Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2007/September

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

If a TV show episode has fallen into public domain...

I think I know the answer already, but if a TV show episode has fallen into public domain, then everything in it is fair game, right? Even if the most episodes are not in the PD, an episode in PD is separate and things can be stripped from it, right?

I'm thinking about Dick Van Dyke, Beverly Hillbillies and The Lucy Show -- all with episodes that fell into the public domain. A wealth of stuff to take video screenshots from, I betcha. Let me know. Guroadrunner 17:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably yes.... but you would need to cite specific reasoning as to why the episode is in the public domain (i.e. you just saying it's in the public domain isn't going to cut it). Also trademark and personality rights may still apply, even if copyright doesn't. If you have a specific example it would be easier to answer questions about it. It's basically impossible to make blanket statements about this kind of copyright issue. Megapixie 13:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that having backing information is useful. See www.pdcomedy.com/ for a database of filmed material, and also archive.org. That's what I'd be sourcing from. I will get some examples of what I want to put up but things I'm thinking of are

- Images of vehicles and things
- Images of people/characters from the PD episodes even as there are copyrighted episodes too
- Show title/opening title card images from the PD episodes even as there are copyrighted episodes too
- and anything else that fits.

I'm trying to see if "it fell into public domain" means "everything in it can be stripped for putting online"

The reason I'm bringing this up is because the TV shows had a production run that have both PD and non-PD episodes. A movie, if not copyrighted, is a single entity that can be stripped (see "Reefer Madness", or for example, Image:ReeferMadness_13.jpg and it's PD rationale).

Does this help? -- Guroadrunner 16:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

A little. I'll go through the examples.

Vehicles / things - yes. However if they happen to show a copyright thing (a sculpture/painting) inside the image, then that may not be Public Domain.
People - yes - although there may be personality rights involved with images of people. But they would certainly be okay to use on wikipedia.
Title card - problematic - there may be trademark issues associated with the title cards - i.e. the Disney logo is never going to be free enough for us to slap a PD image tag on it.

Landscapes / cityscapes / animals are okay. Again - a specific example is easy to explain, blanket answers are almost impossible (that's why an introductory copyright textbook is two inches thick). Megapixie 02:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

i need help adding tagss

What is the copyright status of the images?Geni 18:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:LH-Patch577w.png

I uploaded Image:LH-Patch577w.png. I have received a message saying "there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use."

The image was sent to me by the Kansas City Chiefs, who own it, and whose representative Pete Moris tod me that I could use the image wherever I wanted, as long as the Chiefs are credited. I have done so. What more can I say? SugnuSicilianu 23:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Can other people use it to make money and or create derivatives?Geni 18:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:ShawTheOtherLeague.png

I uploaded Image:ShawTheOtherLeague.png. I received a message saying "Image is being used for decorative purposes only, and does not add encyclopedic value to article." I would like to know the Wikipedia definition of "decorative" as opposed to "illustrative".

Encyclopedias for centuries have elaborated on text explanations with illustrations of the subject involved. How can it be argued that A PHOTO OF THE SUBJECT "does not add encyclopedic value to article."??? The photo displays a VISUAL aspect of the subject that no amount of text can express. In other words "A picture is worth a thousand words." SugnuSicilianu 23:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The person is alive it would be posible to get a free image.Geni 18:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You deleted an image that I uploaded (with a lot of bother from my end!). This is a studio photo taken over 10 years ago. I own it. Can you please put it back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MegHargrave (talk • contribs) 06:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Was the image Image:Glam pic.jpg? It doesn't appear to have been deleted and the licenceing issues appear to have been sorted out.Geni 18:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:MauliDave.jpg

In addition to the above mentioned image, I am unsure of which tag to use. I would appreciate the help. Another image that needs the same help is PoonamYadav.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by UnitedStatesIndia (talk • contribs) 17:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The person in the photo appears to be still alive therefor no sutible tag other than delete exists.Geni 18:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Situatioinist Times

I uploaded this image image from the Situationist Times However there was no relevant tag to put to this text. However I did quote verbatim the permission granted on the cover: "All reproduction, deformation, modification, derivation and transformation of the Situationist Times is permitted." Unfortunately there is no tag for this!Harrypotter 07:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

{{PD-release}} would be fairly close.Geni 18:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

How to I include in an original web page (not in Wikipedia) that this page is available under the GFDL license, so that Wikipedia will not complain when I copy that page into an article in Wikipedia? Jpalme 16:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)jpalme Jpalme 16:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)2 September 2007 17:48 (UST)

Just add the text that this page is licensed under the GFDL and the author is X to the end of the page.Geni 18:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Perata-New-session.gif

Please tell me from my summary on the image how this picture should be tagged.User:calbear22 20:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

thumb|right

The image should be tagged with {{rfu}} so it can be deleted. Wikipedia generally does not allow copyrighted pictures of living people to show what they look like. 17Drew 21:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Editing jpeg images

Dear Reader, I am a complete novice and am struggling to understand most of the info that I read regarding uploading jpegs. I have managed to upload one on The Great South West Walk site that I managed to create. The problem is that the image opens too big for the page and I am unable to adjust it to get it to what would appear normal Cramalvin5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cramalvin5 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You'll need to read WP:IMAGES to see how to format an image within an article. I'll edit the article you created as an example. (Normally images aren't centered or formatted that wide, but it's appropriate here!). –Outriggr ₪ 04:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

PDF's of whole books from the EEBO collection

No response in 8 days at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use..., so I'm going to repost my question here in hopes that someone can answer it.

EEBO consists of books published before 1700. The books themselves are obviously all in the public domain. A user at a subscribing library can call up PDF images of each individual page from a book in the collection (a PDF of the whole book is not offered, which makes the site tedious for scholars to use). EEBO's terms and conditions, predictably, insist that ProQuest holds the copyright to the reproductions and denies users the right to publish them outside of internal, educational, and fair-use uses. The page images are clearly "slavish copies," so Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. would seem to hold straightforwardly that the page scans are in the public domain, and that no amount of "you may use this public domain image only as follows" is binding on the user.

To get to the practical scenario, then. If I make a PDF of an entire book, consisting of EEBO's slavishly copied photographs of each page as published in the 17th century, is there any copyvio issue with publishing the PDF to the internet. What legal right does Chadwyck or ProQuest have to keep these images from circulating outside their subscription-access wall? (I realize that large PDF's are not normal Wikipedia content and play only a supporting role even by Wikisource norms, but I'd rather ignore the "we don't like PDF's" issue to get directly into the "is this goldmine of encyclopedically relevant material freely usable?")

Wikimedia Commons has at least a few images from EEBO: Image:Londoners-Lamentation.gif, Image:Relapse_characters.png, Image:Love'sLastShift title.png. The question is, why hasn't anyone had the chutzpah to print out a whole book, scan an electronic facsimile, and make it available to the world. (There are plenty of books in EEBO, notable enough to have Wikipedia articles, whose texts are not freely available in any form on the internet, for example the Old Testament of the original 17th century Douay-Rheims Bible.) Wareh 19:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Maybe it will help if I pose a more specific form. Suppose that I complement Image:Relapse_characters.png by adding Image:Relapse_pg_01_of_57.png to Image:Relapse_pg_57_of_57.png. If the single image is public domain, as stated, then surely I haven't done anything wrong to complete the series with other public domain images? Wareh 19:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Wareh. I don't have an answer for you, but was thinking of asking a very similar question myself. In general terms, there are clearly a vast number of digital images in online databases of two-dimensional, pre-1922 works (or whatever year is relevant). Predictably, as you say, online databases claim full rights. Are the public domain and "Bridgeman" factors enough to allow enterprising Wikipedians to re-use all this content? It doesn't seem that it could be that simple. –Outriggr ₪ 04:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

See the discussion on Wikiquote. Tyrenius 01:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Is different licensing of high and low resolution versions feasible?

My wife and I have taken a number of photographs that we hope to sell, but commercial value depends on resolution - that of a 4+ Mpx version is (we hope) significant, while that of a 0.1Mpx one is trivial.

The immediate case in point is that we have pictures of the bridges at Wycoller, East Lancs, UK to which reference is made in the relevant Wikipedia article - and which could be used to illustrate that article.

We'd be glad to release, say, 400x300px versions (adequate for the web page) under the Creative Commons: Attribution + ShareAlike license, but want to retain all rights over the original, ~8Mpx versions.

Is this feasible and is it useful/desireable?

Roger.beaumont 01:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is feasible and a common approach for photographers wanting to contribute, practiced by some of the photographers over at Featured Picture Candidates. That said, a 400-pixel image is rather small. I believe that others in your situation are uploading 1000- to 2000-pixel-wide images. –Outriggr ₪ 03:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Outriggr. I'll go up a tad. Roger.beaumont 20:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Liam Tobin in 1922.jpg

I have scanned this picture [Image:Liam Tobin in 1922.jpg]] from a 10 year old book published in UK. The book states the photo was taken in 1922. It gives no further detail (presumably because the Photographers's copyright has expired. I want a hint of the next step I should Take. (Even if he needs to be deleted..Tell me how so I can try and do this myself) Aatomic1 08:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The question would be when the work was first published in the US?Geni 18:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Aatomic1 18:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

How do I update an image tag? I'm very confused. PeskyAtheist 21:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

On which image?Geni 18:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Small piece of text plus signature

I've uploaded Image:Asimov signature in Beyond Sep 1953.jpg, which is an image of part of a magazine page. It contains no images, just a few words of a story and then a facsimile of Asimov's signature. Of course the words are copyright, but the fair use that applies here is not an image tag. And I assume the signature can't be copyright? If it is, it would be a fair use claim, as the article in question (Beyond Fantasy Fiction) comments on the signature. Anyway, I'd be glad to have an opinion on how this should be tagged -- and if it is unusable for some reason, please let me know, though I'd be very surprised to hear that. Mike Christie (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

signatures can be copyrighted so you need a fair use rational.Geni 21:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have one in text but I'll use a template if I need to.

