whitedeathcover.jpg I didn't provide a good rationale for its use. I thought I did, but guess not. I've gotten this same message before on other images, even though they are the same idea as countless other images on wiki - company logos, book covers, etc. So I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong. Any advice? Thanks. Splamo (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

See WP:NFURG for how to create a non-free use rationale. --teb728 t c 03:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec) specifically this Template:Non-free use rationale needs to be completed for each use. MBisanz talk 03:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Image:Beychok's Cover.jpg

I uploaded the subject image on August 29,2006 (well over a year ago). It is a scan of a book cover. I am the author of that book as well as the publisher and I drew the original artwork for book cover. That was clearly stated when I uploaded the image.

Earlier this evening, some bot added this tag:

{{di-disputed fair use rationale|concern=invalid rationale per [[WP:NFCC#10c]] 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.|date=February 12 2008}}

So, I went to the image's edit page and changed the license choice to Public Domain-self. Did I do the right thing??

Frankly, I don't understand why the above tag was added. I drew the original artwork for that book cover ... and I wrote the book and published it myself. So why wasn't the GFDL license sufficient? I never claimed any "fair use rationale" ... I don't even know what that means. Please help me as soon as possible. - mbeychok (talk) 05:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem was that someone had added a {{Non-free book cover}} tag. This made the image appear non-free; so it would need a use rationale. I removed both tags. --teb728 t c 06:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Vid-chains.jpg

The template was filled out when the image was uploaded. What needs to be added/changed? Bwmoll3 (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

A couple of problems: first, it lacks an image copyright tag, and second, the fair use rationale says that it's for use in the article Chains, but it does not appear in that article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright tag has been added and template edited to reflect page image is being used on. Please remove disputed fair use rationale tag. Thank you !!

Bwmoll3 (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Non-free copyright fair use templates

I just received a bot-delivered message indicating that Image:ARIARoleplaying.jpg is in danger of being speedy deleted for copyright violation, and informing me that I should go argue for the validity of the application of fair use for this image. However, as has happened numerous times before with other images, I find that the template is already in place, extensively describing why this image should be covered under fair use. Do I need to do anything after all? Is the image going to be deleted anyway? Thank you. LordAmeth (talk) 07:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The use rationale was added after the bot tagged the image. Here is the way it looked when it was first tagged. --teb728 t c 09:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:The empire strikes back newsweek.jpg

A bot delivered message indicates that the above image is tagged for deletion claiming the fair use rationale has not been provided. It has been provided for every article it is used in. Is there something up with this bot and do I need to do anything to stop it being deleted? Justin talk 08:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The bot was right: The use rationales were added only after the bot tagged the image. --teb728 t c 08:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah right, sorry. I guess that means do nothing more?Justin talk 09:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is Image:Windows Live OneCare Safety Center.png rationale invalid?

The image Image:Windows Live OneCare Safety Center.png has a fair-use rationale. A bot has messaged me on my talk page saying it's invalid but I don't know why. --Titan602 (talk) 09:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It had no use rationale when the bot tagged it. Here is the way it was then. --teb728 t c 10:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

PHOTOS OF BRITISH AND GERMAN SHIPS OF FIRST WORLD WAR

Dear Sirs,

I am a Spanish Naval Architect, today retired. I am writting a new book about the Jutlandia battle. As nown by you, thsi battle is more or less unkonwn in Spain and also in Southamerica. By this reason, and in order to show the naval technoclogy I need to include in my book a lot of photos of British and German ships included in Wikipedia.

The main reason of this question is request your official permission for including on my book the photos of the British and German warships, some of then, included in old publications of the 30 and the 40 years.

My name is Luis López Palancar, and my e-mail is [removed for privacy] My adress is [removed for privacy]

I remain waiting for your news about this very important question, in order to finishing my book

best Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.121.148.35 (talk) 13:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You will have to contact the copyright holder of each image. If you click on the image in the article, you will get to the image page, where such details should be stated. Some images may be in the public domain, but you should still make sure this applies to the territory where you wish to use the image. Tyrenius (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Spain is EU so life +70 although obviously that wouldn't have any impact on crown copyright expired.Geni 21:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Dennis Weatherby photo

My photo I added of Dennis Weatherby got deleted. I am trying to figure out the opyright stuff. The photo that I would like to add is here: http://studentsuccess.nku.edu/weatherby.aspx What needs to be done? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsmithq (talk • contribs) 15:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You'll need to add an image copyright tag - {{Non-free fair use in|Dennis Weatherby]] is probably the one to go with. Then you need to add a fair use rationale; there's a template here. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

copyright tag

I have just uploaded an image but I forgot to give it a copyright tag and I don't know how now. I made the image myself using paint and I don't care who uses it as long as they don't claim it's theirs. Queenofsapphires (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The {{PD-self}} tag which you have now added is adequate. --teb728 t c 18:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

reworking of an already existing wiki image

This image was flagged up by BetacommandBot; [14]

As stated on the image, it is just a reworking of an already existing image, here; [15] to reduce its resolution and improve its quality.

There is no option to highlight that on the submission form.

If someone can help, I am happy to learn--Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have solved the problem by replacing the "Non-free / fair use media" template, which confused the Bot, with a correct PD one. Tyrenius (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:J-R Large in 2007.jpg.

Good Day,

I am the author of the image lister above. I like to add it to Josaphat-Robert Large's file, but do not know how to indicate the copyright. Woul you help?

Jacob1988 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob1988 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You need to edit it’s image description page and add an image copyright tag, indicating which license you authorize use of your image. If for example you license it under the GFDL license, use the {{GFDL-self}} tag, or if you release it to the public domain, use the {{PD-self}} tag. --teb728 t c 06:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

ICT QUESTION

Discuss design techniques and uses in teaching learning process —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.220.91.5 (talk) 09:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That isn't a copyright question. Don't expect an answer here. --teb728 t c 17:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Try Wikipedia:Reference desk. Stifle (talk) 12:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Photographs of Copyrighted characters

I have photographs of several aleins and monsters from Doctor Who taken at the Doctor Who exhibition in Cardiff. Are these images even though they are taken by me still subject to copyright because they are of Doctor Who characters? Million_Moments (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

My memory on this is murky, but as far as I remember, UK law says that the copyright is held jointly by you and the BBC, so you would need a release from the BBC in order to upload the photos here. Stifle (talk) 12:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

edit the page protect by admin

I want to upload the page of FRANCO ANGELONI and it not copyright because i am the person who will do for him but the text that i put it the same of his webpage then i will re-do again but then the wikipedia was block and i can not edit anything

please help and sugguest me thanks Nicky —Preceding unsigned comment added by Distantangel (talk • contribs) 21:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Put {{editprotected}} on the talk page of the article you want to edit along with details of the edit you want made. Stifle (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Vid-oywh.jpg

The fair use template was created when the image was uploaded. What needs to be added/changed ? Bwmoll3 (talk) 02:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

As above. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright tag has been added. Please remove disputed fair use rationale tag. Thank you !!

Bwmoll3 (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It still has the wrong article in the rationale. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Tag updated with article name Bwmoll3 (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Anon 76.171.165.74

...has been tagging a lot of images for wont of fair use rationale and for the only one I looked at, he did not notify the uploader and it's been 5 days since he tagged it. I just notified the uploader because I happened to stumble across it. This leaves him with just 24 hours to fill out the form and post it. I think that deadline should be extended because he wasn't notified per policy (and common courtesy). I also think all of the anon's taggings should be called into question. They were all made on February 6. Should the uploader know the policy? Absolutely. But he still deserves to be notified if he has neglected something. -- §HurricaneERICarchive 02:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks for completely not listening. I really appreciate it. So much for doing the right thing and trying to help people. Kindness is so overrated. -- §HurricaneERICarchive 22:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Image question

Is a monthly bus pass like this Image:Tramzone6.png belongs to public domain? The company that operates it is a public one. AMT oversees that the public transportation around Montréal goes smoothly and manages and finances projects. --Party!Talk to me! 02:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

In a word, no. A public company can have a copyright like any other. --teb728 t c 03:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Investigating on the website of the publisher, espically THIS link [16] (It's in french). But it says that this copy may be used for strictly personnal use and no lucrative and commercial uses. To be sure, i have contacted the AMT and i will get the reply and i'll confirm with OTRS --Party!Talk to me! 14:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Meanwhile, I've deleted the image as per CSD:I7 (invalid fair use type, it was tagged as currency). If we do get a release for it, we can restore it, and if we can justify fair use, then it can be restored but will need to be reduced in size. Stifle (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed copyright of apparent tv screenshot

The data on Image:Glenn glenn 2-11-99.jpg say that it was self-made by the uploader who released it into the public domain. However, it is apparently, even from the text in the image itself, a screenshot from a television program. I don't think the uploader is likely to own the copyright to be able to release it. Would someone take a look at it, please? Aleta (Sing) 03:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Image speedied as copyvio. Stifle (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Advice on Image:Ghey.jpg

This image was uploaded earlier this month as is being used to vandalize Wittenberg University. I'm pretty sure that the base image is copyright protected and doubt that we need this image in the database at all. What do others think? Pairadox (talk) 05:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Image speedied as vandalism. Stifle (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Cas-yw.jpg

The fair use template was used and filled out for this image. What other information is needed? Bwmoll3 (talk) 12:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a fair use rationale for the article Only What I Feel, but not the article You Will (Patty Loveless song) on which the image is used. -- Ratarsed (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright tag has been added and image fair use rational template has been edited. Please remove disputed fair use rationale tag. Thank you !!

Bwmoll3 (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The fair use rationale still has the wrong article in it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Image updated with proper article name Bwmoll3 (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Public Domain photograph made by someone else.

I have contributed many self made photos to Wikipedia, all as public domain. Some of these are from my web site (www.swtpc.com/mholley). I also want to contribute some photos that were made by others at my request. (Think of them as a work for hire.) They have been published on my site as public domain. I have releases for the photos to be used as public domain. What copyright tag do I use?

I have uploaded a photo like this and used PD-author. Image:TV Typewriter Kit 1.jpg Is this correct? I have an explicit public domain notice on my web site for this photo. http://www.swtpc.com/mholley/TV_Typewriter/Rethemeyer.htm -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 05:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely correct way to do it, assuming you do validly hold the copyright (i.e. you must have paid the others something for the image). Stifle (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Are fonts copyrighted?

I was working on moving free images to Commons when I came across Image:Zapfino.svg. This image specifically represents a font that, according to the article Zapfino, was created in 1998. Are fonts not themselves copyrighted? At least the specialty ones like this? And if it is copyrighted, then am I correct that this is not a free image and that the uploader was incorrect in claiming GFDL for it? If necessary, I can and will write up a fair-use rationale to cover its use in Zapfino if not the other articles. But I want to make sure it really is non-free first. Ipoellet (talk) 06:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say that the image is {{PD-ineligible}} instead of GFDL. Whatever intellectual property there is in a font must reside in the font file. If I have a legal copy of a font file, I have a right to use it, and I (not the font designer) own the copyright on my printed text. --teb728 t c 08:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Electronic representations of typefaces - i.e. .ttf files have been held to be eligable for copyright in the US, however a jpg/gif/png/svg of some (otherwise free) text written using a font is generally ineligible for copyright in the US. See [17] etc. Megapixie (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
If the image was just characters in a font, I'd agree, but there is some creative work gone into laying out the text, choosing shades of grey, etc., which entitles the uploader to claim copyright. Stifle (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Good information. Thanks, all. Ipoellet (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No Derivative Works

At my request a photographer changed a copyright status from non-commercial for the purpose of letting an image be used in wikipedia. He chose CC "Attribution-No Derivative Works 2.0 Generic". Is this free enough? - Steve3849 talk 15:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No. The no-derivatives CC licenses are not free for the purposes of Wikipedia; the only permitted optional attribute is ShareAlike. (Attribution is included in all current CC licenses and is fine.) Stifle (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Cicmty.jpg

I used the fair use template and completed it per instructions provided in this forum. Now the bot is flagging it. What needs to be done to correct this problem ? Bwmoll3 (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You have provided a use rationale for Patty Loveless (album), but it is not used in that article. There is no use rationale for Lonely Days, Lonely Nights, where it is used. --teb728 t c 21:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Image tag updated with "Lonely Days, Lonely Nights" page Bwmoll3 (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.

Just got hit with a "Disputed fair use rational". Here is the thing. I think that it is fantastic some wikipedians are all into more and stricter rules, but that image, and some of the other images I uploaded in 2004 and 2005, pre-date all these new rationals and rules. I wonder how much material is and will be lost from wikipedia because of new rules resulting in the deletion of old material that was legitimately uploaded and maybe the user is now inactive?

A corporate logo of a government on that governments page is obviously subject to fair use. The issue wasn't the use, it was that it didn't meet new rules. Surely we can do better than this? WayeMason (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You'd be better taking the discussion to WP:NFCC. Ultimately wikipedia is about building a "free" encyclopedia, this means limiting the vast amount of non-free images that we use as much as possible. One way to do this is to strictly police images to make sure they meet the usage criteria. The sheer size of wikipedia makes automating this the only practical way to do it. Megapixie (talk) 06:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Groove Coverage

I was just peacefully browsing Wikipedia when out of the blue I got notifications on my talk page regarding non-compliance of all of the covers there (at least so it seems). My question is the following (regarding NFCC#10c): Why do I need to list the pages on which the images are used? Is that why not Wikipedia has exactly that feature: 'This image appears on the following pages: etc. etc.' ? The fair-use rationale is the same: it is an image of the band's work and damages the band's image or decreases their profits in no way at all, if that's what the bot is concerned about. More and more I see Wikipedia becoming a shadow of what it once was. Policies over policies, with people with nothing better to do than bots running left and right deleting 'non-free' content. Has Wikipedia EVER gotten a claim of copyright infringement or something along those lines? Because if they have, I've never heard anything about it and I guess it would've been a rather noisy scandal.

Oh well, I'll probably not solve anything by saying this is totally useless and unneeded. In the past, people actually used Wikipedia as a reliable source of information. Right now it seems to just aim to become grandma's old encyclopedia written on half-a-century old paper, with no pictures (because THEY'RE NOT FAIR-USE!!!!!! ZOMGOMGOMGZ!)

