Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2007/July

Possible problem with Cicso images I uploaded

I was left a message by user User:Adamantios stating that the following photos are not logo's and to supply fair use rationale. I used the logo tag for these photos because I saw this is how another editor used the logo tag for a photo of a computer harware item. The photo in question came from glossy print material and others came from the company website. And the snap server was emailed to me by the company and I was told the photo was given in all there promotional material. In all, all the photos are promotional photos from vendors to promote a product. They are used in Wiki not to promote a product but rather used to explain what such items look like. Could you please explain how to tag these items and are they not covered under fair use? How do I tag them for fair use? What about {{Non-free promotional}}example of one image [[Image:Cisco7600seriesrouter.jpg]]—Thanks! --akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 11:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

At first glance, it looks like all the photos you uploaded [1] save the bookcover could be replaced with free photographs of the products, and thus fail WP:NFCC #1. nadav (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't really see a place where you could take a photo of an actual runningpiece of equipement that costs over a million dollars. ISP really are not interested in letting you in to take a photo of thier secure location. Cisco CRS-1 for example. These photos are all from glossy prints from advertising material. Could you please explain to me the issue. I even called SnapServer up to make sure it was ok with them and Cisco as well. I would think this tag would handle this issue:{{Non-free promotional}} From promotional ad material supplied by vendor to promote this product. There are no free replacement photos available that would show this item and or class of product. --akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 16:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of whether it's ok with the companies; the question is whether it will be possible for someone to eventually obtain free images of any of these products. You should take this question to Wikipedia:Fair use review. nadav (talk) 04:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed! So this is exactly why I included these photos. The CRS-1 run the Internet backbone and are in secure locations. Holds true for the 7600 series routers too. No one is going to let you into a secure computer room so you can take a picture of one. Its a securty risk. I properly tagged the photos and added fair use information. --akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 12:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Help with image again

With regard to this image which I asked a question about yesterday: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Benoitring.jpg

The author of the image on Flickr granted permission to release the photo under the GNU Free Documentation license. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v452/bbsrock/flickr.jpg

How can I incorporate this into the page for the image so it can be used in the article? Bbsrock 15:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

All this shows is that you asked him about it. Don't change the tags on the image until it is confirmed. — Moe ε 19:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• You will need to have the author send an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org referencing the file name on Wikipedia and stating he is releasing it under the GFDL. See Wikipedia:Permissions. Then leave a message when that has been done and someone will dig out the info and add it to the image. If the image is deleted in the meantime it's ok, we can undelete it if necessary. -N 19:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The author sent in an email releasing the image under GFDL. If someone could find it and indicate the appropriate information on the image, I'd appreciate it. Bbsrock 02:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Cillian Murphy photo

I believe I've found a photo that would be acceptable for the Cillian Murphy page: http://flickr.com/photos/mirka23/48909664/. The photographer's Flickr notes say that it can be used for noncommercial purposes as long as there's attribution. This is the first image I've ever tried to add to Wiki, and I'm pretty confused by all the reading I've done so far about how to do it properly, so thanks in advance for your help.

• Is this photo OK to add?
• If so, can I crop it?
• And what are the steps I need to take to insure that it is not deleted? (Links to procedures pages would be much appreciated.)
• If this photo is not OK to add, do you have a suggestion for how to find an acceptable photo of this actor?

--Melty girl 22:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No, this picture could not be used on Wikipedia. You'll see the license includes the icon, meaning that the image cannot be used commercially, which goes against Wikipedia's license. You may want to FlickrMail the user if you have a Flickr account to see if she will release it under just an Attribution license. If she agrees, you can upload it to the Wikimedia Commons (cropping it is fine). The upload page has a page especially for Flickr images, along with a template for them. ShadowHalo 23:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick answer! --Melty girl 04:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Ann and Laura

I managed to get permission from the copyright manager of RCA for use of the image Ann_and_Laura_JPEGjpg. This image was taken from the sleeve of an RCA recording. He stated that RCA Sony have no issue about the use of this image on Wikipedia (Jason Lundy 28/06/07 RCA Sony BMG). I have since added this to the Licence section under 'Fair Use' is this the correct categorie, as I could not see anything else applicable. There didn't appear to be a catagorie if permission was obtained.88.105.218.255 23:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The generic licensing tag for copyrighted images being used under WP:NONFREE is {{Non-free fair use in}}. Images being used under WP:NONFREE that have permission for use on Wikipedia should be tagged with {{withpermission}}. I've added these tags, but you need to write a fair use rationale explaining why the image meets the criteria for using copyrighted media, if it does. ShadowHalo 00:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

U.S. government OK, how about Canada?

Are images that are from a Canadian federal government source allowed? I'm not up-to-date on my international copyright law. Thanks, Dmp348 01:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

No, they are under Crown copyright. ShadowHalo 01:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

My pic i posted

i got a email saying i needeed to put a tag on my picture i uploaded, how do i do this. And i had uploaded my picture to put on the Tanya tucker page, put i dont know how, can you do this for me?

Did you take this photo yourself? If so, go to Wikipedia:Image_tags#For_image_creators and decide which free license you would like to release the photo under. Then go tothe image page and click "edit this page." In the editing box, explain that you took the photo and paste in the license tag you have chosen. If you did not take the picture, tell us where you got it and we can help you tag it properly. Calliopejen1 10:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Cillian Murphy photo, part 2

Hello again -- I contacted the photographer and asked her if she would be comfortable changing the license as you advised. She responded by doing that and adding the photo herself to the Cillian Murphy page: Image:Cillianmurphy.jpg. Does everything look correct? Thank you! --Melty girl 06:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It's almost there! Make sure that your friend understands that she must release the photo so everyone can use it, not just wikipedia. If she is ok with that, you should change the text on the image page so that it no longer says "grant the rights for use on Wikipedia." (If she is not ok with that, we can't use the image on wikipedia either. Come back here and we can help you get it removed from the site and advise how to change the licensing info on flickr.) Calliopejen1 10:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

All set now, thank you so much! --Melty girl 01:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for assistance with rationale

User:BetacommandBot says that there is a problem with the rationale I suppied for image Image:Kerbango.jpg; however, since I've already done everything posted in the warning I have no idea what else may be required.

What more detailed advice can you provide?

• Unfortunately a free picture of this device could be found, so it must be deleted under WP:NFCC#1. Actually I'm going to replace your picture with a free one I found on Flickr. -N 19:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, since the product was never commercially released you may have been able to make an argument the picture was irreplaceable..except a free image has now been substituted. Thanks for writing a fine article about the Kerbango :) -N 00:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Question About Correct License Tag to Use...

Had a question about License tagging for Image:Alex Mandossian 11.jpg.

The image is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Alex_Mandossian_11.jpg

Not sure of the specfic license tagging for the image, or the coding to insert that tagging on the page.

- This image is a publicity photo.

- Copyright holder (Alex Mandossian) gave permission to use this photo freely on Wikipedia.org and any website, as well as several other photos available from http://www.alexmandossian.com/about/. This discussion took place via phone conversation with Alex Mandossian on 6/29/07.

- Url from this image is: http://www.askmylist.com/alexpics/images/Alex11_jpg.jpg and again is listed on this page: http://www.alexmandossian.com/about/.

Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thank you. Author07 16:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• The correct copyright tag would be {{db-noncom}}. Sadly, your image will be deleted soon because Wikipedia does not accept images for use "by permission only" and it does not accept non-free (libre free, see Gratis versus Libre) images of living people. Please see WP:NFCC. -N 22:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

what tage should I use for an image that already exists on wikipedia...

this image is taken from an image on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_Today

what copyright tag should I use?

--Soul Reaper 19:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• You cannot use a fair use image to illustrate Chris Morris himself. The other image is being used to illustrate his TV show. I'm afraid you image will be deleted. Please read WP:NFCC especially number 1 to understand why. -N 19:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyright help HABS, HAES (LoC)

Hello, I think as I often do that I goofed. Are Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record copyright-free resources? Page 16 in "Northwestern Consolidated Elevator "A", 119 Fifth Avenue South, Minneapolis, Hennepin County, MN" (photos and text) seems to me to say the authors' work belongs to MacDonald and Mack Partnership for Minneapolis Riverfront Development Coordination Board, the Minnesota Historical Society, and an author's dissertation (1970s-1980s). I would guess I need to ask for deletion of a number of photos. Thanks for any information. -Susanlesch 03:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

To me, this sounds like the authors of the report used the cited sources as references. I think you're in the clear. howcheng {chat} 02:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Howcheng, thanks. -Susanlesch 05:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Blanxwhitening.Jpg

can you have pictures of packaging bearing the manufacturers logo on wikipedia? Michaelsurtees 19:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe. If you're looking for a free image it depends how close up the image is to the packaging and several other factors. The image should be fine as fair use, as long as you took the picture yourself. Using somebody else's picture of the packaging subjects the image to a potential double copyright, on the item and on the picture. -N 20:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The Confusion about Copyright and Images

I have uploaded my company's corporate information and am trying to add our official photographs of the facilities and product images. The copyright of the images rightfully belongs to my company as we commissioned a photographer to take the photographs.

In this case, what is the copyright category that our photographs are under?

For images like Image:Mint Facade - High Res.jpg to be used on Wikipedia, they must be released under a free license. (Occasionally wikipedia allows copyrighted photos not under free licenses, but only if they are irreplaceable historic images, which this one is not.) You can look throughWp:ict#For_image_creators and see if there are any free licenses you would like to release the image under. Note that all free licenses must allow commercial use of the image by any party, as well as modification of the image. If none of these licenses are acceptable to you, the image must be deleted. Also, please read WP:COI if you are writing an article about your own museum--this is normally discouraged. Calliopejen1 10:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I also see that an image you uploaded of your company's logo has been deleted. For a company logo, fair use is normally appropriate on the article about the company. The appropriate tag is {{logo}}. Calliopejen1 10:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Migdia Chinea photo

I don't know how to add a tag to a picture I had taken with a family friend who was, in turn, cropped out of the picture. The picture is of me, Migdia Chinea, and it was taken August 25, 2006, this is so that readers can see what I look like recently. Please, let me know what else you need. I did not wish to have a professional shot in there, seemed sort of Hollywood. You may reach me through my talk page or by contacting me at my *real* name @earthlink.net Mig 11:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You need to choose a tag from the list at wp:ict#For image creators. When you have done this, go to the image page and click "edit this page" at the top. Then paste in the tag you have chosen and press save. Calliopejen1 03:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyright

I still cannot understand right what command or what to use to give the copyright of a picture. it is the picture enterb3wd.jpg on the article kcvds, article that i will edit very soon, so i hope it wont be deleted just in case.

I added the template {{Non-free game screenshot}} to the image page. To do this yourself in the future, you can go to WP:ICT to select the correct tag, then go to the image page, click "edit this page" at the top, and paste it in. Calliopejen1 03:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

firm logo

My firm logo was deleted and I want to know what I need to do in order to re-instate and keep my firm's logo on the page?Sandrasimunic 13:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Next time, be sure to paste the copyright tag {{logo}} in the image page (by clicking the button "edit this page" at the top). Also, if you are editing an article about your own firm, be sure to read WP:COI--this is often discouraged. (Though if you are doing something as uncontroversial as simply adding a logo, that is fine.) Calliopejen1 03:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Band picture upload question

I was recently notified that a picture of a band would be deleted for copyright reasons.

I've since been given a picture of the band by the band itself, after explicitly asking for a photo with absolutely no restrictions for use.

Is it possible to upload this picture to Wikipedia without running afoul of any copyright issues?

Thanks! -Rhrad 17:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This should be fine. Tag the image page for the new photo with {{PD-author|Band name}}. The best thing to do would be to also send email confirmation of the permission to wikimedia officials to be archived. To do this, follow the steps at Wikipedia:Permissions#When_permission_is_confirmed. Calliopejen1 03:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

DJ Babu

It is an image of DJ Babu from Dilated Peoples. I edited-out the Copyright watermark. My reason for doing this is that the image will be deleted tomorrow (3/7/07) and want the image to remain uploaded.

Sorry, but your image has been deleted. The image was copyrighted, and editing the copyright watermark out does not change that. See WP:NONFREE for why the image is not allowed on wikipedia. Calliopejen1 03:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

image tagging

Hi,

I uploaded a picture of a band that I took and received a message saying that the proper source tags need to be included.

I'm not sure what exactly is missing and how I should include whatever is missing from the image page. Can anyone help me understand?

--aasim 22:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Aasim75

Please don't put 2000px images on this page. This creates havoc. I have fixed it so only the link shows up. Secondly, it seems fine to me. You took the image? That is what I am getting, and you released it thru creative commons. This should be fine.--trey 23:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Flickr photo question

The creator of this image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattwright/256008449/in/photostream/

Released it under the GDFL by email. How should I go about uploading it to the Commons with correct copyright information? Thanks. Bbsrock 23:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• The easiest way would be to ask the uploader to add a comment to the image releasing it under the GFDL. Another way would be to get them to forward an email to Wikimedia at the address listed in Wikipedia:Permissions. -N 00:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Sorry about that, I meant that the creator of the image already sent in permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Bbsrock 00:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Upload the image to Commons, then ask on COMMONS:Commons:Village Pump for someone to dig out the OTRS permission. Just write a description on the image page where it's from and what license is there and that there is OTRS permission. Be sure to use the highest resolution (original) available on Flickr. -N 00:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Migdia Chinea's image

I would like the tag to just have my name Migdia Chinea (Varela) and the date the picture was taken, which was August 25, 2006 (the photo with a friend whose image was cropped out). I could not edit the tag. Can't concentrate -- it's very hot today (about 90o F right now at almost 9:00 PM) and tomorrow is the 4th of July, so I will be celebrating with my son. I will take care of it soon. Thank you all for all your help and patience -- gee, this will probably get Googled, along with everything else I ever say with my name attached. Mig Mig 04:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Since you still need to choose the license that is acceptable to you from WP:ICT#For image creators, we cannot fix this for you yet. If you are having difficulty editing the image page, you can leave a message here stating which license you would like and we can then edit the page for you. If you don't get to it soon, it's possible the image will be deleted, but you can always reupload it later and come back here for help. Calliopejen1 05:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure of copyright tag

I am not sure what to use as licensing, but I assure you I can use this photo. This is because I am a member of Delta Omicron and this is its crest Image:Insign1.gif. --crazzycorbe 05:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC) Please notify by talk page thanks.

Replied on user's talk page. Calliopejen1 05:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Is Image:Kerrang High Voltage!- A Brief History Of Rock.jpeg now okay?

Is there anything more needed to be done to this image to make it possible for use on Wikipedia? --Jamdav86 18:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks pretty good to me, though to be safe you might want to reduce the resolution of the image and re-upload it over the current one. 500x500px is kind of borderline too big for a fair use album cover, in my opinion. Calliopejen1 03:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. --Jamdav86 16:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Corona imagery

I am currently writing the article Nuclear weapons and Israel and would like to include satellite photos of Israel's nuclear reactor at Dimona. I have found Corona images of the reactor at globalsecurity.org and would assume they are in the public domain considering they were taken by the US government. However, the globalsecurity.org copyright page says that "Content from other sources retains its original copyright, as indicated on the respective page" but there is nothing specific mentioned on the page. Are these images considered public domain? Thanks -- Joshdboz 00:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe these images are public domain, but other editors might want to chime in. If there was no copyright to begin with "retain[ing] its original copyright" is meaningless. Since Corona images are works of the federal government, I would not have expected them to be copyrighted. I have also found multiple sites that discuss the public domain status of Corona imagery.[2][3][4] You may want to include some of this info on the image description page, but I think you should be fine. Calliopejen1 03:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a website with original sources for the images it might be better, as they may be higher resolution as well. -N 07:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! -- Joshdboz 10:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

images published outside the US before 1909

According to http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/Hirtle_Public_Domain.htm, these are in the public domain. Do we have a tag for this? I can't find one. This seems like a much-needed tag (I've had to write pd-because rationales for lots of images because of this), so if this website is accurate can someone create a new tag (or just confirm it here so I can make a new tag myself)? Thanks. Calliopejen1 08:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I see that the PD-US tag applies, though I still think that it is confusing to have this be a part of the main PD-US tag. Calliopejen1 08:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Donkey's tail in bloom March 06.jpg

Question about:

Image:Donkey's tail in bloom March 06.jpg

It is my own image. How can I include it in the article about this plant? Can I do it by editing (and how) or only the author of the article can?

I would appreciate your advice, Morningdew51

Very simply by doing [[Image:Donkey's tail in bloom March 06.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Some comment about the image goes here]]. Secondly you can sign your name by typing ~~~~. Good luck. Megapixie 01:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This may be more clear: Anyone can edit any wikipedia article, so you can always be bold and add the image yourself. I've edited the page for you already, but here's how I did it. Go to the article page and click edit. Normally you could include an image by pasting

[[Image:Donkey's tail in bloom March 06.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Some comment about the image goes here]]

at the top. However, this article has an taxobox at the top so it was best to include your image in the taxobox. You'll see the article starts with

{{Taxobox
| color = lightgreen
| name = ''Sedum morganianum''
| image = Donkey's tail in bloom March 06.jpg

That is where I put your image name. Happy editing and if you have any more questions feel free to ask them here! Calliopejen1 05:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

HOW DO I ATTACH COPYRIGHT TAGS???????????

PLEASE EMAIL ME- info@sixshooterla.com, as I keep asking questions and can't for the life of me figure out where the answers are being placed!

Thank you!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.59.228.153 (talk • contribs)

IP's cant upload files.--trey 17:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

To expand on Trey's answer: You need to be logged in to upload a file. You also might want to reconsider pasting your email address where spambots and anyone else can find it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Image and Copyright

This is a photo of my multimeter I took myself. The picture is my ownwork, the object is mine (property), the industrial design of this object is copyright of its producer. Please simplify the image licencing list adding an item such as "self taken photography of object ..." --Bougainville 13:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything in that image that would make it subject to any copyright other than your own. There's a certain element of aesthetic in the design, but it's primarily functional and therefore ineligible for copyright. You therefore own the copyright to this image, and can tag it as you choose. See WP:ICT#For image creators for a list of acceptable licenses and the tags that go with them. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I don t understand this ....

Hi, this is an image of which i got the copyright: thumb|Huckleberry Finn, 1991, l.t.r. Gilles Campaux, Boris Pikula, Pete Bell

But i really don t understand, what tag to use. Could you please help me oder give an example more clearly?? Thank you, Boris

borisp Borisp 14:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

See WP:ICT#For image creators. If you own the copyright, then you can release it under any of the free licenses listed there, using the appropriate tag for that license (which is also listed there.) The choice is up to you, so I can't tell you which one it should be. Look them over and decide which of them offer terms you most prefer. If you are not willing to use one of those licenses, then we can't use the image and it should be deleted. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

phonix-picture.jpg

I took this picture while at an air museum in Sweden. I would like this tag added to the image{{PD-self}}. YOu know this forum does NOTHING to make the process any easier! I have read at least six pages that describe different licenses but nothing on how to practically tag a photo you have taken yourself. Idsnowdog 22:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You meant Image:Phonix-engine.jpg perhaps?

You may not have been reading the six pages you needed to. There's a section devoted to the subject on the main page about image copyright tages, right here. If you did see that but had some trouble with it, it would be good if you could say what the problem was so we can improve it to make it more understandable.

{{PD-self}} is not the only option, as you can see there. Any of the free licenses listed is acceptable. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

nothing to lose.jpg

I found the website ............... its connected to billy talent's "Nothing to Lose"[5]--Crocodileman 22:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC) (join my poll!)

Image deleted by bot after I followed instructions

after getting a message from a bot, I added a rationale to an image, but it was still deleted by a bot about 15 days later, ie not after a human read and considered the rationale. Should I have removed the bot notice to stop the deletion? How do I do this if it happens again? I think the message the user receives should be much clearer about this --Gdk1a 21:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, by all means you should remove the notice once you correct the problem. If you didn't do so, consider using {{non-free media rationale}} to place your rationale, to ensure the bots can easily recognize it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

thank-you, I will reupload it and include the template Gdk1a 22:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Bruce Gamble

I found the picture a few years ago on a websight when i did an image search for bruce gamble...but i can no longer find the sight but i have the picture .how can i up load the picture ?