What copyright tag should I use? Mike Christie (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably {{Non-free fair use in}}.Geni 22:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I've updated it. Thanks for the help! Mike Christie (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Can signatures be copyrighted?

No they can't. Signature#Copyright. 17Drew 03:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Except that the word Signature doesn't appear on the page cited for that claim.Geni 15:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No, but signatures fall under the category of "variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring". Asimov's signature is not a creative work by any means. 17Drew 16:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

biotech

§can u give the knowledge abuot its futher&scope§ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.177.170.221 (talk) 13:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

What? Guroadrunner 12:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Images with plants and animals from old books ?

I have a Botanical Atlas and another atlas about animals which contain a lot of very realistic drawings of various animals and plants. The books were published in 1985 and the typography no longer exists (because of the 1989 Romanian revolution lots of companies were destroyed, I'm from Romania), the authors are probably all dead, I'm not sure if anybody could be contacted for copyright. I'd be willing to scan pages from these books in high quality resolutions (at least 300dpi) and crop plants or animals from the pages but I'd like to know if they would be accepted in Wikipedia, if there would be copyright issues. In theory,I believe in Romania the copyright stands for 75 years, but I'm not sure it's still in place if the publisher no longer exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.136.49.90 (talk) 08:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Since copyright lasts for 75 years, I do not believe they can legally be posted even if the publisher is no longer existant. Guroadrunner 12:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Use of the Image:Larry Craig mugshot.jpg photo

The subject of this discussion is the Image:Larry Craig mugshot.jpg image for the Larry Craig article.

As mentioned in the rationale for the image, the image identifies and documents the subject in question in a controversial case, particularly since the subject decided to conceal this information from everyone around him. Also, this mugshot depicts the subject at the time of the arrest during a time when the subject, who is dressed in a business suit wearing a U.S. flag pin that's worn by other colleagues in the U.S. Congress, at a time that was on layover at a airport on the way to work to vote on the floor of the Senate. The additional rationale for including the photo is that the inclusion in the article also significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic under WP:NFCC #8 since the photo shows the context of the event (without using endless prose to describe what the user is looking wearing is and why, among other things and the reasons), based on the rationale described in the previous sentence.

The discussion at one point moved from the section about the mugshot to the "Public records" section of the Public Domain talk page (this discussion was started after someone had placed a PD tag on the photo, which was since change to one for a non-free mugshot). I've had a chance to look up the conditions of the release and use of the booking photo, which was also the subject of a significant discussion. That conversation thread can be found on the Public domain talk page here. An additional tag was added for non-educational use of the mugshot based on U.S. copyright laws. The debate was about whether the state holds the copyright to the photo or whether the photo was indeed released to the public domain. See the discussion thread that I posted about what I found in the state statute. Even a user identifying him/herself as an intellectual attorney weighed in on the conversation by saying the mugshots in general are considered "public domain." The original image was uploaded that shows attribution to the source (original image found here), although the image was later replaced by one that leaves off the image source.

Can someone else weigh in here so that we can settle this issue? Another editor placed a tag on the mugshot to have it speedy deleted based on WP:NFCC #8, although all others (including me) disagree that this editor about the rationale for deleting the image, and at best, the mugshot should be permitted under fair use because the photo meets the conditions for use of non-free content if the mugshot falls under these provisions.

I came to this board for guidance, but found that the questions about other mugshots have related issues that have yet to be answered. →Lwalt^♦ talk 12:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

About adding Crank Dat to Hip Hop Music Section

As of July 19th, 2007 according to www.myspace.com/souljaboy, Crank Dat has evolved into a subgenre of hip hop and is not in the same category as snap hip hop. Crank Dat also has many dances and differs differently than snap hip hop. As with that, I believe you should write an article about Crank Dat hip hop music because it has evolved into over eight hundred dances and songs. --152.8.232.34 01:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Bot incorrectly claims no info provided

I posted an image an clearly stated that it had a {{cc|by the Estate of the Subject of the image}} but Canildo's bot doesn't seem to think that's enough! To me, the "by" is quite clear on the status of the image. Some assistance, please! -- Oldpoet 01:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you link the image, please? Powers ^T 17:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Image owned by the subject of the Wikipedia entry

I'm finding reading this page a bit like wading through the infamous "fine print" of an insurance policy!!

I've looked at the various copyright tags and frankly can't decide which is the most appropriate to use for an image of an author provided to me by the author for their Wikepedia entry.

Let's assume two different scenarios:
1. the author holds the rights to the photo
2. the photo was taken by someone else willing to have the photo used. "Someone else" here does NOT mean a professional photographer but a friend/family member taking a snapshot.

What are the syntaxes to use?

Related to this, what is the difference between the GDFL "license" and the Creative Commons license. For the time being, I'm using {{cc-by author name}}, but I notice that there's CC1, CC2, etc!!

Thanks in advance.

--CanalPoet 20:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The biggest difference between cc-by and GFDL is that the GFDL would require anyone makeing a derivative to release that derivative under the GFDL. cc-by mearly requires that you credit the author.Geni 00:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "GFDL would require anyone making a derivative to release that derivative." By derivative I assume you're speaking of a new work that incorporates all or part of an image/song, etc. So when you say the person making the derivative would "release that derivative," do you mean the creator of the derivative work would release all rights to their "derivative work" to the photographer/composer/musicians of the original work(s)? -- CanalPoet 21:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No, to "release" a work means to publish it under a particular license, not to relinquish rights to it. GFDL is considered a "copyleft" license (the name is a tongue-in-cheek antonym of "copyright"): any work released (published) under the GFDL can (legally) be used freely in other works, so long as those other works also are released under the GFDL. The Creative Commons license known as CC-by-sa (or any other CC with "SA" in it, where "SA" stands for "ShareAlike") is similar in that it requires any derivative works to also have a similar license. A CC license without "sa" in it doesn't have this "copyleft" provision. Powers ^T 17:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

An image for my Userpage

I had uploaded an image I made, Image:ChrisDHDR.jpg, on which I specified that it was still in my copyright and I allowed it to only be used on my Userpage. It has since then been speedy deleted. Is there a tag I could use if I re-uploaded this image, or would I be forced to release it under a different licence? I do remember seeing an Image with a "Userpage only" tag, does it still exist? --ChrisDHDR ^{( • contrib's)} 06:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I would be extremely surprised if such a template existed (and would nominate it for deletion). The non-free content policy (#9) specifically bars copyright content with no free license from appearing on user pages. nadav (talk) 03:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible for me to give permission only for use on Wikipedia??? --ChrisDHDR ^{( • contrib's)} 10:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No, because Wikipedia itself is distributed under the GFDL. See WP:NONFREE#Downstream use for an explanation. --Clubjuggle 10:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, last question, could I licence it as Fair-use, and under that fair-use, use it on my userpage??? ChrisDHDR ( C @) 13:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"Fair use" is not a license in itself; it is a term of art used to refer to specific allowable exceptions to copyright law. The upshot is this: we allow only free images on user pages. If you do not license or release your image in some way that qualifies it as "free" under our guidelines (namely: public domain, any Creative Commons license that doesn't include "non-commercial", or GFDL), then you can't use it on your user page. I would personally suggest CC-BY-SA, which keeps the image under your own copyright, albeit allowing its use anywhere so long as the author is attributed and the license maintained. Powers ^T 18:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Work done by a state agency

I have public hearing maps of a proposed interstate highway connector created by the North Carolina Department of Transportation. Are these in the public domain?--Cowboy wilhelm 19:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably not, unless there is some statute of North Carolina law that stipulates creations of the state to be in the public domain. Powers ^T 18:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

use of image from Dutch wikipedia

I found an image on the Dutch Wikipedia that I would like to use on the English W. Link: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afbeelding:Hephaistion.jpg

The image appears to be in public domain, but is licenced under the deprecated tag: {{PD}} Is there any way to use the image directly, or do I need to download it and upload it on English Wikipedia (or perhaps Wikimedia Commons)? Can I actually use it? And in that case, which PD tag should I use?

I would like to be notified on my talk page, if possible. TIA.

EaCalendula 17:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Answered by Lambian on EaCalendula's talk page. --Iamunknown 00:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with "Image JBernal 078.jpg."

Labs1950 17:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Concerning the copyright status of the "Image JBernal 078.jpg.," I would like to know how to remove it altogheter. Please, let me know how to proceed because I no longer wish to make use of that image.

Also, I uploaded another image: "José Bernal, Court of the Lions, Granada, Spain, 1974," but I do not see it on the most recent edited page. When or how will I be able to view it?

Your response will be most appreciated.

Sincerely,

LucreciaLabs1950 17:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Lucrecia. The image Image:JBernal 078.jpg is tagged such that it will be deleted within a week, so there is no need to worry. The image, "José Bernal, Court of the Lions, Granada, Spain, 1974", is located at Image:JOSE BERNAL, COURT OF THE LIONS, GRANADA, SPAIN, 1974.jpg. --Iamunknown 00:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

CD covers in article about a series?

What's the current thinking about the use of CD covers in an article about a series of CDs, like a discography article? BetacommandBot just tagged an image that's used in Bernice Summerfield, an article which is about both a fictional character and the series of books and audio plays in which she appears. The audio plays are currently listed in a table at Bernice Summerfield#Bernice Summerfield audio plays, which contains cover images for each CD. Is this acceptable under current guidelines, or should these images all be removed from the article? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Betacommandbot seems to have gone on the rampage today marking images with fair use rationales as deletable. I noticed it with Image:New_Zealand_Coat_of_Arms_old.gif, but by the look of the bot talk page, I wasn't the only one to notice. Grutness...wha? 06:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing an Image

I recently uploaded an image, and the OrphanBot informed me that I didnt specify the source and creator of the image, I continued to edit the image to include this, but I was unable, even with looking at the pages it provided, figure out how to specify the image source and creator...