I do hope you're happy with how you're determining people to be less interested in Wikipedia. First no images for individual episodes in TV Series, then this... I wonder, why not remove the images for Metallica's albums? Nah, you don't really have the guts to do that, do you? I hope everybody's happy with how everything on Wiki seems to be becoming controlled by hypocrite no-life rule-fanatics. I hoped I could actually help every once in a while, but I guess not. Do with your own, you've already got enough. » byeee 00:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If you read the templates, you will discover that it's fairly simple to add a fair use rationale to the image. Otherwise I would suggest using the talk page on WP:NFCC to express your displeasure. If you don't understand the goals of wikipedia (or agree with them) then perhaps you are better off not contributing. Megapixie (talk) 06:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Scott Hahn / Rome Sweet Home

Since I happened to notice that it had been tagged for a free-use rationale, and I happen to have bought the book recently (so have the details within reach) I've just added a free-use rationale at Image:Home-rome.jpg for the use of the cover of a book as an illustration in Scott Hahn, the article about the main author of the work (also the work for which he is best known). I didn't upload it, and I have no idea whether the details provided suffice; nor am I convinced that the article would suffer unduly by the image's absence. --Paularblaster (talk) 01:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks okay to me. Megapixie (talk) 06:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Tower Ramparts.jpg

I'm unsure about the legality of the licence for Image:Tower Ramparts.jpg -- To quote the image description page "Print-screened from the Ipswich Buses website"; would I be right in thinking this (may be) a copyright violation? -- Ratarsed (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. On top of that, it's easily replaceable (someone could draw a map and release it under a free license) so can't even be used as fair use. Stifle (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

fair use, lo res version

Even before i photoshoped the hell out of it, this is a lo res version of a copy of a copy of a reprint, and is covered under fair use. Image:Dorothyhale.jpg but i can't quite figure out how to tag it. sorry, stupid newbie. EraserGirl (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I've made the necessary changes. Note that there is a reasonable possibility that the image is in the public domain, but that we can't be sure without knowing the identity of the publisher. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree this image is probably in public domain, as the photographer has probably been dead for ages, and the NYT reprinted it with her obituary. But since it's never going to look any better either tag will work. thanks EraserGirl (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I still having problems with licensing on this image. Image:Dorothyhale.jpg can someone please look at it and tell me how to change it, so it doesn't get flagged for deletion? It came from a pdf of the NYT obit, which was already a scanned photocopy. I had to remove all the half tone dots and adjust it a great deal just to get a workable image. I don't know the source of the original image, but you can sure the photographer is dead or perhaps 110 years old and was NOT in the employ of the NYT. the NYT didn't care who this woman was until she jumped off a building. So, this highly doctored copy is far and away a much reduced version the original, and being used to illustrate the subject. It comes under fair use, but it seems I can't get rid of the notations that it does not. EraserGirl (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
You're actually not having problems; all that happened was that the resolution of the picture was reduced to conform to our fair use policies. Everything's fine now, and now action is required. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
My mistake - I was just looking at the image page and not at your talk page. All that's happened on your talk page is that User:Stifle wanted you to add details about the author. Since you don't know them, just leave it blank. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thank you, i guess i misread the labeling. so much to learn all at once. and I think i need to do a link back to the article from the image. EraserGirl (talk) 03:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

City Seals

What is the licens for city seals, for example the one at the bottom right of this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjrmtg (talk • contribs) 20:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably {{coatofarms}}. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Coat of arms copyright

I wanted to know what license I should upload an image of a coat of arms under. If they're not public, my guess is that either the family owns them, or the Sovereign. Please respond on my talk page. Jonjames1986 (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Coats of arms are a curious old thing. See, the definition of a coat of arms (the blazon), which usually goes back several hundred years, is subject to copyright (if it hasn't expired). Each drawing or depiction of the coat of arms is an individual artist's interpretation of the blazon and is copyrighted itself. So you would either need to get permission from the particular person that drew the coat of arms you are uploading or else use {{coatofarms}} along with a proper rationale. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

uploaded image

I recently uploaded an image which accidentally went to the wrong file and created a new page. I do not know how to delete this error.Adrian142 (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Go to the image page (if you can't find it, check your contributions, click Edit at the top, and add the text {{db-author}}. An administrator will see it and delete the page. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

BUAV images

This image Image:BUAVCambridge2.jpg was uploaded from the BUAV website, which clearly states "all rights reserved". The image is reproduced in its entirety and the fair use template is filled out. The image is the cover image for a BUAV action campaign at http://www.buav.org/zerooption/index.html. I question that the Significance criteria is met from Wikipedia:Non-free_content. I also question whether the fair use criteria are met, as the image is reproduced at full resolution from the BUAV website (ie: the entire image is used and its copyright is held by BUAV and the website states all rights reserved). Specifically, I think it should be removed unless BUAV offers its use for Wikipedia. --Animalresearcher (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I think that fair use applies here. Stifle (talk) 10:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What do I have to do to fix this problem?

I'm what you would considered a intermediate wikipedian, meaning I don't know all the rules and regulations yet, espcially when it comes to image citiations. I never even uploaded an image before on here, let alone know how to do it. With that said, there's an image that was tagged for deletion that I feel strongly about saving. I don't know if I have the ability to save the image, but I'm willing to give it a shot. As a first-timer doing this, I may need a tutor or an extensive step-by-step instruction manual for this. What do I have to do to make sure this particular image avoids deletion? A message on my talk page would be greatly appreciated.

Image:DealorNoDealMissUSA.jpg

S3884h (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What you need to do is provide a use rationale for each use, explaining why this non-free image should be used there despite Wikipedia’s preference for not using non-free content. See the non-free use rationale guideline. Pay particular attention to explaining how it satisfies WP:NFCC#8: “Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.” --teb728 t c 08:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Cge-mixes-cd.jpg

Have added the appropriate tags to the image. Please remove the deletion notice. Thank You!! Bwmoll3 (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you haven't added a fair use rationale for its use in the article Can't Get Enough (Patty Loveless song), so therefore we can't remove the deletion tag. Stifle (talk) 10:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Grottologo.jpg

I have been able to provide everything except the source for the FUR, and the uploader is on wikibreak. Can the deletion notice be removed for the time being in order to allow enough time for him to add in the source? MSJapan (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No. However, if the image is deleted before the uploader returns to specify the source, the image can be restored (by listing here, at WP:DRV, or on my talk page). Stifle (talk) 10:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Logos for the Center for Middle Eastern Studies

Hi, I have put logos from the Center for Middle Eastern Studies on the website and I get messages stating that they are not properly attributed. How do I correct this. I work for the center and their use should fall under fair usage. They are al-Sharq-logo.gif and Cmes-at-uofc.gif.

For the al-Sharq-logo.gif, the message reads: "The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days.

For the Cmes-at-uofc.gif, the message reads: "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." I thought I did those things, please advise.

Rashman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rashman (talk • contribs) 23:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You need to edit Image:Al-sharq-logo.gif and Image:Cmes-at-uofc.gif to provide use rationales. See WP:NFURG. You can use the {{Logo fur}} template. --teb728 t c 08:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this a copyright violation?

Does Denplan#About_Denplan

... charge their patients a fixed monthly fee, based on the condition of their teeth and gums, which provides them with regular examinations and treatment. The stable income that this system provides means that dentists can focus on quality of care rather than the quantity of patients they see. Dentists can practise at the highest standards, whilst retaining independence and control of their business.
...
Denplan emphasises the importance of preventive dentistry, with the objective of maintaining healthy teeth and gums for life. Patients know exactly what their care will cost and the treatment it will cover, thus avoiding unexpected large bills and enabling them to plan and budget ahead for their care.

violate copyright of this[18]?

... charging patients a fixed monthly fee based on the condition of their teeth and gums, which covered the costs of regular examinations and routine treatment. The stable income that this system would provide meant that dentists could focus on quality of care rather than the quantity of patients they saw. Dentists would be able to practice at the standard that they wanted to, while retaining independence and control of their business.
...
Denplan emphasises the importance of preventive dentistry rather than repair, with the objective of maintaining healthy teeth and gums for life. Patients know exactly what their care will cost and the treatment their payments will cover, thus avoiding unexpected large bills and enabling them to plan ahead and budget for their care.

It was a word-for-word copy. I tagged the section as copyright violation, then an editor changed a few words. Has it been changed enough to not infringe? Sbowers3 (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a noticeboard for media copyright questions, i.e. images and pages in the Image namespace. Please see WP:CP for discussion about text that violates copyright. Stifle (talk) 10:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Gillcloseup.jpg

What is the problem here? The source is cited. The article linked to is included. The rationale is clear. Chances of finding a free 1974-era picture of the subject in question without going to extraordinary lengths is very slim. This is another bot-generated tag that points to a policy document when all of the contitions appear to have been met. DarkAudit (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

He is still alive, therefore a new photograph could be taken and released under a free license. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
And how do you suggest you make him appear as he did when he was an active jumper, before the accident which paralyzed him for life? The photograph is intended to show him as he was during his active period. 35 years ago. DarkAudit (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The template has been removed and restored with the same "still alive" argument as the reason. There is no explanation offered as how to use an image taken now to reflect the appearance of the subject as he appeared when he was actively involved in the profession for which he is notable. Because his career ended with a jump that paralyzed him in 1974, there is no reasonable way that any image taken of him now can show him as he was 34 years ago and performing his craft. DarkAudit (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

speedy deletion notice? why?

as wiki instruction I did forward email the copyright holder giving permission to wikipedia to use the image freely and unrestricted from my email account but when I had to choose in licensing there was only three choices none fits so I chose the one says free to wiki only! there was no other choice with free to wiki unrestricted!abubakr (talk) 12:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You need to specify the license under which it's being released - e.g. the GNU free documentation license. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not accept images which are permitted for use on Wikipedia only. That goes against the concept of creating a free encyclopedia. Stifle (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Just a note, as I understand it the images were released appropriately, but Adnanmuf couldn't find the appropriate tag in the dropdown menu, so he just selected "use on Wikipedia only". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Images

Hello! I am working for the Wake Forest University Press and I was asked to upload photos of certain Irish poets. We own the photos but I don't know how to tag them. Please help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingja09 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you prepared to release them under a free license such as the GNU Free Documentation License? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

copyright problems with images

I recently updated a page by adding a picture of the band to the Blue Cheer page, however i am getting messagea saying that it is without a license and problems with copyright, and how do i add a copyright tag, or just tell me how i can ge these messages away :)

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocknroll69 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Those images are almost certainly under copyright. Unless you know who the copyright holder is and can persuade him/her to release the images under a free license, they're likely not usable on Wikipedia (although there may be a fair use case for using one of them in the Blue Cheer article - I'm not familiar with precedent on defunct bands where the members remain living but there are no free images of them back before they were defunct). Do you know who owns the copyright? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

problems to upload images

Hi, I'm in constant trouble with images and copyright, which is driving me mad. Lately, I've included 2 images in wikipedia Kirikoketa and one of them is liable for speedy deleition. I've inserted much information, I took both thumbs from a website and asked by email for permission, which I was granted. However, it's still rejected no matter what license I pick or what info I write down.

Now, I've got a mind to insert another picture too in wikipedia txalaparta, but I don't want the same message (speedy deleition...); this new image would be a copyleft larger image I've got in my computer, while originally it was in a website I can't find now (it seems it is not running now and has been replaced by a new web version).

So I don't what more and I ask for your help. Thanks in advance

Insert your hints in my talk please. Iñaki LL (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Iñaki LL - without seeing the images in question, I can't be sure of what went wrong. My best guess at this point is that when you got permission from the image owners, you got permission for use on Wikipedia only. Unfortunately, this is (paradoxically) insufficient permission for use on Wikipedia. We require all of our images to be free, meaning either in the public domain or released under a free license such as the GNU Free Documentation License. Does this answer your question? If not, please provide more detail, especially the link to the images in question. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Licensing images by Al Hirschfeld

Our Gallery represents the artist Al Hirschfeld. We represented him for decades during his life, and now represent his estate. All of Hirschfeld’s work is copyrighted. We noticed that Wikipedia includes Hirschfeld’s drawings to illustrate the biographies of people that are discussed in Wikipedia. We have not licensed the use of this material. However, under certain circumstances we would be pleased to do so. Would you be kind enough to have the appropriate person contact us by telephone at [phone number removed for privacy] so that proper arrangements can be made for the use of Hirschfeld’s drawings. Very truly yours Margo Feiden. www.alhirschfeld.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.241.201 (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for calling this to our attention. Wikipedia accepts only licenses that permit reuse by anyone for anything. My guess is that would not be acceptable to you. Without such a free license Wikipedia uses images only under a fair use doctrine. I found only two places where Hirschfeld images were used to illustrate biographies. Are you aware of any others?
  • Image:RuthieHenshall.jpg was used to illustrate Ruthie Henshall. This use was a clear violation of Wikipedia’s policy on non-free content, and I removed it.
  • Image:Image-FredAllenHirschfeld.jpg is used on Fred Allen. The uploader claimed it was licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License. In light of your comments this claim seems doubtful, and I will flag the claim for review. Without such a license the use would be contrary to Wikipedia policy.
--teb728 t c 21:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Just a note: I've contacted Ms. Feiden by e-mail to draw her attention to your response, since her request for a phone call suggested that she was unlikely to check back here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

tag a copy right

– — … ° ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § how do i tag a copy right? Fariba19 (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This page might help. If it doesn't, please clarify your question, and we'll do our best to answer it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

About Image:Hawk1.jpg

I had no involvement in its uploading I only reverted it to previous version, please talk to User talk:MotleyRock1 about it. --BionicWilliam (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the Bot automatically notified everybody who had modified the picture, including both yourself and MotleyRock. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


Image:KainPriests.jpg

I uploaded the image moments ago, and state in its description that it is the property of Eidos Interactive. However, it was still tagged as having no copyright information. Also, will I have to make changes to Image:Raziel Battles Janos.jpg and Image:Raziel Fighting the Guardians.jpg as well? I have no experience uploading images, I filled out the information forms to the best of my ability but obviously I did something wrong somewhere. The Clawed One (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I provided a copyright tag for you for the first image. I see that you have provided tags for the other two. --teb728 t c 02:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. The Clawed One (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Military Insignia

I've noticed that this image [[19]] is going to be removed unless its non-free use rationale is rewritten. It is an example of a military insignia, and is low resolution, so it should be covered if the rationale is properly worded. But I don't know how to do it, ....so if someone else does.... Meowy 22:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you take this photo? Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm think a GFDL-tagged image is copyrighted

I believe that Image:Armidale Class Patrol Boat.jpg is incorrectly tagged as GDFL-self and may be copyrighted.

There are identical images around the web. In particular, this image is part of a series of photographs of the subject (Armidale class patrol boat HMAS Larrakia (ACPB 84) during sea trials) displayed on the Austal website (the manufacturer of this class of ship) The photographs are located at [20] :scroll down to the "photo and video gallery", this image is either the fourth or fifth image in the top row. The website and its contents (including images) are copyrighted to the company.

Some of the other online appearances are attributed to Austal, such as this Australian Department of Defence online newsletter, where the image is tagged "Photo reproduced with permission from Austal Ships". Others have an Austal logo integrated into the image, like this forum posting uploaded 2-3 weeks before the image first appeared on Wikipedia.

These appearances lead me to believe that this is an official photograph belonging to Austral Ships, and as such is copyrighted.

What is the process from here? -- saberwyn 05:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added the image in question to WP:PUI. I'm almost certain you're right about the image's copyright status. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
All GFDL images are copyrighted. I think what you mean is that the image is plagiarized, and the copyright holder is not the one who tagged it. Superm401 - Talk 07:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Skegness-postcard.jpg

This image is tagged as a copyright image, and there is a disputed fair use rationale tag on the Skegness railway station article.