Please don't. Unless you can provide the source of the image, we cannot accept it. Further, since you are not the author, and the license of the image is unknown, we would have to use it under fair use, for which is would likely fail the first fair use criteria. MECU≈talk 12:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure of copyright tag

What to do here? Website says "For you journalists & designers out there! Feel free to download and use for your works...", so is it public domain? No comprende. #29 ^(talk) 10:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You should contact the source website owner and see if they will license the image to us. Please see WP:COPYREQ for more information on how to do this and what to ask for. MECU≈talk 12:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Done, thank you. #29 ^(talk) 12:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Why commercial?

Curious.... why does Wikipedia require commercial use permissions?

----jh 12:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, Wikipedia:Release Version, Answers.com (some of whose profits go to Wikimedia), among other reasons. ShadowHalo 16:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:100-px-Senor Cardgage Profile.png

What should I write in the "summary" section other than, "This image is from the Homestar Runner Wiki"? —Gm1121983 15:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You need to write a rationale for usage under fair use. Please see fair use criteria for more on what the rationale should explain. MECU≈talk 17:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

C Valerius Crispus - copyright status??

I am trying to find an photo of this Roman soldier's tomb. It is historically important in that it is a rare example of a sculpture of a Roman legionary from this period. The tomb was originally found in the city of Wiesbaden in Germany. It seems that the tomb itself was loaned or donated to the the Limesmuseum Aalen of the University of Tuebingen. Now I can find loads of photos of the tomb by private individuals, which are obiously copyrighted to them, but there is also a photo of the tomb on the university's website. I need help figuring out if this is permissible to add to wiki-commons and if so under what licence? Can anyone help? Do I need t contact the website and see if they give permission or this this reasonable licence under some sort of promotional or educational use???? Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be a lot easier to answer your question if you would link to the appropriate page on the website so we know exactly what you're talking about. I assume it's this. However, the answer is that you almost certainly need to ask permission for a release under a free license. Fair use is impossible, since a free image is obtainable. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's the iamge (apologies for not linking to it). OK, I'll try and get permission from the museum. Thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 08:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, what do you mean a free image is obtainable? Where is there a free image of this obtainable? If there is a free image of it, I'll use that! - PocklingtonDan (talk) 10:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

When Csernica says that a free image is obtainable, s/he means that anyone could go to the museum and take a picture of it. (Not that a free image necessarily exists now.)Calliopejen1 13:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Citylink map

Please delete "Image:Citylinkmap.gif", a replacement is now available. Regards, Dewarw 18:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

forget it - not worth it. Was just an informative image anyway. good luck.

How to add a musician's photo

I tried to upload a photo and ended up with various warning about it not being free. I must have used the wrong upload, or the wrong definition of the source of the photo.

The photo is a musician's press kit photo, available for use online without restriction. How do I properly upload it? It is called stevegillette.jpg and is flaged for deletion. In case it isn't obvious, I am working on a new artice about him.

Thanks for your help.

We do not accept copyrighted images of living people to show how the person looks. These images must be under a free license. Please read the policy on restrictions on using copyrighted media. ShadowHalo 21:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Dubious self-claimed photos

Alb5065 (talk · contribs) has uploaded several astonishingly high-quality photos and claimed them as his own, and licensed them with GFDL. The particular ones I am concerned about are Image:Abhishek.jpg and Image:Souness1.jpg. I strongly doubt that he would have had the opportunity to take commercial-quality photos of both an Indian actor and an English football manager. Nevertheless, I have no proof that he was lying. What do I do? Borisblue 02:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• List them at WP:PUI and let experienced people decide what their status is. -N 02:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Upload an image on a website?

Can you determine what license applies to this picture on this page, and would it be OK to upload it? If you can, please answer me on my talk page. --VVVladimir 00:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

has been answered on user's talk page.Geni 09:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Which tag to use???

I gave the description of the photo: Image:BGauthier1.JPG but cannot figure out how to tag it???? The pictiure is of my father and it was in our family archives but I don't know who took the darn picture 40 years ago.... How do you classify it??? Back then we didn't record copyrights on everything...

Canada? It would depend on the terms under which the photo was taken.Geni 09:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Rules for removing the Template:Missing rationale2

Template:Missing rationale2 includes a link to this page. What are the rule for removing the template from the article talk page after the fair use rationale has been completed? Or alternately what is the proper procedure for indicating on the article talk page that the template no longer applies as the fair use template has been completed. See Talk:Deewar (TV serial) Also would it make sense to add the answer to the top of this page? Searching the archives is a royal pain. Thank you Dbiel ^(Talk) 07:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

To avoid deletion of the image, after you have completed a suitable fair use rationale on the image page for each use of the image in an article you should remove the dispute tag from the image page. That tells administrators not to delete it. I don't think it's necessary to remove it from the talk page -- maybe you should just add a comment below that you fixed it. In general you don't want to edit things that are already on talk pages, even this one. A succinct answer to questions like yours probably should go on the tag template itself or a link from there. Wikidemo 07:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I will ask the question again on the template talk page as you suggest. Dbiel ^(Talk) 07:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Art Barron

I have selected two of my own photos taken with my camera to post on the Wikipedia page (search under) Art Barron.

I do not know which copyright tag to use. I have no problem with anyone using them.

-Art Barron

We have a upload page scpecialised for self created works, it only list the options that are relevant for your own images (with the exception of the "don't know" option. If you don't care to retain any rights to the images you can just choose the Public Domain option, if you would like to retain your right to be credited for taking the photos you could choose the attribution option, or if you wish you can pick one of the more "complex" licenses like GFDL or Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike or such (links to the license texts on that upload page). --Sherool (talk) 22:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone keeps removing photos I took

I have added numerous photos which I took.

Someone keeps removing them.

I have added notes and checked the appropriate boxes which say I took the photo, I give myself and Wikipedia the right to post them. I also noted that anyone could use the photos.

And still, someone keeps removing them.

WHY WHY WHY?

What magic phrase am I not using?

Phil Konstantin - July 8, 2007

Could you give us an example? It looks like you are taking high quality new pictures of famous celebrities and then releasing them into the public domain. They aren't as glamorous as the official ones but they reveal a lot more personality. I trust you're telling the truth that these really are your photos? Wikipedia and the public domain could use more of that. I could not find any examples of people removing your pictures so you'll have to point to them. Your copyrights seem to be in order. Perhaps it is not a copyright question. Someone just doesn't like the photos, is misguided about photo use, or has their own favorite photo that they think looks better. If that's the case you can point them to Wikipedia policy WP:NONFREE that fair use pictures of living celebrities are almost never allowed, and that a suitable public domain photograph is always preferable over one with a copyright that is here only by fair use. If they still don't get the message you may have an edit conflict about how to handle an article, something that Wikipedia deals with all the time. That's almost always handled by discussion among the front line editing the articles, but if that fails and there is no resolution there is a series of escalating mediation and intervention options. Wikidemo 04:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC) (PS, it would help if you sign with your account name rather than your real name. Just put four tildes (~) in a row and it gets added automatically)

Phikon - this link might be helpful : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Philkon - it shows all of the image uploads you have made. The images in red have been deleted. If you click on one of the red links it will take you to a page showing the reason why it was deleted. To understand the codes see WP:CSD (criteria for speedy deletion). Looking at a few random examples they appear to have been deleted because either:

• They were a scaled down copy of an already uploaded image.
• They were "wikipedia only" - we require all free images to permit re-use and modification (including commercial use). Megapixie 05:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, note that once you donate images to the public domain they can travel widely. Any message you leave in the "edit summary" box like "I give my permission for this photo to be used by anyone" isn't going to be noticed and won't be distributed along with your image. So best to just let the standard license handle things. Wikidemo 05:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

===================

'Here are the pictures which were removed:

Alison Waite, John Butler, Brian Stokes Mitchell, Rob Machado, Tristan Prettyman

On each one, I also added a link to MY website where the pictures were originally posted. Officer Phil's KUSI Page I am on KUSI-TV in San Diego. We get lots of well-known people who visit us. I take their photos & post them on my website. I have bent over backwards trying to meet Wikipedia's requirements. Each time, I have listed myself as the photographer. I have also listed that Wikipedia had my permission to use the photo. I then released and tagged them as public domain.

Frankly, I am getting tired of the vigilantes removing my pictures without doing the slightest bit of investigation.

Phil Konstantin - July 9, 2007

===============

Hang in there...You're doing a good thing by adding public domain content to the world. The deletions look proper the way Wikipedia is set up. Somehow you managed to load them without the correct rights grant. Wikipedia has no system for emailing notices to people, you just have to log in and notice that you have messages. Most of the deletions are on a seven day notice. It probably stems from the slightly cumbersome and obscure way you have to deal with licenses when you upload. Not user friendly, but it's a free site....you get what you pay for. A lot of people are working very hard to keep it running though. It shouldn't be a big deal to just upload them again.~ Wikidemo

Copyright question

What does it mean when you see this on the bottom of a website: "This site and all abcd materials contained herein ©1998-2004." or "copyright © 2007 efgh.com All Rights Reserved". Could you upload images to wikipedia that are found on these sites somehow? Thanks 65.93.133.73 16:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Those notices are a helpful reminder but nearly all websites are copyrighted whether or not you see the notice. The answer in most cases is no, but in a few specific cases it is yes. That is the entire subject of WP:NONFREE. What exactly are you thinking of uploading and from where? Wikidemo 16:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to upload a better picture of Komitas Vardapet as the current one on the wiki article is quite poor. Google image searching I found this picture [[6]] which I think is quite well. At the bottom are the copyright notices I mentioned. But I don't know how to get to that Gomidas page from the main page [[7]] - so this might be some old archive. Anyhow, is it possible to upload that picture? 65.93.133.73 16:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You are right, that is a terrible photograph. However, it is a public domain photograph, and Wikipedia has a strong preference for public domain over copyrighted photographs. I notice a couple things that make it too complicated for me to understand. First, he is from Armenia. Second, he died in 1935. Without going into details that means it is probably possible to find other public domain photographs of him. But I don't know how to assess whether an image like that is public domain or not. Maybe someone who is an expert in international copyrights. can help, or you can find something on the web that has a believable claim that it is public domain. If you can be sure that you have a public domain photograph then you can upload it in place of the current one. If you can't find that, maybe a slight improvement with Photoshop to darken the background so it does not stand out so much. Sorry I can't be more help. You gave enough information that someone who knows more than me could possibly help Wikidemo 18:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

What about uploading images from the main Komitas website [8]. I can't see any copyright tags, and I dont think that this would be a violation. 65.95.20.33 22:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

copyright tags are not required for something to be protected by copyright. The work would still be under copyright.Geni 22:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that photo is fine. It was pulished in 1899 outside the US, so it is in the public domain. See Template talk:PD-US for details. You can use the tag {{PD-US}}. Calliopejen1 02:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the tagging

I don't understand the tagging. Maybe you can tag my picture and easy explain how it works:

Thank you.

--Psveindhoven 12:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you the owner/author of this image? It appears you took it from another website. In the future, you should use the upload wizard to help you. MECU≈talk 12:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If you did take it from a website it's probably copyrighted, and Wikipedia does not permit that kind of copyrighted image. Anyone could go to the stadium and take a new picture so there's no justification for using one that belongs to someone else. Have you checked to see if there is a public domain picture of the stadium here or at flickr, or some other site? Wikidemo 12:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia logos

I thought the Wikipedia logo was acceptable to use in user pages. However, I got a fair use lack of rationale notice from User:BetacommandBot regarding Image:Simple English Wikipedia logo.png. Am I wrong? Is the bot wrong? Your help is appreciated. Thanks, Abeg92contribs 13:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• The answer is, the matter is still undecided. In the meantime Wikipedia has decided to treat them as un-free, since they are not published under the GFDL or a similar free license. The Wikimedia Foundation promised to fix the policies in February [9] but nothing has come of it. Commons, which only takes free works, allows them[10]. As a work-around in the meantime, I personally suggest using Commons to host your copyrighted by Wikimedia images. Be sure to add the proper licensing tags and category. -N 13:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks. The problem wasn't that I uploaded it, it was that it was on my userpage. I'll remove the picture, then. Abeg92contribs 14:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Finding photo upload log

My humble apologies for inserting a uncopyrighted picture. My question to whom it may concern is how do I type in the copyright because over the month of June, I haven't quite understanded how to properly use this photo uploader so can you please answer back and help me. Thanks.

Jonathan179 00:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

here is a log of all the images you have uploaded. If you would like to edit them you can click edit at the top of the page. If you feel that any of them should be deleted please add the tag {{db-author}} to the description page and it will be deleted shortly. Thanks. - cohesion 01:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

New Maps

I've recently created a map of U.S. Free Trade Agreements by using and making changes to one of the blank maps on Wikipedia Commons. What would be the proper copyright tag to put on this image and what would be the best way to put a copyright tag on this image (as the bot has told me to do)? --Brandon A. Blosser 12:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Depending on what the license is on the map you used you may be constrained by it's requirements. It looks like you use commons:Image:A large blank world map with oceans marked in blue.svg. Assuming that is the case it is released into the public domain and derivative works can be licensed as you see fit. It looks like you have successfully tagged the image also, if you need any help let us know. - cohesion 01:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Images in I Not Stupid

Could several Wikipedians who are experienced with images respond to image queries posted at Wikipedia:Peer review/I Not Stupid/archive5 and Talk:I Not Stupid#I Not Stupid screenshot 3 orphaned and I Not Stupid screenshot 1 being used in Political satire section? Thanks. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

mine aint copyright

Fair use rationale for Image:Phiacrest.png

Did I add a fair use rationale correctly? Thanks. 2much 18:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No. Wikidemo 18:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC) (and I had to edit your section header too)

Ok then what exactly did I do wrong?2much 18:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was making fun of the hopelessly short answers in the template part of the rationale. That duplicates the written-out part. You really need three, one for each use (although they can be near copies). If you start going down the list of categories there, portion used cannot equal "no." It's asking what portion is used and why. So you have to say we used a shrunken low resolution copy of the entire original; it is low resolution so it is not competing with the original and nobody can use it to make unauthorized copies, but it is necessarily large enough to convey the important details. I don't have time to help you with all of these, and I really don't know the specific rationales for crests. But if you look around you might find some good models to use, and compare your answers to what they do....both fraternities and coats of arms from other purposes. It's not a terrible fair use definition, and it's probably better than many out there -- the written out part -- it's just not a great one in my opinion. Hope that helps.Wikidemo

I expanded my rationale in the template. If someone could find a clear example of the proper use of the template, it would eliminate a lot of confusion. 2much 19:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline may be helpful. In general the rationale is ok though, I didn't look at every use however, but as long as you think they comply with the criteria it is probably ok. National Association of Latino Fraternal Organizations is somewhat questionable as it may constitute a list, in which case images aren't really required. - cohesion 01:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hello,

I recently uploaded an image to “Fishburne Military School” page on Wikipedia (Image:FMS_tower.jpg). I tried to disclose as much info as possible about the image (a shot of the front tower a colleague working for the School took some time ago), citing that it was used with permission from the School for educational purposes. I did, however, use the word “Copyright” in my original description, and this seems to have thrown up a red flag with an automated bot trolling for such keywords/phrases.

I read your policies for uploading images, and, quite frankly, believed I was following instructions and “doing the right thing” by citing the source of the image and my permission to use and post on Wikipedia. However, I seemed to have created a digital knot that can’t be readily undone.

All I want to do is add the image to the entry that was created previously so that visitors will have a visual frame of reference when they read the article on Fishburne Military School. Can you help me accomplish this?

Thanks for your consideration.

Best,

Doug Payne (“Flayle Payne”) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flayle Payne (talk • contribs).

Wikipedia allows anyone to use its content for nearly any purpose, including commercial uses. We cannot accept images that have noncommercial restrictions on them. 17Drew 21:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Scan of old photograph owned by submitter

I have a number of photographs from the 1920s that I'd like to post under appropriate articles but I'm not certain of the copyright tag I need to use. I am not the photographer, and am not sure who that was, but I have the original photographs in my posession. I scanned most of them 10 years ago.

So, what is the appropriate copyright on scans of photographs where the wikipedia contributor is not the photographer but owns the originals?

Thanks!

--Bill faulk 08:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If they were first published in the United States pre-1923, they may be tagged with {{PD-US}}. --Iamunknown 08:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

And if they were never published, then it is likely the images are not yet in the public domain (A good source for info about this is [11]), which means that to include them, there should be special reasons for why the photos are needed. nadav (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If you inherited the images you should be fine. Just mention who took them and that you inherited them and your relationship (son, grandson, whatever). -N 17:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

about the 3d image of the orsellinic acid molecule

why is it going to get expired after 18th july ? it is my own creation already i have already notified wikipedia about it, it has been created in chem sketch software. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sananda chatterjee (talk • contribs).

It looks like you may be talking about Image:3dimage.jpg. You have also uploaded the same image under the name Image:3dimage1.jpg, and are using both of them in one article? (Orsellinic acid) In general if you want to use one image in more than one place you don't have to upload it more than once. Also, if you need to change some aspect of an image you shouldn't re-upload it under a new name, but change the current one. To edit a description or license of an image click the edit link at the top of the image description page. If you need to actually change the image itself there is a link on the image description page saying "Upload a new version of this file" which you can click. The image that you are asking about is marked for deletion because it doesn't have a license. The other identical image does have a license, so that one is ok. If you would like to go through your uploads and clean any of them up here is the log. If you would like to mark one for deletion simply edit the page and add the text {{db-author}} to the text and someone will be along shortly to delete it for you. If you have any other questions let us know. - cohesion 04:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Help with Tags

I uploaded Image:Louis sockalexis portrait.jpg recently and tagged it with the {{PD-US}} template. The orphan bot keeps adding warning labels and i can't figure out why. How do I add information about the picture to prevent the orphan bot from tagging it?

You need to add a source even for PD images in text outside of the template. How it is currently is fine. - cohesion 01:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with cohesion that a source is necessary. Did you get the image from somewhere on the Internet? If so, could you add the URL to the image description page (i.e. the link you provided)? Or, if it is a scan from a book, could you provide the book title, author and ISBN number? --Iamunknown 06:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Long levi Banned. FYI, Longlevi -- who posed the questions -- has just been found to be a sockpuppet of a banned user named Tecmobowl, who has used socks in the past. Accordingly, he has also been banned indefinitely. See [12]--Epeefleche 00:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

images from rand mcnally

Listen...the image is from the www.randmcnally.com and IT IS NOT FAKE and copyrighted and REAL. Please don't delete the images again. Thank you.

Who are you addressing? Nobody here removed your images. Do you think you demand will reach anyone? A little procedure. It is User:OrphanBot who keeps removing your pictures of the front page of the Thomas and Rand McNalley guides, and that is an automatic process. They were removed because you did not put a copyright tag on them saying what they are, nor a description about their source. Nor is there a fair use rationale saying why they belong in the articles. Like a lot of other places, on Wikipedia it's not enough that something be correct, you also need to go through a procedure and supply certain information. Think of it like a car license plate. Sure, it's great that you've paid your registration this year. But you still need to put the sticker on to prove it. Images have tags too, here on Wikipedia. Follow the links from the warnings the robot gives you. Or start by reading a Wikipedias policy page like WP:NONFREE. We've all learned to do it, it just takes a little time. Not so hard. Wikidemo 15:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sort of yeah. I think OphanBot damage my image as without my permission to delete. PLUS i believe OphanBot is not real bot because it wiped out my image from rand mcnally guides. Simple...Thanks again. OphanBot- you should never remove couple image unless you have ask me first.

Orphanbot doesn't delete images, it only helps us organize images that may be problematic. You might want to read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles also. Wikipedia is a collaborative freely licensed encyclopedia. People do not need, and usually will not solicit your permission before making edits to images or articles that you have created. When you upload something to wikipedia you allow others to edit it. On every edit page there is a statement, "By submitting content, you agree to release your contributions under the GNU Free Documentation License". Images can be licensed in other ways, but things on wikipedia will be edited by others, if you're not comfortable with that you might not want to contribute. - cohesion 04:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

School Logo

Can I upload the school logo shown in the middle of this page? Please answer to my talk page. --Ks0stm 13:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the appropriate license for a corporate logo?