I am the creator of the image, its a screenshot I took while in-game The images are for this article...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Revolution The image in question is this image...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Relic00391.jpg

How do I add a source and creator title so that they arnt deleted...

Thanks

--Sgt. D. Pilla 06:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Just "edit" the image page as you would any other Wikipedia page, and include, above your copyright tag, the information you gave here: That you are the creator of the image and that it's a screenshot of Combat Revolution. Powers ^T 18:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Ill give that ago

--Sgt. D. Pilla 00:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Numbers.png

I am the uploader of this image. It is a screenshot that I took and I've provided a FU template, yet still it's being considered for deletion. What did I do wrong, and how can it be fixed? Cheers. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

how do i upload my image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Horashe (talk • contribs) 11:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Python screenshot

Hi. I took a simple screenshot of the import this command and it's results on Python 2.5.1 to use in the Python Philosophy article.

Since Python license is GPL compatible, I wonder if it should be under a free license category or under the screenshot category.

There is a little-known template called {{free screenshot}} (also available on Commons) which should be appropriate in this case. Please make sure that your screenshot contains no non-free elements such as window decorations (although GPLed window decorations would of course be OK). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ilmari Karonen is correct. I would add that the correct text would be {{Free screenshot|template=GPL}}. Upload the image and add that text to the image description page (by clicking "edit this page" when you are viewing the image, its description, and the upload details). --Iamunknown 00:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Ilmari Karonen and Iamunknown!

I used the {{Free screenshot|template=GPL}} templete → commons:Image:Import_this_command.png

--Dolcecars 00:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Universe at war Earth Assault.jpg

Hey, I have a question here. Hopefully i will get a correct answer.

I have uploded this image to wikipedia Image:Universe at war Earth Assault.jpg after 1 month MrStalker removed the license from the image and said this image ic copyrighted and has to be deleted. While getting this image i have contacted petroglyph i have spoke to Ted Morris about the license as he deals with license. So he said iam free to use this image. He had not give me what sort of license is needed. So i gave it has a temporary license until i get an answer from Chris who is very busy with upcoming beta and game for Universe at war: Earth Assault. I can give only a permantent license when chris is free. Till then i want this image to be here in wikipedia aswell in the article.

Anyhelp would be grateful. Thank you. --SkyWalker 03:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is a correct answer:

You can't have the image in the article under the present license, but there's no deadline. So if it gets deleted, it gets deleted. When you get an appropriate license from this Chris (who hopefully is authorized to grant it) then you can upload it again and tag it appropriately.

Make sure Chris explicitly specifies one of the licenses associated with one of these tags. Restrictions on commercial use or limits to educational use aren't acceptable, so if he wants that we can't have the image. Then make sure he sends an email granting the specific license to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org so Wikipedia knows about it and the image doesn't get deleted as mistagged. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Photo deletion for 1313 Mockingbird Lane

Hello, I recent became aware of a deleted photo due to no specifics listed on the fair use description page.It is a promotional photo used for news articles, club advertisements,etc. Evidently, it appears that the fair use image page gave no specifics as to why the image was a fair use image. I was unaware of this and apologize for not correcting the error. Unfortunately,due to recent difficulties with my (Hamilton Styden) password, it appears that I may have to abandon the original account used to create the article. I would appreciate any direction as to how to cure the error that I have made and get the image back up. Thank you. --Kendall869 05:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The name of the account under which you upload an image is immaterial, nor does it make a difference who uploaded it for the purposes of undeletion. It can be undeleted if you can convince an admin that you have an adequate rationale for it this time. (Re-upload of deleted images is discouraged since it most often means that inappropriate images are repeatedly replaced.)

For guidelines about how to write a rationale showing how an image's use is covered under the non-free media policy, see WP:FURG. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops! I just realized this probably pertained to the band, not The Munsters. In that case the situation is less in your favor. If this band is still together and performing, and the photo is of its current members, then we cannot use the photo under policy since it's possible to make a free image. You might be able to make a case for a non-free image of a performance if the band is no longer together, or of it when now-former members belonged, but you should expect there to be considerable discussion. The place to go to hash this out is WP:FUR. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Image-UN_Swords_into_Plowshares_Statue.JPG

Hello there. I just want to know why User:Polarlys deleted this image which is my own work. I photographed it myself, therefore I am the copyrightholder and contributor of this image. I would like you to undelete it. If you can't, kindly let me know so I could upload it from my camera again. I was even requested by an editor at Wikipedia to move this image to commons. It was originally uploaded as Image here at Wikipedia before moving to commons. I believe deletion was unnecessary. Thank you. - Dragonbite 07:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

And please note that this image is definitely NOT A DERIVATIVE WORK. I took the image myself! User:Polarlys is mistaken in this matter! - Dragonbite 07:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted; it was renamed and moved back to the English Wikipedia as a fair use image. Look for Image:UN_Swords_into_Plowshares_Statue.JPG.

The problem is, I think, that the statue appears to still be under copyright. In that case, your photo and all others of it are indeed derivative works -- although you of course own the copyright to the original elements in the photo. (This means that the photo of it on [[United Nations Art Collection] is mistagged, since it also is derivative of a work copyrighted to someone else and cannot be GFDL.)

The statue was made by a Soviet sculptor working in the USSR. Under Soviet law at the time it was made, copyright protection extended to the life of the author plus 15 years. Since the sculptor died in 1974, it would have fallen into the public domain in 1989. However, in 1973 the USSR became party to the UCC and in consequence extended copyright to 25 years after the death of the author. All right; another 10 years and it becomes PD in 1999. However, the USSR fell in 1991, and in 1993 the new Russian copyright law extended it to 50 years after the death of the author.

However, the US has long been party to the UCC, which specifically mandates that all work "published" by the UN be protected under US copyright law. (The UCC was promulgated by UNESCO, so that's a valid provision binding on the UN.) Displaying a statue in public constitutes "publishing" it. That provision was put into effect in 1971, at which time it would have acquired the registration US law required at the time. The original term would have been 28 years from that date with an optional 28 year renewal period. Subsequent changes to the law extended the renewal period and made renewal automatic for pre-1978 works. So even if it was PD under Russian law, it's still protected under US law. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a question on my FUJIFILM camera

I am useing a one-time-use camera by Fujifilm for pictures that i'm taking my self. Is this kind of camera ok for use for a Wikipedia Project or WikiProject, such as a image of a place that I have taken my self.---OHWiki 23:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

For the most part, yes it is. The only big thing is you need to be fine with others reusing the content, by allowing your content to be put in the GNU or Creative Commons licenses. -- Guroadrunner 04:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Would a digital camera be better for image use on Wikipedia?---OHWiki 14:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Confused

I have pictures which I want to upload. I am presented with all these licences I can choose from, what do I choose and where can I get a explanation of these? Thanks and would you be able to reply on my talk page? Oh I uploaded one picture already http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ABunchofPretzels.JPG and I just choose any licence. Note these are all self made and taken by me. Phgao 11:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

answered on user's talk page.Geni 14:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyright tag

The image in question is a photo taken with my Pentax on August 25, 2006. There are no copyright issues associated with the photo. I give up all rights on this issue and ask that you, please, do the necessary copyright tag or labeling because I've looked at the necessary requirements contained in pages and pages of material and, not being familiar with any of this after vieweing the pages a couple of times, I still don't know how to properly tag it. Therefore I herein give up all rights to this photo, a photo that I have on my desk top, and you may use it as you see fit. Please respond to this note as I thank you --Mig 13:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

answered on user talk page.Geni 02:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Image Problems

I know bots (OrphanBot in this case) can be a bit stupid, but this is my first problem with uploading images:

Image:StonehengeThumb.jpg - This is a thumbnail of the image already on the Stonehenge page, and licensed by the photgrapher including "adaptations". I have put this in the box along with for use only in a Userbox.

Image:Barclay1974.jpg - Again, reduced size of an image from a website, URL of which I have left in the box, I did email the website prorietor for permission, which he has granted.

Can you tell me where I've gone wrong here?--Rodhullandemu 19:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

used with permission of the website proprietor is a problematical tag since we don't know the wording of the permission and if it adds up to something being free.Geni 02:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

TV show theme song sample

Hello. Is a sample of the theme song of a television program allowed under Wikipedia non-free content guidelines? Here is the article section. I am sure the sample would be all right in an article about the artist where I also linked this and in an article about the album or the song but I couldn't find either work on Wikipedia. Thank you in advance. -Susanlesch 02:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a section of a real song, so I personally am not sure. Don't know why no-one else has answered yet. Guroadrunner 12:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Guroadrunner, thank you for trying. -Susanlesch 07:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone else have a thought? Yes, it is a real song but I think that is true of a lot of songs. -Susanlesch 10:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
This is going to scroll off the board pretty quick here. Too bad because it was a clear cut call. I wanted to to see if somebody could confirm. Thank you anyway. -Susanlesch 19:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Picture

I don't understand to give the picture a "tag". Can you please tell me how to do it and even better, give me an example.

Thanks, from Yuen, stephen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuen, stephen (talk • contribs) 07:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

See "How to add a copyright tag to an existing image" at the top of the page and if you still have questions ask again. Calliopejen1 00:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

How do I to add an image tag?

How do I add an image tag to "Branford and Ray.jpg"? --Allenstone 11:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC) Alenstone

It looks like you've already figured it out! Sorry for the slow response. If you have more questions, ask away. Calliopejen1 00:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

two questions

question one:

adding a company logo. how do i go about doing that? the company owns the logo, but there is no paperwork or anything of that nature. i want to upload the logo but i don't want it to be deleted.

any help is greatly appreciated.

question two:

i'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this question or not, but i don't know where else to ask. if this is not the right place, please direct me to the correct resource.

ok, i want to add a page but when i do search, there is already a page there (not for what i wanted to add). there used to be a link so that you could create a different page w/ that same topic name. is this still possible?? if so, how do i do it??

if you have any questions, please feel free to email me. at chnacat@sbcglobal.net

thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mouse1836 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

For the first one, it depends on the logo. Some logos are not eligible for copyright as they consist of things like "typographical ornamentation" that the Copyright Office tells us specifically are ineligible, or they are old enough that the copyright has expired. Even a public domain logo may be a trademark, however. In either case it needs to be tagged {{non-free logo}}. Copyrighted trademarks should carry a non-free media rationale showing how its use conforms to policy; PD trademarks should note the logo's PD status and explain that its use here does not imply endorsement or approval of the company who owns it, and it will not be used in a way that interferes with its legitimate use as a trademark.