However, I believe this image should be a copyright expired image, as it shows an advertising poster of the Great Northern Railway, which ceased to exist on 31 December 1922. What is the correct procedure here? Be bold and change it, or get opinion on it? Mjroots (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh public domain in the UK is life+70 something published pre 1922 could well be under copyright.Geni 21:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I know very little about UK copyright. This poster appears to be a work for hire. The railroad company had one or more people make this poster to their specifications. The company ceased to exist in December 1922. The life (of the company) + 70 is 1993. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
UK law always works from life of the author even in cases of work for hire (only exception is UK gov). The life of the company isn't important.Geni 01:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, so if the author is unknown, what is the situation? Mjroots (talk) 07:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Still life+70. If you don't know when/if the person died that is legaly your problem.Geni 08:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, if the author is completely unknown then it becomes 70 years from publication. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
So it would be correct to retag this as copyright expired then? Mjroots (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
No UK law would be unlikely to consider this a case of author unknown.Geni 22:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Screenshots of Wikipedia pages

I want to upload a screenshot of part of a Wikipedia page, to include on a talk page to illustrate how something is being rendered incorrectly. I can't work out an appropriate option in the upload wizard. It's not really "my own work" but neither is it "not free content". --Dr Greg (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've now discovered the answer elsewhere. The correct licence is {{wikipedia-screenshot}}. --Dr Greg (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Corrected WP:NFCC#10c violation

Used are Fisher House logo (Image:Fisher House logo.JPEG) under Fair Use rationale for article on Fisher House Foundation. However, in justifation box, article cited was "Fisher House" vice "Fisher House Foundation". As result, there was no direct link to article using image. Have corrected this so there is now direct link to article using logo image. This elimates WP:NFCC#10c violation. Believe rest of my Fair Use justificcation is complete/appropriate. Request speedy review of Image:Fisher House logo.JPEG by senior editor. Thanks!--Orygun (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Y Done Megapixie (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to note that there are no "senior editors" on Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Only party members in good standing.... your papers are not in order. :) Megapixie (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Township Map

I have a map of a township from 1873. I don't know where to begin with the licensing. Jiffilube 04:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If the map was first published in the USA prior to 1923, use {{PD-US}}. Otherwise, if its author died before 1908, use {{PD-old}}. If neither applies, {{PD-US-1996}} might do it. Stifle (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Geometric information on Wikipedia

Their logo is the same as seen on their official website. Sunita3003 (talk) 06:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Was there some media copyright question you were intending to ask? —teb728 t c 08:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Sumitra Peries image

The image name "Sumitra.jpg" is living person and retrieved from the Website relating to her biography. Please let me know the Copyright status of this image. Thank you, --Lanka07 (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not valid for use on Wikipedia as it is a copyrighted non-free image of a living person, which could easily be replaced by taking a free photograph. Please tag the image {{db-author}} and remove it from her article. Stifle (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Problem in choosing License

I want to upload this [21] image and i got permission by the Admin(usmanshabir@pakdef.info) of the Website(http://www.pakdef.info/). Now when i choose the license that the copyright holder gave me permission to use the image here at Wikipedia, the image gets tagged for CSD. Can anyone help me how to upload this image? Thanks! --SMS Talk 15:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi SMS - unfortunately, it's a trap! Getting permission to use an image on Wikipedia isn't actually enough to use it on Wikipedia; instead, the image needs to be released either into the public domain or under a free license, such as the GNU Free Documentation License. All images tagged as being for use on Wikipedia only are automatically tagged for CSD for that reason. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

OrphanBot and removing images from articles

I have question about the policy on removing images pending deletion from articles. It appears that OrphanBot removes images tagged as "unknown copyright status" from articles even before the seven-day window is over. Is there a reason for this? It seems as if it would reduce the visibility of the pending deletion and thus decrease the chance of someone correcting the problem before deletion. Powers T 15:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

A friend's photo

In [22] I have been accused of not convening with guidelines for uploading Image:Heim51.gif. Now the photo was taken by a friend of mine, Illobrand Von Ludwiger. He gave me his permission to use it. I don't have time to wade through legal jargon that is probably inapplicable in my case so can some nerd out there spell in out in one or two sentences rather than reams of gobbledeegook? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdeasy (talk • contribs) 18:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

There are a couple of possibilities here. Normally, to use a photo on Wikipedia it needs to be released into the public domain or under a free license such as the GNU Free Documentation License, which your friend doesn't seem to have done (giving permission for use on Wikipedia is not sufficient). It would be good if you could check with him to see if he would be prepared to do so, and then change the tag as appropriate (see here for help in determining what tag would be appropriate). If he's not prepared to do that, since the subject is deceased there's probably a fair use rational for using the photo in his article (assuming there are no free photos of the subject). To do that, you'll need to attach a fair use rationale here's a template that should help.
I hope this was helpful. Please feel free to ask any follow up questions that you may have. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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

I just uploaded this and I'm sure the TN GOP would not object to its use so can someone official contact them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by M1rth (talk • contribs) 20:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has very few official people and they generaly don't have time to deal with requesting images.Geni 22:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Moreover, in addition to requiring the release of the photo under a free license by the Republicans (not just permission for its use on Wikipedia), we would require the same release from whoever took the photo and from whoever committed the Photoshop alteration (presumably the Memphis Flyer).
All of that said, I think there's a strong fair use rationale here. Thoughts? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I added an appropriate copyright tag and use rationale. —teb728 t c 03:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Please delete

Can someone please delete Image:Dantis no madinna.jpg. Not only did i misspell madonna, but i had my friend upload one of better quality for No Madonna. Thanks Grk1011 (talk) 02:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You can delete the image yourself by tagging it with {{db-author}} Megapixie (talk) 02:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

What Source Would I Use on a Picture I Downloaded From the Internet

I've been reading the articles about LDS Church presidents, and noticed that The "Thomas S Monson" article has no picture. I have a picture of him that I downloaded off the internet, but is saved to my computer. I was wondering What source I should use. Picture on Internet: link removed by author due to linking to a copyrighted picture.

Any Help Appriciated. Bigbrainkid (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that image is not usable on Wikipedia, as it is a copyrighted image of a living person that hasn't been released under a free license. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. It's still a cool picture though. But I guess I wont be able to use it on Wikipedia, once again thanks for your help. Bigbrainkid (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

PD-USA?

Are the images on this page in the public domain? I'm not sure. --Haemo (talk) 02:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say yes, their produced by a federal agency, for a product of the federal government, that was designed and is run by the federal government, on a federal website. MBisanz talk 03:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

uploaded image of German WW2 film

Per the discussions half way up this page, I uploaded using the Fair

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Do17z_wikifilm.jpg

It is not a "movie screen shot" per se since it of the media and not a showing, but it was most appropriate I thought. Please review and see if acceptable.

PS, I added all the details I know about this, a bit of reading!  :-) PPS, will add to other appropriate topics soon.

--Flightsoffancy (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Stifle (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
You need to add a fair use rationale for all the articles in which the image is used, not just one. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The rational is self evident, what do you need in text? --Flightsoffancy (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyright question

Let me start by saying that I have little experience with images on WP, and I know little about the copyright concerns that involve them. I do, however, have some problems with possible fishy information in the article Julian Z. Gilbert and was inspired by them to investigate the images therein. The two images Image:Gilbert Julian Snowbirds Seriograph.JPG and Image:Gilbert Julian Riverboat lithograph.JPG were tagged by a bot a few days ago for lack of licensing information, and the tags were deleted by an anon IP without addressing the problem that the bot was reacting to. I've restored the tags. Whether or not the artist's heirs own the copyright to the artist's works, the images in question are clearly direct copies of this and this—two images from EBay auctions—as is made clear by their bearing the watermarks of the Ebay uploader. Have I done the right thing in retagging them? Is there anything more I should do to address the seeming violation of the rights of the direct source of these particular images? Deor (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the {{subst:nld}} does quite nicely. Stifle (talk) 12:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Note that the uploader, User:Mctrain, has been associated with the Barbaro family hoax, a previous one of the Barbaro hoaxers attempted to use ebay sources to verify their claims. And I don't think those signatures say "Gilbert Julian". Corvus cornixtalk 20:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
And note that Mctrain is repeatedly removing the request for copyright despite the watermark on the images which clearly show that they were taken from ebay. Corvus cornixtalk 20:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Mctrain has now tagged them with {{copyrightedFreeUseProvided}} , despite the lack of evidence that the uploader is really the copyright holder. Corvus cornixtalk 23:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

BetaCommandBot and NFCC10c - New discussion page

I have created the folowing page Wikipedia:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c to attempt to centralise discussion on BCB and specifically its NFCC10c tagging operation.
MickMacNee (talk) 14:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Three possibly public domain pics

Could someone confirm whether these are public domain pics?

Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

1) No UK law is life+70 not just 70 2) very probably PD. 3)doubful. Frank Hurley may have aquired a US copyright at some point the guy was a professional photographer.Geni 17:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I changed 2. Someone else changed 3 and I agree. If it was published before 1923, then doesn't that make it PD regardless? 1 would be nice, but I guess someone will write a fair-use rationale if they think it is needed in the article. Carcharoth (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Studio portraits of actors

I would like to address the subject of the copyright status of movie and television studio portraits of actors. By these, I mean photographs meant to publicize the actor as a personality, and not still photos taken in costume or in character on the set of a particular production. The kind of photos studios and television networks would send out to newspapers and magazines to publicize the actor.

Wikipedia currently has a policy of almost never allowing the use of these images, out of the belief that they are under copyright. And so, Wikipedia editors must resort to using low quality screen captures of the actors from movie trailers that are not under copyright, or screen captures from public domain motion pictures the actors may have appeared in. Because of this over caution, many articles on actors are left without any photo at all.

As a law student going into the specialty of intellectual property, and as someone who formerly worked in the industry, I am very familiar with materials and the issues involved. And that is why I can state this was some confidence: the U.S. copyrights of studio and network issued publicity photographs published before 1964 were virtually never renewed after their first 28-year term.

Studio and network issued publicity photos (both production stills and actor portraits) were virtually never registered for copyright, although the photos usually bore a copyright notice. The copyright notice alone protected the photo for its first 28-year copyright term. But a copyright could not be renewed for a second term until it was registered within its first 28-year term.

I have never found one instance of a copyright renewal for a pre-1964 studio or network publicity photograph in the online U.S. Copyright Catalog. This online catalog contains all renewals made from 1978 forward, hence it would contain the renewal (if it was made) of any work originally published from 1950 to 1963. (For works first published from 1964 through 1977, copyright renewal was automatic; works first published from 1978 onward are given one continuous term of copyright.)

If virtually no renewals exist for studio portrait photos first published 1950–1963, it is just as unlikely that any renewals exist for studio portrait photos first published 1923–1949.

I can perhaps understand Wikipedia's reluctance to consider production still photos from motion pictures and television shows to be in the public domain, because even if the still photo itself was not under its own copyright, it may have a derivative copyright from the film or television program it depicts. But in the case of a studio portrait of an actor, not depicting any particular production, there can be no such derivative copyright. The portrait photo stands on its own.

Can it be stated with confidence that the copyright on a studio portrait photo has never been renewed? No, which is why I say "virtually never". It is always possible that a handful of the copyrights, out of thousands, have been renewed. But the vast majority have not. Thus it is a shame to let a valuable source of public domain images go by unused out of a fear of copyright infringement, a fear not justified by the facts.

Proposed: that studio and television network issued portrait photos of actors published before 1964 be considered, by default, out of copyright and permissible for the use of illustrating the actor in articles.

I welcome any discussion. — Walloon (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well let me pick out the first point "virtually never renewed". I.e. some of the time, occasionally, once in a while. As a lawyer (who could be sued for malpractice) - would you suggest that a client do something that could result in a massive lawsuit "occasionally" on the grounds that it "hardly ever happens". The issue is that people will take images we tag as "okay to use" and use them. Use them a lot (A lot being more than a few by a bunch). Should this result in someone's copyright image being plastered across the internet, we would be largely responsible for that. How do you think that would play in court? "We couldn't be bother to check the status we just assumed it was okay". Not too well I think.
We already have a number of tags for the special cases - see {{PD-US}}, and these address the special cases, and ask that some evidence be provided so the status can be verified.
Further discussion is best served on WP:Copyrights talk page. Megapixie (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair use pictures are allowed, in many cases - especially when a photo showing what an actor looked like in his heyday. So it doesn't sound like much of a stretch to make a blanket allowance for these photos. -Freekee (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I would strongly disagree with this. If a person is still alive then a fair use photograph of them is by definition replaceable with a free image that could now be taken of them. Stifle (talk) 11:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

IM SORRY! I AM A AMATURE ON COMPUTERS.Correction needed

(on the Wikipedia, page under)The Territory of Hawaiʻi, I believe there is a differance between the (United States) and the (United States of America) The court ruled that "The term (United States) is a metaphor [a figure of speech]". Cunard S.S Co. V. Mellon, 262 US 100, 122; and that "The term 'United States' may be used in one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of sovereign in a family of nations. It may designate territory over which sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be a collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution." Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 US 652, 672-73.

The court has also ruled that "The term United States is a metaphor [a figure of speech]". Cunard S.S Co. V. Mellon, 262 US 100, 122; and that "The term 'United States' may be used in one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of sovereign in a family of nations. It may designate territory over which sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be a collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution." Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 US 652, 672-73. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.170.48 (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This page is for discussion of image copyright issues. I am not sure what you are posting about, but... Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Stifle (talk) 11:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

District Map in India

I want to use the district map of West Bengal (a state in India) to show the spread of bird flu. I wanted to know if the map from the following link can be modified and then posted on wikipedia. [23].

If not is there any other map that you can suggest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranon 78 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Without a release under the GFDL or other free license from that website, we can't use it. Stifle (talk) 11:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleted images

can I upload deleted image again by (eg. 1) under fair use rationale for a living person' photo being used to illustrate a particular point in his career. Is there any prob re-uploading the deleted one? --Avinesh Jose  T  09:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No you may not - just about all fair use photographs of living people are replaceable and therefore don't qualify for inclusion. "Illustrating a particular point in his career" doesn't justify inclusion, I'm afraid. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The same image can I upload to commons.wikimedia.org ? --Avinesh Jose  T  11:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
No. Fair use images aren't allowed on Commons. --Dapeteばか 11:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Cicmty.jpg

What is wrong with the tags that I put up on the image? Please advise so I can make corrections. Thank you !! Bwmoll3 (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems OK to me. Stifle (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright

I have uploaded a picture from a website (anoproevropu.cz) for which I have direct permission to do so from the owners of the picture, ANO pro Evropu. There is no copyright assiocitated with this picture whatsoever, so I dont know if i cited the copy right correctly, but it seems that there is some sort of issue w the way that I cited it. If you could please enlighten me? Thank you. Schmanse (talk) 12:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately images for which we have permission to use only on Wikipedia aren't allowed. Sorry. Stifle (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

how to put a Pic in a article

I have tryied to upload a picture but it keep saying there is problem with uploading it because of unclear sorce . the pic is my own work but i don't know how to pout it in my article. please give me step by step instruction. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by EYELIN (talk • contribs) 15:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about Image:M3ABwR500653-02.jpg. That has the look of a very old picture; did you take it yourself? —teb728 t c 18:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
EYELIN: If you are the copyright holder of the photograph, just edit the image page and copy/paste the following into it:
== Re-adding image found in other launguage Wiki page ==

I wanted to add a picture of [[Geli Raubal]] to the English Wikipedia page. I found an image on the [[:fa:%D8%AC%D9%84%DB%8C_%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%A6%D8%A8%D9%84|Persian version]] of this page. I [[:Image:GERraubal.jpg|uploaded the image]] because I don't know any way to link to that image directly. (It seems the image has since been deleted.)

My assumption is that image has a proper copyright to include it but I can't really confirm since I don't speak Persian and so can't review the copyright information about this image.

How this case be handled? A message on my talk page would be greatly appreciated.