There is an article for a small company called Greycon, where I am the CEO. I have uploaded an image of Greycon's logo Image: GreyconSmallLogo.gif; however I have been notified that it will be deleted because of a license issue. How should that situation be handled? The company has no problem with posting the logo.

You should use the non-free logo license, {{Template:Non-free logo}}. Be sure to use a fair use rationale, add a description saying where the logo came from and who owns it, and add it to the article, and then remove the notice of deletion. In doing so you're basically acknowledging Wikipedia's fair use right to use the logo. The alternative is you could give the logo to the public domain and let everyone do what they want with it, but most people won't do that with their logos. A limited license is not permitted. Also, please be cognizant of Wikipedia's guidelines on self-interested editors -- in general, the preference is don't create or do major edits on your own article, only minor technical corrections. I think adding a logo should be okay. If in doubt, look and see what the image page looks like for similar companies and what kind of material they add. Wikidemo 17:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use Rationale Compliant?

I've updated the StarCite Logo StarCite Logo with a fair use rationale. When will the flag be removed?

That's not a fair use rationale, that's a copyright tag, a necessary component too. You also need a statement of source and a description, and a fair use rationale. Look at the pages WP:FURG and WP:LOGO to see the difference, and some pointers. You can remove your own tag when done. A couple more pointers. It's messy (and not allowed) to include copyrighted images in a talk page like this. Add a colon (:) before the image name like I just did and it turns into a link. Also be sure to sign your messages so we can quickly follow them to your page if we want (~). Wikidemo 17:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought I put in all of that information. I put it in the infobox where the logo is. Should it go somewhere else? ~ StarCite

The fair use rationale would go on the image description page; you would use Template:Non-free media rationale (copy the text under the "syntax" section to the image description page). Then fill out each field to the best of your knowledge. Come back if you have any questions! --Iamunknown 20:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mrs Holland.jpg

please allow us to upload her picture we go to her school, and the quicker the better, i took her picture anyways hurry up please i am still waiting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xamdi (talk • contribs) 19:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC).

First, you need to find an article to put this. Wikipedia is not a free image host, so if it's not being used anywhere, we don't want it. Assuming you have an article to put it in, the next thing you need to do is select a licensing option. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#For image creators for your choices. Put the template on the image description page and you are all set. howcheng {chat} 19:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Using a photo someone else took

I have a photo of an actor a friend of mine took at a sci-fi convention (I want to use this photo on his wikepedia page). I have the photographer's permission to use this photo. The photo has no copyright (to the best of my knowledge). I do not know how to go about tagging this photo so it won't get deleted. Any help would be appreciate. Thanks. Maryb889 19:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The photo is copyrighted by your friend. S/he does not have to file for copyright or anything -- it's automatically granted upon creation. There are two ways to get this in the article, but both ways require that your friend license the photo under a free content license (see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#For image creators) that allows for commercial redistribution as well as derivative works. Once s/he picks out which license s/he wants, the next steps would be:

1. Get your friend to register for a Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons account (the latter might be better so that other Wikimedia projects can use the same photo) and upload it, indicating the licensing s/he has previously opted for, or...
2. You upload the photo, indicating the licensing, and have your friend write up a declaration of consent, and send it to the OTRS system.

Please let us know if you have any other questions, and thanks to your friend for donating this picture to the community! howcheng {chat} 19:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this fair use?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Martis-85.jpg . I copy from summary: Scanned from personal archive , this a a photo from a greek newspaper that has been closed for almost 15 years . I consider the use of it fair use , to show ( in the article Anarchism in Greece ) the tension and electrified times that led to the killing of M. Kaltezas. I did this because the factual accuracy of the article is disputed. If it is fair use what licence applies? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kanibalos (talk • contribs).

Fair use is not a license. Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, which means all of our material is freely licensed. For a definition of freedom in this context see freedomdefined.org. Our use of non-free images is based on the non-free content criteria. The key criteria in this context are "no free equivalent" and "significance". Since you would not be directly discussing the image it probably does not fall under the criteria set forth in the policy. For example, if you were explicitly talking about the publishing of this story it might be acceptable. In general though we prefer to have freely licensed images. - cohesion 05:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

submitting photos to my submissions

Hi, I just found that the photos I added to my submissions were deleted --a couple are referred as Orphanbot. I'm very new at this and could use all the help I can get--I read the links and I'm still alittle (alot) confused but let me see if I have this right: when submitting a photo I must give: 1. the name of the photographer 2. where the photo was taken 3. when it was taken 4. who is in it 5. what's going on in it

Did I get it right? Please send simple info when possible--it's greatly appreciated. angelique23 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Angelique23 (talk • contribs).

You are required to include the source and the license. The name of the photographer is nice, but in some cases the organization that took the image may be acceptable. The copyright holder is who we need to know. The license is the how the image is licensed, for example GFDL, or public domain etc. There are many licenses. The rest of the things you list would be nice to include in the description, but are not required. - cohesion 05:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I could use some help with this image.

I could use some help with this image.

I don't know the proper license tag, or if I am allowed to use it at all. My article is about Johnny Contardo, formerly of Sha Na Na. I'm quite sure the picture was taken on the show when he was on it, but I don't know who owns the rights. I got the pic from Johnny's official site, and had his manager's permission to use any info or items from his official site.

Please post any replies on my talk page. Thank you.

LoriM5160 16:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

answered on user talk page - cohesion 05:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

help

if i printed an image from windows help and support center and later scanned it what is the copyright license Image:wireless network diagram.jpg--AFUSCO (talk contributions) 20:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyright Microsoft. Derivative works are still under copyright. For example if you make a copy of a movie you can't start selling it. You might want to try Wikipedia:Requested pictures and see if anyone can make an image like that for you though, which would be ideal because then we would have a free content version people could use for other reasons for the whole internet! :) - cohesion 05:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Please explain this to me in english

The image in question is owned by the Lawrence Pech Dance Company, for which I am the administrator. I give full permission for this image to be used on Wikipedia. Can someone please explain the below message to me so that I can understand it? thanks!

---

Thanks for uploading Image:Lawrence_Pech.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add Di-replaceable fair use disputed, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all. Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Michaeltemlin"

Pursuant to Wikipedia's copyright policies, it is incumbent upon the individual who contributes copied material to Wikipedia to confirm that he or she has permission to do so. Therefore, please follow the procedures specified at this link in order to confirm that you have received permission from the copyright holder authority to license this image. Thank you.-- But|seriously|folks  01:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you may also be the copyright holder. If that's the case you shouldn't say that the image is fair use, you need to instead select a free content license from Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses. If you are not the copyright holder then you would need to get them to license it, possibly using some of our example requests. - cohesion 05:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Winamp logo.png

Is there some evidence I'm missing to suggest that Image:Winamp logo.png is under a free license? Comparing it to Brands of the World, it is a bit different, but only by a very small margin. --Iamunknown 08:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I imagine the uploader believed it to be his own work since he seems to have made it on his own and didn't cut and paste it from a website or something. But the logo is obviously copyrighted to Nullsoft. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Image removal

I have two images that need to be deleted, due to being unsure of copyright owners. I tried to remove them myself, but am not sure how, or even if I am able. I did remove Image:Johnny_Contardo_in_Sha_Na_Na.jpg from my article, but I need that one and Image:Johnny_and_Sha_Na_Na_in_Grease.jpg removeed from my contributions page.

I apologize for the inconvenience. I thought I was able to use them. Please post any replies on my talk page. Thank you.

LoriM5160 15:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

A picture you took of a product

I took a picture of my phone Image:L6.jpg for the Motorola SLVR L6 page. I took the picture, but it's of a product that I didn't make. What tag would I use? ~Entegy 16:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Any of the free license tags you like; it's your photo. Although there are certain aesthetic elements to the design of the phone, it's primarily a functional device and therefore not copyrightable. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

how to avoid image been deleted?

i'm so confuse about the copyright tag and i don't how to choose.i just upload Image:Logo KE.jpg, which it was one of my friend work. He didn't mind and allow to upload in Wikipedia. Fact is, i'm not really sure, which copyright is suitable? please help! --Hafrul 16:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter if it's your friend's work since it a straightforward copy of the school's arms. Since he added no original element to it -- coloring doesn't rise to that level, at least not under US law -- it isn't copyrightable by him. Copyright is owned by whoever owns the copyright to the original. So the question is, how old is it? If you can show that it's been in use for more than 50 years, which is how long copyright lasts for works published by governmental bodies (this is a government school), then it has fallen into the public domain under Malaysian law. It will be PD in the US as well, since registration was required under the law as it stood 50 years ago, and this wasn't so registered. If this is the case, and I don't finish creating {{PD-MalaysiaGov}} before you get to it, use {{PD-because}} and explain the situation in the template parameter. Otherwise, you'll have to use {{non-free logo}}. This is a fair use (i.e. "fair dealing") tag, so in that case you'll have to provide a valid fair use rationale in addition to the text given in the template showing how fair use applies in this particular case. See WP:FURG. TCC (talk) (contribs) 17:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Posted Copyrighted photos

If I add an article to Wikipedia about someone or some place and I can get a photo from some Web Page, can I use that photo? I will not be profiting from it by adding it to my article on Wikipedia.

A specific example: An article about Antonio Domingos Pitra Costa Neto on Wikipedia does not include his photo. On this web page http://www.angolapress-angop.ao/noticia.asp?ID=221364 has a photo I can copy, but the photo also has the 'words Angola Press witten on the lower right cornner. I gess I would have to ask their permission to use it.

Could you please clarify this?

Antonio Domingos Ferreira Martins

In a word: No, you can't use the photo. It belongs to someone else, and to appropriate it would be theft. You can certainly ask the copyright holder to release it, or a low-resolution version of it, under a free license such as the GFDL which is what we really require. Since Wikipedia allows anyone to re-use its content, we cannot use any images where permission is given for Wikipedia only, or for non-commercial or educational use only.

For some suggestions about how to ask for permission, and what to do once permission is received, see WP:COPYREQ.

Normally, fair use can't be applied for living persons, since it's usually possible for a Wikipedia user to create a free image on his own. It would be a judgment call in this case as I'm not sure how accessible Angolan government officials are. See WP:NONFREE. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyright material with limited release on Wikipedia

If I ask the copyright owner for a low resolution of his image to be release into public domain, can I re-assure him that the same image in higher resolution is still fully copyright protected?Boom170 22:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No, copyright doesn't work like that. If an image is copyrighted then a low-resolution version of it is also copyrighted. However, using a low-resolution version may strenghen the case of fair use. nadav (talk) 00:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC) What I mean to say is that, based on my amateur understanding of the law, derivatives of the original carry the copyright of the original. If the derivative is sufficiently creative, then its creator may have some new rights that can be copyrighted. More to the point: If the full-resolution picture does not contain enough new creative elements in comparison to the public-domain low-res version, then there is no way the copyright on the full-sized picture can be maintained. nadav (talk) 00:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that what Nadav1 says is correct, because a high-res version isn't a derivative of a low-res version according to the official definition of "derivative work." A derivative is defined in 17 USC 101 as "a work based upon one or more preexisting works." Since the high-res version existed first, and is in no way based upon the low-res version, I don't think that rule applies. (As a matter of policy, it wouldn't make sense either, because it makes sense that an author might want to release rights on a tiny image while retaining rights to the larger one.) Even if navdav is correct, however, what you want can definitely be achieved through the use of a free license. The copyright owner can retain the copyright on both images, but license the small one under a free license, like a CC-BY license. Calliopejen1 02:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Calliopejen1 is correct. It is perfectly fine for the copyright holder to release a smaller version of his/her work under a freer license than the full-size version. This is a pretty common scenario among Wikipedian photographers and I often ask Flickr users who might be reluctant to allow commercial usage of their works to release smaller versions under a free license, which is pretty successful. howcheng {chat} 01:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Like Howcheng, IANAL either... but I find it hard to believe that the same content could somehow have two different copyright protection. Content is content, and content is what's protected; the number of pixels is irrelevant. No? A 1000x1000 pixel photo of a landscape should have identical copyright status to a 50x50 pixel version of the same content, shouldn't it? Time to ask an actual lawyer. I would guess the existence of lower pixel, less restrictively licensed versions is not the best way to preserve an author's rights to the overall work. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 02:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I am very skeptical of the fact that two images whose difference in detail/resolution is moderate could have different copyright status (though of course I may just be ignorant). If two versions are similar enough so that there is no substantial difference in creative elements, then I don't see how they could have different status. However, I think the example of a 1000px vs 50px photo is extreme, as I would expect there would be such a drastic change in the image that it may even be considered a new work. nadav (talk) 03:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have invited User:BD2412, an intellectual property lawyer, to join in on this thread. howcheng {chat} 06:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think it would be silly (of the copyright holder) and possibly introduce legal complications to do something like that, but the copyright holder has every right to release his/her work, in various resolutions, under different licenses. So I think that it would be okay. --Iamunknown 06:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly the question: can he indeed release the same picture at a different resolution under a different license? If so, then what's limit? If the resolution is only slightly reduced or if the level of detail is basically the same, then to me, the suggestion that one version can be public domain and the other all rights reserved sounds untenable. nadav (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

IANAL, but as far as I understand it, the following is the case. When you create an image you automatically own the copyright. You may then create whatever specific licences for use that you choose. Have a look at a picture library like gettyimages.com. They create licenses for a specific size in a specific place for a specific duration. You can therefore say that you are releasing only a low resolution image for free use, and not your high res version. However, GFDL also gives permission for modification, so someone could create a larger image by interpolating pixels, which would, though, reduce the image quality, and for any serious purpose would not be viable. They couldn't go to the photographer's high res version and claim this as a modification, because it would be the photographer's modification (and not released under free license) and not the subsequent user's work. You might also like to look at the discussion on User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Wikiepedia_Use_Of_Artistic_Images. Tyrenius 11:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that theory is that there is only one copyright to the work, not separate copyrights to different resolutions. Creating different sizes is not creating new derivative works either, it's the same copyright despite reformatting. What you do when you divide rights up by image resolution is essentially create a limited license to the entire copyright, with a license restriction as to size, rather than creating an unlimited license that is only for a given size. Someone who purports to do that in a public doman or GFDL release may be either (i) not giving a proper release because of the rights withheld, in which case the release is invalid, or (ii) inadvertently giving a complete release despite having made the mistake of thinking otherwise. There are indeed cases where an attempt to offer a copyright license ends up creating an unintended assignment. I'll take a look at Jimbo's discussion and look forward to hearing what User:BD2412 has to say . Wikidemo 18:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI... I haven't checked out the credentials of the authors, but this "Final Report to the Common Information Environment Members of a study on the applicability of Creative Commons Licences" describes this exact scenario:

"Case Study: Digitised Art Works

Description: Museums produce digitised versions of works of paintings in two formats. (low resolution and high resolution)

Licence for reuse: Creative Commons (BY-NC) is possible for the low resolution version but not for high resolution

Analysis: The low resolution version is for general public use but the high resolution resource is something that the museum would use to gain commercial revenue so they are unlikely to publish under Creative Commons" Calliopejen1 02:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Could be a case where it's good enough for Creative Commons but not good enough for Wikipedia. They can accept limited licenses there, we can't. Wikidemo 15:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This kind of limited license, the low resolution part but then without the NC part, we could accept easily. Garion96 (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Licenses are a different duck from copyright. If you are the copyright holder, and do not enter into agreements that limit your ability to license (such as exclusive licenses) you can license the same material as many times as you like, to as many people as you like, under as many different licenses as you like. It's not even necessary to be the copyright holder to issue licenses on material-- you might gain the rights to re-license work from a license (some open source licenses do this). A common example of how one work is released under many many licenses: a proprietary software company sells many individual licenses for their product to individual customers. Chira 20:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems there are a few different opinions, but reading through all the replies, I am leaning to believe the common practice on wikipedia is to ask the photographer to assign a GFDL license to a low resolution of his images. This way he will still retain copyright to all the original of his work at higher resolution. Right? Boom170 22:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Image Copywrite Tag for Image:Devil for Web.gif for Druid Hills HS Athletics

I do not know the licence for the Druid Hills Athletics image, It comes from the School's Athletic Site started by a parent. It is htpp://www.druidhillsreddevils.com but that is all I know. I know you need the location and licence tag but all I know is the location. I was just wondering if I could receive some assistance?

Thanks --Dhquarterback16 04:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Somebody has added an appropriate licensing tag, but now the image needs a fair use rationale. You can find guidance at WP:FURG. Good luck! -- But|seriously|folks  02:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

PETA

According to Image:Livers.jpg,

Unless otherwise indicated, PETA materials are not copyrighted and may be reproduced freely for personal, noncommercial use:

http://www.peta.org/about/site.asp

This seems conteridictory to me. Do you think this means {{PD} or {{NonCommercial}}? -xxpor ^yo!|_{see what i've done} 17:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's contradictory. Without a clear release into the public domain, copyright attaches and, erring on the side of caution, we can't use it. -- But|seriously|folks  20:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Expanding upon what Butseriouslyfolks wrote (which I think is accurate), I think that PETA is trying to say that anyone use images from peta.org for personal and/or(?) non-commercial use and they do not have to pay a license fee to do so. Wikipedia's use of the images, of course, is not "personal", and Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, took a stance in 2005 upon non-commercial images (see [13]), saying that they are not acceptable for Wikipedia. So neither of those vague statements are appropriate, and we must use the image as "non-free content" if it meets Wikipedia:Non-free content. It is replaceable, so whether or not it meets the non-free content criteria is debatable. --Iamunknown 20:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting that Peta has released Image:Christy Turlington I'd rather go naked than wear fur.jpg in the public domain. Garion96 (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I thought I'd seen a PETA image somewhere that looked like it had a valid license/release. I would venture to say they would generally be willing to release works under a free license. --Iamunknown 21:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Peaches Canada's club scene sucks.jpg and Image:ShilpaShettyPETA.jpg too. It's worth asking them. 17Drew 23:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and up them to commons when they confirm permission. -- But|seriously|folks  00:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

New Topic

Hi! I'm a new user and try to upload my own work for first time (never done before). I used first the Angelmyth as user name and since I saw that instead of my work titled "Mythomachy" it was appeared the Angelmyth I changed the user name to Mythomachy. This is the reason I try to delete Angelmyth and I do not know how. Could you help me? Also, why the Mythomachy image is not accepted? I write down all the copyright stuff. Do I miss something? Waiting for your reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mythomachy (talk • contribs)

• The image (Image:Mythomachy logo.jpg) is a non-free logo of a trading card game. You tagged it correctly, and gave the source and copyright holder. If you got the image off of the Internet, you should add the URL that points to the image and another that points to the page that includes the image.
• Note, however, that Wikipedia:Non-free content proscribes the use of non-free content across Wikipedia, and notably says that it is only to be used in articles (so, in this case, a page that starts with "User:" should have no non-free content).
• If you would like to create an article about the card game "Mythomachy", you should create it at Mythomachy. If you would like help writing the article, you could see Wikipedia:Drawing board. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask! Cheers, --Iamunknown 20:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sports-Related Images

Hi, I have recently uploaded Image:Christian_Hanson_Grays_Athletic_2006.jpg, this was taken by a friend of mine who does some work for Grays Athletic, he sent me a bunch of pictures and said he had no problem with me using them. However I am unsure of which license to use?

I also have some of New Recreation Ground, taken by the same person with permission to use. What license do I use again?

Thanks

Jimbo online 22:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It's up to your friend. We can't use images with permission for Wikipedia only, or restricted to noncommercial or educational use, because of the how we allow others to use our content. See WP:ICT#For image creators for his options. If he isn't willing to release them under any of those licenses, they'll have to be deleted. Since someone other than yourself owns the photos, you should go through the motions at WP:COPYREQ to get written permission from him, which you should then forward to the Foundation as described on that page. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I downloaded an image from Wiki Commons but it was still tagged as copyright violation

Here is the link to the Wiki Commons photo:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Ricefield.jpg

I had to change the name of the photo because when I tried to place it in the article, there was already a different photo there with the same exact name. The instructions then told me to change the name of the photo. I changed the name and also accidentally left two .jpg's on the end. My new name for the Wiki Commons image is Image:Ricefield planting.jpg.jpg

Would someone explain to me what is happening here? Thanks! Sincerely, Mattisse 00:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the local image with that name is blocking the commons image. I would think the local image with the same name has to be given a new name, which would let the commons image show through. I'll let someone else confirm that before I start monkeying with things, though. -- But|seriously|folks  00:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging (and uploading) in Wikipedia

Hi,

I had uploaded an image on to wikipedia, but it has been removed due to not having a tag. I need help with image tagging, and anything else that needs to be done to upload images on to wiki.