For the second one, you need to create a distinctive article name by adding a parenthetical note. For example, West is the direction, but West (cigarette) is the cigarette brand. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

how do i put a tag

i dont know how to what do I do and how and where? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georocksomg (talk • contribs) 03:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Georocksomg, is this for an image or for a link or for something else? Your answer might be in the Wikipedia:Cheatsheet. Hope this helps. -Susanlesch 03:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I got Permission though.

on the page for the band dead poetic, I put pictures on there, an dI got permission from one of the band members to do that. Then today I saw they were deleted. Why? thanks.

--Playjex 14:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

because they were released for non-commercial only which is not considered free enough for use on wikipedia.Geni 02:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

is there a solution for this at all? --Playjex 18:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Copying text (not image) and citing website source

You don't have an entry for Gros Mondain and I wanted to add the description from the South African Fancy Pigeon Association quoting them as source. How best should one do this on Wikipedia in future? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fionatorr (talk • contribs) 15:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Write your own text. Don't cut-and-paste someone else's. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Help With Image Licencing

Hello,

I would like to respectfully ask someone who is experienced enough to help me out on this. I'm a professional photographer with large database of pictures which I have taken and hold copyright to each of them. I did a brief search through wiki and found that I have images to accompany many articles which do not have images at all. I have already added several pictures to articles; however I seem to be having troubles clearly understanding how the licensing works.

Once again, I am the person who took the pictures. I am the only one who has them. Granted, I provide my images for use on few websites (such as www.AlbertaStars.com) and I also have my own personal site with my images, but they are all watermarked to prevent theft. I would like to enrich wikipedia with my pictures (and I already have) but I'm not sure how to handle licensing properly.

So far i have done what I thought was the best thing to do, but I don't want anyone to get after me saying it's not done as per wikipedia requirements, hence I thought I'd ask someone to check out the pictures I have added and give me advice how to do it properly. I have the full right to publish my own pictures on here but I don't have any legal background to understand how the image licensing works.

Somebody, please help,

Thanks a lot,

Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unclefecker (talk • contribs) 22:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

A potential problem is the "I release it for use on Wikipedia.org". If you want images to be on wikipedia they need to be under a free license that allows reuse and alturation by anyone even for profit as long as they stay within the terms if the licsense.Geni 02:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Geni, don't mean to be a pain, but how do I make pictures under "free license"? Can you provide more info (remember, I'm a newb to this...). Also, can you fill me up how to respond to people? I'm just using Edit This Page tab, but I'm not sure if this is the right way to do it. MarkMarek 12:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Short answer to that question is you remove that bit of text. Images will then be under the GFDL which allows use and alteration by anyone even for profit as long as they stay within the terms if the license (basicaly crediting the author and reproduceing the license.Geni 14:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean they can also use it outside of wikipedia? --MarkMarek 19:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

yes that is what "reuse and alturation by anyone even for profit as long as they stay within the terms if the licsense" means.Geni 19:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You should also be aware of wiki commons; see the link towards the bottom of the main wikipage. Snowman 10:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm checking up on wiki commons :) --MarkMarek 20:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ownership of a image

Hi! I was just wondering, if I upload a fair-use game cover from a 3rd party website, does the copyright belong to the 3rd party or the publisher/developer? Example MobyGames or IGN, all their images are waterstamped and their pages copyrighted to themselves. --MrStalker ^talk 02:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest finding images without watermarks however in the case you mention I suspect the answer would bw both.Geni 02:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyright remains with the publisher / developer. Also, watermarked images are not permitted at Wikipedia. -- But|seriously|folks 02:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Aren't they? According to..? --MrStalker ^talk 09:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Bump --MrStalker ^talk 15:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

See the end of Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#User-created_images.Geni 19:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

User-created images aren't allowed to be watermarked, yes, but I'm talking about fair-use images. --MrStalker ^talk 12:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly. By putting a watermark on a work you are creating a derivative which would give you some level of claim over anyone else useing the watermarked image.Geni 02:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point, although the mobygames watermarks do not qualify for copyright protection. The IGN watermarks would because their logo is included. -- But|seriously|folks 02:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

question about logos

Image:PrimroseCrest.gif, is tagged as an unfree logo. The website its been taken from says [1] "The clan crest artwork is copyright of ScotClans and may not be reproduced without our permission. We grant free permission for the use of this crest for non commercial purposes only," Can these images even be used? Pretty much all of the clan pages on Wikipedia use them from this one website. The website says they aren't logos, they're artwork made by the them not to be used for commercial purposes.--Celtus 07:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No, we can't use them under any circumstances. The design itself is PD; it's an old Scottish clan badge. It's this particular drawing of the badge that's covered under copyright. Since it can always be redrawn and released under a free license, we cannot use this as non-free media.

The tag should have been {{Non-free symbol}} anyway. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

To the extent all clan pages use images from that site, all clan pages are in violation of the non-free image policy. All of these should be deleted. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. If this is the actual crest the clan uses, and the website has a copy or "slavish reproduction" (a transcription without any original creative effort by the website) of that crest, then it's a logo/symbol like thing and probably not copyrighted. If it's new but the clan is using that version of it as a crest, it's a non-free logo/symbol, and usable. On the other hand, if that is simply artwork that the site created, with original creative effort by the site, and it's not being used anywhere as the clan's crest, then it's simply artwork. Creative effort would be issues like the depiction of the belt buckle and tie, the lion, the width of the rings, etc. Did the website make it up or did it just trace it from an old image? Wikidemo 00:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

We can't say whether or not this is a slavish copy of anything unless we found the original. Heraldry adheres to certain conventions, but within those conventions there's room for considerable variation, and these variations are eligible for copyright. If they traced it, you'll have to prove it by digging up an original, but in that case you might as well use the original. The official crest is described by a blazon, not a drawing.

To give you an idea of the possible variation: [www.cafepress.com/gaelicgifts.48830719] [2] [3] TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. The Primrose crest, for example, is A demi-lion rampant gules holding in his dexter paw a primrose or. The only rules you have to follow are having a red coloured front half of a lion - with its front paws up, as if to fight - holding a yellow/gold primrose in its right paw. So other than that its up to the artist to decide how mean the lion looks or how the buckle looks and is coloured, or what font to use on the motto. So it seems to me that the crest(s) found on Scotclans.com are their interpretations of the clan's crest(s). Right? --Celtus 06:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Seadh! TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I assume that's Lion for "yes." In a close case you're in a catch-22. Without the original you can't tell if it's a slavish reproduction; if you do have the original, then no point using the reproduction (unless it's something helpful like an SVG). Wikidemo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs) 01:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Help with image copyright tag

I have uploaded an image and linked it to the entry on John Mearsheimer. The image is a picture of him taken by Greg Martin. John Mearsheimer holds the copyright and gave me permission to post the image on wikipedia. Could someone please help me create a copyright tag for the image so that it is not deleted after 7 days? Many thanks!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mearsheimer thumb|Professor John J. Mearsheimer

Npmonteiro 12:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Problem is that permission for use on wikipedia only isn't considered free enough for wikipedia. Needs to allow reuse and modification by anyone.Geni 13:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have contacted John Mearsheimer, the copyright owner, and he replied: "I bought the picture and I own the copyright. I have no problem with the picture being used and modified by others." Would this solve the problem? What should I do? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Npmonteiro (talk • contribs) 14:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Does that include for profit? If that is a case an email needs to be sent to permissions@wikimedia.org confirming this.Geni 15:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I want to upload an image

I have never uploaded an image before.

This is what I want to upload-

[4]

I want to put it on this page -

2007 Walker Cup

I know how to upload an image but I am not sure of all the copyright stuff. Any help would be appreciated.

michfan2123 21:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you can't upload that image. It is copyrighted, and it doesn't fall into wikipedia's nonfree content rules because it doesn't significantly contribute to the reader's understanding in a way that words cannot. For now, you'll just have to hope that someone who went to the event and took a picture comes online and uploads one of the photos that they have taken. Calliopejen1 17:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about that. Arguably, it does, as it shows the winning moment of that tournament. I'd say yes, myself, especially if there's something unusual about it. (I don't know enough about golf tournaments to be able to judge.) If there's potential disagreement, I'd say to go ahead and upload it, then tag it {{fairusereview}} and begin a pre-emptive discussion at WP:FUR to settle it one way or the other. The worst that can happen is that it'll get deleted. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Question About Images On Another Site

I wanted to add a screen shot to the Small Foot page but I'm unsure if the site owner had an actual copyright on the screen shot? Should I still get permission from the site owner to use the picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CELKEE (talk • contribs) 23:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No he doesn't. And neither do we. It's owned by the production company. The screenshot should be tagged {{Non-free television screenshot}} and a rationale added showing how it conforms to the non-free media policy. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

State-issued warning sticker, not copyright.