[[User:Dfeig|Dfeig]] ([[User talk:Dfeig|talk]]) 19:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Dfeig
:Replied on user's talk page. [[User:Calliopejen1|Calliopejen1]] ([[User talk:Calliopejen1|talk]]) 20:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

== Fair Use Rationale for Magazine Cover for Magazine Article ==

I have posted an article about LA.Direct Magazine.  I tried to upload a picture of one of the magazine's covers but it was deleted because the rationale I used was insufficient.  What SPECIFICALLY do I have to include in this situation? In my previous rationale, I stated that this was the magazine's cover and it was being used to visually represent the magazine.  I stated that this was the intention when the cover was created and this was how it was being used in the article.  I said that it would in no way negatively affect the commercial value of the magazine.  I appreciate any help regarding what else I must include.  Thanks!  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:JenniferDirect|JenniferDirect]] ([[User talk:JenniferDirect|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/JenniferDirect|contribs]]) 19:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Without being able to see how you wrote the Fair Use rationale it's hard to say why it was deemed insufficient. I would say your best solution is to look around at similar articles that use cover images that have been deemed acceptable ([[:Image:AneCan-May2007.jpg|example]]), then just create a similar rationale for your image. If a problem is raised later you can then refer the editor(s) who is objecting to those other images. Does that help? -- [[User:Hux|Hux]] ([[User talk:Hux|talk]]) 06:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

== Question re [[:Image:Dscoverche-gandhi.jpg]] ==

I did my best to address all of the concerns set out by the Bot, but this image still has a tag stating that it may be removed or deleted Wednesday, 20 February 2008.  Also it says I should discuss the tag with the editor who placed it on the image, but how does one discuss something with a Bot? Guidance will be greatly appreciated! -- [[User:Polaris999|Polaris999]] ([[User talk:Polaris999|talk]]) 21:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
:You did everything except remove the warning tag. I did that for you. —[[User:TEB728|teb728]] [[User talk:TEB728|t]] [[Special:Contributions/TEB728|c]] 21:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

::Thank you very much; I had thought that I had to wait for the Bot or another editor to remove it. -- [[User:Polaris999|Polaris999]] ([[User talk:Polaris999|talk]]) 22:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

== Working on a DVD movie Wiki ==

Hi,

I am working on a wiki page for one of our clients (a movie on dvd).  Users are flagging it copyright infringement.  How do I set this up?  There has to be a way as many movies now have wiki pages.  This is the official wiki, I work for a marketing agency and they are our client.

Nate  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Ntia78|Ntia78]] ([[User talk:Ntia78|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ntia78|contribs]]) 23:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:First off, you should realize that working on articles whose subject you are directly involved in, as in this case, is generally frowned upon since such activity is highly likely to create a conflict of interest (see [[WP:COI]]). This is not to say that you, as a representative of an agency whose client is the movie studio that owns the film, can ''never'' edit such an article, just that you need to be very careful. For example, because you are so close to the topic you may inadvertently present the film in a way that others would regard as commercial promotion, which is not allowed. You should also be aware of the concept of ownership of articles on Wikipedia, as expressed in [[WP:OWN]] (in short: nobody owns any of them).
:Regarding your specific query about pages being flagged for copyright infringement, could you link to the pages you're talking about so that we can all see what's going on? -- [[User:Hux|Hux]] ([[User talk:Hux|talk]]) 03:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
== ''[[Pinkerton (album)|Pinkerton]]'' possibly free use? ==

I'm curious as to if [[:Image:Pinkerton.jpg]] possibly fails within free use instead of fair use. The artwork is ''Kambara yoru no yuki'' by [[Hiroshige]], which is clearly in public domain. The Weezer logo would appear to fall under [[Wikipedia:Public_domain#Fonts]], though I'm not sure about the Pinkerton logo. Curious to know an intelligent viewpoint on the matter.--[[User:SeizureDog|SeizureDog]] ([[User talk:SeizureDog|talk]]) 07:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
:You could possibly make a case for that. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 11:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
::I'll go ahead and change the tag with that mindset then. People with better understanding of copyright are free to revert me.--[[User:SeizureDog|SeizureDog]] ([[User talk:SeizureDog|talk]]) 06:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

== Louis J. Weichmann ==

Some time ago another editor added [[Louis J. Weichmann]]'s photo from 1865. [[:Image:Louis J Weichmann.jpg]] It was subsequently deleted for a copyright issue. I believe the photo is from the Library of Congress. Wouldn't something like this be in the public domain or at least past some kind of statute of limitations? I'd like to put the photo back into the article. Can you help or give some advice? [[User:Dr. Dan|Dr. Dan]] ([[User talk:Dr. Dan|talk]]) 17:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
:I've restored the image. You may re-add it to the article. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 11:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks for your help. [[User:Dr. Dan|Dr. Dan]] ([[User talk:Dr. Dan|talk]]) 14:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

== [[Simon Baron-Cohen]] ==

A now banned editor uploaded [[:Image:Simonbc.JPG‎]]; another editor (at my request to help out) cropped it to [[:Image:Simonbc crop.jpg]].  It looks like the original version had faulty info, and now the cropped version does as well.  Can anyone help out, since the original editor who uploaded it is gone?  She said she got it from SBC himself, and was supposedly waiting for GFDL confirmation; I don't know where that leaves us.  [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 21:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

:Two options
:* Contact SBC for confirmation of the images release to the GFDL/cc-by-sa. 
:* Allow the image to be deleted. The image's status is pretty questionable, and he's an academic. It's not like he's known for his appearance. 
:[[User:Megapixie|Megapixie]] ([[User talk:Megapixie|talk]]) 00:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

:: I don't think anyone is going to be contacting SBC; the person who did originally is banned.  Should both images be deleted, and does the other one get tagged?  I really hate/don't speak images.  [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 00:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

:::If the copyright holder hasn't released it under a free license, or into the public domain, then we can't use the image. I doubt there's a valid Fair Use rationale either, under the circumstances. I'd say both images should be deleted. -- [[User:Hux|Hux]] ([[User talk:Hux|talk]]) 08:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

== Images with no license ==

I asked here about this once before, but the problem has recurred. The images in question are [[:Image:Gilbert Julian Snowbirds Seriograph.JPG]] and [[:Image:Gilbert Julian Riverboat lithograph.JPG‎]], which lack either a release under an appropriate license or a fair-use rationale. (Oh, and the images themselves are ripped off from some unrelated person's EBay pages.) A bot tagged these for the absence of licensing information, but users keep deleting the tags, this last time only a day before the images would become eligible for deletion. When I restore the tags, the expiration date is reset, so the delete-restore cycle could presumably go on forever without the images ever being deleted. What can one do in a situation like this? [[User:Deor|Deor]] ([[User talk:Deor|talk]]) 17:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
:Contact the uploader and ask if they are the copyright owner. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 19:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
::Does it make any difference who holds the copyright if the images aren't released under an acceptable license? [[User:Deor|Deor]] ([[User talk:Deor|talk]]) 19:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Yes, because you can then ask the copyright owner if they will release the images under a free license. If they agree, then no problem. If you need the images aren't encyclopedic, the ask for the images to be deleted at [[WP:IfD]], or nominate the article for deletion at [[WP:AFD]]. I would take the images to [[WP:IfD]] if the tags keep getting removed. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 20:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
::::OK, thanks. [[User:Deor|Deor]] ([[User talk:Deor|talk]]) 21:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::For what it's worth, judging by the uploader's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMctrain&diff=192437717&oldid=192429216 most recent edit to their talk page], they're unlikely to remove copyvio notices in the future. -- [[User:Hux|Hux]] ([[User talk:Hux|talk]]) 07:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

== Licensing ==

{{PD-self|author=I, [[User:EYELIN|EYELIN]]}}
Then change the "Description" and "Date" information so that it's relevant to your photo, save the page and that's it.
Note that doing this will release your photo into the public domain. If you would prefer to release it under a different license then you need to use a different tag in the "Licensing" section. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for more details. -- Hux (talk) 07:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sportsline logo

I added a logo to a wikipedia entry, but it's going to be removed because of copyright. It's a logo I created myself. I haven't copyrighted it myself, but it's not from any other source, so when I uploaded it, I wasn't sure which copyright category to pick. The file is SPORTSLINE OFFICIAL MINI LOGO WNDZ. Please help me with this because I don't want it taken off, and I don't know the proper way to describe the file.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcsoccer23 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What the messages are telling you is that you need to edit Image:SPORTSLINE OFFICIAL MINI LOGO WNDZ.png and add a copyright tag. The tag to add for your logo is {{non-free logo}}. Since this is a non-free image, you also need to add a non-free use rationale: see WP:NFURG. You can use {{logo fur}} for the rationale. —teb728 t c 18:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Dcsoccer23: I think teb728 may have misunderstood your post! Firstly, just to clear something up, under US law (the relevant law for Wikipedia) a creative work like a logo becomes automatically copyrighted, as soon as it is "fixed" into a medium (i.e. as soon as you draw it on paper, or create it on a computer, or whatever). If you created it yourself, privately, then you own the copyright and in order to use it on Wikipedia you must state that it is entirely your own work and either release it into the public domain, or under a free license such as the GFDL. If you're happy to do this then just select the appropriate release from the drop-down list when you upload the image.
However, if you created it for your employer then it's likely that the law considers it a "work for hire", in which case your employer owns the copyright and you don't have the right to release it to Wikipedia. To get a release from your employer you can follow the procedure described at WP:COPYREQ. -- Hux (talk) 07:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ben Baller.jpg

Ben Baller.jpg, not yet uploaded, but will be in a second after this is answered. If I found this picture on his MySpace, but don't actually have his permission to use it, could I upload it? Or (a possible solution), could I, via MySpace, ask him for permission? Flaminglawyer (talk · contribs) 18:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No and his permission for wikipedia upload would not be enough you wouuld need to get the image released under a free license.Geni 18:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
What if I got his permission to have it released "only for use on Wikipedia" or "for non-commercial or educational use only," which would still retain the copyright? (options off of the upload page) Flaminglawyer (talk · contribs) 18:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry no, permission "only for use on Wikipedia" or "for non-commercial or educational use only" is absolutely unacceptable to Wikipedia. For a living person Wikipedia accepts only permission for anyone to reuse for anything. See WP:COPYREQ. —teb728 t c 19:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Ummm... I don't exactly understand what you are saying, but I don't have time to ask right now. I'll just ask again in a little while. Flaminglawyer (talk · contribs) 19:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
To elaborate on what Flaminglawyer said: Wikipedia's purpose is to create encyclopedic content that anyone can use. Therefore, just getting someone's permission to use their copyrighted work on Wikipedia, or "for non-commercial or educational use only", isn't good enough because Wikipedia readers themselves would not be able to freely use it. The solution to this problem is ask the copyright holder to either release the work into the public domain, or to release it under a free license such as the GFDL. There is a procedure you can follow in an attempt to get this done: Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission -- Hux (talk) 07:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for assistance on new sample permission form, for photos of copyrightable works

Volunteers within the NRHP wikiproject, such as myself, often take photos of historic sites which may include photos of historic plaques or of artworks at the historic sites. Plaques and artworks may sometimes be copyrighted, so to use the photos we may need permission from owners. There are no example copyright permission requests forms which exactly address this need. To address this, I have drafted a sample cover letter, sample statement of Wikipedia image policy, and sample permission form, which is now up for discussion within the WP:NRHP talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Drafting a sample request for permission for our photos of plaques and artworks. I imagined NRHPers would discuss it for a while, then seek copyright experts' evaluation. But it is in good enough form already, I think, to benefit right away from your preliminary consideration. Could any of you experts please advise there? Your assistance would be most appreciated. (p.s. I also posted a version of this request at Talk page of WP:OTRS.) Sincerely, doncram (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that's very good. I do think, though, that you should link to or include the text of the GFDL in that first letter. Otherwise, I think you explain the issues very well, although it might be a good idea to also include some mention of derivative works. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. I will include a link to GFDL in the cover letter, perhaps [this link to GFDL in plain text], and could include more about it (although not a full copy, in the handout page which to start was just the policy statement). Can you expand on what you mean by mentioning derivative works? I already mentioned in the cover letter and perhaps in the permission form that it would be possible for a commercial firm to use the photo in a guidebook, as an intended-to-be-realistic tangible example of what could happen. Is that the kind of derivative-related warning that you mean I should give? Thanks again already. doncram (talk) 01:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Russian Website

Though I already found an Image free at blogger.com I have a questions. These Venetian Shoe Images From this russian website may be appropriate for my article Venetian style shoe. I was wondering, since I don't speak fluently russian, if there are any copyrights for these images? Here is the direct link for google translate. --CyclePat (talk) 00:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It is almost certain that those images are copyrighted by somebody, and therefore unusable on Wikipedia. I don't speak Russian either, so I can't be of any help in determining who. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

inappropriate Tag and Category on NPS photos, which are not necessarily public domain

There exists a tag "PD-USGov-Interior-NPS" and a corresponding "Category:National Park Service images" whose use is unfortunate. As I just explained on the talk page of one user, just because a photo is on a Federal website, it does not necessarily mean the photo is usable. There was an extensive discussion on this within the wikiproject WP:NRHP on National Register of Historic Places, archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 4#National Register photos and slides. One key source on this subject is the NPS policy statement, which is fairly clear that not all photos on NPS sites are available for public domain use.

So, I had to inform this user that a number of photos that he added and which he tagged in this way are technically in copyright violation and should be removed from commons.

Further, the Tag ought to be "deprecated" or whatever, and the Category oughta be abolished or something.

In WP:NRHP I am proud that we have generally been very careful with copyright status of photos uploaded, and do not suffer this problem very widely, but there could be use of the tag outside of WP:NRHP articles that we tend to see. This user has created articles without announcing them in the NRHP talk area, so fell out of scrutiny. There may be unrelated articles too which we would not see. I HATE THE TAG, i think it encourages careless use and inappropriate uploads. How can I seek to get rid of it, or to modify its language so that it is not so dangerous?

Could someone please advise? Will this posting now suffice to raise the issue to where it should go, or should I post this type of notice elsewhere?

Sincerely, doncram (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, of course, that just because works of the US federal government are public domain by default, that doesn't mean that all images on federal government websites are public domain. However, I'm not seeing the problem with {{PD-USGov-Interior-NPS}} since the wording is quite specific about what types of NPS images qualify, i.e. only those created by NPS employees in the course of their official duties. As far as I can tell, your concern is less with the template and more with editors who misunderstand its meaning, in which case maybe rather than pushing for the template's deletion, a better solution might be to change it in order to clarify what kinds of NPS images are in the public domain. If you disagree with this and still want to try to get it deleted, then the appropriate thing to do would be to list it at WP:TFD and make your case there. -- Hux (talk) 06:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank u for ur response, maybe what would suffice is a clarification within the text of the template to the effect that "Not all photos on NPS webpages are public domain; this template is only to be used when it is determined that a photo is public domain." Can i just go ahead and try to edit the template in that direction? doncram (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure - be bold! But also be aware that others may disagree, so you may need to put your 'convincing' hat on. ;) -- Hux (talk) 10:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
FYI, browsing in the category, i check "Image:AR oldstatehouse.jpg" and see that it is one that uses the template but does not provide a link to any NPS webpage where the source photo is located and it does not provide any suggestion of the name of the NPS employee who took the picture. I disbelieve that it is public domain. (This is like the ones I was referring to above, but for the above ones I could find the sources at NPS myself.) May I tag this AR oldstathouse.jpg photo as probable copyright violation, or otherwise indicate suspicion. My expectation is that it is NOT public domain, without evidence such as the NPS employee name who took it. Is marking it Copyright violation the correct way to raise this? I could march through the whole category doing this, I bet. Sincerely, doncram (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Just so you know, the copyvio notice you added to that image was the wrong one. That one is only for serious copyvios in articles, not for images. I replaced it with {{subst:nsd}} which appears to be the most appropriate tag under the circumstances. Take a look at this page for more info about copvio tags for images: WP:IFD. -- Hux (talk) 10:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

campus coming on 20th feb

respected sir this prakash singh bhadoria student of institute of technology and management gwalior(m.P) 3rd year want to appear in this plz give some information about it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.127.247 (talk) 08:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution...but I suspect you're in the wrong place. This page is for discussion about the use of copyrighted works on Wikipedia. :) -- Hux (talk) 08:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous (group)

Does this image fall under replaceable fair use or not? Obviously, as Anonymous is a group of people notable only for Project Chanology, we can use the protest photos to depict them, but it's being contested as Anonymous is, apparently, "a cultural movement". Thoughts? Will (talk) 09:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I just left a note on the image talk page. Basically, the image is effectively a logo, which means it should be usable with a Fair Use rationale (see Image:Labour.svg for an analogous example). -- Hux (talk) 11:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Labour.svg is an official logo. That poster was created in a demotivator poster generator and probably isn't accepted by everyone. Longcat, Afroman, and Epic Fail Guy might also be used. Will (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Mendaxi_Press_Advert_1972.jpg

Accepting this image which I may have confused the correct licence requirement (now amended for review) what I don't get is how can this fall under copyright? The fair use rational was to example the advertising campaign. I can't see how in that instance it infringes copyright when the Company itself has ceased to exist after failing. I understand copyright exists for the products and recipes that were purchased by another company which continues (hence no product names were used in the article or images). But how can something be copyrighted (like the company name (in this instance) or advertising campaign) when the company involved went bust over 20 years ago? To me that is public domain! Mitchbradley (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyrights don't need renewing any more. The copyright will be held by someone. Who is hard to say. Perhaps whoever purchased the company assets or perhaps the ceditors. It is posible the copyright could now have ended up in the hands of the photographer. This kind of situation can be rather messy and is one of the problems with long copyright periods.Geni 21:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
That's a lot of guesswork. I am not sure how bankruptcy works in Greece, especially in a situation where the Government later changed from military junta to democracy but I would assume the current situation may be similar to the UK (which shares elements of EU law and regulation with Greece) were after being wound-up any assets of an obsolete company pass to the State - I have since amended the copyright on the image to reflect this scenario - so hopefully that will satisfy with a fair use rationale - Would this not fall within PD-US-1996?Mitchbradley (talk) 02:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Switchgrass Page

How do we add copyright information to an image that has already been uploaded. It is good for education use. Here they are:

Thanks for your help ~~` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lcodat (talk • contribs) 18:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

since the images are replaceable you would need to get them released under a free license such as the GFDL.Geni 20:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

image copyright

The image I uploaded is a city seal. The official city seal of Battle Creek, Michigan. A few years ago the City Clerk of Battle Creek told me the difference between the city seal and the city logo. She directed me up to printing, where they printed me off a copy of the city seal, along with the city logo, and other logo's used by various city departments. I had scanned in the image of the city seal, but I'm not claiming any copyright.