The image is only an excel graph, which I have created using data that was on wikipedia itself (Modified Newtonian Dynamics entry). There can be no problem of legality in using it since it is entirely my creation.

Thanks and regards,

Harsh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshtikku (talk • contribs)

If you uploaded the image successfully once, then you already know how. On the upload page next to where it says "Licensing" you'll find a dropbox with a number of possible tags. The easiest way to tag the image is to select one at that point; otherwise you'll have to add it manually.

A graph of tabluar data such as you describe is not actually eligible for copyright under US law and so is automatically public domain. The the correct tag is therefore {{PD-ineligible}}. Unfortunately, this doesn't appear in the dropbox so you have to add it manually. Edit the image page -- this edits the text on the image page, not the image itself -- add a section ==Licensing==, and below it add the tag as I show it here, between two curly braces. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, to be safe, just in case someone decides it can be copyrighted, your best bet is one of the user-created content tags, such as {{GFDL-self}} and {{PD-self}}. Don't mark it noncommercial, educational or Wikipedia use only, because that is not sufficient for use here. Good luck! -- But|seriously|folks  05:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No, that's wrong. It's not at all eligible for copyright regardless of what someone may erroneously believe in the future. This is fairly elementary copyright law. See [14]: Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources). Scientific data is just such a "common source". Furthermore, technical drawings and diagrams (of which a Cartesian graph of data is a clear example) are by law specifically excluded from the class of "works of visual art".

I don't think any of the regular human patrollers for copyright problems would have deleted this image. It was likely identified by a bot as having a problematic tag, and then automatically deleted without any intervention. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

We do no one any favors to encourage copyright claims where none can in fact be asserted. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

clairification requested

The following was received as a result of posting and image Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Shuttle car.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Shuttle car.jpg has a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission, which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3). While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case[1][2]. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

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

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

If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:Shuttle car.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 17:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I am a little confused about this message. I have full authorization to post these pictures. They are not intended as a commercial advertisement for our company but to add graphical content, allowing readers to better understand the equipment.

Regards jen2007

Greetings. I assume that, when you uploaded the image, you chose, "The copyright holder only allows this work to be used for non-commercial and/or educational purposes" or some similar item on a drop-down menu. (Correct me if I am wrong.) While you may have full authorization to post the pictures, note that Wikipedia aims to be a free content encyclopedia. Works licensed under a "non-commercial" license are, therefore, considered non-free content, and may only be used according to our non-free content policy. Similarly, even if the copyright holder has given permission for Wikipedia to use their content, it is considered "non-free content".

This is because of the nature of Wikipedia. Most content posted to Wikipedia is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). (You can read the text of the license here.) Anyone may use works licensed under the GFDL for, among other things, unrestricted commercial reuse and derivative works; that is, someone can modify, sell, display, or perform works licensed under the GFDL. Additionally, if I redistribute a GFDL-licensed work, I must license it under the GFDL. (And same with any other downstream re-distributors.)

The point is that many projects do redistribute Wikipedia for commercial profit among other things. Thus "non-commercial" and "permission-only" content is not acceptable unless it can be used under our non-free content policy. --Iamunknown 18:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

There wasn't an appropriate license tag

Hello,

This photo was tagged for deletion because I didn't supply a license tag.

Image:JosephTeres.jpg]

However, I couldn't find one that suited the circumstances. The photo is public domain, but not for any of the reasons you supplied. It was provided to me by the Transcona Historical Museum and there is no record of the author of the photo. The photo is just in their archives and they make it available to anyone who needs it. If I ever use it in publications, I usually just cite "Provided by the Transcona Historical Museum", out of thanks to them. But there is no author to cite and the photos are free to be used by the public.

What license tag do you have for me to use in this circumstance?

Thanks!

--Lolamaemama 16:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That the copyright holder of a work is currently unknown does not indicate that the work is in the public domain. There are, however, many other conditions under which a work may be in the public domain. For some information, see Wikipedia:Public domain and "Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States" by Peter Hirtle. I will need to know some more information to help determine if the photograph is in the public domain. Do you know if the photograph was ever published (see WP:PD#Publication for information about what constitutes "publication")? If so, do you know when and where the photograph was published? --Iamunknown 18:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Mugshots

Can mugshots be accepted under fair use? I'm asking because an editor inserted Image:Mugshot 50-Cent-a.jpg on the 50 Cent article and I just want to make sure there's no copyvio issues. Spellcast 22:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not in the article now, so it'll likely be tagged for deletion soon. If the photo was being used to illustrate a section on his arrest, then I'd say it was probably valid fair use. It obviously shouldn't be used just to show what he looks like.

This, I think, is an extremely cautious approach. As part of the public record, I'm not sure that booking photographs are eligible for copyright, but I've been unable to locate anything definitive on it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Info overload, comprehension is futile for me. For non-profit use is OK by university archives.

The adventitious Internet has very much obsoleted anything I might have understood about copy right. After much searching for the appropriate Wikipedia tag even by example; may I ask for some help please? The following is the circumstance:

Found at: http://www.civilization.ca/vmnf/premieres_nations/en/iroquoians/carte_1_sections.html Clipped from: Hennepin, Amplissimae Regionali Mississipi, 1687. © 2000, Yale University Library, Map Collection (ref. # 71, 1730 – copy 1). Forest_buffalo.JPG is a clipping. This is from a 320 year old map. I'll be contacting Yale because if I'm correct, this is very important find to West Virginians of an only contemporary image of this extinct animal. Only a schalor can determine this. Conaughy 07:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Yale Admin has been contacted. The reply is that the two requests for permission and identification has been passed on to the appropriate scholars. Online policy notice declares that the map falls within fair useage online for non profit is OK without permission. Yale also encourages links to there online material. The question of a clip from the entire map is awaiting clarification from the "Map Archivist". Based on examples on the web of their maps, this clip probably needs no extra approval, also. And, a positive reply is anticipated based on the way the museum in which this was found, is being used concerning their version of the map. They clipped the map for enlarged viewing of parts of the map. Therefore, it seems practicle to copyleft, maybe, this clipping? Yale Admin Representative has wished success with this Wikipedia article in which this clip is used. Conaughy 09:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Image link: [| Eastern-Buffalo]

Please, will somebody with experience tag this for me? Thankyou kindly for assistance, --11:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged it for you. The correct tag is {{PD-old}} because with its age the author certainly died more than 100 years ago. This is one of those shitty cases where a research institution digitizes something and slaps it with a "copyright" notice even though the work itself entered the public domain long long ago and cannot be copyrighted. Calliopejen1 15:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

i have been coming across images of record covers i have done the photography for ...... which are later removed by someone else

i have been a successful music photographer since the late 70's, i that tie i have shot 1000's of UK musicians, especially during the 1980's and 90's

i did most of Soft Cell's sleeves and recently came across the <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Softcell.jpg> image which seems about to be removed

well, as was my intention, i kept all copyright on my images during the time i was shooting sleeves, and whatever anyone else says, i would like my images to remain on wikipedia

how EXACTLY (since trying to do things on the admin side of this website is absolutely impossible afaics) can i give my permission for MY images to be used????

we are talking Soft Cell, to Eurythmics to Tina Turner to Frankie Goes to Hollywood etc etc

and it is beginning to annoy me that someone keeps trying to take my images down ...............

peter ashworth

peter@ashworth-photos.com

www.ashworth-photos.com

Well it's a somewhat unusual case. Normaly we take people's asertions that they have created a work at face value, however people will often falcely (usualy in good faith) claim ownership over images they have merely scanned or captured from elsewhere. So when it comes to album cover art we are (understandably I hope) a bit more sceptical when someone out of the blue claim to own the copyright to them (we have no way to comfirm that users are who they claim to be). Additionaly such things are usualy work for hire and thus copyrighted by the record label who paid to have them made rater than the artist or photographer. So please don't take offense but we will need a bit more evidence in a case like this. Please send an e-mail to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org" and explain the situation, if possible attach copies of any contracts you might have saved to prove that copyright to the photos have not been signed over to your clients, and any other relevant information. Then some of our more professional voulenteers will review the case and add the "permission comfirmed" template to the images wich should prevent any further misunderstandings. Thanks. --Sherool (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

photographers rights to their own copyrights

i have been a successful music photographer since the late 70's, i that tie i have shot 1000's of UK musicians, especially during the 1980's and 90's

i did most of Soft Cell's sleeves and recently came across the <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Softcell.jpg> image which seems about to be removed

well, as was my intention, i kept all copyright on my images during the time i was shooting sleeves, and whatever anyone else says, i would like my images to remain on wikipedia

how EXACTLY (since trying to do things on the admin side of this website is absolutely impossible afaics) can i give my permission for MY images to be used????

we are talking Soft Cell, to Eurythmics to Tina Turner to Frankie Goes to Hollywood etc etc

and it is beginning to annoy me that someone keeps trying to take my images down ...............

peter ashworth

peter@ashworth-photos.com

www.ashworth-photos.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Photoculture (talk • contribs)

• I will email with user with the information from Wikipedia:Permissions. One interesting note, even if you own the cover photographs, you do not own the covers. You will not be able to license album covers for use on Wikipedia, instead you would have to provide us with an original copy of the photograph you took (preferably at a higher resolution than the album cover so we can verify you are the original source for the picture. -N 16:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Has there been discussion about this somewhere? I very much doubt that anything added to the image by way of making it into an album cover rises to the necessary level of creativity to call it a derivative work. Elements like titles and typography are not eligible for copyright. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Wow. What an exciting, and wonderful opportunity. I would encourage you to release these to the public domain or some appropriate license that Wikipedia can use. A noncommercial-only or limited license would not help, it would have the same issues and problems as the current fair use. But if you were to release the album covers, and any spare photos of the artists, Wikipedia can then use them not only for the albums articles, but also articles about the artists, the history of music, etc. That would also get you credit, more than you are getting now, for the photos. I can understand both sides, but I strongly suspect there may be a problem with copyright on the albums. Many of them probably have band logos, graphics, extensive text, and other things that are copyrighted. Maybe the volunteer reviewers can figure it out, and if they can't perhaps this is a big enough opportunity that you can catch the ear of the Wikimedia Foundations's new general counsel, and he can help you through this. Wikidemo 23:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyright Tag

I uploaded an image on file with the Washington State Archive. It has no copyright as it is a publice document. The document was authored on March 4, 1953. What is the correct copyright tag? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pangborn (talk • contribs)

Copyright is not related to things being publicly accessible. When a work is created copyright attaches. It is very difficult to know the copyright of something given only that it is in state archives. From looking at your history it seems that you have only uploaded PDFs. You need to find who created the work, for example who was the photographer or author? Was it an institution of some kind? If you get that information and update it here someone will be able to assist you further. - cohesion 00:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Use of Wikipedia images

I am writing a book on the management of design and construction. The Construction Management Association of America http://cmaanet.org is planning to publish it.

The book will have some images that illustrate points made in the text. Is it possible to obtain permission from you to use some of the images in your Encyclopedia? If so, how would you prefer for me to reference your permission?

As an example, an image I have in mind is the drawing of the Crystal Palace that was built at the London Exposition of 1851

Charles Thomsen FAIA FCMAA charlesthomsen@charlesthomsen

--18:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbthomsen (talk • contribs)

The information you seek is located at this link. As far as I know, Wikipedia cannot grant permission other than per the GFDL because that is the only license Wikipedia holds (in most cases). Of course, if the image you want is in the public domain, then you don't need Wikipedia's permission to use it. -- But|seriously|folks  18:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't need permission in any event; he just needs to abide by the terms of the license with which the image is tagged. Not all images are GFDL. They might be CC-by-sa or something similar. But I doubt he's watching this page. An answer should be sent to his email address. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Self-created image

I recently added image at the article which was nominated to speedy delete. Although I understood the reasons why it was deleted I found the guideline of image uploading extremely complicated to apprehend. I am the creator of the image and intending to post it without any restriction for public use The article I wanted to put it on is about hockey player Max Birbraer:[15] What exactly should I do to add image to this article??? Thanks in advance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Max25fan (talk • contribs)

The image probably lacked copyright tags. The purpose of these tags is to inform the system of the copyright and licensing status of uploaded images so that their appropriateness under Wikipedia guidelines can be determined. If you own all rights to the image and want to release it for public use with no restrictions, the tag you should use is {{PD-self}}. Although this can be done manually, the easiest way to add a tag is at the time you upload the image by selecting "It is all your own work, you created it yourself and release it to the public domain" from the "Licensing" dropdown menu on the upload page. (The menu is very wide, so it might not look like you expect unless your window is maximized.)

It would also be a good idea to send an email to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org (obfuscated to avoid spam bots) certifying that you really did create the image. Be sure to give your Wikipedia username and the name of the image file. This will prevent anyone from questioning where it came from later. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

question about International Idol image distribution or publication?

Its my friends work and then the website also allows free distribution without modification and I did publish it on here at this link Image:IdolLogo.gif

Now that I have filled Non-free / fair use media rationale.. how do I remove that dispute tempelate form the page?? Or is there anything else thats required to be done for publishing it..?? Please advise, thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puneetpal (talk • contribs)

The instructions on the tag are fairly clear, especially as you have now admitted that you mistagged the image. You claimed it as your own work when it is not.

You need to provide a direct link to the source of the image and name the copyright holder. I couldn't find either on that website. The site appears to be broken anyway, as I was unable to find any links off the index page. But please don't make us go searching for it.

Just because your friend made this image, it doesn't mean he owns the copyright if it's a duplicate of some commercial work, even if he made the copy entirely by hand. It's the image as a creative work, not any particular copy of it (however made) that gets the copyright. If your friend is the owner of the website in question and it really is entirely original with him, that's a different story.

However, it's moot based on what you've told us here. The "without modification" restriction means this is non-free media. So whether your friend made a hand-copy of someone else's logo or if it's entirely his own work, it can only be used as a fair use image under Wikipedia's non-free media guidelines. It should be tagged {{non-free logo}} and a specific fair use rationale should be added per WP:FURG. But you need to provide a link to the page where the image can be found in any event, as a fair-use claim can't be properly evaluated TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hemmingway photo

Hi,

I received an automated notice regarding a jpg file I uploaded to Ernest Hemingway Image:E-Hemingway WorldWarIYoung.jpg

The image is exactly the same as the one that was originally there with the exception that it has been digitally cleaned to remove the crease that went across Hemingway's face. That's why I didn't enter any sort of documentation. It is the same image.

Can it be added to Hemingway's page?

Thank you, Gieselle --Gieselle 20:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Usually, he best approach for an image that's not any different from an existing one except for improved quality is to re-upload it into the same location. Then all the same tags will be present on the image page already. In this case that wasn't possible because the new version is a .jpg and the old one is a .gif.

When tracking down copyright problems, we really can't go around comparing new images to those already on the system; that's just to burdensome. When you upload an image with a new name, you should therefore always add appropriate tags. It's very easy when you can just copy the tag from one image to another. I've done that for you, so just look at the diff to see what I did.

In the future, please add new questions to the bottom of the page in a new section, and note the format for internal links to images and articles. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Busch photo

I have no clue how to qualify this image under Wikipedia guidlines, using the Fair Use icons to navigate registering this photo. I can tell you, however, that this photo Image:Gussie Busch.jpg was indeed scanned/copied by me from a pamphlet that I have from the 1990s delineating [Gussie Busch's and Anheuser-Busch's involvement with the St. Louis Cardinals.

If this rationale is sufficient to keep the photo on the site, please keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swabian262 (talk • contribs)

You are talking to a bunch of people who happen to frequent a page, not to anybody official. There is nobody official to talk to. It is up to you as a contributor to figure out how Wikipedia works. We all do it. There are about 2,000 images loaded every day, most of them with some problems, and nobody sitting around whose job it is to fix them. Why don't you start by searching around, following some links from your deletion notice, and reading up on what copyright is all about and how to upload images? As a start though, you should know that anything that's on paper in a book, pamphlet, or any other picture for that matter is probably copyrighted and belongs to someone else. You can't put it in a scanner and claim that you own it and release it to the public domain. Otherwise I could just make an mp3 of every CD in my collection and do the same thing. We wouldn't have copyright! If you want to upload a picture of one of the Anheiser-Busch founders you should first see if there is already a picture around here, preferably a free one. Look to other public domain sources for the same thing. Only if you're satisfied that there are none out there, and he's dead so none are likely to turn up, then you can find a suitable picture, upload it, use the proper tag to say what it is and where it came from, and write a fair use rationale for the non-free image to explain why it belongs here. Hope that helps. Wikidemo 23:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC) (incidentally, you need to sign your posts on the talk page so we can tell who you are. use four tildes (~) in a row to do that. Also, if you're going to start a new topic you should separate it with a section header. Use equal signs for that. You can see how it's done by looking at some of the other comments.)

Or we could take our teeth out first, explain the user's misconceptions calmly, perhaps by pointing to a page explaining exactly what Wikipedia is about, and follow up by pointing to relevant policies on Copyright, fair use and other non-free media, image use, and how to write fair use rationale. "Searching around" isn't very helpful when a person obviously doesn't have a clue where to start. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Need someone to take a look please

Hi, can someone have a look at Image:Tougher Than Leather.jpg and tell me what I'm doing wrong? The image in question is an album cover. BetacommandBot is tagging it for deletion, saying "This image or media is claimed to be used under Wikipedia's policy for non-free content but has no explanation as to why it is permitted under the policy," but I included a non-free fair use rationale template when I uploaded it, as I always do. I'm no expert when it comes to images, but I've uploaded a few other album covers and I've never had this problem before. Thanks for any help. --Bongwarrior 05:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It does include a short use rationale, for more information on how to create a better one see the use rationale guideline. Once you change it if you decide to please remove the warning by betacommandbot. It shouldn't add it back. Some people have noticed there may be a problem with the bot right now, and are looking in to it. Sorry for any inconvenience. - cohesion 01:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

No inconvenience at all. I guess I'll try to create a better rationale tomorrow. Thank you very much Cohesion for investigating. --Bongwarrior 02:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Halo soundtrack covers

Hey, I uploaded the halo 2 vol 2 cover Image:Halo2 soundtrack Vol2.jpg... used in Halo 2 Original Soundtrack: Volume Two because the album cover was a red link. The fair use thing I used, I copied the stuff from Image:Halo2_soundtrack.jpg... it is identical to that already existing image. But now it is complaining about fair use rational. In any case, it is currently marked for deletion, which is ok I guess.... I don't really mind. If it needs to be deleted, delete it. Just wondering why one soundtrack image is ok, while the other is marked for deletion, when they both have identical pages. Wuzzeb 06:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Because no one's yet noticed that Image:Halo2_soundtrack.jpg also lacks a fair use rationale and should also be deleted. Or have a rationale added. See WP:FURG for what to say. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

betaCommandBot keeps on placing the same banner despite my explanation

Here.

I already put a message stating that the image under question (Image:VedantaUniversityOrissaLogo2.jpg) is a university logo, and therefore a low-resolution image of it is fair use!

SDas

You didn't put a fair use rationale on the image page. If you need help on how to write a fair use rationale, see Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline. 17Drew 06:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Airport images

I have two or three images of Belgrade airport (all of the photos are from their web-site). On their website it specifically says they can be used by any member anywhere. They also state on their web site that they can be used as screensavers and on mobile phones. Which tag should I use? --LukaP

Can you link to the exact language of the website? Wikipedia free image guidelines require that all images be free to be used by anyone, in any way (including for commercial use), and even by modified. Does the website release allow this? Calliopejen1 15:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a direct link where it says that they may be used (both in Serbian and English) --LukaP

Can you give it to us? --Ybbor^Talk 01:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Scroll to the end of the page http://www.aerodrom-beograd.co.yu/code/navigate.php?Id=159 the fact that they give you a right to download images and put them on your computer should give you the right to use them anywhere. LukaP

Unfortunately not. This is more an implied permission that you can use those images at home. For commercial/non commercial usage and derivative works, as needed for Wikipedia, a more clear statement is needed. You could of course ask the website for releasing those images under conditions Wikipedia can use. See Wikipedia:Example requests for permission for example letters. It often works, see User:Videmus Omnia/Free Images for an example of an editor with a great success rate in that. Garion96 (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for the links. I will write to the airport and ask for their permission.