I would like to post a scan of a warning sticker, issued by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. There is no notice of copyright on the sticker. Can I do that, and, if so, what license is appropriate? --Tim Ross 13:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't need a notice of copyright for something to be protected by copyright any more. So you probaly can't.Geni 19:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

As a public record of the State of Florida, it may be freely copied per Chapter 119 of the Florida Statute, where 119.01(11) defines a public record as: "all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, tapes, photographs, films, sound recordings, data processing software, or other material, regardless of the physical form, characteristics, or means of transmission, made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business by any agency." So this certainly qualifies. Tag it {{PD-because|Per Chapter 119 of the 2007 Florida Statute, this Florida State public record may be freely copied}} It might help to link to the law in the image description: [5] TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Images from other wiki pages

I uploaded an image from

http://wikidocumentary.wikia.com/wiki/Image:Wikidocumentary-logo2.jpg

Wikidocumentary-logo2.jpg the licensing there says:

"This file is copyrighted. The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that {{{1}}}."

what does this mean?

tnx

U5K0

--U5K0 15:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I suspect it means that they have't got a full template phaser installed. What it means in copyright terms? Hard to say.Geni 19:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

We all have our suspicions. But what it really means is that whomever attached the tag -- {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} -- failed to include the parameter describing the license conditions. Nudge the uploader and ask him what he wants them to be. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Image from an anonymous whistleblower

I was in contact with someone a few weeks ago about an image [6], but I mentioned that he would have to upload it with some sort of copyright permission and that might mean actually stating the legal name of who was giving the permission. (I said that I didn't know.) Since the organization involved is well-known for revenge against apostates, that seems to have had a discouraging effect. Before opening the subject with this person again, I thought I might as well get some opinions.

So. Does the GFDL require that the copyright owner give their actual name? What about pen names? AndroidCat 16:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If the photographer registers for a wikipedia account, he can upload it himself under a pseudonymous username. He also could forward his permission to permissions@wikimedia.org and only reveal his true name to the volunteers there. Perhaps implausible and totally uneducated/speculative worst-case scenario: this might be problematic if his release or taking of the photograph violated his contractual obligations or any laws. If wikimedia were subpoenaed in discovery for a related lawsuit, they might have to release the IP address of the uploader or the original permission email. These could be concerns if they revealed his identity. Calliopejen1 17:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not at all certain the "worst-case" is that unlikely[7], so I'll suggest precautions. AndroidCat 03:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe the "worst-case" is considerably worse than that, should the photographer somehow come back into their physical custody. [8] He should absolutely not reveal his name under any circumstances if he has good reason to fear reprisals.

The answer is no, the GFDL does not require use of the author's true name any more than any other published work does. Pseudonymous works are eligible for copyright, and its ownership of the copyright under whatever name that gives the authority to attach licenses. It should be sufficient to label himself in a manner of his choosing, and describe the place and circumstances under with the photo was taken -- in the permission email to Wikimedia, not publicly in the image description if he doesn't feel that's safe.

Since the photo is hosted currently at Chuck Beatty's website, if the photographer is already known to Mr. Beatty it would be sufficient to create a web page on the site in which to embed it (it doesn't seem to appear in any now) and include a GFDL notice on the page. With the license grant present at the image source, there's no reason to send a permission email at all, and it can simply be tagged {{GFDL}}. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm embarrassed and annoyed

I'm a long-standing user and I cannot make head or tail of the instructions on how to fix the licensing for Image:Roberts celebrates.jpg. The talk page message I received is no help whatsoever, neither is the tag on the image itself. I followed the upload instructions implicitly and when it came to the dropdown menu regarding licensing, there was no help available for the few options - I chose the one that I thought meant there were no licensing problems (and didn't automatically generate a speedy delete tag). Please can someone a) help me sort out this image and b) do something to improve the shocking communications surrounding uploads. --Dweller 22:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed -- it's overly complicated. This is primarily due to the inclusion of non-free images under certain circumstances. Anyway, problem 1 is that you need a machine-readable license tag. There are a bunch listed here. It's up to the owner whether to license it under the GFDL, Creative Commons or some other license. Problem 2 is that you are not the owner of the image. You should have your friend send you an email indicating that s/he owns the image and is licensing it under XYZ license, then forward the email to OTRS as specified at WP:DCP and WP:COPYREQ. Then, the OTRS staff will leave a template indicating that permission has been confirmed. I wouldn't wait for that to add the license tag though, as the image will likely be deleted in the meantime. You should also identify your friend. I don't think "a friend" qualifies as sufficient identification of the source of the image. Good luck! -- But|seriously|folks 23:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The systems we have in place are poor; anyone who can help sort them out deserves a lot of credit. --Dweller 12:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:AHSLogo1.gif

I uploaded Image:AHSLogo1.gif on May 27, 2007 with the fair use tag "K12-logo" and a fair use rationale using the template "Non-free media rationale". I was sent a message on my talk page on September 6 saying that the rationale was invalid. [9] What is the problem with my fair use rationale? --Albany NY 02:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you don't have any. The {{K12-logo}} tag isn't itself rationale, and it should sit outside the table, not inside it. "Rationale" is text that explains how use of the image conforms to the non-free media policy. For assistance, see WP:FURG. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I placed {{K12-logo}} in the licensing section. Under it is Template:Non-free use rationale, which I filled out. [10] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albany NY (talk • contribs)

Then take out the wrong one! It just clutters up the page. And please use internal links to images as described at the top of this page; it should look like the link I added to your original post. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lew_Wentz.jpg

Re: Image:Lew_Wentz.jpg. Someone from Germany deleted it!!

It is in the public domain.

Enough Said??

jcmcapital —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcmcapital (talk • contribs) 03:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

on what basis do you say it is in the public domain?Geni 15:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No, not enough said. We need to know where it came from and how old it (or the original) is. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

picture of sports player

Hi, I uploaded a picture of a rugby player I went to school with. I do have pictures of him but not in a sportive situations. The picture was taken from a rugby related web-page. I am writing to them so that they can give me permission to use it. In the webpage there is no information as to who the owner of the copyright is, or who took the picture in fact. The webpage is the official one for the Pumas squad. Could this be considered fair use? What could I do? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonelrosario (talk • contribs) 03:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It may or may not be fair use by law, but either way it cannot be used under Wikipedia's non-free policy since it's an image of a living person used merely to show what he looks like. The picture is copyrighted by law whether or not it's marked, and the webmaster of the site should be able to help you. Please ensure you're asking for the appropriate permission, as Wikipedia cannot use images licensed "for Wikipedia only" or restricted to educational or non-commercial use; nor is a response of "go ahead and use it" sufficiently specific. See the guide to asking permission for copyrighted material for what you need to ask for. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced question

what is Elizabeth l full name —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.70.168 (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This page is for questions related to media hosted on Wikipedia's servers, not for general information. Please direct your question to the appropriate reference desk. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Letters

I have records of correspondence between a standing committee and an individual . . . what kind of copyright is that under? And would it be appropriate to upload to wikipedia? darthsuo 22:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

A standing committee of what body? TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was a committee created to carry out *another* committee's recommendation that Williams College provide room and board for its student body. The correspondence in question is basically the standing committee soliciting help from an alumni of the college. darthsuo 23:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused because I'm not really sure who holds the copyright . . . the committee? Would I need permission of the college if I were to upload it? darthsuo 00:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The correspondence written by the individual are copyright to that individual. The correspondence from the committee is owned by the school. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

My Image for Ukrainian people article

Ok, i made an image for the Ukrainian people article, using images already on Wikipedia, but i am still unaware as to what licence it is under. Please help me out here. Yeltsinfan 02:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The one image that isn't PD is dual-licensed with the GFDL and cc-by-sa 2.5, and you're allowed to pick which one you want to use. In either case the terms of the license require that derivative works carry the same license as the original. So whichever one you pick, that's how you should tag your collage. Tag it either {{GFDL-self}} or {{cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}}.

If this is for the infobox on Ukrainians, I suggest you apply an imagemap linking to the originals so you don't lose that feature of the mini gallery that's there now. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

CC 2.0 non-commercial

Images under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en such as http://www.flickr.com/photos/nopunintended/441712423/ - can this be used on Morris Iemma? It was deleted, i'm told no:

Whether Wikipedia is commercial is not relevant. It's aim is to provide a free content encyclopedia, and so it has chosen not to use images which are only available for non-commercial use (since May 2005). Wikipedia allows content to used commercially, and so endeavours to make sure this is possible. The limited exceptions to this are outlined at WP:NFCC, and must be accompanied by a non-free use rationale. This is inline with Wikimedia Foundation policy, which is much stricter than any legal requirements. JPD (talk) 11:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please confirm this is the case? I find it extremely poor that my image is deleted. Timeshift 10:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikiedpedia releases its content under the GFDL, which does not restrict downstream users from reusing the content commercially. As I understand it, this is the main reason non-commercial is non considered 'free enough' for Wikipedia. As an example, answers.com serves Wikipedia-supplied content on advertising-supported pages. ~~You are welcome to re-upload your image under a license that allows commercial use, such as http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en.~~ --Clubjuggle 11:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you check the links I gave, as well as Wikipedia:Image Use Policy and WP:CSD#I3. I find it extremely poor that you still don't know this basic part of image policy, and still refer to "image nazis". JPD (talk) 11:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)He can't re-upload the image - it's not his to relicense. JPD (talk) 11:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I assumed that his statement of "my image" meant he had created it. --Clubjuggle 11:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Why I bother to improve wikipedia I don't know. Timeshift 11:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyright law is what it is. While it may be convenient to blame Wikipedia for that, doing so doesn't really accomplish anything. --Clubjuggle 12:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No, let's be fair here. The issue is Wikipedia, not copyright law. If Wikipedia were simply an not-for-profit encyclopedia, then non-commercial licenses would be fine. However, Wikipedia chooses to be a free content encyclopedia, which allows reuse, even commercial reuse. This is a policy decision, not a legal requirement. There is no law to stop such a wiki encyclopedia with slightly different aims and a more restrictive license existing, but what would improve it is not necessarily the same thing that improves Wikipedia. JPD (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's be even fairer, because I'm feeling cranky today. The issue is users who try to contribute to a project without understanding its purpose, and then blame the project when its purpose isn't what they thought, based on no real information because they didn't bother to find out. It's not as if it's a great big secret or anything; it says "the free encyclopedia" right there. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It may be true, but the meaning of free content is not clear or obvious to new users, and it's not a very easy concept to get. Nor is the idea of commercial versus noncommercial use of information, downstream rights, etc. One of the jobs around here is to work with new editors and guide them on how to become productive contributors. If anyone gets annoyed and cranky at the prospect of explaining it to new users, maybe it's best to avoid the subject for a little and leave it to someone who isn't so fed up just yet.Wikidemo 01:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

PS to Csernica - I'm not being dismissive. If you're feeling cranky, go with it and hope you get cheerier tomorrow. Keep up the good work. Wikidemo 01:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Image permission issues now resolved... although it's enough to put anyone off wikipedia. Timeshift 03:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikidemo, new users aren't the issue here. Timeshift9 is a well established and very productive user. The problem is that instead of understanding how the policy fits with the aims of Wikipedia, he reacts to any image issues by calling people "image nazis". People saying that it's just about copyright law, rather than the promotion of free content as an aim of Wikipedia, are probably what caused that reaction in the first place. It also doesn't help that when he started contributing, the image policy wasn't spelt out and acted on quite so well. JPD (talk) 08:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

What else do I need?