I didn't assign it any copyright, because I really don't know who it belongs to.

My intent is to replace/correct the Battle Creek, Michigan page. The displayed image is the city logo. I just haven't had the time to figure out the code.

I don't want to break any wikipedia rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gubmunt (talk • contribs) 20:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I am virtually certain that the copyright would belong to the City of Battle Creek. You should tag it as such and attach a fair use rationale. If you need help with any of this, please let me know. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Audio samples

Hi. Are audio samples like here allowed? Is there a guide-line regarding the (copyright) issues? --Tantalos (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfree audio samples are allowed as long as they meet the requirements at Wikipedia:Non-free content.Geni 20:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Herman Boerhaave

I would like to use a picture of Herman Boerhaave in an assignment I have. Would I be aloud to use the picture of him---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.223.55.188 (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The picture of him is in the public domain, so you can use it for any purpose you want. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Historic picture, who has the copyright of the copy?

Will someone please clarify the following: There is an 84 year old original photograph of a famous person which is in a museum collection. Somebody claims they took a photograph of this photograph 15 years ago (and can prove it). But they sold this photograph of the original photograph to somebody a year ago, who now claims to be the copyright holder of the copy. Q. How to deal with it in WP in a way that keeps everybody happy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnClarknew (talk • contribs) 07:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The copyright on the copy belongs to the copyright owner of the original. —teb728 t c 07:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Depends. If it is an exact 2D scan/copy of the original photo, then the later scanner/photographer has no rights. If it is a crop from a (3D with layout) picture of the museum display (for example), then the later photographer has to release their rights to the later photo, including the right to crop it. If a free picture of the person exists already, no need to use this picture anyway. Would help if you could link to the picture. Carcharoth (talk) 09:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
That's what I did (see Saint Joan (play), the picture of Dame Sybil Thorndike had been deleted by a triumphant botmeister.) But aren't we back to square 1? The copyright has obviously expired on the original picture, no?
The problem about deleted pictures is that they don't exist in the WP record, while deleted text does. This presents recovery problems when trying to restore the picture conformed more correctly to the rules. JohnClarknew (talk) 15:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
By linking to the picture, I meant like this: Image:Sybil Thorndike as Joan of Arc.jpg. Carcharoth (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Under U.K. copyright law, the copyright on a photograph whose author is known lasts 70 years after the author's death. Under U.S. copyright law, the copyright of an unpublished and unregistered work lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years, or 120 years from creation for a work made for hire. The copyright on a work published before 1964 lasted 28 years from publication, with an optional renewal of a second term that now extends the copyright to 95 years. — Walloon (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible violation

I was working on Kolomoki Mounds Historic Park and I found that much of the text was from two websites (which I added to external links and references). The webesites are from the State of Georgia, so it may be OK to copy them, but they are copyrighted. Is this OK? Bubba73 (talk), 17:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If the text can be said to be a derivative of the way the information is presented at those websites then yes it could be a problem.Geni 21:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Significant parts of it are word for word. Bubba73 (talk), 22:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
That would be a problem yes.Geni 22:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I happened to notice this mention and realized it might be a National Historic Landmark site, and I work on NHL articles. I just visited the article and added some new references to try to help out. Bubba73, it really is lousy to encounter plagiarism. If you can fix it by deleting all the copied text, and perhaps writing new properly sourced language, that would be very good, and I for one would appreciate it. P.S. a state website would usually NOT be public domain, while a Federal one would be, so this is probably also copyright violation on top of being plagiarism. Sincerely, doncram (talk) 00:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't planning to rewrite it - I added some photos I took and did some minor editing. Then I found two websites that seemed to be copied word for word. It needs to be rewritten, but I don't know if I can get around to it. Bubba73 (talk), 04:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, more than u were meaning to bite off, fair enough. Could you point me to the 2 websites that the article has overlaps with? Could you please post those to the Talk page of the Kolomoki Mounds Historic Park article, or to my own Talk page, as I am not sure i will keep on checking back here. And then I will do it, i don't mind, and I do specialize in articles on National Historic Landmarks. Thanks for pointing out the problem, already, and following up with more info, besides with your contributing new photos (which I haven't looked for yet, but will). doncram (talk) 05:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I put two of the websites on the talk page. I'm not especially familiar with the Kolomoki Mounds, I just visited there this past weekend. Bubba73 (talk), 15:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyright

Dear Sir, Kindly direct me how to get copyright on my article submitted to you. Regards. HD Chattopadhyay —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chattopadhyay Haridas (talk • contribs) 04:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

By the "article submitted" I suspect you mean an article contained in Image:A new eco tourism 2008.pdf. Don’t upload an article as a pdf file: post it rather as wikitext as you did in your question above. If you do that, you will have no problem with copyright (assuming that you wrote the article yourself). For by submitting it that way you automatically get copyright and grant a GFDL license on it. --—teb728 t c 09:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyright question about Image:Fpu.jpg

This is the official banner of the Fishermen's Protective Union, a fishermen's organization on the island of Newfoundland that has been defunct since 1960. I need to give it a copyright tag and I don't know what or how to give one. Since the organization has been defunct for almost 50 years I don't see how the image would not be public domain but when I uploaded it there was no option that fit. What do I do? Reggie Perrin (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think that it would be public domain? According to the article on Public domain, "For a work made for hire, the copyright in a work created before 1978, but not theretofore in the public domain or registered for copyright, subsists from January 1, 1978, and endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication, or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first." That means, under U.S. law, it would be out of copyright no later than 2055 if it was a work for hire. In Canada, it's a little more difficult. It seems to be the life of the author plus 50 years. That potentially means even later. Overall, it seems unlikely that this image is in the public domain. I suspect you'll have to use this as a copyrighted work under fair-use. That said, I am not a lawyer and it may well be that other exemptions apply in this case. --Yamla (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
How do I mark it as fair use then? Reggie Perrin (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Tag it with {{Non-free fair use in|Fishermen's Protective Union}}, and then attach a fair use rationale (here's a useful template). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
It's more likely that the flag is/was a registered trademark than under copyright. — Walloon (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Is a purchased photograph permissible?

I'm sorry, but I've been reading link after link, and I feel like I'm drowning. Can someone please tell me if a photograph purchased by an actor from a photographic session is then his property and can be uploaded to an article? Thank you! Voiceperson (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Not according to the photographer. They say that you are only buying the picture itself, not the right to reproduce it. That, they keep and will sell you more pictures at a price. So unless they are wrong better not upload it. Redddogg (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Correct. Unless the photographer has explicitly transferred, in writing, the copyright to the actor (even though the actor hired the photographer), the copyright to the photograph belongs to the photographer. The photographer was an independent contractor, not an employee, of the actor. — Walloon (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Image fair use rationale dispute re: Phantom Of The Opera 1925 film

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

The image uploaded is a self-created comparative composite of two images from a motion picture that is in the public domain. The licensing information needs to be changed to refer to it as PD accordingly, but I do not know how to do this. The dispute will otherwise cause the removal of this image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Paynter (talk • contribs) 17:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You need to edit the summary to show the dates of the films in question, so that it is clear that they are public domain. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Add the Template:PD-US-not renewed. The copyright on the 1925 motion picture expired in 1953 without renewal. — Walloon (talk) 18:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I added the template. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair Use Magazine Cover Questions

The following image is the cover of LA.Direct Magazine. I am trying to upload it as part of the article for the magazine itself. What is the proper fair use rationale for this image?

Image:January 2008 Cover

{{non-free magazine cover}}. However, note that it may be used only to illustrate the publication of that specific issue of the magazine, it may not be used to depict the magazine generally. And you'd need to provide a detailed fair-use rationale. Additionally, you may want to read WP:COI and WP:BFAQ. It looks like you are directly involved with this magazine and that your edits have been inappropriate. --Yamla (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Image:January 2008 Cover.jpg has the appropiate FU license tag, but you need to provide a rationale; see WP:RAT. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 23:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "it may not be used to depict the magazine generally" - what? It is perfectly acceptable to use a magazine cover as a general depiction of a magazine. Look at the uses of {{non-free magazine cover}} for many, many examples. Carcharoth (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
No. See the license text itself, which states, "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of magazine covers to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question." Note the important bit, "of the issue". This is from {{non-free magazine cover}}. It would, of course, be entirely reasonable to include a specific magazine cover in the article if the article discusses that particular issue, provided there's a detailed fair-use rationale. --Yamla (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I know, but look at New Scientist, Journal of the History of Philosophy, Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, and so on and so on. The same for book covers and album covers. I see this has been discussed before at Template talk:Non-free magazine cover#Use of images to depict magazines generally, where you participated. You are right that the template wording ("of the issue [...] in question") excludes this "general depiction of the magazine" use, but in practice that is what you will find has been done, on literally thousands of articles. {{Non-free book cover}} says "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question" and {{Non-free album cover}} says "solely to illustrate the audio recording in question". Why can't {{Non-free magazine cover}} say "solely to illustrate the magazine series in question"? Carcharoth (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, if there's a consensus for the policy change and if the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on fair-use image use doesn't contradict it (and I'm not at all sure it wouldn't), you could perhaps get the license changed. But until then, it's not permitted. I don't dispute that a great many articles currently use magazine covers in violation of the license, though. There are a great many violations of our image use policies all over the place. --Yamla (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
OK. I'll start a discussion at WT:NFC. Would you mind quoting the relevant parts of the WMF statement that would appply here that wouldn't also apply to book covers and album covers? Carcharoth (talk) 00:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Wording of Template:Non-free magazine cover. Carcharoth (talk) 01:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyright tags

You guys are getting too complex. I thought the idea of Wikipedia is that those with knowledge contribute it. It appears that your policy has changed to one where anyone with limitless time to figure out the cryptic morass of tags and such can write their own history.

I just uploaded the following image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:USS-Gen-HHArnold-P.jpg

I quickly looked through your licensing drop-down and did not see one that I wished to use, so I wrote my own copyright notice into the image description. Apparently that is not good enough. I decided to try and edit the image description but it is not obvious how to do that.

If someone would like to explain this in terms that are understandable by someone with a 163 IQ but little time on his hands, feel free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FatBear1 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi FatBear - I definitely empathize with your frustration. Unfortunately, copyright law itself is pretty complicated, so there's only so much we can do to make its implementation on Wikipedia simple. In the case of that image, if you want to use it on Wikipedia, you need to release it either into the public domain (which renounces all rights over the picture) or under a free license (which retains only the right of attribution). Giving permission for it to be used on Wikipedia is (paradoxically) not sufficient to allow its use on Wikipedia. If you're prepared to do either of those things, I can assist you with adding the proper tag. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
(Essentially repeating, after an edit conflict, what has been said above) You say "I give permission for use on Wikipedia" - for the image to be used on Wikipedia, we need more than that. The image needs to be freely-distributable and editable by anyone else. If you agree to that, then put the tag {{GFDL-self}} or {{PD-self}} if you are happy to release the image into the public domain. Please ask if you have any more questions. Carcharoth (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE HELP

WE ARE DOING A WIKIPEDIA PAGE FOR JIM BAILEY ENTERTAINER...WE WORK FOR HIM

THE PHOTOS GET DELETED BUT JIM BAILEY OWNS THE COPYWRIGHT AND WANTS THEM IN HIS ARTICLE.

HOW DO WE DO THIS???? IN A WIKIPEDIA FOR DUMMIES WAY CAN YOU TELL ME HOW I DO THIS. Williamkieffert (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Jim Bailey will need to agree to release the photos either into the public domain or under a free license (such as the GNU Free Content License) if he wants his photos to be used on Wikipedia. Unrelatedly, you should probably give this a read. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Protein Data Bank

Hi there, a user has queried the P-D tag of Image:PBB Protein NFAT5 image.jpg, although the website says at [24] "The contents of PDB are in the public domain." This is complicated by the fact that they then appear to state a restriction on use in the next paragraph. Has this been dealt with before? I've e-mailed them for further clarification but might not hear back for a while. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(Tim narrowly beat me to it. Merging sections, but keeping this text since it has a few additional links...) Hello... Image:PBB_Protein_NFAT5_image.jpg, an image a bot I own uploaded, was recently tagged with {{di-no license}}. We originally tagged it with {{PD-release}} based on the opening line of this link, which states "The contents of PDB are in the public domain." Tim Vickers also asked the PDB folks directly by email and was referred to that link. Our bot has uploaded many images and this is the first time someone has raised the issue. Do people here agree that there is an issue that we need to address? If so, suggestions please... Thanks, AndrewGNF (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I wrote to ask:

Hi there

I can't work out what copyright license you release the PDB under. Although this is stated as "public domain" the FAQ also seems to state restrictions on use, which are not applicable to anything that is public domain. Are the restrictions on uses legal requirements under a license, or are they requests that you would like users to honor?
Thanks
Dr Tim Vickers

The reply to my e-mail simply stated:

Dear Dr. Vickers,

Thank you for your email message.
Have you taken a look at our citation information at http://www.rcsb.org/robohelp_f/#site_navigation/citing_the_pdb.htm ?
Please let us know if this does not answer your questions.
Sincerely,
Rachel Green

Do people want me to reply and ask for further clarification? What should I ask? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Since there has been no response to the questions on this page, I assume people must be OK with this, so we have removed the deletion template. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Tim, I've been watching this for any replies from PDB although I've not really expected anything since the restrictions stated by PDB are very plain in meaning. It is very clearly erroneous to label PDB images as public domain, since the images as images may not be sold commercially but only as part of a collection and they require attribution.

Online and printed resources are welcome to include PDB data and images from the RCSB PDB website, and may be sold, as long as the images and data are not for sale as commercial items themselves, and their corresponding citations are included.