Game screenshots

Can someone explain whats wrong with using screenshots from games and why Wikipedia sometimes wants to delete those pics? I have problems with finding the answer. Image:Tomb raider angel of darkness screen2.jpg --sturm 10:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Check out WP:NONFREE for a general explanation of non-free content policies, which would include screenshots for games. In short, wikipedia's aim is to create an encyclopedia of free content (not fair-use content), and it also wants to avoid legal trouble. Calliopejen1 15:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Published in Europe before 1911: public domain in US?

I'm sure you experts have seen these cases before: a work published before 1911, but in Europe. Is it public domain in the US? I just want to make sure that Image:Stein_by_picasso.jpg is not deleted without prior discussion of the legal issues involved (of which I am ignorant). Cheers, AxelBoldt 12:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it is. I've re-added {{PD-art-US}}, and you can check out the more detailed explanation on the image page. Calliopejen1 16:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that being created is not the same as being published. The latter requires that it the work be made available to the general public in a non-ephemeral way. For example, a painting that is exhibited somewhere is not considered published. However, if a copy of that painting were printed in a brochure and passed out to people attending the exhibit, then it would have been published. Hope that makes sense. howcheng {chat} 16:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the painting is not in the public domain in the United States. The copyright to the painting was restored by the Picasso estate under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, and is listed http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/1996/61fr46133.html specifically as a work which the copyright holder—the Picasso estate—renewed the copyright to and intends to enforce. Furthermore, many Picasso paintings were restored under the URAA (see [16] and [17]); I suggest assuming all Picasso paintings are copyrighted. --Iamunknown 17:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Music video screenshot - 50 Cent

Would it be ok to add music video screenshots of Piggy Bank & Funeral Music to the Feuds section in the 50 Cent article, as music video screenshots are in the The Notorious B.I.G. which is a Wikipedia:Featured article.

Please respond to my question in my talk page, Thanks --Shadyaftrmathgunit 13:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page. Calliopejen1 16:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

New Topic

hi i'm trying to post photo's of mugar library that i found online. i posted them and then they got erased. i don't understand how to follow the procedure correctly. i don't know how i would contact the copyright holder and get permission in order to print it can you explain to me what i should do shahe67Shahe67 19:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Generally, other people's photos of existing buildings cannot be used at Wikipedia unless you get their permission. For information on getting permission, look at this page. If you are in the neighborhood, you can take a photo yourself. Good luck! -- But|seriously|folks  19:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

image:Sharpe's Grysbok.jpg

This image was taken from the German wikipedia. I don't read German, so I cannot translate the copyright info. Sorry!--GRM 22:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It's fixed. I don't read German either, but it wasn't complicated. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Image Copywrite Tag for Image:Devil for Web.gif for Druid Hills HS Athletics

I do not know the licence for the Druid Hills Athletics image, It comes from the School's Athletic Site started by a parent. It is htpp://www.druidhillsreddevils.com but that is all I know. I know you need the location and licence tag but all I know is the location. I was just wondering if I could receive some assistance?

Thanks --Dhquarterback16 04:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Somebody has added an appropriate licensing tag, but now the image needs a fair use rationale. You can find guidance at WP:FURG. Good luck! -- But|seriously|folks  02:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

PETA

According to Image:Livers.jpg,

Unless otherwise indicated, PETA materials are not copyrighted and may be reproduced freely for personal, noncommercial use:

http://www.peta.org/about/site.asp

This seems conteridictory to me. Do you think this means {{PD} or {{NonCommercial}}? -xxpor ^yo!|_{see what i've done} 17:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's contradictory. Without a clear release into the public domain, copyright attaches and, erring on the side of caution, we can't use it. -- But|seriously|folks  20:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Expanding upon what Butseriouslyfolks wrote (which I think is accurate), I think that PETA is trying to say that anyone use images from peta.org for personal and/or(?) non-commercial use and they do not have to pay a license fee to do so. Wikipedia's use of the images, of course, is not "personal", and Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, took a stance in 2005 upon non-commercial images (see [18]), saying that they are not acceptable for Wikipedia. So neither of those vague statements are appropriate, and we must use the image as "non-free content" if it meets Wikipedia:Non-free content. It is replaceable, so whether or not it meets the non-free content criteria is debatable. --Iamunknown 20:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting that Peta has released Image:Christy Turlington I'd rather go naked than wear fur.jpg in the public domain. Garion96 (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I thought I'd seen a PETA image somewhere that looked like it had a valid license/release. I would venture to say they would generally be willing to release works under a free license. --Iamunknown 21:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Peaches Canada's club scene sucks.jpg and Image:ShilpaShettyPETA.jpg too. It's worth asking them. 17Drew 23:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and up them to commons when they confirm permission. -- But|seriously|folks  00:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

New Topic

Hi! I'm a new user and try to upload my own work for first time (never done before). I used first the Angelmyth as user name and since I saw that instead of my work titled "Mythomachy" it was appeared the Angelmyth I changed the user name to Mythomachy. This is the reason I try to delete Angelmyth and I do not know how. Could you help me? Also, why the Mythomachy image is not accepted? I write down all the copyright stuff. Do I miss something? Waiting for your reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mythomachy (talk • contribs)

• The image (Image:Mythomachy logo.jpg) is a non-free logo of a trading card game. You tagged it correctly, and gave the source and copyright holder. If you got the image off of the Internet, you should add the URL that points to the image and another that points to the page that includes the image.
• Note, however, that Wikipedia:Non-free content proscribes the use of non-free content across Wikipedia, and notably says that it is only to be used in articles (so, in this case, a page that starts with "User:" should have no non-free content).
• If you would like to create an article about the card game "Mythomachy", you should create it at Mythomachy. If you would like help writing the article, you could see Wikipedia:Drawing board. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask! Cheers, --Iamunknown 20:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sports-Related Images

Hi, I have recently uploaded Image:Christian_Hanson_Grays_Athletic_2006.jpg, this was taken by a friend of mine who does some work for Grays Athletic, he sent me a bunch of pictures and said he had no problem with me using them. However I am unsure of which license to use?

I also have some of New Recreation Ground, taken by the same person with permission to use. What license do I use again?

Thanks

Jimbo online 22:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It's up to your friend. We can't use images with permission for Wikipedia only, or restricted to noncommercial or educational use, because of the how we allow others to use our content. See WP:ICT#For image creators for his options. If he isn't willing to release them under any of those licenses, they'll have to be deleted. Since someone other than yourself owns the photos, you should go through the motions at WP:COPYREQ to get written permission from him, which you should then forward to the Foundation as described on that page. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I downloaded an image from Wiki Commons but it was still tagged as copyright violation

Here is the link to the Wiki Commons photo:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Ricefield.jpg

I had to change the name of the photo because when I tried to place it in the article, there was already a different photo there with the same exact name. The instructions then told me to change the name of the photo. I changed the name and also accidentally left two .jpg's on the end. My new name for the Wiki Commons image is Image:Ricefield planting.jpg.jpg

Would someone explain to me what is happening here? Thanks! Sincerely, Mattisse 00:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the local image with that name is blocking the commons image. I would think the local image with the same name has to be given a new name, which would let the commons image show through. I'll let someone else confirm that before I start monkeying with things, though. -- But|seriously|folks  00:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging (and uploading) in Wikipedia

Hi,

I had uploaded an image on to wikipedia, but it has been removed due to not having a tag. I need help with image tagging, and anything else that needs to be done to upload images on to wiki.

The image is only an excel graph, which I have created using data that was on wikipedia itself (Modified Newtonian Dynamics entry). There can be no problem of legality in using it since it is entirely my creation.

Thanks and regards,

Harsh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshtikku (talk • contribs)

If you uploaded the image successfully once, then you already know how. On the upload page next to where it says "Licensing" you'll find a dropbox with a number of possible tags. The easiest way to tag the image is to select one at that point; otherwise you'll have to add it manually.

A graph of tabluar data such as you describe is not actually eligible for copyright under US law and so is automatically public domain. The the correct tag is therefore {{PD-ineligible}}. Unfortunately, this doesn't appear in the dropbox so you have to add it manually. Edit the image page -- this edits the text on the image page, not the image itself -- add a section ==Licensing==, and below it add the tag as I show it here, between two curly braces. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, to be safe, just in case someone decides it can be copyrighted, your best bet is one of the user-created content tags, such as {{GFDL-self}} and {{PD-self}}. Don't mark it noncommercial, educational or Wikipedia use only, because that is not sufficient for use here. Good luck! -- But|seriously|folks  05:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No, that's wrong. It's not at all eligible for copyright regardless of what someone may erroneously believe in the future. This is fairly elementary copyright law. See [19]: Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources). Scientific data is just such a "common source". Furthermore, technical drawings and diagrams (of which a Cartesian graph of data is a clear example) are by law specifically excluded from the class of "works of visual art".

I don't think any of the regular human patrollers for copyright problems would have deleted this image. It was likely identified by a bot as having a problematic tag, and then automatically deleted without any intervention. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

We do no one any favors to encourage copyright claims where none can in fact be asserted. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

clairification requested

The following was received as a result of posting and image Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Shuttle car.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Shuttle car.jpg has a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission, which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3). While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case[1][2]. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

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

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

If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:Shuttle car.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 17:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I am a little confused about this message. I have full authorization to post these pictures. They are not intended as a commercial advertisement for our company but to add graphical content, allowing readers to better understand the equipment.

Regards jen2007

Greetings. I assume that, when you uploaded the image, you chose, "The copyright holder only allows this work to be used for non-commercial and/or educational purposes" or some similar item on a drop-down menu. (Correct me if I am wrong.) While you may have full authorization to post the pictures, note that Wikipedia aims to be a free content encyclopedia. Works licensed under a "non-commercial" license are, therefore, considered non-free content, and may only be used according to our non-free content policy. Similarly, even if the copyright holder has given permission for Wikipedia to use their content, it is considered "non-free content".

This is because of the nature of Wikipedia. Most content posted to Wikipedia is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). (You can read the text of the license here.) Anyone may use works licensed under the GFDL for, among other things, unrestricted commercial reuse and derivative works; that is, someone can modify, sell, display, or perform works licensed under the GFDL. Additionally, if I redistribute a GFDL-licensed work, I must license it under the GFDL. (And same with any other downstream re-distributors.)

The point is that many projects do redistribute Wikipedia for commercial profit among other things. Thus "non-commercial" and "permission-only" content is not acceptable unless it can be used under our non-free content policy. --Iamunknown 18:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

There wasn't an appropriate license tag

Hello,

This photo was tagged for deletion because I didn't supply a license tag.

Image:JosephTeres.jpg]

However, I couldn't find one that suited the circumstances. The photo is public domain, but not for any of the reasons you supplied. It was provided to me by the Transcona Historical Museum and there is no record of the author of the photo. The photo is just in their archives and they make it available to anyone who needs it. If I ever use it in publications, I usually just cite "Provided by the Transcona Historical Museum", out of thanks to them. But there is no author to cite and the photos are free to be used by the public.

What license tag do you have for me to use in this circumstance?

Thanks!

--Lolamaemama 16:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That the copyright holder of a work is currently unknown does not indicate that the work is in the public domain. There are, however, many other conditions under which a work may be in the public domain. For some information, see Wikipedia:Public domain and "Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States" by Peter Hirtle. I will need to know some more information to help determine if the photograph is in the public domain. Do you know if the photograph was ever published (see WP:PD#Publication for information about what constitutes "publication")? If so, do you know when and where the photograph was published? --Iamunknown 18:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Mugshots

Can mugshots be accepted under fair use? I'm asking because an editor inserted Image:Mugshot 50-Cent-a.jpg on the 50 Cent article and I just want to make sure there's no copyvio issues. Spellcast 22:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not in the article now, so it'll likely be tagged for deletion soon. If the photo was being used to illustrate a section on his arrest, then I'd say it was probably valid fair use. It obviously shouldn't be used just to show what he looks like.

This, I think, is an extremely cautious approach. As part of the public record, I'm not sure that booking photographs are eligible for copyright, but I've been unable to locate anything definitive on it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Info overload, comprehension is futile for me. For non-profit use is OK by university archives.

The adventitious Internet has very much obsoleted anything I might have understood about copy right. After much searching for the appropriate Wikipedia tag even by example; may I ask for some help please? The following is the circumstance:

Found at: http://www.civilization.ca/vmnf/premieres_nations/en/iroquoians/carte_1_sections.html Clipped from: Hennepin, Amplissimae Regionali Mississipi, 1687. © 2000, Yale University Library, Map Collection (ref. # 71, 1730 – copy 1). Forest_buffalo.JPG is a clipping. This is from a 320 year old map. I'll be contacting Yale because if I'm correct, this is very important find to West Virginians of an only contemporary image of this extinct animal. Only a schalor can determine this. Conaughy 07:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Yale Admin has been contacted. The reply is that the two requests for permission and identification has been passed on to the appropriate scholars. Online policy notice declares that the map falls within fair useage online for non profit is OK without permission. Yale also encourages links to there online material. The question of a clip from the entire map is awaiting clarification from the "Map Archivist". Based on examples on the web of their maps, this clip probably needs no extra approval, also. And, a positive reply is anticipated based on the way the museum in which this was found, is being used concerning their version of the map. They clipped the map for enlarged viewing of parts of the map. Therefore, it seems practicle to copyleft, maybe, this clipping? Yale Admin Representative has wished success with this Wikipedia article in which this clip is used. Conaughy 09:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Image link: [| Eastern-Buffalo]

Please, will somebody with experience tag this for me? Thankyou kindly for assistance, --11:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged it for you. The correct tag is {{PD-old}} because with its age the author certainly died more than 100 years ago. This is one of those shitty cases where a research institution digitizes something and slaps it with a "copyright" notice even though the work itself entered the public domain long long ago and cannot be copyrighted. Calliopejen1 15:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

i have been coming across images of record covers i have done the photography for ...... which are later removed by someone else

i have been a successful music photographer since the late 70's, i that tie i have shot 1000's of UK musicians, especially during the 1980's and 90's

i did most of Soft Cell's sleeves and recently came across the <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Softcell.jpg> image which seems about to be removed

well, as was my intention, i kept all copyright on my images during the time i was shooting sleeves, and whatever anyone else says, i would like my images to remain on wikipedia

how EXACTLY (since trying to do things on the admin side of this website is absolutely impossible afaics) can i give my permission for MY images to be used????

we are talking Soft Cell, to Eurythmics to Tina Turner to Frankie Goes to Hollywood etc etc

and it is beginning to annoy me that someone keeps trying to take my images down ...............

peter ashworth

peter@ashworth-photos.com

www.ashworth-photos.com

Well it's a somewhat unusual case. Normaly we take people's asertions that they have created a work at face value, however people will often falcely (usualy in good faith) claim ownership over images they have merely scanned or captured from elsewhere. So when it comes to album cover art we are (understandably I hope) a bit more sceptical when someone out of the blue claim to own the copyright to them (we have no way to comfirm that users are who they claim to be). Additionaly such things are usualy work for hire and thus copyrighted by the record label who paid to have them made rater than the artist or photographer. So please don't take offense but we will need a bit more evidence in a case like this. Please send an e-mail to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org" and explain the situation, if possible attach copies of any contracts you might have saved to prove that copyright to the photos have not been signed over to your clients, and any other relevant information. Then some of our more professional voulenteers will review the case and add the "permission comfirmed" template to the images wich should prevent any further misunderstandings. Thanks. --Sherool (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

photographers rights to their own copyrights

i have been a successful music photographer since the late 70's, i that tie i have shot 1000's of UK musicians, especially during the 1980's and 90's

i did most of Soft Cell's sleeves and recently came across the <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Softcell.jpg> image which seems about to be removed

well, as was my intention, i kept all copyright on my images during the time i was shooting sleeves, and whatever anyone else says, i would like my images to remain on wikipedia

how EXACTLY (since trying to do things on the admin side of this website is absolutely impossible afaics) can i give my permission for MY images to be used????

we are talking Soft Cell, to Eurythmics to Tina Turner to Frankie Goes to Hollywood etc etc

and it is beginning to annoy me that someone keeps trying to take my images down ...............

peter ashworth

peter@ashworth-photos.com

www.ashworth-photos.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Photoculture (talk • contribs)

• I will email with user with the information from Wikipedia:Permissions. One interesting note, even if you own the cover photographs, you do not own the covers. You will not be able to license album covers for use on Wikipedia, instead you would have to provide us with an original copy of the photograph you took (preferably at a higher resolution than the album cover so we can verify you are the original source for the picture. -N 16:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Has there been discussion about this somewhere? I very much doubt that anything added to the image by way of making it into an album cover rises to the necessary level of creativity to call it a derivative work. Elements like titles and typography are not eligible for copyright. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Wow. What an exciting, and wonderful opportunity. I would encourage you to release these to the public domain or some appropriate license that Wikipedia can use. A noncommercial-only or limited license would not help, it would have the same issues and problems as the current fair use. But if you were to release the album covers, and any spare photos of the artists, Wikipedia can then use them not only for the albums articles, but also articles about the artists, the history of music, etc. That would also get you credit, more than you are getting now, for the photos. I can understand both sides, but I strongly suspect there may be a problem with copyright on the albums. Many of them probably have band logos, graphics, extensive text, and other things that are copyrighted. Maybe the volunteer reviewers can figure it out, and if they can't perhaps this is a big enough opportunity that you can catch the ear of the Wikimedia Foundations's new general counsel, and he can help you through this. Wikidemo 23:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyright Tag

I uploaded an image on file with the Washington State Archive. It has no copyright as it is a publice document. The document was authored on March 4, 1953. What is the correct copyright tag? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pangborn (talk • contribs)

Copyright is not related to things being publicly accessible. When a work is created copyright attaches. It is very difficult to know the copyright of something given only that it is in state archives. From looking at your history it seems that you have only uploaded PDFs. You need to find who created the work, for example who was the photographer or author? Was it an institution of some kind? If you get that information and update it here someone will be able to assist you further. - cohesion 00:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Use of Wikipedia images

I am writing a book on the management of design and construction. The Construction Management Association of America http://cmaanet.org is planning to publish it.

The book will have some images that illustrate points made in the text. Is it possible to obtain permission from you to use some of the images in your Encyclopedia? If so, how would you prefer for me to reference your permission?

As an example, an image I have in mind is the drawing of the Crystal Palace that was built at the London Exposition of 1851

Charles Thomsen FAIA FCMAA charlesthomsen@charlesthomsen

--18:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbthomsen (talk • contribs)

The information you seek is located at this link. As far as I know, Wikipedia cannot grant permission other than per the GFDL because that is the only license Wikipedia holds (in most cases). Of course, if the image you want is in the public domain, then you don't need Wikipedia's permission to use it. -- But|seriously|folks  18:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't need permission in any event; he just needs to abide by the terms of the license with which the image is tagged. Not all images are GFDL. They might be CC-by-sa or something similar. But I doubt he's watching this page. An answer should be sent to his email address. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Self-created image

I recently added image at the article which was nominated to speedy delete. Although I understood the reasons why it was deleted I found the guideline of image uploading extremely complicated to apprehend. I am the creator of the image and intending to post it without any restriction for public use The article I wanted to put it on is about hockey player Max Birbraer:[20] What exactly should I do to add image to this article??? Thanks in advance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Max25fan (talk • contribs)

The image probably lacked copyright tags. The purpose of these tags is to inform the system of the copyright and licensing status of uploaded images so that their appropriateness under Wikipedia guidelines can be determined. If you own all rights to the image and want to release it for public use with no restrictions, the tag you should use is {{PD-self}}. Although this can be done manually, the easiest way to add a tag is at the time you upload the image by selecting "It is all your own work, you created it yourself and release it to the public domain" from the "Licensing" dropdown menu on the upload page. (The menu is very wide, so it might not look like you expect unless your window is maximized.)