I believe I have already put in a copyright notice and release. What else needs to be done, and how?? image:BESLogo.jpg DavidPickett 18:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

We to know where exactly the image came from, preferably a source where the license is visible. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Image help

How do you put in a fair rasinal and what is it? Boxy 505 22:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

See WP:FURG TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Promotional photos?

Somewhere, I read that promotional photos are fair use. As in, a promotional photo of a band or of an author? I have access to both, but I don't know how to upload them so they won't get yanked. Someone help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrissypan (talk • contribs) 23:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Most (nearly all, but not quite all) promotional photos are copyrighted and released for wide use under license terms that just aren't good enough for Wikipedia because they would prohibit commercial use, modification, etc., things that we may want to do or allow people to copy them from Wikipedia to do. Therefore, those photos usually are evaluated under our "non-free content" policy (see WP:NONFREE and WP:FURG) rather than the license terms. Although it's related to fair use, Wikipedia has much more stringent criteria than the law requires, for a number of reasons explained on those pages. So first read through them and make sure the images are okay to use. Most promotional photos of living people are not. If they are okay, there are some pointers to how to upload them and add the necessary sourcing and "use rationale" information. Hope that helps. Wikidemo 01:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Picture Usage

I am curious if it is possible to use sports images from the AP. If it requires special rights what are they? Unfortunately I am new to the image usage and need to learn much. --Jumpingfrenchman 06:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

AP photos are copyright to the AP, as must be treated the same as any other copyrighted image. See our policy on non-free media. TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Tolwyn04.png

This is one of my watched pages and I did not add the article, but I have tried to add a fair use rationale here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tolwyn04.png

Is this now sufficient? Douglasnicol 19:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

BetacommandBot

BetacommandBot has just tagged a bunch of Peruvian coins pictures and notified their possible deletion at Talk:Peruvian nuevo sol. I'm not sure why this has happened as all of them already use the {{Non-free use rationale}} template and it seems to me it has been properly filled out in every case. What's missing? --Victor12 23:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read the reason that is on the image, the images fail WP:NFCC#10c β^_command 23:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I only spot checked one image, Image:Coin Peru 10 Centimos.jpg, but that one has a use rationale from the "Non-free media rationale" template, added long before the bot tagged it. It also mentions the source and the article it's used on so everything checks out on the info requirements (no opinion on their validity). Am I missing something or is there perhaps some kind of error? Wikidemo 00:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I just took a look at the image that wikidemo pulled up, the article name was in correct please see [11] I corrected it. β^_command 00:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Others are also incorrect, e.g., [12]. Am I correct in thinking that we must identify each specific article, not merely refer to a category of articles? So referring to "article(s) on nuevo sol" would be insufficient, right? -- But|seriously|folks 00:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Just fixed them all. It took me like 4 minutes. No big deal. -- But|seriously|folks 01:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Correct you need to meet WP:NFCC#10c β^_command 00:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, mystery solved (apparently). Is the bot checking to make sure that when an image is used in an article the article name appears somewhere in the rationale? That makes sense. Does it handle redirects? Wikidemo 01:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It does not check for redirects. β^_command 01:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that could be an issue, and something solvable? If someone writes a use rationale for an article then someone moves the article, the use rationale will now apply to the redirect. Wikidemo 01:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I'll check on the rest of them. --Victor12 01:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Caribbean_union_teachers.png

This image already has two fair use rationals (saying essentially the same thing) and I don't understand what is wrong with the current rational. I've read and r-read the policy and as far as I can see it has been complied with. Can you explain what the problem is? Thanks - Dave Smith 01:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Same as the one immediately above -- neither UR identified the article for which it was intended. I fixed it though. -- But|seriously|folks 01:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Legion-s2.jpg

I added what I think is appropriate rationale to this image Image:Legion-s2.jpg that Betacommandbot tagged, from a promotional image for a TV series. Can someone verify that it's good enough? Do I need to duplicate the whole rationale if I use it on a page for the series and another page for a list of episodes from the series?

You shouldn't have to duplicate the rationale for each use, just be clear about what articles you're applying the rationale to. Some people like to see a separate rationale for each use, but that's really only meaningful when the contexts are greatly different. (On the other hand, I can't see what other articles this would be valid fair use in.) The only changes I suggest are to change "Portion used" to "All", and "Low resolution?" to "Yes", as it's obviously not of publication quality. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you look at my User_Talk page, you'll see a number of other pictures that were similarly tagged and deleted (though I never tried to update the rationale). These pictures were provided by Warner Bros. Animation's publicity department. Is the first rationale good enough to copy to these other images? Are the images gone for good (do I have to re-upload them)? -- Wizardimps 04:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Once they're deleted, they're deleted and you have to re-upload them. The rationale you gave above should work -- but be careful about using too much nonfree media in one article. We can't really justify scattering fair-use images all over an article even if they're the only source for the characters' appearance. I note, however, that the images were deleted because they were orphaned. We can't host fair-use images that aren't actually used in articles, since valid fair use depends on the context in which it appears. An image all by itself can't be fair use. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the reason they were orphaned was because the article had been changed to remove references to the images. It used to look something like this [13], where an image was used to represent a scene from an episode of the series. Since each episode doesn't have its own page, this is the only place the episode's image is used. It looks like the bots missed one of the episode images, so you can get an idea what it used to look like. -- Wizardimps 22:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a kind of borderline case for fair use. The legal requirements include use of the copyrighted material in review or criticism for illustration or comment, and it's not clear that a what amounts to an episode guide rises to that. Even if it did, there's also Wikipedia's policy to consider. Since the project's purpose is to create a free content encyclopedia, the policy is designed to discourage addition of non-free media unless absolutely necessary. The question you usually have to ask yourself is whether or not a particular image adds information to the article that cannot be conveyed by words alone. While I agree that the page certainly looks better and more engaging with the images there, it is improbable that they add any real information you don't get from the plot summaries. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

What is fair use??

I scanned this out of a historical work and then photoshopped it to be a little clearer. The original document is credited as a Chinese magazine. There are no online images of this photo.

can it be kept?

Please link to images when asking questions as mentioned at the top of the page.

The answer is, it depends. How old is the original photograph? The date of the magazine it was taken from should have been given. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Further backchecking of source reveals the Chinese magazine to actually be the 4 volume collected literary work of Qu Qiubai, published in 1954. Qu Qiubai is dead but I lifted his image from a current historical document - not too sure which takes precedent Apotofgold 12:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well. Had I taken the trouble to look at the article, I'd have seen it was an official photo taken in China in 1935. That means its not fair use at all, but public domain. (Photography, and works by corporate entities, are protected from 50 years after public release in both the ROC and PRC.) So tag it {{PD-China}}. TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Double check my fair use rationale

On this image Image:PMACSCrest.gif, the fair use rationale was disputed because there wasn't one. I added the template and just wondered if someone could double check that its correct so that the image is not deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exodus87 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It needed a tweak or two. It helps a lot that the article actually talks about the logo. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hockey image

Hi..Is it ok if i use this image[14] on my article.. How can i find out what the license is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayaramkv (talk • contribs) 08:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Which image? -- Guroadrunner 16:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

All the images on that page are copyright to the website. Assuming you mean one of the team logos, we can only use it under the non-free policy tagged {{non-free logo}} with appropriate rationale. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Flickr

Hi! I recently uploaded Image:Ipodtouch1.jpg. I'm not sure what license to tag it with. I've seen Flickr images used on the Wikipedia, I just don't know what tag it needs. Could someone help me with this?

Destin 13:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you please provide a link to the image on Flickr? The license on Wikipedia depends on the license on Flickr. Of the seven or eight choices you have for licensing on Flickr, only two allow the image to be uploaded to Wikipedia.↔NMajdan•talk 13:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The only image I can see that you have uploaded is Image:1375444600 fb279416ae.jpg. Ugh. Please make sure you rename them to something descriptive. That image came from here.

You always have to say where an image came from in its description. Please, never upload an image, especially one that belongs to someone else, without doing that.

Unless you're the Flickr user iLounge, you can't upload this photo. It says "All rights reserved." That means that all rights are reserved by the photographer and we don't have permission to use it here. It's therefore a copyright violation and will have to be deleted.

Flickr images that we can use allow derivative works and commercial use. See [15]. We can use Flickr images marked with the first and last licenses on that page, not the others, and certainly not "All rights reserved". TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Picture copyright status

If I buy a poster of a President or celebrity, can I upload that picture? Under what license? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk • contribs) 17:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If the photo was taken before 1923, or is a photo of a President taken by a government official in the course of his duties, then it's public domain and you can tag it {{PD-US}}. Otherwise it's probably still covered under copyright. If the subject is dead, we might be able to use it under the non-free media policy. You'd tag it {{non-free fair use in|articlename}} and provide a rationale. If the subject is alive we can only use the photo under extraordinary circumstances, which in either case here probably doesn't apply. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

What about a picture of Ayatollah Sistani distributed at the mosque? Muhammad Mahdi Karim 07:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This is likely one of those extraordinary circumstances. I don't think we can reasonably expect a free image to be made of him considering the present situation in Iraq, so I think in this case we can use it as non-free media. When you write the fair use rationale, be sure to note that his inaccessibility and residence in an unstable region render the making of a free image impossible.