Breaking this down:

  • Attribution is required in all instances.
  • Commercial use of the images is allowed if the images are part of a publication.
  • Commercial use is prohibited if you wish to sell the images individually.

Hoards of people use "public domain" according to a private interpretation and not a legal one. This is an instance. PDB images simply are not free images per the Wikimedia definition of free. For what it's worth, Citizendium tags PDB images like this.

Stephen Ewen (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I have replied with:

Thank you for your reply. I have read the website FAQ, but this seems self-contradictory. Are the images in the public domain (legal meaning - unrestricted use without attribution) or are they released under a specific license that attaches restrictions on further use?

Tim Vickers (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

She replied:

Hi Tim, Images are free for use...we ask that you cite us. DATA, on the other hand, are restricted -- you cannot make changes to them and say its comes from the PDB. Does that clarify things?

Does this solve the problem? We are only using the images - now described as "free to use", but with a request for citation. Looks like we need to use {{attribution}} rather than {{PD-release}} Tim Vickers (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

That still continues to sound contradictory to the website statement. Myself, I would want to hear "yes" or "no" from her to the point-blank question, "Can the individual PDB images and data be sold commercially?" before CZ changes our current tag. Stephen Ewen (talk) 03:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the data are not the issue and this isn't Citizendium, so I'm a bit confused by your comment. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not whether the images are free to use. The issue is whether individual images may be sold for profit. Nothing said by PDB clarifies that. Using {{Attribution}} means any person may collect each PDB image at WP and sell them (with attribution). Nothing said by PDB permits that. Of course, WP can do what it wants, but I don't see evidence enough to change the way CZ tags PDB images (like this), for whatever that's worth to you. Would it help if I asked them? Stephen Ewen (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I sent this:

Hello.  I am trying to seek clarification on http://www.rcsb.org/pdb/static.do?p=general_information/about_pdb/contact/index.html

Specifically the portion that states "PDB data and images from the RCSB PDB website, 
and may be sold, as long as the images and data are not for sale as commercial items 
themselves."

May I or may I not collect PDB images and data and sell just the images and data commercial?

Kindly advise,

Stephen Ewen, M.Ed

Stephen Ewen (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is the response:

Subject:
Re: citing the pdb
From:
Rachel Kramer Green <kramer@rcsb.rutgers.edu>
Date:
Tue, 12 Feb 2008 20:48:38 -0700
To:
Stephen Ewen <ewenste@bellsouth.net>
CC:
info@rcsb.org

Dear Mr. Ewen,

Thank you for your email message.

Just to clarify -- our citation information is located at http://www.rcsb.org/robohelp_f/#site_navigation/citing_the_pdb.htm

In particular:
You *may not* collect PDB images and data and just sell the images and data commercially
You *may *download the images and put them in a book (including a reference to us) and sell that commercially
You *may *download the data, and do something with it, and sell that it commercially

Please let us know if we can be of additional assistance.

Sincerely,
Rachel Green

**************************
Rachel Kramer Green, Ph.D.
RCSB PDB
kramer@rcsb.rutgers.edu
**************************



Stephen Ewen wrote:
> Hello.  I am trying to seek clarification on http://www.rcsb.org/pdb/static.do?p=general_information/about_pdb/contact/index.html
>
> Specifically the portion that states "PDB data and images from the RCSB PDB website, and may be sold, as long as the images and data are not for sale as commercial items themselves."
>
> May I or may I not collect PDB images and data and sell just the images and data commercial?
>
> Kindly advise,
>
> Stephen Ewen, M.Ed
>

Clearly, {{Attribution}} would be a misleading way to tag PDB images.

Stephen Ewen (talk) 06:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth to you, see {{PDB}}. Stephen Ewen (talk) 10:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to both Tim and Stephen for following up with PDB. Can someone who is familiar with the image licensing here at WP make a specific recommendation as to what tags to use? Perhaps by editing Image:PBB Protein NFAT5 image.jpg directly? There are obviously many images that this decision will affect, and I'd rather make that change just once to them all en masse. Thanks, AndrewGNF (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
If you can't just sell the images separately, then I think they must all be deleted. They're not free by Wikipedia standards. Calliopejen1 (talk) 08:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I would tend to disagree. {{attribution}} is fine here - "You *may *download the images and put them in a book (including a reference to us) and sell that commercially" being the relevant point. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
{{Attribution}} (a vague tag not backed by an actual license, so avoid it) specifically says "commercial use" must be allowed (this means both individually and/or in combination). {{NonCommercial}} images are not considered free for Wikipedia's purpose, so images with this tag would need a fair use rationale Superm401 - Talk 07:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, the path forward is still not clear to me. Superm401 has taken the first step by removing the PD-release template, but can someone suggest what should go in its place? Again, deciding on some sort of consensus here would be great so we can make this change once for all images. AndrewGNF (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

My interpretation is that the images can be used commercially, but only in the correct context (ie. in a book on the subject, not on a t-shirt), and only with attribution. This is plainly not public domain, but I suspect we can still use the images in some way, even if it ends up being classified as "non-free" for our purposes. What we need to do is make clear to downstream users that the images are still restricted in their use. For our purposes, that is non-free. We could also avoid the entire question by downloading the (truly public domain) data used to generate the protein image, and generating the image ourselves. This would be the third point: "You *may *download the data, and do something with it, and sell that it commercially" - we should have people available to do this kind of image generation ourselves - and hopefully the software used to generate the image won't restrict us. Carcharoth (talk) 09:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Carcharoth. While I think it is possible to generate images en masse from the PDB data, we don't have the technical expertise to do that. I could float that over at WP:MCB though. Possible issues are that auto-generated images may not be as polished and informative as the ones that presumably have been generated by the PDB themselves, and it introduces coordination issues between our bot and whatever other person creates images. Anyway, it's probably obvious that I'd prefer to figure out the right way to tag the existing images if at all possible. Any further thoughts? AndrewGNF (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
If we have the data that can be used to generate these images, they are replaceable and must be deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. See Image:1axc tricolor.png (the currently featured pic at MCB) for an example of a picture generated using PDB data. I wouldn't rush things though, or get too strident about immediate deletion. It is clear the images are replaceable. I suggest getting WP:MCB on board to help find all such images that were obtained from the PDB, to tag them as replaceable and make a list, and then generate replacements and replace them. Pushing for immediate deletion may alienate people prepared to do work on this. Carcharoth (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I asked the author of that pic to comment here, though she is not very active these days. Carcharoth (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The situation here seems to be that the underlying data is public domain once published, no matter how much time and effort is put in to obtain the data (a good principle concerning scientific data, unless patents apply). The time and effort to create the images from the data is not 'free' though, so copyright or at least attribution rights, seemingly can be asserted at that point. Carcharoth (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've posted over at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Molecular_and_Cellular_Biology/Proposals#mass_creation_of_PDB_images to see if someone is interested in taking this on... Thanks for your help with this, Carcharoth. AndrewGNF (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
If the images are as nice Image:1axc_tricolor.png, and especially if they are released as PD which will best the PDB, then it looks like a whole lot of good is going to come of all this.  :-) Stephen Ewen (talk) 10:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Images in public domain

Hello,

I have a question about rights to use images from wikipedia, that are signed as "public domain". For example, image of Euraisa on world's map ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LocationEurasia.png ) is indicated to be in public domain. Can I believe that? How is responsible in a case if author will appear and will make claim?


Thanks 128.178.105.130 (talk) 15:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Images should have enough information included for you to determine the validity of the license. In this case, the source is listed as the CIA World Fact Book. You can check the source to verify that it is accurate and therefore, check the license. Certainly if you reused an image on Wikipedia that was marked, falsely, as public domain, you would not be held responsible. But if you reused it outside of Wikipedia, you may. If you have reason to believe that an image is falsely sourced or falsely licensed, you can tag it with the nsd or nld tags. That said, Wikipedia editors do frequently check images for accurate sources and licenses. No doubt some slip through the cracks but we do try to be accurate. --Yamla (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
"Certainly if you reused an image on Wikipedia that was marked, falsely, as public domain, you would not be held responsible." Just to be clear, are you saying that if a person reused a Wikipedia image marked as PD elsewhere on Wikipedia, they would not be held responsible if it was later found that the image was copyrighted? Or are you saying that a person taking a Wikipedia image marked as PD and using somewhere other than on Wikipedia would not be held responsible? The former I can understand, but the latter I'm pretty sure would be infringing. -- Hux (talk) 08:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Jack Chick

Here is a person most WPers would dislike, a narrow-minded fundamentalist comic book artist. However his article, and two related, seem to me to have serious copyright problems. They use frames from his comics without his permission, clearly (to me anyway although some disagree) a violation of the law. Redddogg (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you would have a hard time argueing against a fair use case here Our articles on both comic book artists and writers (chick has been both) frequently contain samples since they are useful when disscussing their work.Geni 19:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Geni. Also relevant is that the entire tract is not used. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Geni and Sarcasticidealist. Read Fair use. Fair use is always the use of copyrighted material without the owner’s permission, and it is recognized in US copyright law. —teb728 t c 22:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Chick's world view (narrow-minded, old-fashioned, bigoted, etc.) is exactly the opposite of WP's. Therefore any WP article about him is going to be negative in tone. I don't see how we can say to him: "Mr. Chick, we think you are a narrow-minded bigot; however we would like to use some of your artwork for free on the articles about you." Why not just give the facts about him, as well as opinions pro and con, and give a link to his site for people who want to check out his work? Redddogg (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I think perhaps you might be misunderstanding what Fair Use is. Under US copyright law, Fair Use is a set of criteria which, if followed, allows the use of copyrighted works without the copyright holder's permission. Additionally, certain types of use are explicitly noted in the law as fair, such as criticism and commentary. The bottom line is that Wikipedia is able to legally make use of Chick's work in certain ways without having to ask him beforehand. If he doesn't like that then he is free to sue, but Wikipedia would cite Fair Use and would almost certainly win. -- Hux (talk) 08:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

"Out of Copyright"?

Hi,
I recently found this BBC-site. Since English is not my mother tongue and I don't know too much about law-terms, can someone please explain what the sentence "this session is now out of copyright" means? Is that a release into PD, so that screenshots from this video might be usable for us? Thanks in advance, --NoCultureIcons (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Good question! I searched Google and this appears to be a common notice that they put up. Since the BBC owns the copyright on all the sessions they record, it's tempting to assume that "this session is now out of copyright" is an indication that they have released the work into the public domain. However, it's certainly not clear and without more proof I wouldn't want to take the risk of using it as such. Maybe someone with more knowledge of UK copyright law (or BBC policy) could clear this up? -- Hux (talk) 06:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I can only read that as "released into public domain". I don't have the knowledge that Hux refers to though. Stifle (talk) 09:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

can i use photos from this website that gives permission?

I would like to use some of the photos from the Preda org website for some articles here on Wikipedia invloving Preda....http://www.preda.org/photogallery.html it states on the top of the page...."YOU ARE ALL WELCOME TO USE ANY OF THE PHOTOS HERE". Is it ok to use them?Susanbryce (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You need to first establish that they own the copyright to all of these photos, and then you need to determine what license they are releasing them under. It may be that they intend to release the images to the public domain, but they have not specifically stated that. --Yamla (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

XBRL Logo violates XBRL Inc.'s Guidelines for use of a registered trademark

The XBRL logo image:xbrl-logo.png reproduced at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XBRL does not conform to the XBRL Inc. Guidelines for use even though the justification at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Xbrl-logo.png references these guidelines.

In particular these guidelines require that:

a) "You should identify XBRL International as the owner of the XBRL Logo in a clearly visible manner on all product packaging and written promotional materials having an area larger than 6 square inches (including, but not limited to, brochures, pamphlets, literature and informational displays). For example, you should use the following attribution language:

“The XBRL Logo is a trademark or service mark of XBRL International, Inc., registered in the United States and in other countries.”"

and

b) that "You may only use the XBRL Logo in its exact format as provided on the xbrl.org website at http://www.xbrl.org/TMLogos/LOGO-XBRL_ph.eps (Adobe Acrobat) or http://www.xbrl.org/TMLogos/LOGO-XBRL_with_R.jpg (for web use). Please do not make any changes to the XBRL Logo, by altering the color, typography or proportions."

Please replace the logo with the correct one and include the required text.

Thank you

Hwallis (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

We are not bound by XBRL's trademark policy because we are not reproducing the logo with permission, nor are we using it as a trademark. Moreover, even if we were we do not fall within the above language because: (1) it is not reproduced on an area larger than six square inches, and (2) no change was made to the color, typography, or proportions. An organization has no intellectual property right vis-a-vis prohibiting format changes to copyrighted materials used under fair use, or non-trademark use of its logo. Nevertheless, I will go ahead and add the legend to the image page as a courtesy. It would make no sense to add it to the article where the logo appears. Wikidemo (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
1) "An organization has no intellectual property right vis-a-vis prohibiting format changes to copyrighted materials used under fair use, or non-trademark use of its logo" - the logo IS the trademark registered in numerous jurisdictions so there cannot be any "non trademark use" of it
2) "it is not reproduced on an area larger than six square inches" - I think most people's monitors are larger than 6 inches by 6 inches - the wording does not refer to the size of the logo itself. The wording is intended to remove the need to include the wording on small documents such as business cards, which would be onerous if it were required
3) "no change was made to the color, typography, or proportions." this is not true - the logo that is reproduced on the web page is NOT the logo with the registered trademark symbol and is thus a violation of the trademark. I don't know why you would resist using the correct logo as requested and why you would take a combative approach by saying things like "as a courtesy" - it is a pretty simple request - "please use the right logo and state to whom it belongs" - shouldn't be too hard, offends no-one and makes everyone happy. Hwallis (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
See here for an explanation of why this is a legal, "non-trademark use" of a trademark. Wikipedia is well within its rights to use the logo in this way. Also, the trademark symbol is not a part of the mark, it is just something that users of the trademark may display to warn others that it is a trademark. There is no legal requirement to reproduce this indication. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
There's a non-trademark use right here in the encyclopedia, and again when you brought the issue up and reproduced the mark on this discussion page. Another non-trademark use every time your computer displays it. Trademark law only applies to the use of an identifiable name, phrase, image, or other identifier in a commercial context to make a claim as to the source, origin, or sponsorship of a good or service. That's all that a trademark registration covers. Anything else you do with a trademark is fair game, except that there are laws on copyright that apply too and we have policies over the copyright aspect of the image. You could compare it to owning a tree. You can own a tree, register the tree, put a fence around the tree, amd tell people it's your tree until the sun goes down but you cannot stop people from looking at it or taking a picture of it. You only own certain rights with respect to the tree. Regarding size of reproductions, that's a moot point because the use is okay in any event, but no, we don't have to create a strained interpretation of their trademark policy. They wrote their policy in a way that clearly doesn't contemplate electronic reproduction, and as the unilateral drafters of the policy any ambiguity is going to be construed strictly against them. If they want it to apply to computers they need to tell their lawyers to bring the policy wording into the 21st century. A registraiton symbol or legend is not part of a trademark even if it happens to be placed next to it. Adding circle-r and circle-tm to every logo reproduced on Wikipedia would be a project-wide policy decision and I don't think it's helpful or worth the effort, particularly because it's already clear from the context that it's a trademarked logo. Adding a text attribution to each logo use is clunky anywhere, but it would be especially bad page clutter in an infobox of an article devoted to the company in question. Wikidemo (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The following pages, amongst others, use the version of the respective trademark that contains the trademark symbol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwriters_Laboratories, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dell, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland_spring, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Seasons_Hotels_and_Resorts, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mcdonalds so it beats me why you would spend so much time and effort trying to justify why you don't have to afford XBRL the same consideration rather than taking the less time consuming approach of just replacing the current logo you are using with the one to which I have alrady provided you a link. Here it is again. http://www.xbrl.org/TMLogos/LOGO-XBRL_with_R.jpg Anyway - having checked elsewhere I certainly understand more about fair use now - so I'll rephrase the question. How about "pretty please"? Would that work? Thanks Hwallis (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I would be inclined to agree with that request, but I am not in a position to act on it myself. Stifle (talk) 09:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Hwallis - The bottom line here is quite simple: as long as the way in which Wikipedia makes use of trade marks does not fall foul of the law, Wikipedia is not obligated to respect any particular company's policy with regard to the use of those marks. And I'm not really getting your "time and effort" argument - objectively, it takes considerably more time and effort to replace every uploaded trade mark image that does not contain a "TM" or a circled 'r', than it does to simply not worry about whether or not such images contain such symbols. Since Wikipedia is a not-for-profit organization, it should, imo, be devoting its time to maximizing its purpose of providing information to the public, not satisfying corporations by conforming with usage requirements with which it has no legal obligation to conform. There's nothing wrong with corporations asking - and maybe someone will take it upon themselves to make the change asked for - but it's not reasonable to object when people quite correctly note that Wikipedia has no obligation to do the things requested.
Of course, having said all this, there's absolutely nothing stopping you from replacing the existing image with one that conforms to your expectations. You really don't need to ask first and I doubt anyone would object to the change. -- Hux (talk) 01:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
PS The links you list where images do contain trade mark symbols were almost certainly uploaded without any consideration of those symbols. I'm sure they were just grabbed from wherever and uploaded to the site, so the implication that Wikipedia is overtly respecting some companies' marks and not others is a poor one, I think. -- Hux (talk) 01:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