It would also be a good idea to send an email to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org (obfuscated to avoid spam bots) certifying that you really did create the image. Be sure to give your Wikipedia username and the name of the image file. This will prevent anyone from questioning where it came from later. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

question about International Idol image distribution or publication?

Its my friends work and then the website also allows free distribution without modification and I did publish it on here at this link Image:IdolLogo.gif

Now that I have filled Non-free / fair use media rationale.. how do I remove that dispute tempelate form the page?? Or is there anything else thats required to be done for publishing it..?? Please advise, thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puneetpal (talk • contribs)

The instructions on the tag are fairly clear, especially as you have now admitted that you mistagged the image. You claimed it as your own work when it is not.

You need to provide a direct link to the source of the image and name the copyright holder. I couldn't find either on that website. The site appears to be broken anyway, as I was unable to find any links off the index page. But please don't make us go searching for it.

Just because your friend made this image, it doesn't mean he owns the copyright if it's a duplicate of some commercial work, even if he made the copy entirely by hand. It's the image as a creative work, not any particular copy of it (however made) that gets the copyright. If your friend is the owner of the website in question and it really is entirely original with him, that's a different story.

However, it's moot based on what you've told us here. The "without modification" restriction means this is non-free media. So whether your friend made a hand-copy of someone else's logo or if it's entirely his own work, it can only be used as a fair use image under Wikipedia's non-free media guidelines. It should be tagged {{non-free logo}} and a specific fair use rationale should be added per WP:FURG. But you need to provide a link to the page where the image can be found in any event, as a fair-use claim can't be properly evaluated TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hemmingway photo

Hi,

I received an automated notice regarding a jpg file I uploaded to Ernest Hemingway Image:E-Hemingway WorldWarIYoung.jpg

The image is exactly the same as the one that was originally there with the exception that it has been digitally cleaned to remove the crease that went across Hemingway's face. That's why I didn't enter any sort of documentation. It is the same image.

Can it be added to Hemingway's page?

Thank you, Gieselle --Gieselle 20:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Usually, he best approach for an image that's not any different from an existing one except for improved quality is to re-upload it into the same location. Then all the same tags will be present on the image page already. In this case that wasn't possible because the new version is a .jpg and the old one is a .gif.

When tracking down copyright problems, we really can't go around comparing new images to those already on the system; that's just to burdensome. When you upload an image with a new name, you should therefore always add appropriate tags. It's very easy when you can just copy the tag from one image to another. I've done that for you, so just look at the diff to see what I did.

In the future, please add new questions to the bottom of the page in a new section, and note the format for internal links to images and articles. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Busch photo

I have no clue how to qualify this image under Wikipedia guidlines, using the Fair Use icons to navigate registering this photo. I can tell you, however, that this photo Image:Gussie Busch.jpg was indeed scanned/copied by me from a pamphlet that I have from the 1990s delineating [Gussie Busch's and Anheuser-Busch's involvement with the St. Louis Cardinals.

If this rationale is sufficient to keep the photo on the site, please keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swabian262 (talk • contribs)

You are talking to a bunch of people who happen to frequent a page, not to anybody official. There is nobody official to talk to. It is up to you as a contributor to figure out how Wikipedia works. We all do it. There are about 2,000 images loaded every day, most of them with some problems, and nobody sitting around whose job it is to fix them. Why don't you start by searching around, following some links from your deletion notice, and reading up on what copyright is all about and how to upload images? As a start though, you should know that anything that's on paper in a book, pamphlet, or any other picture for that matter is probably copyrighted and belongs to someone else. You can't put it in a scanner and claim that you own it and release it to the public domain. Otherwise I could just make an mp3 of every CD in my collection and do the same thing. We wouldn't have copyright! If you want to upload a picture of one of the Anheiser-Busch founders you should first see if there is already a picture around here, preferably a free one. Look to other public domain sources for the same thing. Only if you're satisfied that there are none out there, and he's dead so none are likely to turn up, then you can find a suitable picture, upload it, use the proper tag to say what it is and where it came from, and write a fair use rationale for the non-free image to explain why it belongs here. Hope that helps. Wikidemo 23:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC) (incidentally, you need to sign your posts on the talk page so we can tell who you are. use four tildes (~) in a row to do that. Also, if you're going to start a new topic you should separate it with a section header. Use equal signs for that. You can see how it's done by looking at some of the other comments.)

Or we could take our teeth out first, explain the user's misconceptions calmly, perhaps by pointing to a page explaining exactly what Wikipedia is about, and follow up by pointing to relevant policies on Copyright, fair use and other non-free media, image use, and how to write fair use rationale. "Searching around" isn't very helpful when a person obviously doesn't have a clue where to start. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Halo soundtrack covers

Hey, I uploaded the halo 2 vol 2 cover Image:Halo2 soundtrack Vol2.jpg... used in Halo 2 Original Soundtrack: Volume Two because the album cover was a red link. The fair use thing I used, I copied the stuff from Image:Halo2_soundtrack.jpg... it is identical to that already existing image. But now it is complaining about fair use rational. In any case, it is currently marked for deletion, which is ok I guess.... I don't really mind. If it needs to be deleted, delete it. Just wondering why one soundtrack image is ok, while the other is marked for deletion, when they both have identical pages. Wuzzeb 06:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Because no one's yet noticed that Image:Halo2_soundtrack.jpg also lacks a fair use rationale and should also be deleted. Or have a rationale added. See WP:FURG for what to say. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

betaCommandBot keeps on placing the same banner despite my explanation

Here.

I already put a message stating that the image under question (Image:VedantaUniversityOrissaLogo2.jpg) is a university logo, and therefore a low-resolution image of it is fair use!

SDas

You didn't put a fair use rationale on the image page. If you need help on how to write a fair use rationale, see Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline. 17Drew 06:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Airport images

I have two or three images of Belgrade airport (all of the photos are from their web-site). On their website it specifically says they can be used by any member anywhere. They also state on their web site that they can be used as screensavers and on mobile phones. Which tag should I use? --LukaP

Can you link to the exact language of the website? Wikipedia free image guidelines require that all images be free to be used by anyone, in any way (including for commercial use), and even by modified. Does the website release allow this? Calliopejen1 15:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a direct link where it says that they may be used (both in Serbian and English) --LukaP

Can you give it to us? --Ybbor^Talk 01:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Scroll to the end of the page http://www.aerodrom-beograd.co.yu/code/navigate.php?Id=159 the fact that they give you a right to download images and put them on your computer should give you the right to use them anywhere. LukaP

Unfortunately not. This is more an implied permission that you can use those images at home. For commercial/non commercial usage and derivative works, as needed for Wikipedia, a more clear statement is needed. You could of course ask the website for releasing those images under conditions Wikipedia can use. See Wikipedia:Example requests for permission for example letters. It often works, see User:Videmus Omnia/Free Images for an example of an editor with a great success rate in that. Garion96 (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for the links. I will write to the airport and ask for their permission.

Game screenshots

Can someone explain whats wrong with using screenshots from games and why Wikipedia sometimes wants to delete those pics? I have problems with finding the answer. Image:Tomb raider angel of darkness screen2.jpg --sturm 10:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Check out WP:NONFREE for a general explanation of non-free content policies, which would include screenshots for games. In short, wikipedia's aim is to create an encyclopedia of free content (not fair-use content), and it also wants to avoid legal trouble. Calliopejen1 15:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Published in Europe before 1911: public domain in US?

I'm sure you experts have seen these cases before: a work published before 1911, but in Europe. Is it public domain in the US? I just want to make sure that Image:Stein_by_picasso.jpg is not deleted without prior discussion of the legal issues involved (of which I am ignorant). Cheers, AxelBoldt 12:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it is. I've re-added {{PD-art-US}}, and you can check out the more detailed explanation on the image page. Calliopejen1 16:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that being created is not the same as being published. The latter requires that it the work be made available to the general public in a non-ephemeral way. For example, a painting that is exhibited somewhere is not considered published. However, if a copy of that painting were printed in a brochure and passed out to people attending the exhibit, then it would have been published. Hope that makes sense. howcheng {chat} 16:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the painting is not in the public domain in the United States. The copyright to the painting was restored by the Picasso estate under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, and is listed http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/1996/61fr46133.html specifically as a work which the copyright holder—the Picasso estate—renewed the copyright to and intends to enforce. Furthermore, many Picasso paintings were restored under the URAA (see [21] and [22]); I suggest assuming all Picasso paintings are copyrighted. --Iamunknown 17:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Music video screenshot - 50 Cent

Would it be ok to add music video screenshots of Piggy Bank & Funeral Music to the Feuds section in the 50 Cent article, as music video screenshots are in the The Notorious B.I.G. which is a Wikipedia:Featured article.

Please respond to my question in my talk page, Thanks --Shadyaftrmathgunit 13:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page. Calliopejen1 16:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

New Topic

hi i'm trying to post photo's of mugar library that i found online. i posted them and then they got erased. i don't understand how to follow the procedure correctly. i don't know how i would contact the copyright holder and get permission in order to print it can you explain to me what i should do shahe67Shahe67 19:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Generally, other people's photos of existing buildings cannot be used at Wikipedia unless you get their permission. For information on getting permission, look at this page. If you are in the neighborhood, you can take a photo yourself. Good luck! -- But|seriously|folks  19:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Upload A Music File

Can Some One Tell Me the Right Thing For Uploading Music?

Music, like all media uploaded to wikipedia should be free content and should be licensed correctly. Sound files should also be in Ogg Vorbis format. For more information about that please see Wikipedia:Media#Audio and Wikipedia:Media help. If you have any other specific questions after reading that please let us know. - cohesion 00:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Virc.png

right copyright tage? the software is free ware, also when writing its Template:Non-free media rationale for lower resolution should i scale it down or put a reasin like, 'to preserve detail' p.s the conversatino is made up and is between me on Virc and me on mIRC, Visual IRC is the page it will go to.Blacksmith2 ^talk 01:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• The image of a free software should be free, although you may have out edit out the Windows task bar from the bottom. What license is the software under? -N 02:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

i though i had taken that out look at it again.Blacksmith2 ^talk 02:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

souce is, to quote from the article 'Much of the source code to BIRC, ViRC 2, and the related utilities has been released under the GPL through the project's web site and SourceForge.' this needs to be added to the info box, not sure how exactly to ddo that.Blacksmith2 ^talk 02:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I have re-tagged the image as {{GPL}}, thanks. -N 02:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyright material with limited release on Wikipedia

If I ask the copyright owner for a low resolution of his image to be release into public domain, can I re-assure him that the same image in higher resolution is still fully copyright protected?Boom170 22:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No, copyright doesn't work like that. If an image is copyrighted then a low-resolution version of it is also copyrighted. However, using a low-resolution version may strenghen the case of fair use. nadav (talk) 00:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC) What I mean to say is that, based on my amateur understanding of the law, derivatives of the original carry the copyright of the original. If the derivative is sufficiently creative, then its creator may have some new rights that can be copyrighted. More to the point: If the full-resolution picture does not contain enough new creative elements in comparison to the public-domain low-res version, then there is no way the copyright on the full-sized picture can be maintained. nadav (talk) 00:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that what Nadav1 says is correct, because a high-res version isn't a derivative of a low-res version according to the official definition of "derivative work." A derivative is defined in 17 USC 101 as "a work based upon one or more preexisting works." Since the high-res version existed first, and is in no way based upon the low-res version, I don't think that rule applies. (As a matter of policy, it wouldn't make sense either, because it makes sense that an author might want to release rights on a tiny image while retaining rights to the larger one.) Even if navdav is correct, however, what you want can definitely be achieved through the use of a free license. The copyright owner can retain the copyright on both images, but license the small one under a free license, like a CC-BY license. Calliopejen1 02:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Calliopejen1 is correct. It is perfectly fine for the copyright holder to release a smaller version of his/her work under a freer license than the full-size version. This is a pretty common scenario among Wikipedian photographers and I often ask Flickr users who might be reluctant to allow commercial usage of their works to release smaller versions under a free license, which is pretty successful. howcheng {chat} 01:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Like Howcheng, IANAL either... but I find it hard to believe that the same content could somehow have two different copyright protection. Content is content, and content is what's protected; the number of pixels is irrelevant. No? A 1000x1000 pixel photo of a landscape should have identical copyright status to a 50x50 pixel version of the same content, shouldn't it? Time to ask an actual lawyer. I would guess the existence of lower pixel, less restrictively licensed versions is not the best way to preserve an author's rights to the overall work. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 02:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I am very skeptical of the fact that two images whose difference in detail/resolution is moderate could have different copyright status (though of course I may just be ignorant). If two versions are similar enough so that there is no substantial difference in creative elements, then I don't see how they could have different status. However, I think the example of a 1000px vs 50px photo is extreme, as I would expect there would be such a drastic change in the image that it may even be considered a new work. nadav (talk) 03:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have invited User:BD2412, an intellectual property lawyer, to join in on this thread. howcheng {chat} 06:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think it would be silly (of the copyright holder) and possibly introduce legal complications to do something like that, but the copyright holder has every right to release his/her work, in various resolutions, under different licenses. So I think that it would be okay. --Iamunknown 06:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly the question: can he indeed release the same picture at a different resolution under a different license? If so, then what's limit? If the resolution is only slightly reduced or if the level of detail is basically the same, then to me, the suggestion that one version can be public domain and the other all rights reserved sounds untenable. nadav (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

IANAL, but as far as I understand it, the following is the case. When you create an image you automatically own the copyright. You may then create whatever specific licences for use that you choose. Have a look at a picture library like gettyimages.com. They create licenses for a specific size in a specific place for a specific duration. You can therefore say that you are releasing only a low resolution image for free use, and not your high res version. However, GFDL also gives permission for modification, so someone could create a larger image by interpolating pixels, which would, though, reduce the image quality, and for any serious purpose would not be viable. They couldn't go to the photographer's high res version and claim this as a modification, because it would be the photographer's modification (and not released under free license) and not the subsequent user's work. You might also like to look at the discussion on User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Wikiepedia_Use_Of_Artistic_Images. Tyrenius 11:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that theory is that there is only one copyright to the work, not separate copyrights to different resolutions. Creating different sizes is not creating new derivative works either, it's the same copyright despite reformatting. What you do when you divide rights up by image resolution is essentially create a limited license to the entire copyright, with a license restriction as to size, rather than creating an unlimited license that is only for a given size. Someone who purports to do that in a public doman or GFDL release may be either (i) not giving a proper release because of the rights withheld, in which case the release is invalid, or (ii) inadvertently giving a complete release despite having made the mistake of thinking otherwise. There are indeed cases where an attempt to offer a copyright license ends up creating an unintended assignment. I'll take a look at Jimbo's discussion and look forward to hearing what User:BD2412 has to say . Wikidemo 18:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI... I haven't checked out the credentials of the authors, but this "Final Report to the Common Information Environment Members of a study on the applicability of Creative Commons Licences" describes this exact scenario:

"Case Study: Digitised Art Works

Description: Museums produce digitised versions of works of paintings in two formats. (low resolution and high resolution)

Licence for reuse: Creative Commons (BY-NC) is possible for the low resolution version but not for high resolution

Analysis: The low resolution version is for general public use but the high resolution resource is something that the museum would use to gain commercial revenue so they are unlikely to publish under Creative Commons" Calliopejen1 02:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Could be a case where it's good enough for Creative Commons but not good enough for Wikipedia. They can accept limited licenses there, we can't. Wikidemo 15:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This kind of limited license, the low resolution part but then without the NC part, we could accept easily. Garion96 (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Licenses are a different duck from copyright. If you are the copyright holder, and do not enter into agreements that limit your ability to license (such as exclusive licenses) you can license the same material as many times as you like, to as many people as you like, under as many different licenses as you like. It's not even necessary to be the copyright holder to issue licenses on material-- you might gain the rights to re-license work from a license (some open source licenses do this). A common example of how one work is released under many many licenses: a proprietary software company sells many individual licenses for their product to individual customers. Chira 20:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems there are a few different opinions, but reading through all the replies, I am leaning to believe the common practice on wikipedia is to ask the photographer to assign a GFDL license to a low resolution of his images. This way he will still retain copyright to all the original of his work at higher resolution. Right? Boom170 22:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I would ask for the photographer to release the low-resolution photo under Creative Commons BY-SA 2.5 license, because that license is more flexible than the GFDL, particularly when it comes to images. Ral315 » 06:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Need someone to take a look please

Hi, can someone have a look at Image:Tougher Than Leather.jpg and tell me what I'm doing wrong? The image in question is an album cover. BetacommandBot is tagging it for deletion, saying "This image or media is claimed to be used under Wikipedia's policy for non-free content but has no explanation as to why it is permitted under the policy," but I included a non-free fair use rationale template when I uploaded it, as I always do. I'm no expert when it comes to images, but I've uploaded a few other album covers and I've never had this problem before. Thanks for any help. --Bongwarrior 05:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It does include a short use rationale, for more information on how to create a better one see the use rationale guideline. Once you change it if you decide to please remove the warning by betacommandbot. It shouldn't add it back. Some people have noticed there may be a problem with the bot right now, and are looking in to it. Sorry for any inconvenience. - cohesion 01:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

No inconvenience at all. I guess I'll try to create a better rationale tomorrow. Thank you very much Cohesion for investigating. --Bongwarrior 02:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to leave a note in case anyone else has had this problem. I left the fair use rationale template the way it was, but I substituted it. So far BetacommandBot hasn't hassled me again, so maybe that's all it was. Just thought I'd share. --Bongwarrior 06:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Picture of Professor from University of Minnesota site

Hey,

I just uploaded an image of a professor who's name is Marilyn Carroll. I got the picture from a web archive site: www.archive.org of the page: http://www.neurosci.umn.edu/faculty/carroll.html. My question is, is the picture copyrighted and if not, what tag should I give it. Thanks!Carniv 01:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. The picture is copyrighted. Wikipedia's current non-free content policies do not allow us to use other people's photos of living individuals without the owner's permission. Instructions for obtaining permission can be found at WP:COPYREQ. Good luck! -- But|seriously|folks  02:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

image:Sharpe's Grysbok.jpg

This image was taken from the German wikipedia. I don't read German, so I cannot translate the copyright info. Sorry!--GRM 22:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It's fixed. I don't read German either, but it wasn't complicated. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!—GRM 17:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Family photos

I want to post a picture/pictures of my father for his Wiki entry. The photos are from the family collection. One is a 1940 photo by an unknown commercial photographer. The oether will probably be from candid family pics. How do I tag those?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homer_D._Calkins —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conn53victor (talk • contribs)

• Hello there. Wikipedia tries to use free photographs when they are available. This may preclude the use of the commercial photograph if it was produced by a commercial user for their own use unless a written agreement was obtained by your father giving him the copyright (studio portraits may be ok if the photo was paid for by your father for his own use and was not published commercially). The rest of the family photos may be ok if you are his heir (you must have inherited the copyright to use the picture, not just the picture itself). Please see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#For image creators and release the photo under a free license (or even public domain if you choose). Be sure to specify on the image page that you are the family heir and you are legally entitled to release the photos under license. Also, in the future please sign your comments by using four tildes (~~~~) -N 23:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

There are parts of the US copyright law that cover materials from anonymous photographers, published or not, but the long and short is that the copyright won't expire for at least several more decades. Consider the above re. the possibility that your father got the copyright and you inherited it. If so you can assign it to the public domain. If not the photograph may still qualify as a "non-free" image if its use in the article is significant and you can be sure that there is no free substitute. See WP:NONFREE for guidance here, and be sure to add both the copyright tag and the appropriate "use rationales" to justify why they should be in the article (see WP:FURG). Also, since it is your father, adding an image should be no problem but if you're editing a related article, be careful of any conflict of interest issues. Wikidemo 09:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Squamous cell carcinoma.jpg

I have taken this photograph myself and it is certainly not copyrighted. I have also tagged "I, the creator of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible, I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law."