The fact that the picture was distributed for free doesn't change its copyright status, unless that's specifically disclaimed somewhere on it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

RSV Title Page

I was going to assign a copyright tag to the RSV title page image, but I couldn't find one that said, "Page from a book" or anything like that. What would I use, and how can I change the template without the image being deleted? --JoBrLa 04:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The tag would be {{non-free fair use in}}, which is sort of a catch-all. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You should not neglect to add a rationale. A template by itself won't suffice.

But in this case, don't bother. The image is watermarked, and we don't use watermarked images, so it will have to be deleted anyway. It's also not as described: this is clearly not the title page from the first edition. Even if it was, it would be of questionable validity in the article.

Why on earth did you feel the need to use a miserably bad scan from an eBay seller in the first place? The RSV isn't exactly rare: make a decent scan yourself! TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:SwanseaCollegeLogo2.png

I don't get it. The image was been tagged under WP:NFCC#10. I think I've done everything correctly (I just added a statement that the copyright holder is Swansea College. Well, duh!) but can anyone explain if I've missed something please?

Ewen 05:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing really wrong with it that I can see; it's essentially the same rationale that applies to any logo from any school. The thing is that the warning tag was placed by a bot, which can be pretty stupid about recognizing rationale. It might help if you used {{non-free use rationale}}. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. Done that, thanks. Was the bot programmed by Gorseinon College? It seems to have left their logo alone... 8-)

Ewen 06:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No, and it even has its own user page. It's not really safe to judge what's valid based on what a bot might or might not have gotten to yet. That other logo is plainly not sufficiently tagged. It's day will come. (Unless you want to tag it yourself.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

When the logo was tagged, the UR didn't identify the article to which it applied. -- But|seriously|folks 07:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you please not use that abbreviation on this page? I've been contributing here for a long time, but I still had to stop and think hard about what "UR" meant before I figured it out. Someone here to ask a question won't understand it at all. I know that comment was directed to me, but I think the content here should be understandable to anyone who might come across it looking for information. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I have, by the way, known bots to make mistakes before. They've improved a lot, but it used to be that any odd-looking tagging was likely a bot problem. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I posted a lot of images

on wikipedia, ones that I have taken, old stuff that was copyright free, some items from the carpcives, and a bunch of record covers. The latter are now being systematically questioned and removed and my question is, are the record companies or copyright image holders complaining about our (wikipedia) using them or is this just more bureaucratic paper shuffling from folks who have nothing better to do? The latest image in question is Image:MeekRecord3.jpg about which there is an interesting (of course, interesting is just an opinion, and perish the thought that we'd put stuff in wikipedia just because it is interesting, but I suspect that many would find the story encyclopedic too) story told, which, in order to get it right, I had to order the book in question from another country, etc. The last time that I got into a discussion with you folks it turned out that the issue was not so much a copyright one but that the editors removing the images felt that there were too many in the article (The Shadows) and we now have an article that is, (opinion) just the dreaded WALL OF TEXT. So, my question is, are any record companies complaining about the posting of their covers and record labels on wikipedia or is all this just an exercise is muscle flexing? Or, perhaps, something else? Carptrash 15:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Neither. You have not understood the problem. This isn't about record companies or pointless bureaucratic nonsense, but about the purpose of this project, and that these images don't contribute to it. We're not just about writing an encyclopedia you don't have to pay for; we're about writing one that's free as in free speech. If we use a big pile of media that belong to someone else, over which they have reserved rights, we don't help that goal along.

It's not that there were too many images in The Shadows because someone thought there should be fewer in the article on general principle; it was that there were too many non-free images in the article, and that detracts from what Wikipedia is supposed to be. There's no set rule about how many is too many, so it's one of those things were a consensus arises we sometimes don't agree with. (Although at least in some cases it was because the image lacked non-free media rationale or had rationale that was invalid.)

That's probably the case with Image:MeekRecord3.jpg as well. It's non-free. Should we use it? It might make the article look better, but the question is does it really add any information to the article that isn't in (and can't be in) the text? (With a free image we don't even have to ask the question: if you want the image, use the image.) Now, this may well be the case if the story you want to add has something to do with this particular label (not the recording, or the group that made the record, but the thing you've scanned: the label of the record), and it won't be properly understood unless the label can be shown. If that's the case, then add the story and make sure you put the image right next to it so it's clear it's being used for the right reason; purpose. Then in the rationale on the image page under "Purpose" explain that the label is the subject of commentary.

But if the story isn't about the label -- if, for example, it's about something that happened in a session while the song was being recorded -- then it would be harder to justify and will probably have to go. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's also rather hi res for a low res image. -- But|seriously|folks 07:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

But that's fixable, and will be moot if we can't use the image at all. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me about this issue. The story about Joe Meek and Boby Graham really is furthered by the image of the label - I'll try and get it written up before the image gets removed. As far as the Shadows article goes, my opinion is that it was a better wikipedia article with the images. But I can always just pull the records out and look at them when I need/want to. Thanks again for your time and energy. Carptrash 14:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

But thinking more about it I'm inclined to do the Miesian thing and go with Less is More and let things fall where they may. Someone else can do the Meek/Graham story if they wish. Carptrash 17:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The better approach is to write up the relevant text before uploading the image. Then this kind of issue won't even come up. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Question on a 1965 record album cover

I've a question on the deletion of the Image:Bond Thrillers.jpgfrom 'The James Bond Theme' article in Wik. I have scanned this from a 1965 record that I own. My reasons for believing it is no longer copyrighted, are 1)pre 1978, 1965 actually 2)the record company is no longer in business 3)there are no stills from any film or any actors appearing in the picture; the characters in the picture are models. 4) the image is not of the performer (though the orchestra leader is now deceased) 5)That same image of the male model with a gun on the London album cover was also reused on a Cheltenham Orchestra (Wyncote Records) cover of Bond themes, so as Wyncote was an American firm I don't think there would be any copyright as they weren't sued I believe the image is attractive and well suits the theme of 'covers' and is suitably generic.

Otherwise do you know how I could trace the copyright on a record cover that doesn't feature performing artists from a record company that is now defunct (through conglomerations and take overs)?

Thanks for your help and courtesyFoofbun 08:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It sounds copyrighted to me, unless it somehow slipped into the public domain. Things don't go into the public domain just because the original or subsequent owner dies, goes out of business, etc. Someone might have purchased or inherited the assets. If not it sort of goes into limbo. The copyright exists but nobody knows who owns it. That image has to come in as a "non-free use" and the non-free album cover tag is appropriate. For "source" say you scanned it off an album cover and describe as much as you can (but succinctly, please) about the record label name and what happened. Wherever the record company got those images from, it presumably had all the rights it needed for its album covers, so you can correctly say that as of the album's printing date the record company was the holder of the copyright. Don't worry about who the model is...whether it's Sean Connery or some model, either way the record company needs a model release and the rights to the photos (which is probably why they went the cheap way and used a model). Hope that helps. Wikidemo 09:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Wikidemo! I learn something new every day. I'll try what you say. So, a question if no one knows the copyright we assume that their is one even though we can't find out who has it? ThanksFoofbun 23:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

For anything made after 1923 we need to assume its copyrighted unless there is positive information otherwise. Which sucks, but there you are. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Jose Orengo article

Hi guys, I created this article about a Puma (Argentine Rugby) player. He was in the Rugby World Cup in 2003 as part of Argentina's squad. I need some help to categorize the article in Argentina's rugby squad for 1999 and 2003 World Cup. I've also added an image of this player. I got it from the official Pumas webpage, asking for authorization to proceed this way. However, I wasn't informed of who actually took the pic. I've requested for the pic to stay under a fair-use claim. It has stayed on Wiki but gone orphan. Could anybody assist me in attaching it to the main article? I believe it is important that it be published since it also depicts the Pumas T-shirt. Most Puma articles are without an image of the player in action. Thanks a lot! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonelrosario (talk • contribs) 23:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

We can almost never use fair use images of living persons, according to the non-free media policy. And as far as permission from the copyright owners go, they must release it under a free license, so be sure you ask specifically for one of those. Permission for Wikipedia only or with restrictions on commercial use isn't sufficient. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe an image used the wrong copyright tag

This image Image:Agrobacteriumgall.jpg has the US government PD copyright tag, but I believe it is incorrect, and should instead be the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution tag. Is this correct?

Is the image still usable that way? What other changes should be added to give proper attribution?

Additionally, the page Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags has

Creative Commons Attribution - {{cc-by-2.5|Attribution details}} - Similar to the above, but does not require that derivative works use the same license.

but doesn't seem to have the 3.0 needed. --MatthewBChambers 03:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone got confused because of the association with the USDA. The correct license tag is around; it just wasn't listed. {{Cc-by-3.0}}. I fix. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Why was my image tagged?

Hi. I recently uploaded Image:NAA logo.jpg with a fair use rationale following Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. However a bot tagged my image, claiming that it was not valid. This is the version of the rationale before the image was tagged. Could someone please explain the reason for my image being tagged with invalid fair use rationale for future reference. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷ talk 09:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you mis-identified the name of the article it was used in - your use rationale said "Narita Airport" and the actual article name is "Narita International Airport." The bot couldn't match the article with the use rationale so it left a tag. I see that User:Alex Sims has already fixed the image now.Wikidemo 10:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Sorry, I didn't notice. Thanks for the reply. Tbo ¹⁵⁷ talk 10:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

how r u —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.53.165.139 (talk) 10:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

mobile numbers

is the mobile number which is being used by many a frequency number ?