BLP article with copyright issues

I have three questions concerning apparent copyright violations on the Biography Living Persons article titled Jung Myung Seok http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jung_myung_seok

Question 1) The article currently includes a chart, purportedly created by one of the articles editors. You can find the chart here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:3div_chart.GIF. There is no way of telling if the chart is the editors original work or not. However, if the chart is the editors own creation as they claim, then it is an exact reproduction of an original work which is copyrighted. Is it legal for the editor to reproduce and publish the chart in order to skirt around obvious copyright violations? Is the content of the chart copyrighted, or is it the actual piece of paper the chart is printed on?
Question 2) The same article contains an image of Jung Myung Seok that is a movie still from a copyrighted video Image:Jung_sermon.jpg. The same editor as above justifies this copyright violation as fair use by claiming: "It is necessary to confirm the identity of the individual the article refers to, as often his followers don't refer to him with his full name (instead Pastor Joshua, or Joshua Lee, or Joshua Jung, etc.) which means people looking for information on him may not be sure the article refers to their "Pastor Joshua"." However, the article contains all names of the person in question, so any confusion would be negated by that means, not by a picture. Most readers have never met Jung Myung Seok and would have no idea what he looks like. Visual identification derives no benefit. The editor in question also claims: "It also serves to distinguish from any other individuals referred to by the same names, particularly important due to subject's infamy." However, a search of the internet brings up no other person with the same exact name. To resolve this problem, is it possible to use a photograph that has been already used (but not produced by) a news outlet. For example, would the photograph at http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2886496 be allowed?
Question 3) Another editor of the same article proposes in the Talk page to use as article sources copyrighted material not of his own, but taken from the author, which are currently located at his own blog website. This editor has been warned in the past, and yet for the last 6 months he repeatedly linked to stolen copyrighted material (that is, not of his own) located on his blog site. I have repeatedly deleted the sources, only to receive threats and badgering from the editor in question. Am I wrong in deleting the sources? He accuses me of vandalism, but I understand myself to be in the right. If you would like evidence of his actions, I can provide that by simply looking in the history of the article and history of the Talk page. If I am right, could you please send someone to clarify this policy for the editor in question so that I do not have to continue to police these actions?

Could you please respond via my talk page? I very much appreciate your time. Uptional (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I replied to your questions here, as requested. Regards, Hux (talk) 03:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia owned images

Should images such as Image:Www.wikipedia.org screenshot.png have a fair use tag and rationale? Obviously it's unlikely that there's going to be any legal threat over the issue but shouldn't all images have to comply with WP:NFCC? Have I missed a section of policy/guideline dealing with this? Guest9999 (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, Wikimedia isn't able to violate its own copyrights. This may need an official exemption somewhere though. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Geoffrey Hodgson's image

on 9 December 2007 the image of Geoffrey Hodgson was deleted by Orphan bot. I shot this image and uploaded this image a year earlier and provided it with the required extra information I think. Can somebody give me some tips how to get the image back on Geoffrey's wiki, and this time for more than a year maybe? I still have the original image by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JTLely (talk • contribs) 02:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

On 3 December 2007 User:Geoffhodgson replaced your image with one that lacked source info. The bot removed his image from the article, not yours. All three of your images are still uploaded and available. —teb728 t c 02:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC) I restored one of your images. —teb728 t c 03:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right teb 728. Many thanks for clearing this and putting the image back!

JTLely (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Copy Rights

I want to post a picture that I took myself. How do I post it, Wikipedia won't allow me to post it because of the copy right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolm Heyns (talk • contribs) 05:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If you took the picture yourself, you own the copyright on it, and as such can freely release it under a Creative Commons license (any w/o ND or NC) or under the GFDL (note: it's irrevocable!). -Jéské (v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing) 05:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
To elaborate slightly on Jéské's response: since you took the photos, they are yours and you are free to do as you like with them. However, before Wikipedia will agree to put them up, we need you to either license them into the public domain (which would mean you were giving up all of your rights over the photos) or license them under a free license (such as Creative Commons or the GFDL). Releasing them under a free license would mean that anybody could use your photos for whatever they liked as long as they gave you credit when doing so. As Jéské said, if you do decide to release them under a free license, you can't change your mind later; the decision is irrevocable. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

How about making it easier to add a self-owned image?

Gosh, you need a PHd in computer science to follow your labyrinthine instructions about uploading a photo! Why not a 'ready-made form' easily filled in, that the general public (like me) can actually understand!! Your Wiki rules and info is so obtuse that I cannot figure it out. Brendan McCarthy (comic books) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swimini (talk • contribs) 17:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Try here.Geni 23:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Itchy.jpg

I have completed the fair use rationale and, unless there are further concerns, await the removal of the disputed tag. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 18:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:David Archuleta.jpg

Are the rationale and source on this image valid? Corvus cornixtalk 19:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No. In particular “No free or public domain images have been located of this person” does not explain why replacement by a free image is not possible. Good rationales include “he’s dead,” “he’s in prison,” and “he’s a recluse.” For this subject there probalby is no valid rationale. —teb728 t c 19:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I've put a puidisputed tag on the page. Corvus cornixtalk 21:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Image of King Edward VI Five Ways

I'd like to put this picture of the old KEFW. Very little is known about the image, i.e. there is no information of the copyright holder. All I know about the image is that was taken in the 19th century, so there is a high probability that the photographer died more than 100 years ago, but I can't say that for certain. Should the school own the copyright, then they have no objection to the image being shown on the page. So, can it be used, or not? Alex Holowczak (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This shows it is a 19th century image. Alex Holowczak (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Eh UK so life +70. Could be kinda dicey if late 19th century.Geni 23:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Butia capita

Image:Bigbutiacapitata.jpg This image was recently added to Exotic plants by User:Jnspire (Talk). The description says that the uploader found it on a website without copyright notice, but a.) I don't think that means it is in the public domain and b.) the website is a commercial vendor. Is this image allowable? --♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Inasmuch as the source site does not explicitly disclaim copyright, it is presumed to be copyrighted. —teb728 t c 01:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:PhantomoftheOpera-BoatScene.PNG

Image:PhantomoftheOpera-BoatScene.PNG is currently being used Her Majesty's Theatre. I’m concerned that it violates WP:NFCC#8, as the image depicts actors in the phantom of the opera musical, while the article is about the theatre structure. The image does not appear to contribute significantly to our understanding of the theatre, its exclusion would not appear to be a detriment to our understanding, and prose in the article does not appear to constitute “critical commentary” of the actors necessary to validate the fair use claim. Thoughts? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 04:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As User:Woody noted on User:SandyGeorgia's talk page, the image "adds significantly to the article as it illustrates the actors [named in the accompanying text] in a decorated role, the longest run in the history of the theatre. It is a scene from the musical that illustrates what it would have looked like" in situ, so to speak. The image shows a scene from the musical (The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical)) that had its worldwide premiere at Her Majesty's Theatre and has been playing at the theatre for the past 22 years; an historic run and also the theatre's longest run. It suggests the suitability of this French Rennaisance theatre interior to stand in for the Paris Opera House, which is the setting of the story. The actors depicted in this 1986 photo created these roles at the theatre, and one won the Olivier Award for his performance, while the other is world famous for her creation of the role. For all these reasons, the photo has historic significance for the theatre. Therefore, the image adds significantly to the understanding of readers, especially with respect to the section of the article in which the image appears, which is substantially a description of the musical.-- Ssilvers (talk) 05:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The section heading is 'today', but is essentially an extension of the discussion of 'performance' at the theatre since this building was built. The article in totality covers the history of different theatres on the site since 1705; and covers theatrical, ballet and opera productions at the theatre. The paragraph, against which the image appears, is solely about the production, which premièred at - and has run at - the theatre for 22 years. I have changed the heading, for clarity.
The article is not solely about the theatre structure. There is an intimate link between place and performance. Original productions at a theatre are not fungible, like (say) a touring rock group, or a touring production. The cast and crew are part of the theatre accounts and the sets are built into the fabric of the theatre. When this production finally stops, the stage will have to be dismantled. Kbthompson (talk) 13:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
You should try and make this clearer, both in this article and in one about such theatre productions in general (is there a name for this?). Carcharoth (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what it's like on Broadway, but there are a handful of these on the London stage - having their roots in Herbert Tree's extravaganzas (at Her Maj's, again). Something like a les Mise, or Phantom, is a holy grail - for the cash to be made. I did come across an article about the Maj's stage equipment - the current is mentioned peripherally, as it's interleaved with the original 1895 stage equipment. I'm thinking about adding a note on that, but the idea is to try to get the article to settle down for now - and settle issues about the picture used with the details of the Phantom. Kbthompson (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I've replaced the image with another, of the exterior of the theatre - at elcobbola's suggestion. The article now has three exterior shots of the theatre - it would be good if this image could be used - but I happy to abide by a consensus achieved here. The image would replace the current one in the section entitled Phantom of the Opera. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
From Maria Björnson obit The Telegraph 13/12/2002 :

When the production went to Her Majesty's Theatre in London in 1986, all the original Victorian stage machinery was discovered beneath the stage; Maria Björnson found a way of harnessing it to show the Phantom travelling across the lake as if floating on a sea of mist and fire.

I believe that shows the direct relevance of that picture to the theatre, and if both were added to the text would indicate that the picture is illuminating critical commentary on the production and the theatre itself ... Kbthompson (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
It's cutting it close, but I'll buy that. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 00:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
You're a gentleman and a scholar. Any nay-sayers? I shall put it back in and the write the delicate prose tomorrow. Thank you. Kbthompson (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link

Hi, I do the Wikipedia article for the book "Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link". I got the following message:


"Image:ProminentLinkjacket.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

"Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

"BetacommandBot (talk) 05:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)"


I'm using the image with the permission of the book's primary author, who I also assume to be the image copyright holder. How do you want me to indicate this? I visited some of the links in the message, but I find the explanations wordy and unclear, and I'm not sure what you want. I will greatly appreciate your assistence in this matter.

Has that author released the image under a free license such as the GFDL?Geni 13:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Someone added a use rationale, which is what the bot was looking for. —teb728 t c 01:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Images of dolls

Hi, I want to add images of the Sindy doll to the article, but while researching uploading images I discovered that they may be derivative works of a copyrighted item. I checked the Barbie article to see what was done there, and noticed some images of Barbie dolls that claim to be public domain (Image:Vintagebarbie.jpg) or licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 License (Image:Barbie.jpg). Are these licences incorrect? Thanks, Somno (talk) 03:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no. The images are effectively derivative works, and shouldn't be on commons. It's okay to use them in an article as long as they are tagged with a fair use tag. It would be the same as taking a photograph of a piece of sculpture in order to discuss it. A single image of a Barbie doll in an encyclopaedia article about the doll is almost certainly fair use (no economic competition, minimal use of the material, transformative, etc. ). Megapixie (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Megapixie, I'll make sure the images I add have fair use rationales. Somno (talk) 02:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

A website has the band logo

The bandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/403_Forbiddena 403 Forbiddena has a logo that can be found in their http://www.muzie.co.jp/cgi-bin/artist.cgi?id=a003884 muzie website but I do not know under what copyright I am allowed to place this image. From what I can see the image was previously uploaded and erased. I am unsure if I can ask the band for permission as Japanese is not a language I speak and much less write. So, would I be allowed to use this picture?CesarAndreu (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

For logos, you could use {{Non-free logo}}. You must provide a detailed Fair Use rationale if you use this though. -- Hux (talk) 06:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Socialist Albania?

Hi. I have an image, a symbol of the Albanian Party of Labour, scanned from the cover of a book, published in Tirana, 1981, no copyright mark whatsover. Do you know if works belonging to PPSH would be PD, since PPSH has no legal inheritor and since Albania at the time had no copyright laws? Thanks, --Soman (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, a copyrighted work doesn't necessarily need to be asserted as such in order to be copyrighted. If there were no copyright laws at the time in Albania and no legal inheritor now then that would imply that it's PD. I would suggest uploading it as such and noting the presumed circumstances, as you've done here. The more proof you can provide about the non-existence of copyright at the time the better. -- Hux (talk) 06:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Guru meditation.gif

I'm starting to wonder if this could be pd-ineligible, since all it is, is just a typeface with a blinking box around it. I see nothing original, since it merely consists of geometric shapes, all of which are under common property. ViperSnake151 15:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say that's a fair argument. Others may or may not agree. Megapixie (talk) 08:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia -> wikipedia

hello, i was wondering if i got a picture from wikimedia commons, or just wikipedia, is it allowed to use it on another wikipedia page?

i was wondering because it were the best pictures ;-)

starwars_culemborg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starwars culemborg (talk • contribs) 10:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

depends. Is the image under a free license or is fair use claimed (if you are not sure just name the image).Geni 11:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

noble street charter pics

i attend this high school and was interested in taking pictures of my uniform so that those who go to the page know what it looks like. if i upload that pic and say it is my own work will i get in trouble? Jpagan09 (talk) 13:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Beyond saying it is your own work, you must license it under a free license or release it into the public domain, and you need to indicate that license or release with an appropriate WP:image copyright tag. —teb728 t c 18:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

i have 2 specific questions...please reply as soon as possible

When was wikipedia published(copyright date)? Where was wikipedia published? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.206.23.95 (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The answer to both questions is that Wikipedia is not published. I suspect what you want is Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. —teb728 t c 02:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Photo of government document

Image:Russian Birth Certificiate of Michael Lucas.JPG is a photograph of a Russian birth certificate. It's labelled {{self|GFDL}}. Should this be considered a derivative work of a government document? I can't find any information on the copyright status of such documents. Bovlb (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Russian copyright law explicitly states that official documents are not protected by copyright, so it would seem that photographers of such documents are entitled to release their work under the GFDL if they choose. However, it might even be that a straight photograph of a Soviet/Russian official document is public domain by default. -- Hux (talk) 06:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. That seems fairly clear. For bonus points, should we ask people to assert this type of information upfront? That is, if you're uploading an image derived from a 2-D object, then surely you ought to include a claim about the copyright status of the underlying object. Bovlb (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
As with all things copyright, the answer is "that depends". For example, if you upload a photo of a person and there just so happens to be a movie poster in the background, you don't have to mention the copyright status of that poster; the photo's copyright belongs to you exclusively. However, I believe I'm right in saying that if the subject of your photograph is a copyrighted work (e.g. you took a photo of the movie poster specifically) then all the rules about attribution and exclusive rights apply, i.e. you can't upload the photo and claim it as your own work. In the case of works that are public domain due to a particular law (such as the photo you mentioned), obviously there's no legal requirement to cite the law that makes them public domain, but it certainly can't hurt to put the PD tag in there anyway in order to stave off any problems later down the line, e.g. if an overzealous editor slaps a deletion tag on it. -- Hux (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I was aware of that rule (although I couldn't find a good link to it in our policies) and that is the situation I was thinking of. Bovlb (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Carol Van Sant

Hi,

I got the good ole bot warning on the image I downloaded here. I don't understand; how much more specific can I get? I blather on at length in the rationale, check the appropriate copyright box (in this case, screenshot). What am I missing? Thanks for your assistance. Please respond on my talk page. Cheers--Cbradshaw (talk) 07:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Y Done (wrong article was back linked) Megapixie (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

i-pod

Why was the i-pod created —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.157.219 (talk) 07:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You might want to ask at the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing or try the Ipod article. I would suspect the desire to make money might have something to do with it. Megapixie (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


Image:CruiseBook1959.jpg

This image is actually in the public domain. The book and the art were made by U.S. Navy personnel on active duty as a part of their duties. It was scanned by me and uploaded long ago.