I can not understand why this picture has been tagged for deletion? Kindly send me message on talk page. Almazi 13:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Remove the tag and add some verbiage. Something like "I am a doctor specializing in foo. I took this picture on month, year. I have blocked out the patient's identity for privacy reasons" or something. We need to know where the picture came from, and the PD-self tag isn't sufficient for that. -N 13:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

We need a source and license for every image. While some tags do in some ways imply the source we still need a textual description explaining that you are the copyright holder for example. The tag is also required however and I have added it back. If you would like to license it under any different terms please feel free to change the tag or let me know. I added the tag you originally used. Images without tags of any kind are also subject to deletion. Currently the image is tagged and sourced correctly. We do get thousands of images, so we have to use some automated systems to help out, sorry if there was any inconvenience. - cohesion 14:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I meant the deletion tag! sorry! :P -Nard 21:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Conscription in the World.png

Hi. I created an updated version of Image:Weltkarte_der_Armeeformen.png. What license whould I select? Maybe it'll be better to delete it and update an existing image, but I don't know how. Thanks.

--Lusfert 16:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The original is public domain, so you would be able to choose any free content license that you would like. If you would like to update an existing image you can click the link at the bottom of the page that says "Upload a new version of this file". This file is hosted at the commons so to see that link you will need to click through to that site. May I ask what was changed? This image is actually in need of being converted to scalable vector graphic format if you would be willing to do that. For more information see commons:Commons:Images_for_cleanup - cohesion 02:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Photo of William B. Bankhead

This relates to the photo I posted for the bio of William Bankhead. It is my personal photo, purchased by me from an estate sale and scanned by me. It has no copyright, and does not exist in any other form or forum.

Tim Osman

Sorry, the photograph does have a copyright. Photos are copyrighted by default when they are created. The original photographer still owns the copyright, even though you own the particular copy of the image. Therefore this image cannot be used on wikipedia. Calliopejen1 07:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course it can be used on Wikipedia, but only subject to the policies in place for non-free images (see WP:NONFREE). It's an individual who died 60+ years ago. If you can be reasonably certain that there is no uncopyrighted photograph to be found, and you can argue that the photo fits criteria #1 and #8 regarding being irreplaceable and significant (as well as the other 8 criteria), you ahve an argument for its use. You would have to add an appropriate copyright tag and non-free media use rationale. Alternately, see if you can find a public domain image. He was born before 1923, the magic date for copyrights, so quite possibly there is a picture of him as a younger man that has fallen out of copyright by now. Wikidemo 19:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think fair use non-free content is going to be extremely difficult in this situation. First, it won't work unless we can identify the copyright holder, per WP:NFCC#10. Second, we have to confirm that this image has been published to satisfy WP:NFCC#4. It sounds from the above description of the situation that these criteria cannot be satisfied. -- But|seriously|folks  20:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Modified graphic needs a tag

Got notice that I need a tag on Image:FL-districts-108v.JPG, which is a modified version of Image:FL-districts-108.JPG that I did so it would fit on the 2006 elections page without so much whitespace. I don't know enough about copyrights to be able to identify which tag to use, and the original graphic page won't let me see the wiki-source behind the tag that is there. Any help appreciated. Chadlupkes 14:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I have tagged the image as {{PD-USGov}} because it is a derivative of the other government image. If you have any questions let me know. - cohesion 02:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Charles A. Boutelle

Hello. I am a new Wikipedia contributor and have just posted an article on Charles A. Boutelle. I would like to use an image that I have uploaded (filename: image:Boutelle2.jpg) and I am almost certain that it is in the public domain as it is referenced to the collection of the U.S. House of Representatives and is dated to 1890. However, I am not certain about it and am duly intimidated by the profusion of warnings you have posted. I have no wish to be deceptive or approach this incorrectly.

Can you please help me?

I've tagged it with {{PD-old-50}} since it was published in the U.S. before 1923, and it's pretty safe to say that the author of the image died within 67 years of its publication. 17Drew 17:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Uncertain status of picture

I have a picture, Image:Voyager-bottom.jpg, which I downloaded from a Star Trek site named Ex Astris Scientia which simply describes the image as a publicity shot but doesn't provide any other information. From my view, it is a publicity shot and is copyright to someone, but I don't know who. What do I do? --Blue387 21:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Don't use it. Compliacne with Wikipedia's non-free content rules, WP:NFCC requires us to not use non free pictures if we don't know anything about them. -Nard 21:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

permission images

I am attempting to add a photo to a wikipedia entry and I am confused about how to tag it. The photo is of the subject of the article. The photo is a personal photo from the subject's website taken by his son. I have email permission to use the photo in the article. What would I do to make the photo compliant with wiki policy and continue to use it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Beau_fence.jpg <--- the photo.

thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonwilley (talk • contribs)

• Please see Wikipedia:Permissions. "Permission" to use the photo is not enough. The photo must be available under a free license as explained on that page. -Nard 00:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Which Tag to use

Image:Ericmartlew.jpg

I am not sure which tag to use. The photo was taken by a member of Mr Martlew's office staff and sent to me to be used on his website and on the web. So I did not take it but it is free to use. There seem to be so many tags I cannot find the one to fit. Advice welcome please. Kingsmead 09:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

They may have given you permission to use the image, but that doesn't mean it's free for everyone else to use for any purpose. What you need to do is contact his staff and requiest that they release the photo under a free license that will allow anyone to use the image for any purpose. See WP:COPYREQ for details. --Sherool (talk) 11:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have now done that and wait for an answer. Kingsmead 21:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Getting approval

To whom this may concern,

Hello my name is Jonita and i attend Avondale College (NZ), and as i am in my last year at school i have been given a project to create a learning game for junior students. I was wondering if i could get approval from you (your company) if i could use your images of the 'World Heritage Sites' in my game. My game will not be used for any monetary gain. However i will need approval from you to include your images into my game, or i will be breaching the copyright laws. If you could contact me ASAP it will be very appriciated.

Thank-you for your time and co-operation Jonita :)

Contact details: email- jatino_olam_06@hotmail.com

Replied via email, directed to Wikipedia:Copyrights. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Which tag do I need for my picture?

Hi Wiki people,

I've just written my first page, and have uploaded a photo of my own:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:DC10_Terrace_2007.jpg

I've added licensing information when I did it, which I think is correct, but I still have to tag it correctly, as per the message on its page. I'm unsure as to what needs to be added and how. I've read parts of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Image_copyright_tags#muhammadimage.jpg

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions

But I'm still not 100%. Where does the tag need to go, and what template (if any) do I need?

All help appreciated.

Thanks,

Guy

• If you are the photograph and copyright holder of the work, the tag you added is fine. You may want to add some text to the effect, "I photographed this at the Terrace of DC10 (Ibiza) in 2007." If you retrieved the photograph from some other source and are not the copyright holder, you need to indicate that source and copyright holder. --Iamunknown 21:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Touched-up Mughal painting

Would someone mind having a look at Image:Mughal painting2.jpg and let me know if they think it's sufficiently 'free' for inclusion in an FA? It's apparently based on a 17th century mughal painting, but has been 'touched up' - I don't know what happens in that instance in India. Many thanks--Joopercoopers 11:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the extent and method of the restoration. If the restoration significantly altered the original -- for example, if large missing portions were filled in using work relying on the restorer's creativity -- then it's a derivative work of the original and the derivative portions are copyrighted. If all that was done was literally "touch-up" work, filling in areas of missing pigment but otherwise preserving the original design as exactly as may be, then no copyright attaches to the new work and it remains PD. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops! Now that I read it again, it's mistagged. The PD status of faithful reproductions of 2D work is a matter of US caselaw; it may or may not be PD under Indian law. If it's PD by the criteria I gave above, the tag should be {{PD-art}}. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Transferred copyright

I have two related image copyright questions:

• After my grandfather's recent death, my father inherited a significant number of photographs which my grandfather had taken. Is it possible for my father, as the owner of the photographs (and, I would guess, of the copyrights thereof) to release the copyright into the public domain? And if so, which tags would be appropriate options?
• An acquaintance of mine is a pilot and has the chance to take aerial pictures, which I cannot. Can I buy the complete rights to some of his pictures and then release them into the public domain? And if so, which tags would be appropriate options?

I would appreciate it if you would reply on my talk page. Thanks! Nyttend 14:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• If the executor of the estate agrees that the copyrights to the photos belong to your father, then yes, he can release them however he wants. Releasing all rights is nice, but if he's not comfortable with that then any other free license is good too. See WP:ICT#For image creators for some suggestions.
• You can either buy the rights or get him to release the photos under a free license himself if he has no intention of profiting from them anyway. Licensing options are the same as above. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

logo

I am making a page of a non profit organization can I [use] their logo?

Yes you can. logos can be used under fair trade for an article describing the organization that the logo belongs to. Upload your image. One of the fields in the drop down box pertains to logos.Cedric Tsui 19:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The correct answer is "maybe". And since {{non-free logo}} is a fair-use (not fair trade!) template, you'll need to add a specific rationale justifying its inclusion. See WP:FURG for guidelines. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Images in Journal Articles

I'd like to know if there are any special rules for images within academic journal articles. Can these be used within Wikipedia? Cedric Tsui 18:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The normal copyright considerations apply. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Image placement

Sorry but I am lost as to how to submit an image and then to include it in a web page I uploaded an image, and authorised Wiki to use it, but then I could not access it. And, because of the way in which this was done, I have no record of the image details, perhaps you could trace it via my username Biochemistsco, or IP, 86.139.216.111. While I am here at the keyboard, - how does one modify page names - size exclusion chromatography (page) is much better known as "gel filtration", both ought to figure. Kind regards RL —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biochemistsco (talk • contribs)

This page is really for questions related to copyright. Questions such as this one are normally better directed to the Village pump.

However -- you can always see everything you've contributed under your username. Go to your user page and click on the "my contributions" lint at the top to see a list. The image you uploaded is here: Image:GHLLondon1955.jpg. See the page on Wikipedia's image syntax to find out how to place it into an article.

Now that I look at it, it's a good thing you posted here anyway. If your family really does own the copyright collectively, rather than it being owned by one individual, then you'll have to get general agreement that this is OK. If copyright ownership can be traced to one individual, then that person's permission needs to be secured. Also, permission for Wikipedia only isn't something we can use. The goal of the project is to create a free content encyclopedia that can be copied and redistributed for any purpose. Any permission we receive has to allow for that. See our image use policy for the exhaustive details. Once you decide on which free license to use, the image must be appropriately marked with a "copyright tag". Copyright tags are described here. See especially the section "For image creators".

I know this seems annoying when you're doing your best to help the project out. It annoys everyone here from time to time, even longtime contributors. But we really do our level best to ensure that all of our content is free from any legal encumbrance that might interfere with the project goals and that's what all these rules are for.

By the way, when posting to discussion pages (not articles!) please sign your posts so we know who we're talking to. You can do that very easily just by typing 4 tildes (~~~~). This will automatically add your username and a timestamp. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Larger versions

Why when I add a larger version of an already existing image (and thusly already copyright explained image) I get a message telling me my rationale is questionable? I uploaded three images (all from iTunes) and left the rationale alone as it appeared on the previous versions and yet got messages telling me that they're going to be deleted. What should I be doing differently?--*jk 04:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It's actually the original fair-use rationale that is being objected to, but you uploading a new version of the image made it show up on recent-changes, which brought it to the attention of the bot that scans for fair-use images that don't have a fair-use justification. --Delirium 05:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyright status of scanned images of photos which are {{PD-Australia}}

I've asked this question in a few places already with no real answer other than to be pointed: RIGHT HERE. So I hope I can get an "Acceptable to Wikipedia" answer this time...

There is a collection of images on the NSW State Library website. The photos are public domain, but the library claims copyright on the (apparently) bulk-scanned images.

The scanned image in question is here (with catalogue information). Looking at the highest resolution scanned image on the site, they haven't done anything artistic, just scanned it at the highest available resolution. Yet they claim "This image is provided for research purposes only and must not be reproduced without the prior permission of the State Library of NSW".

So - given the original image meets {{PD-Australia}} - do the scanned images also meet {{PD-Australia}} or would someone have to rescan them?

I am asking with a view to re-use (with reasonable attribution) the images on their website.Garrie 05:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what the consensus position is here. Copyright expiration in Australia suggests that Bridgeman may hold - but that it is untested. I would probably err on the side of safety, and try to find a primary/expired/other source with the image. Other views ? Megapixie 06:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where you're seeing that on the Copyright expiration in Australia page. Someone should see if they can find something definitive on this, but my guess is that even if Australia doesn't follow Bridgeman it still wouldn't recognize a copy from a scan. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Country-specific_rules for a listing of other countries' policies--from the examples given, even where countries do recognize new copyright in photographic reproductions, they do not recognize copyright in mere mechanical reproductions, like scans. Calliopejen1 08:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

image licensing with a required caption?

Image:Breasts-not-bombs.jpg is tagged as cc-by-2.5, but appears to have additional license emcumberances, saying: "Terms of use require author attribution with city and state (Bert Schlauch, Minneapolis, MN) and the following caption: Scene from an anti-war protest in Washington, D.C. September 24, 2005." Is this sort of "can only be used if accompanied by the following verbatim caption" license free-content? My feeling is no, but I thought I'd ask. --Delirium 04:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Given the fact that the GFDL contains the requirement for a 3 page license to accompany each re-use and optional invariant sections (which Wikipedia does not use) I'm inclined to say yes. The proper text appears on the image page itself, which is probably sufficient. The tagline probably need not appear on every use of the image throughout the Wiki. -Nard 08:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • That's what I'm wondering. If on the image page itself, or in book form e.g. in the "image credits" section is sufficient, then that seems okay. But if it means (as I read it) that it must appear as a caption every time the image is used, actually below the image as a caption, that seems unacceptable to me, and worse than the GFDL. --Delirium 16:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Actualy it would be pretty much equiv to the title and preserve copyright notices requirment of the GFDL. The problem is it doesn't make clear what needs to be done in the case of a modified version of the image.Geni 16:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems more like a GFDL invariant section to me, since it requires inclusion of specific, unmodifiable author-supplied text not related to licensing, which we prohibit on Wikipedia. As you note, this greatly complicates using modified versions (in which this caption may no longer even make sense), which is one of the main purposes of free content. Even on Wikipedia, editors should be free to reword or rewrite the image caption to better fit the article, but this image's license does not permit that, effectively forcing an editorial decision on our article-writing without consensus. --Delirium 18:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Australian War Memorial images / PD-Australia

Following on from the discussion of PD-Australia above: we use quite a few AWM images which per User:Nick Dowling/Australian War Memorial Email we appear to be using "by permission", and not permitted for commercial use or modification. Are we going to:

1. Remove the watermarks under the assumption that Bridgeman holds and use the images as PD.
2. Remove the images from wikipedia as unfree (i.e. not free enough).

Clearly the current position (where they are tagged as PD) - potentially creates problems for content re-users like answers.com who use the images commercially. Comments ? Megapixie 07:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Could you please link to a sample file? It appears the AWM is attempting to claim rights over images which are out of copyright. They may do so, and we may also ignore their illegal claims. If so, feel free to photoshop the watermarks out, as there is no "we" in this case ("we" may have policies, but "someone" has to do the actual photoshopping). -Nard 07:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Example Image:Aust Grant (AWM P01022-003).jpg but there are many many others (perhaps 1/5 or 1/4 of Category:Australian_public_domain_photographs). Megapixie 08:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

See also my reply above - even if Bridgeman doesn't hold, Australia would be highly unusual if it said mere mechanical reproductions created new IP rights. Calliopejen1 08:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed multiple times, with the conclusion each time being that the pre-1955 images are PD and the AWM is not able to claim any copyright on these images or impose conditions on how they are used. On the basis of these discussions I have ceased referencing the AWM's email and the other people who have uploaded AWM images generally haven't ever referenced the AWM beyond it being the source of the PD image. See: Image talk:Cowrapowcamp.jpg, Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 July 7 and Template talk:PD-Australia for relevant discussions. The issue was also discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#June 19 but this discussion seems to have since vanished - the consensus was that the AWM didn't have a legal leg to stand on for pre-1955 images and they weren't ruled unfree. These images have a copyright status of 'clear' in the AWM's database, which isn't an automatic thing as more recent images have different copyright labels in the database. Basically, the AWM is in the wrong and gave me bad advice. --Nick Dowling 11:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay. The Discussion at Template talk:PD-Australia seemed comprehensive. Might I propose creating a template to tag AWM images with (in addition to the PD-Australia) like {{NARA-image}} ? It might shortcut future debates :) Megapixie 11:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I second what Nick said. Personally, I usually crop and manipulate AWM images using picture editing software before uploading, because some AWM negatives have rough edges, blemishes and or poor framing, or have been scanned poorly. In a lot of cases the watermark and serial number can be cropped off without losing the important part of an image, or spoiling the balance and framing. A "PD-AWM" template would be useful. Grant | Talk 11:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay I've created the marker template {{AWM-image}} and the cat Category:Images from the Australian War Memorial to hold the images and for a test I've tagged Image:Aust Grant (AWM P01022-003).jpg. Can someone write some blurb on the talk page indicating what we believe the copyright status of the images is. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the marker or categories. Megapixie 15:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

riverboarding article images deleted

Image:Carlsonriverboarding.jpg why was this image deleted? the article needs a picture of a riverboard and a user with visible gear. the image is a low res version of one that appeard in mens fitness and should be allowed by fair use.

also the image of robert carlson running maytag that shawn in montreal questioned really is me. why was this also deleted?

how do i write to quadell or shawn?

Robertcarlson 07:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• If you had read the instructions you received on the link marked "my talk" in the upper right hand of your screen, you needed to add a proper licensing tag to your image. Fair use may not be good enough for the subject of the photo, since Wikipedia's fair use rules require use of a free image when one is available...a picture of someone riverboarding or running can be replaced with a free picture of that person doing the same things. If the person is you this is even more true. You can send Quadell a message at User talk:Quadell but his answer is going to be the same. -Nard 07:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Thieu tri imperial edict01.jpg

Dear Sir , I ahve uploaded a picture of my imperial edict of Thieu Tri .Why it is not seen on the website http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thieu_Tri. And by the way the pic of the item is taken by me and how to tag the image

Thanks

Teo

• Thank you for the delightful addition of this free picture to Wikipedia! The copyright has definitely expired, so you are in the clear. I will add it to the article! -Nard 14:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Legoland Windsor Show Leaflet - promotional picture

In the past, Legoland Windsor has performed shows in a number of it's own venues within the park - these are no longer performed. I have a leaflet with promotional shots of the shows. As a) the shows are no longer performed, so no other pictures can be taken, and b) it's promotional work, would it be covered under fair use? Can I legally upload it? If so, which license? Thanks! _TheIslander 19:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Er, there's a number of free pictures in that article, what could be gained by adding non-free pictures? -Nard 14:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Pictures of a show that was shown in the past, but is no longer shown - showing Legoland's general move away from live shows, and showing archived evidence of what they used to do. You haven't actually answered my question, though: regardless of what you feel the merit of such a picture would be, would it be covered under fair use? _TheIslander 14:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether the picture has merit is how fair use is determined. If the picture doesn't add anything to the article, then including it probably isn't fair use. I don't think your case is strong enough to include nonfree images, when what they're showing could be adequately conveyed in words, and the article is already full of free images. Calliopejen1 14:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry for the sharp tone - it was in response to Nard's comment. I still feel that the picture does have merit: it shows a production that was put on regularly by the park, which ended and is no longer shown, thus pictures can no longer be taken. My opinion is that it would add to the article, and that it couldn't adequately be conveyed in words. I'm also well aware that the article's full of free images - all but one of them are mine - but none of them have anything to do with this, and none could have anything to do with this, as the production no longer exists. _TheIslander 14:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Googoosh

Hi, I changed the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googoosh by adding many other references about 4 hours ago and I could see these changes in the page but after a while when I came back to the page I saw that all my changes were disapeared. please help me . --Mmaryam 14:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• I have re-added your references, as they seem legit. The image you added needs a copyright tag though. -Nard 14:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that the references should be readded, but I don't think a tag is going to solve your problems with the photo. It looks as though it was taken from a website, and so is almost certainly copyrighted. (We can't use a copyrighted image to show what a living person looks like, per WP:NONFREE. I found a free (but blurry) image of Googoosh and added it to the top of the page instead. Calliopejen1 14:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

need a "FAIR USE: other" category in your dropdown

I didn't tag my image (Image:SkIO_campus.jpg) because although I consider it fair use (and I explained why in the description box), there was no appropriate category to put it in. Mine is a map of a specific location; the only other maps that show the same information are also copyrighted, and since they are offline (in the backs of books) I went with the one I could reach the easiest. Nerwen 18:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You need a category for what it is, and then you argue fair use via a fair use rationale. Nearly every copyrighted image is used only by fair use. However, there is no category for maps because copyrighted maps are almost never allowed. See WP:NONFREE example #3. The image you have uploaded is a very simple map. If it is indeed copyrighted (you should check) it's almost a certainty that you can find a public domain map of the identical area from a government source and, if necessary, modify it yourself to highlight the features you want. It's the possibility of doing this that makes it improper to use a copyrighted map. Map companies are very aware of this and don't copy each other's maps. Wikidemo 19:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Are maps normally non-copyrighted by default? This particular one was made by a state employee of the subject of the article, and although I understand that anything from the federal government is free, I assume this doesn't necessarily carry over to state governments. Aside from asking the person who made the map or the director of the institute, neither of whom understands the fine nuances of copyright law (and neither of whom minds having it on Wikipedia or being passed around for informational purposes), how else would I check? Should I just give them a "GDFL 101" speech?

Also, what category would you suggest it fit into? Nerwen 21:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Maps are normally copyrighted, as are all creative works. You are also correct the public domain dedication of federal works does not carry over to state or municipal governments. You could ask the institution if they would like to license it under a free content license, if you want to do that please see our example requests for permission and the page on requesting permission. I would suggest however that you check out commons:Commons:Picture requests and see if someone can't make a version for you here that would be definitely free content. :) - cohesion 02:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Copying an image from another Wiki supposedly free of copyright

The CreationWiki supposedly is free of copyright: [23]. Can a figure therefore be taken from CreationWiki to use here? In particular, I am interested in the image on this page: [24]. Thank you.--Filll 18:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No, not in this case. This work is copyrighted, because it is the cover of a copyrighted book. It must have been uploaded by a user who did not understand copyright or CreationWiki policies. For a copyrighted image like this to be used in wikipedia, it must meet wikipedia's stringent nonfree content guidelines. Calliopejen1 20:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok good thing I checked first. Thanks.--Filll 00:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Rationale

I have started contributing to wikipedia recently, and as my first contribution created a page on Welsh show Uned 5 including publicity photos for the show. These were originally uploaded without a rationale, but having since read the guidelines that came with the warning about copyright issues I have re-uploaded the files (this time including what I understand to be a detailed rationale). However, this warning still appears:

This image or media is claimed to be used under Wikipedia's policy for non-free content but has no explanation as to why it is permitted under the policy. Non-free images need a rationale each time they are used in an article. A rationale must be included on this image description page. Unless at least one rationale is provided, the image will be deleted after Tuesday, 31 July 2007. Please remove this template if a rationale is provided.

... and the images are still down to be deleted. Why is this? And what do I need to add to my rationale to make it acceptable as I have already tried various different formats?

Any help appreciated, Treg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tregaron (talk • contribs).

Image:Cyflwynwyricon.jpg is the only image you have uploaded that is currently pending deletion, and has no rationale. Your other two images do have rationales. The part where you wrote "It is believed this image qualifies as fair use..." is the rationale. Probably you have read more after asking this question, but if you still need any help let us know. - cohesion 02:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't Understand

Why is it every time I upload a picture and has a correct tag it still says it will be deleted? Timothychavis 00:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You have uploaded a fair amount of images that contain a number of problems. All images need to have a source and a license. They should be free content, but under some circumstances we will accept non-free content that adheres to the non-free content criteria. Please read Wikipedia:Image use policy and our use rationale guideline for more information. If you have a particular image you are asking about someone will be able to answer you more specifically regarding the problems with it. - cohesion 02:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Photo of Cillian Murphy in Breakfast on Pluto

I'd like to add a photo to the Cillian Murphy article of him in character as Kitten in Breakfast on Pluto. I think it is relevant to the article, because both it's his most acclaimed role and because the article discusses his preparation for the role as a transgendered woman. But I'm not sure if this will qualify as fair use. The File upload wizard makes me think it's not, yet such shots are on many actors' pages, so I'm confused. Your advice is much appreciated. (I didn't offer a link to a specific production still or screen shot, because they're all owned by the film.) --Melty girl 04:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'll just add it later and wait for someone to object and thereby explain it to me. --Melty girl 07:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry this question was missed. This would be considered acceptable by a large percentage of editors. It would fall under our non-free content policy and should address all the concerns there most importantly including a use rationale explaining why the image should be used in that particular article. If you have any questions let us know. - cohesion 13:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! --Melty girl 16:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Brain teaser of a question..

• Image:1 Train (1967-1979).png - fair use image
• Image:NYCS-bull-trans-1.svg - image on commons presumed public domain

Help, clarification and aspirin needed... — Moe ε 16:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I vote public domain on the basis of lack of creativity involved in authorship. It's a 1 in a colored circle, for cryin' out loud! -- But|seriously|folks  17:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat-related trademark issues discussed here. -- But|seriously|folks  17:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It's gotta be public domain. There's no creativity in a number in an orange circle. 17Drew 17:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

{{PD-ineligible}}, but ianal etc... - cohesion 01:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur, but ianale. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

How is it determined that the copyright holder has given permission?

I tagged an image Image:Cavefish.jpg as a possible copyright violation. The tag is still on the image. Now I see the same photo, uploaded under a different name Image:Cavefish India.jpg, in an article Caves of India. There are other photos from the same source in the article also. The summary is "by Dr. Jayant Biswas (Biospeleologist of India; admin: www.cave-biology.org)". Is this information enough to allow it into the Public Domain? Sincerely, Mattisse 18:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If you go to that website, you see that the webmaster is indeed Dr. Jayant Biswas; and that although his image section contains images uploaded by a number of visitors to his site, that one is his own. The most straightforward way to verify this if you choose not to believe the tag is to contact Dr. Biswas via the contact information on his website, and ask him to confirm that he is indeed the Wikipedia user Biospeleologist. If he is, then he does own the photos and can release them however he wants. He might also want to sent an email to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org identifying himself, so as to prevent this kind of misunderstanding in the future. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Loading Images

There are two images that I loaded to the Rutgers School of Law - Newark site.

In both cases, I am uncertain of their copyright. However, I obtained both pictures from websites within Rutgers University.

The first was obtained from Rutgers School of Law - Newark's website at http://law.newark.rutgers.edu/images/logo.gif

The second was obtained from the Law library's website at http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/libs/law_newark_lib/law_newark.shtml

Please send me a message about these pictures and whether or not they can be included in the site. Most other law school sites have at least a logo, so I think the Rutgers School of Law - Newark's site shouldn't be any different.

Jps57 01:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)jps57

They're both copyright to Rutgers University. You might conceivably be able to tag the logo {{non-free logo}} as long as you can provide a valid fair use rationale, but the photo of the building cannot be used here since it's easily replaceable with a free image. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then I'll get rid of both images.

Jps57 04:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)jps57

Would this image be fair-use?

Background information: For her role in the 2003 Singaporean movie Homerun, Megan Zheng (then 10 years old) became the first Singaporean to win a Golden Horse Award - the Chinese equivalent of the Oscars. This achievement has often been described as a "landmark for the Singapore movie industry", and is Homerun's primary claim to notability.

Would an image of Megan holding her Golden Horse award (found on the website of Lianhe Zaobao, Singapore's largest Chinese newspaper) be fair-use in:

1. The "Reception" section of Homerun (film)?
2. The "Awards" section of Megan Zheng (which will be created when I expand the article this Sunday, hoping to make it my third DYK)?

Several reasons why I think the image should be fair-use and should be included in both articles:

• Both sections discuss Megan's Golden Horse victory.
• As previously mentioned, Megan's Golden Horse victory is a significant event - a landmark for the Singapore movie industry and Homerun's primary claim to notability.
• An image of Megan alone would probably not be fair use, while an image of the award alone would be useless.
• Although she has done Singapore proud, Megan shies away from media and public attention.
• Daniel Yun, a prominent figure in the Singapore movie industry, once said that "Megan has put a face to such an award".
• That Megan won a Golden Horse Award at the age of 10 raised the significance of her achievement, as well as the press coverage she received. If she was an adult, I would be less inclined to include the image in the Reception section of Homerun.
• Use of the image in Wikipedia would not affect Lianhe Zaobao (the copyright holder) commercially; hence, Lianhe Zaobao has no reason to sue us for using this image.

If the image is fair-use, what fair-use rationale should I provide?

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

What you wrote above actually looks like a pretty good basis in my opinion; the only thing is that you need to emphasize the points that make it conform to Wikipedia's non-free image policy. So tag the image {{non-free fair use in|Megan Zheng|Homerun (film)}} and provide as rationale:

• Illustrates sections on the subject of Megan Zheng's Golden Horse award for her role in Homerun
• Depicts a significant event in Zheng's career and is the primary claim of the film to notability
• Prominent Singaporean film producer Daniel Yun once said that "Megan has put a face to such an award"; this therefore depicts an iconic moment for the Singaporean film industry in general
• Zheng was 10 years old at the time she won the award, making this a very unusual event
• No free equivalent can be made, as this is a past event
• This is a low-resolution, low-quality version of the image, of no commercial value to the copyright holder

That will probably do it, I think. Reference the quotation from Yun if you can. You also want to be sure to link to the source of the image and to give the name of the copyright holder. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response! I have uploaded the image and added it to the Reception section of Homerun (film) (within the next 12 hours, I will write Megan Zheng and add the image to it). Perhaps the fair-use rationale should have a sentence about the significance of Megan's Golden Horse victory to the Singapore movie industry (the image may be useful in a section of Cinema of Singapore which discuss Megan's Golden Horse victory). --J.L.W.S. The Special One 00:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that's already in there: "iconic moment". Or if this is the first time the Singaporean film industry has received international recognition, that can certainly be pointed out. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Any copyright problem with Image:FloppyRom Magazine.jpg

I had uploaded an image in February 2006 and it was moved to the Commons. Today it was deleted for copyright violation. I have uploaded back on to en.wikipedia. Image:FloppyRom Magazine.jpg

This image shows how a special record could be bound in a magazine. This particular record held a computer program and was published in a computer magazine, Interface Age. There is very little magazine text visible and you can not hear the audio. The record label contains utilitarian text.

This image shows the mechanics of how to publish a record in a printed magazine. I don't see a copyright violation.

This image is used in 3 articles; the main one is Kansas_City_standard.

-- SWTPC6800 01:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Even utilitarian text can be copyrighted. More to the point, things like short phrases and titles cannot.

The legible text in the magazine is more of a problem. I have my doubts that the ad copy is copyrightable -- it just might be. The text in the article itself certainly is. The best thing to do would be to blur the text (and just the text) so that it can no longer be read at any resolution of the photo. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I have updated the image with hard to read text. -- SWTPC6800 20:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Trichy Sankaran

There are a number of images in this article that are tagged GFDL but were not created by the uploader. The images were taken over the course of several decades. The uploader claims to be a student of the subject who owns or has access to copies of the images and therefore asserts authority to license them. The comments at Image:Arangetram.jpg are an example. I nominated them for deletion some time ago but deletion was declined on the basis of lack of evidence. My opinion is that the uploader's admission that s/he did not create the images is sufficient to defeat his/her right to license their use. What does everybody else think? -- But|seriously|folks  17:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

While they may own the physical objects it would have been unusal for any transfer of copyright. Indian copyright is 60 years so image is still under copyright.Geni 22:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

How to tag picture? Sent to me by the subject...

The picture in question was given to me by the subject himself. I did not take the picture. I am not aware of any copyrights on it.

Image:Rich_8.jpg

Angelika 23 23:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

All images are automatically copyrighted unless explicitly stated otherwise. 17Drew 23:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Even then it's not clear that they're not copyrighted regardless of what {{PD-self}} says. But a copyright owner can release all rights if he so chooses. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

So how do I tag it? I got an email from him releasing it under Atttibute 2.5, where do I go from here?

I suggest like this (see here[25]) and then forward that email he sent you to permissions@wikimedia.org - Dragonbite 01:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have given it a shot, what do you think? I have submitted the email to permissions@wikipedia.org - Angelika 23 01:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Good job (seems perfectly done to me). Now permissions@wikimedia.org might just reply to your email asking you to release the contents of the email you sent also under GFDL/Creative Commons/Attribution. But you can forward/send them another email (with old email attached) stating this so that they'll have all the info/permissions at once. I am assuming that you sent them them a copy of the picture you received (to help them identify the picture). If not, then this is the time to do so. And also, add the link to the article where it will be used. Put them all in to make it easier for the person handling your image contribution. After all that, wikimedia-permissions will later assign an OTRS number and tag the image you contributed (on the image talk page). They could also notify you once an OTRS number has been assigned (as a courtesy via email). The email you sent to them will be safely archived. Keep up the good work! - Dragonbite 01:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Now there is a note under it "This is a candidate to be copied to the Wikimedia Commons. (Any user may perform this move - please see Moving images to the Commons for more information.)

Wikipedia is not a collection of photographs or media files and appropriately licensed media are more accessible to other Wikimedia projects if placed on Commons." What does that mean? Do I need to do something else? Thanks - Angelika 23 13:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to do anything, but at some time in the future we will probably move the image to another project, called Wikimedia Commons. This is so other language wikipedias and other projects, like wikiquote, wikibooks etc can use it. It won't affect it's inclusion in the English Wikipedia though. :) - cohesion 15:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

ABC-TV

The photo I wish to upload was taken by an ABC-TV in house photographer back in the early 1970's. I called the station and was told the photo has no publication restrictions. Can I include this on the Olivia Bonelli page? Thanks for your advice. Pbprod@[redacted] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pbprod (talk • contribs).

The photo will still be copyrighted. If you feel the photo can be used under a fair use claim, according to our fairly strict non-free content policy you may follow those procedures. Ideally you could get permission from the copyright holder to license the image under some free content license. For more information about how to go about that please look at the page on requesting re-licensing. - cohesion 19:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Requesting attention of copyright knowledgeable editors at commons

A deletion discussion is taking place at [26] which appears to be arguing that three view drawings of aircraft are ineligable for copyright. Megapixie 23:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek: Phase II artworks

Not sure this is in the right place, but here goes...

On the Star Trek: Phase II page, some artworks appear that I think are copyrighted works and should not be displayed. Specifically, they are:

• Image:Bridge2.1.jpg
• Image:Mike Minor recreationdeck 1.jpg
• Image:Mike Minor recreationdeck 2.jpg
• Image:Phase2 sickbay.jpg

The copyright tags identify these are "screencaps" which is obviously wrong. 80.127.84.66 23:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

How can there be screenshots from a show that never existed? lol. These are pre-production paintings. wikipediatrix 00:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

They are in fact scans from a book, according to the source listed: [27]. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dr_Bethune_In_Battlefield.jpg

Eventhough Wikipedia acquired permission to use this image for nay purpose. I believe the source of the picture might not be not a valid holder of copyright. the photographer is Wu Yinxian(1900-).

China copyright law says photographs enters PD 50 years after PUBLICATION. So this image might be in public domain. Picture taken in late 1939. I need opinion on this. SYSS Mouse 03:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Since we have no information on when this photo was originally published, we cannot assume it's PD. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

So it is either fair use or PD. (I need to find more info of first publication)SYSS Mouse 00:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No, we have permission for any purpose on the condition of identifying both the photographer and the copyright holder. It's a free license. It might be PD under Chinese law if we had publication information. (And which China?) If it was ever published in the US, US law would also apply. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

That's assuming the source isn't the copyright holder. But do we have a reason to think that?

I also note that under PRC law, unpublished photographs become PD 50 years after they were made. So that's something to look for too. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

(I can read Chinese) That site is just a forum for professional photographers and not a publication company. (They can post it because the picture is in PD in China.) SYSS Mouse 01:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Or they might just be ignoring their own copyright laws. That's not unknown on the Internet, after all... TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hipgnosis

Hello, Administrator, I have the following situation:

I have been editing the article on Hipgnosis off and on, adding artwork to the article, as Hipgnosis is a graphic design company that designed some of the most famous album covers of the past 30 years, including Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon. By way of illustrating their work, I have been including the various album covers that they designed.

However, User:Moe Epsilon consistently reverts the edits, claiming that the use of the album covers in the article violates copyright. There has been a lengthy discussion, principally with other editors. User:Moe Epsilon's reverts are bordering on vandalism, as no reasonable argument will satisfy him/her.

My position (and that of other editors) is that the use of the album covers to illustrate Hipgnosis' work is warranted—after all, they are an important graphic design outfit. Therefore, including the album covers in the article falls under the rubrick of fair use. User:Moe Epsilon, on the other, clearly does not believe that any use of copyrighted material is allowed in the article, regardless of relevance.

I'd ask someone to please settle this issue, as it is becoming irritating. Thank you! --TallulahBelle 17:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

In my view, a small number of their works are appropriate to show their style, but not as decoration. -- But|seriously|folks  18:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

People & Power

Picture for use with article "People & Power". Taken from website with permission from both Juliana and Al Jazeera English (for whom I am working). I do not know what terms I should be uploading but am pretty sure I have good cause and fair use. Image of Juliana Rufus can be found at http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/758EE08A-5F2E-4BBA-A12D-A1D19CDEAFFF.htm

I am an employee of Al Jazeera English tasked with building a wiki page for the People & Power programme. I have four other images that fall into similar category - they're of presenters or producers on the programme. Please can you let me know how to tag them to avoid deletion?

Best,

SpotTheBlog

You can sign your posts very easily by appending four tildes (~~~~) to them.

I presume the copyright holders are not releasing these images under a free license. That being the case, their use must conform to the 10 conditions set out at WP:NONFREE. You would tag them {{non-free fair use in}}, giving the names of the articles where they are used as parameters. You must also add a specific non-free use rationale for each one to justify their inclusion over and above the text in the tag. See WP:FURG for guidance. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, you may want to read about what Wikipedia is not and keep it in mind when writing your article. If the program is sufficiently notable it will probably not be removed -- removal is decided by a consensus of interested editors -- but Wikipedia is not a venue for publicity. Also bear in mind that anyone is able to edit any article; no one editor owns any article and cannot exercise absolute control over its content. So your preferred version may not be the one that ends up as the most representative. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Billzilla's inquiry

I added an image of my own (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:VTR1000F.jpg#file) and I filled out all the boxes yet I'm still getting a message that I need an image tag. I've been through the help files and they aren't of any help. Can someone please do whatever needs to be done to either credit the photo to me or make it generally available to all, or whatever is needed to stop the software complaining about such trival things.

Billzilla.

Bill,

Here is an example Image:Floppy Disk Drives 8 5 3.jpg

I added some sections to your image Image:VTR1000F.jpg. Edit the Licensing section and add {{PD-self}}. More tags can be found here: Image_copyright_tags -- SWTPC6800 04:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that's fixed it. Billzilla.

Image:RomanDoricOrderEngraving.jpg

Have I correctly sourced Image:RomanDoricOrderEngraving.jpg, it's an engraving of 1913. Further information is on the Image page. It's a useful illus. at four articles. Could someone notify me before it's dropped again? Thank you. --Wetman 12:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• If it's in the dead tree publication you say it is, then it looks fine. Thanks. -Nard 12:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

was it published in the US before 1922?Geni 14:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought everything published before 1923 was PD-US, regardless of location of first publication. -Nard 14:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

No it's more complex. If it was first pubished outside the US before 1909 then it is PD. If after 1909 it gets messy. See this.Geni 17:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well the 1912 London printing appears to be a reprinting of a 1898 NYC printing which is a reprinting of an even older German book (entire book on Google Books). This also appears to be a reprinting of an even older London printing of 1886[28]. Also a 1927 NYC printing[29]. Appears to have been quite popular. -Nard 17:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Source to the 1898 NYC priniting and we should be pretty safe.Geni 18:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:BenoitHouse.jpg

Somehow has tagged this image, saying that the image is replaceable. How can this image be replaceable? Benoit and his family would probably not of wanted photos of their house being taken and put on the internet. Also, with all the tight-security round the house at the moment, it would be very difficult for a member of the public to take a picture of the house, hence the reason why I upladed this one, found off www.thesun.co.uk. I've stated further reasons on the images talkpage. Davnel03 14:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Please participate in the related discussion at WP:FUR. -Nard 16:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)