Some bot is threatening to remove it. How do I express the proper status of the image? (The bot, thinking it is a non-free image, isn't helpful.) Lou Sander (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

fixed - you had the tag {{bookcover}} on it, which implied it was non-free. —Random832 15:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. All this image diddling is pissing a lot of people off, and making a LOT of enemies. If this image wasn't close to my heart, I'd have just gone away mad. Lou Sander (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Launch Title

Until today, Image:Super Mario Bros box.jpg was used on Launch title with an invalid fair use rationale. When I asked on IRC, it was suggested that use of this image might be permissible under NFCC because video games are a new enough medium that there will be no free images available of a "Launch title". Anyone here have any thoughts? —Random832 14:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't need an unfree image to explain the concept - so don't use one. Ask yourself these questions - will someone not understand the concept without an image? No. Are you commenting about the artwork used on the box? No. Then this is not fair use. Megapixie (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Pdsnet.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Protocol_Data_Services

This image as been up for some time, I'm the MD of the company I also own the rights to the image, I obviously have given permission for its use here.

Steven M Mold

<email removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingaman (talk • contribs) 01:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone has added a use rationale, which is what the bot was looking for. —teb728 t c 01:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

copyright question

G'day. You have sent me a note stating that I haven't made clear the copyright status of an image I uploaded to "National Data Network" called "NDN example.jpg". I'm not sure what catagory I should put it in. I work for the Australian Bureau of Statistics in the National Data Network Business Office. We developed this image for our pamphlets and demonstrations but we haven't copyrighted it. I've asked our corporate section how this image should be described, but they seem to be stumped as well. If you can give me any suggestions or help with this, I would really appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frijan (talk • contribs) 04:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have the agreement of the person who created the image, I would suggest tagging it with
{{attribution|National Data Network Business Office}}
indicating that anyone can use the image for any purpose, as long as the "National Data Network Business Office" is credited with having created the image. Megapixie (talk) 04:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair Use Rational provided

fair use rational has been provided for Image:Bcci_logo.jpg please review

Y Done I've expanded it a little along the general lines I use for such images. Megapixie (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

General questions on screen shots

  1. Would this be a good example of fair use justification for screen shot of an actor from a movie or TV show: Image:JimBroadbentDigoryKirke.jpg. Can I use this as a guideline, or is there a better example?
  2. Does it matter if I produced the screen capture myself from a DVD? The capture would be much lower resolution than the original.
  3. Is it acceptable to create a gallery of screen shots in the Wiki article? I am thinking of providing 15-20 thumbnails as an overview of the actor's work. The user would be able to magnify and view any of the images.
    Thank you. WWriter (talk) 12:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
To answer your question (converted to numbers)
  1. No. It's not fair use in the context of merely identifying the actor. It might be acceptable on the character page.
  2. It's generally better, since you are avoiding any derivative works that may occur in someone else resizing/cropping an image.
  3. No. Having a "gallery" of fair use images is explicitly prohibited, since our use in that case would not be minimal.
Megapixie (talk) 12:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Image for use at the iPAQ article

Would it be okay to use the image from [25] at the iPAQ article? I don't own iPAQs or know anyone who does, so we don't have free-sourced images. What copyright would this image fall under? I have no clue aJCfreak yAk 15:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

We could reasonably create a free image showing the same thing, so no - it's not okay to use. Megapixie (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Another Q

On my 'my talk' link there is a message concerning Image:Example.jpg.

The message is

(quote) Thanks for uploading Image:Beach.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. etc.....

I have never seen this image before, it is nothing to do with me, and I have no idea why I have been asked to add a tag to it.

What is it all about please?

ammonite (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No idea - when bots go bad ? Just delete the message and get on with your life. Megapixie (talk) 02:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Confused - I own the copyright

I am a new editor to Wikipedia and all thse little messages I get are confusing. I am being challenged on an image craig(red).jpg which I own. I have NO idea how I can prove this or state this fact and yet I have a thread of 'speedy' deletion over the image.

I understand that Wikipedia cannot know the origins or rights of all the images but if you want the copyright addressed properly why be so criptic? It makes it very hard to correct? - Why not help new users know exactly what to do to allow self owned pictures to be available on the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roundcat (talk • contribs) 20:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I can only assume that you are refering to Image:Craigreddy2.jpg. One of the goals of wikipedia is to produce a free encyclopedia (as in free-speech, rather than free-beer). As such we require images to be released under a free license (Read Wikipedia:Uploading images) like cc-by or the GFDL. Under the fair-use/fair-dealing provision in copyright law, we may use small amounts of copyright work to comment critically on the work in question. I would suggest releasing the images under a free license which would probably fix the problem.
Of course you can only release the images under a free license if you created the images.
As for your more general questions, personally I agree it's problematic but it's very difficult to effect any kind of change while still maintaining a firstlife somewhere else. Megapixie (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Megapixie, I think he is referring to Image:Craig(red).jpg.
Roundcat, To restate what Megapixie, is saying, you own Image:Craig(red).jpg, but you have not yet licensed it to be hosted on Wikipedia. Wikipedia’s policy requires that you license it not only for Wikipedia but also for reuse by anyone for anything. Specifically you need to add one of these tags to the image page. —teb728 t c 05:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:LOU_TsengTsiang_1922.jpg

Can somebody give an expert opinion on whether I've done this right? --Paularblaster (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Y Done Looks alright to me Megapixie (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Imagery dispute - questions on how to authenticate.

Hi there,

I have the following notifications:

I have reviewed: “Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline”. After reading this, I am even more confused. What have I done wrong?

Please help me dot the “I”s and cross the “t”s so I may better contribute to the world of Wikipedia. The Tau Empire, and it’s imagery desperately need good pictures. The pictures provided are my own, (of Games Workshop models,) and are most certainly painted by myself.

Please let me know how I can help. <email redacted>

Best Wishes

Timothy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyro Bot (talk • contribs) 23:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Most likely it wants you to use the template form of the fair use rationale - (see WP:FURG again):
{{Non-free use rationale
|Article=
|Description=
|Source=
|Portion=
|Low_resolution=
|Purpose=
|Replaceability=
|other_information=
}}
Make sure you fill in all the fields and backlink to the article where it's being used. Don't forget that the sculptural work in the models makes them copyright to the creating company irrespective of any paint that you may apply to it... Megapixie (talk) 02:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Tzitzimime

The picture being used on wikipedia, on the Tzitzimime page is a violation of copyrights. The picture looks like IMage:Tzitzimitl.jpg This image is derived from here. The author is still very much alive even! The real codex picture is right here off of FAMSI. As you can see its very different than the picture Manus said copyrights had expired. Can we get this removed?

Xuchilbara (talk) 00:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Tagging the offending image with {{copyvio|http://www.lydiaruyle.com/mexico.html}} would be the correct process in this case. Megapixie (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyright

I have posted some images on the article for Ferizaj, than I got the information that sad that the images need a copyright informatians, those are images that i took myself when I was in Kosovo this summer, Ferizaj is my city, I lived there before, I come from there, is this a political problem or something else? Please tell me what do I do that those images will have the copyright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lepurushi (talk • contribs) 03:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, no it is not a political problem. You need to add one of these tags to the image page. The tag will say that you took the image and describe how you allow it to be used. Somno (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Posting television show theme song

Hello all,

I've read through these postings as well as Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Audio_clips but I still have a question. During a bet, solved by use of Wikipedia :-), I discovered that an old TV show I watched as a kid, Fame_(1982_TV_series), didn't list the famous theme song. Through a Google search I found it but it made me think about the rules of such.

Can I upload the .mp3 of the theme song? What if I recorded it from a tape I owned? I assume someone owns the rights to that song (singer, producer) so there must be limits. What if I made an external link to another website that holds it?

Thanks for your thoughts -- Joelotz (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Uploading the complete theme song would be unlikely to fall withing our non free content policy.Geni 11:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Joelotz: What you could do instead is upload a clip of the song to Wikipedia and provide a Fair Use rationale to justify it being used on that Fame article. Note also that if you choose instead to link to an external site that hosts the theme tune, you can only do that if that site is hosting the file with the copyright holder's permission. -- Hux (talk) 02:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Down-loading the Wikipedia

I am a teacher in a prison in Victoria Australia. Our incarcerated students do not have access to the internet but would like to have access to the Wikipedia. Does Wikipedia give permission for content from it's free encyclopedia/wiki to be downloaded to a local intranet server to enable offline access? It is intended that it would be reproduced faithfully withou alteration, but would be acknowledged that content was captured on a given date Jonathon ellis (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Database download it's a pretty big download (around 3GB for just the articles), and might be a bit fiddly to setup - but it's possible. See http://download.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20080103/ for the latest. Megapixie (talk) 04:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Jonathon Ellis: If you provide access to an offline copy without first removing articles like this one then I will applaud your commitment to the free spread of information. ;) -- Hux (talk) 02:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wat_Phra_Dhammakaya... again

[[26]] This page about the controversial temple in Thailand was suddenly bombarded with pictures of news clip hosted from geocities. These same clips have been posted before and was dismissed, you can still see the talk on the discussion page. I'm not sure if the articles should be tagged or images individually. Suredeath (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If obviously copyrighted images are being used inappropriately then flag each image on its own page for deletion. In addition, if the article is continuously being bombarded with new, unfree images every time old ones keep getting legitimately removed, you could ask an administrator to help by posting at WP:ANI. -- Hux (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this image a copyright violation?

It's essentially a carbon copy of the one at [27] - the editor has created the chart in an imaging progam, but has copied the house style of The Economist. Terrence Wrist (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It would have to be traced to count as a derivative work. If the graph was re-generated using the data in excel, and the label names were reused, then it should be okay. I can't actually see the original. Has the user just traced the original ? Megapixie (talk) 01:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I can't see any significant differences. Colours , font etc are all the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrence Wrist (talk • contribs) 20:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Point #10 at this link seems to imply that recreated charts don't qualify as non-free images. -- Hux (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ring of Barahir photo

I was reading articles on Middle-Earth and wondered whether a photo from noblecollection.com of the Ring of Barahir (and other items) could be included in the article and under what license. I was thinking perhaps fair use since it illustrates a fictional item. Please respond on my talk page. Jonjames1986 (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Responded. -- Hux (talk) 03:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The Devil Wears Prada

Hi,

I uploaded the image Image:Dear_Love_A_Beautiful_Discord2.jpg

Now, I really can't figure out what the problem is. Its album art for the alum ...

Can someone pleases explain in plan english what the problem is, and how can i fix it??

Thanks you, :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpaceCowboy892 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:FURG then add
{{Non-free use rationale
|Article=
|Description=
|Source=
|Portion=
|Low_resolution=
|Purpose=
|Replaceability=
|other_information=
}}
To the image description page filling out the fields as WP:FURG describes. Megapixie (talk) 04:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Alternatively, you can remove all the other tags and add {{album rationale}}, filling out each field. This template automatically adds the copyright license for album covers, and the FUR is specific to album art. I've done this for you. Please look over it so you'll have it for future reference. Lara❤Love 15:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

VHS Scans

I am curious as to why properly-credited VHS back cover scans containing footage of a TV or video series for purposes of identification has absolutely no fair use protection. At the same time, I did not see how TV series logos are justified as being fair use, yet nobody questions these so long as they are credited for what they are.

Is the problem that I scanned it off the back of a VHS rather than grabbing an actual screenshot? Or is the problem that I used a scanner? If I found a clip of the show off a website, it'd be removed even more quickly. So then, how does any footage get used at all for identification if it is neither permissible from the web nor from a scanner?The Bulldozer --(talk) 07:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If your question is with regard to Image:GreatestAdventureBackArt.jpg, the problem with that image is that have not provided a use rationale as described in WP:NFURG. —teb728 t c 08:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
It's fixed now. Lara❤Love 15:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Insertion of logo

My question is can I insert this logo in the relevant Wikipedia webpage on Northern Ireland Alliance Youth Forum? http://www.alliance-youth.net/forum/Political Dweeb (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You'll need {{Non-free logo}} and {{logo fur}}. Lara❤Love 15:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Why my image is a candidate for speedy deletoin

I upoaded an image "Books islahi01.jpg" at url http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_Ahsan_Islahi. This image is a candidate for speedy deletion. It is argued that I uploaded it under fair use.

The reality is that this image is not under fair use. It is taken by myself and I uploaded it into Public Domain.

Then why have you declared this image as a cindidate of speedy deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhaur (talk • contribs) 05:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Polly, who marked it for speedy deletion, seems to have realized her error immediately and removed the tag from the image page. Unfortunately, she didn't make the correction in the article itself; I've done so now. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

no copyright information?

Hello,

Where do I find copyright information on old record album covers that have no copyright information? My uploaded images were deleted without this. How do I specify the image so it will not be deleted?

Thank You

Ron —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loginnowplease (talk • contribs) 12:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You'll need to use {{Non-free album cover}} and either {{album rationale}} for albums or {{single rationale}} is it is for a single. Lara❤Love 15:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
If the album cover was first published in the United States before 1978 without a copyright notice, the album cover's copyright immediately entered the public domain. However, the album cover may contain artwork or photographs that are under a copyright separate from the album cover's. — Walloon (talk) 19:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Help

Can someone take a look at this image and let me know if I have submitted an appropriate argument for fair use. Thanks Image:Sabrina.Matthews.gif‎ —Preceding unsigned comment added by DYiokaris (talk • contribs) 21:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have not explained why a free equivalent could not be created. Ms. Matthews is a living person; she is not a recluse; and she is not in jail. Why couldn’t someone take a free picture? Perhaps she or the Boston Ballet might provide a free image or license this one freely. —teb728 t c 21:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyright tag Question

I would like to ask a question thats of use to me and any other Wikipedia users. On a image description page of an uploaded image how do you add to it a copyright tag with the license and source of the image.Political Dweeb (talk) 15:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

See the Frequently Asked Question, “How to add a copyright tag to an existing image,” at the top of this page. Beside that, if the image copyright tag you choose in step 2 is a non-free tag, you will also need to provide a non-free use rationale.
So, for your image Image:PUP Logo.gif, for example, presumably the tag should be {{non-free logo}}. And since this is a non-free tag, there needs to be a use rationale (as you have already done). —teb728 t c 18:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)