I'm from Chennai,Tamil Nadu,India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aarvindha (talk • contribs) 11:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it fair use to trace a bitmap?

If I start with a copyrighted image, and then use edge detection (i.e. the Inkscape function: Path > Trace Bitmap) is the result still copyrighted? (Does it matter if the resulting image quality is significantly reduced?)

thanks, --Mikiemike 14:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The traced image will be a derivative work of the original, and so will still be copyrighted. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I need assistance with two photos I uploaded

I have two photos given to me (and thus to the community) with no restrictions whatsoever by a friend. They are both photos used in the Eureka Inn article. This is the first time I have done a photo upload and cannot determine which copyright tag will satisfy the Wiki commons Bots. I added a copyright tag and apparently it is insufficient. I am hoping someone can look at the photos and leave a solution on my talk page. Thank you. --Norcalal 15:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You immediate problem was that you'd added {{subst:GFDL-self}} instead of {{GFDL-self}}, and the bot wasn't recognizing the substed form as a valid copyright tag. I've fixed that problem for you.

However, since you're not actually the author of these pictures, you should now follow the instructions at uploading a file from someone else under "If the copyright holder agrees to release the image". You've already complied with point 2 there, but you still should:

Give the name of the person who took the pictures, unless they specifically wish to remain anonymous.
Pick a more appropriate tag: {{GFDL-self}} is meant for pictures that you've taken yourself and wish to release under the GFDL. Since the pictures have been taken by someone else, and since your note seems to imply that they want them released without any restrictions, a more appropriate tag might be {{PD-author|Name of author}}.
- Note: Please confirm the license choice with the photographer, and make sure they're aware that, unlike most free licenses, a public domain release does not explicitly require them to be attributed as the author; if this is important, go with something like {{Attribution|Author}} or {{cc-by-3.0|Author}} instead.
Have the photographer send you a formal e-mail where they confirm that they allow the images to be irrevocably released under the specific terms (GFDL / PD / etc.) you've tagged them with, and forward it to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org.

These aren't just meaningless hoops to jump through: their purpose is to provide at least some assurance that the person who took the pictures knows what they're doing, knows what you're doing, and is OK with it, as well as giving the Wikimedia Foundation at least some hope of being able to contact them if the copyright to the images should ever be disputed. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

submitting an article

How do I go about submitting information (not an image) on the artist, Hugh Cabot III? Thank you, Booklady246 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Booklady246 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Click on his name here (the blue link) and start writing. Carptrash 00:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC) Ps sign your name with 4 of these ~

Just -- if you're thinking of cutting and pasting something, please don't. You can use it as a source, but please write in your own words. I don't know this is what you have in mind, but this page is for copyright questions, not general Wikipedia information, so I thought I'd cover the possibility. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Question About Movie's DVD Cover Copyright

Over the summer, I uploaded an image for the first time Image:WhenDoWeEatMoviePoster.jpg and I am now being told it doesn't meet the fair use guidelines. How do I do the rationale statement or is there a specific place I would need to find the image to make it fair use. I've seen other movie posters and DVD covers so I know there has to be a way. Thank you. Iroc24 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that each use of fair use media needs a specific rationale -- not just the fair use tag -- showing how that use conforms to the non-free media policy. See the helpful guidelines for writing a rationale. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

License options for my simple alteration of a public-domain work by someone else?

Hello.

I just made and uploaded http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Puzzle_jug_altered.png ("Picture 2"). It's based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Puzzle_jug.JPG ("Picture 1"). Picture 1 was already in the public domain. The only changes I made were removal of the background and some brightening. What are my licensing options, if any, besides releasing it completely to the public domain?

Thanks to anyone who answers. I normally would investigate this myself, but haven't much time.

President Lethe 02:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

PS. If you do respond, please, leave a note at my talk page, or email me, to let me know your response is here. I'm unlikely to spend time checking my watchlist to find a response here. Thanks! President Lethe 02:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Responded on talk page. - cohesion 03:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I uploaded a photo of a public art mural that I took myself, need copyright tag help

I uploaded a photo of a public art mural Image:Knox Martin Venus Mural.JPG that I took myself, put free licence, need copyright tag help-- Wizardman took the imge off the page because I didn't put copyright tag.... Help? Please tell me how to do that.... thanks Hanska99 18:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem is that while it may be your photo, the subject of the photo is a recent work of art which is therefore protected by copyright. It might qualify under the non-free content policy, but it's not a free image. -- But|seriously|folks 18:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not a recent work of art, 1970, and it is PUBLIC ART. I looked at other public art on wikipedia, the copyright is given to the person who took the photo---anyone can take a photo of public art. Can someone who knows please advise?Hanska99

1970 is recent compared to art from the 16th Century, and compared to the relevant date for copyright protection, which is 1923. -- But|seriously|folks 15:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I now understand what "recent" means. However, I have looked at public art on wikipedia, which this mural is, and the photos are licensed by the photo takers. So please give me an answer as to how to list the photo of this public art mural appropriately and I will be happy to do so. Thank you!--Hanska99 23:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The copyright status of publicly visible murals, and photographs thereof, may depend on local jurisdictions, since not all countries have the same freedom of panorama. In particular, since this mural seems to be located in the U.S., I'm afraid that photographs of it are subject to copyright by its creator. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Government of Canada Images

Can an image produced by an agency of the Government of Canada be uploaded? I wanted to upload this image [16]. There's an option to choose for US Government Images but there is none for a Canadian Government Image Gsingh 16:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That's because US government work is PD by law, but Canada's is not. It can only be used as non-free media. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks, i'll add free use rationale on the image pageGsingh 07:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Family History Photo For Bio

Although I am an absolute newbie to Wiki, I thought I had read and understood everything about uploading an image--and thought that I had complied, but after receiving a notification that there was "no tag" (which I thought I had selected from a drop down menu), I guess I will go ahead and ask a question about what tag to use--as read all the copyright tags, and couldn't figure out which one would apply.

Basicaly, the individual who I am writing the bio for has given me permission to use the image.

The image is: Image:Dewey-woodruff-generations.png

I would appreciate some help.

Thanks.

Smithgiant 06:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This image is a collage so you will actually need to state the license and source for every component image, as well as the combined license if the component licenses are amenable to re-licensure. This is a fairly complex task for someone new to Wikipedia's image policies. We will be glad to help though. What is the source of the images? Are there any images that you don't know where they came from or who has copyright for them? The page on basic copyright issues is a good place to start. If you have any specific questions feel free to ask them here as well! :) - cohesion 23:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Family History Photo For Bio

Geez, I give up...the instruction at the top of the page says to use the specific link to the image that I have a question on...and I did, and sure enough, the image showed up!?!? Smithgiant 06:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Note the colon before the word image. That colon is what makes it a link instead of an inline image. --Clubjuggle 15:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Image question

I took the picture of Jimmy Fallon and myself that I am trying to upload...why is it being deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unleash a Jaguar (talk • contribs) 20:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Jimmy Fallon with a Fan.JPG is marked for immediate deletion because it is a duplicate of Image:Jimmy Fallon in 2006.JPG. The second image is also marked for eventual deletion because you have not selected a license. For information about how to add a copyright tag please see the top of this page in the section labeled "How to add a copyright tag to an existing image". - cohesion 23:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

PMW image

i'm not sure on copyright regarding this image.

PMW are a group who watches and translates arabic (mostly palestinain) media information. recently they "captured" cartoons celebrating the 9/11 attack. i'd be interested in posting the first one on the Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks article, but i'm not sure on the copyright issue. could use some advice. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

These are copyrighted, but they seem (or, one of them seems-probably can't have them all) like a pretty good case for fair use to me. Check out wikipedia's nonfree content policies here. You'll have to tag the images {{non-free fair use in}}, and then be sure to add a non-free use rationale to the image page. Calliopejen1 22:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

How to delete a pdf

Jbwrbailey 02:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)How does one delte a .pdf file they have uploaded? I have loaded a copy righted version, but don't know how to delete the old one. Someone (John Vandenberg) helped me by deleting one bad pdf.

Only administrators can delete files, but if you want an admin to delete a file you've just uploaded, tag it with {{db-author}}. It doesn't look like you've uploaded any PDfs though, judging from your contributions log. Calliopejen1 23:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Photographs of musicians

I have this photograph of a musician performing, taken by myself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kelly-clarkson-live-in-geelong.JPG

Another user has posted that it cannot be used on the page of the artist in question, due to:

"legally used on here without permission, even if you took it yourself, it's not a fair use image, it would require permission from artist, label, and management"

Correct or not? I don't see anything in the various copyright pages at all. Personality rights seems to be the only relevent item, but does not seem to prohibit use of a photo such as the one above. Wongm 05:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the photo, as long as you took the photo yourself, and have never agreed to give your copyright to it (e.g you didn't agree to something to get into the concert with a camera). Re-users will see {{Personality rights}} can make their own legal determinations about re-use. Wikipedia is a "free" project, in terms of copyright, not in other terms. --Rob 10:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Tagged picture? What didn't I tag that *%&^ thing?

OK, User:BetacommandBot tagged Image:Zen motorcycle.jpg for speedy deletion. I thought I tagged it correctly. How can I either fix an incorrect tagging or prove to the bot that it is tagged correctly? (P.S. I'm not angry, I just wanted the title to look that way.) —Scouter Sig 14:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem was you didn't include the title of the article you were using it in. I've fixed it for you now. PS. I think you have every reason to be angry, because I disapprove of Betacommandbot's tagging for deletion of many images that are clearly within wikipedia's fair use guidelines, but I am happy that you aren't. Calliopejen1 16:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not within the guidelines to omit a specific rationale justifying a non-free image's use. It doesn't matter how wordy the rationale is, if you don't say which article it's supposed to apply to it's incomplete. If the only way to get people to fix them is to tag them for deletion, then that's what's going to happen. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Getting the Photo to show

What more needs to be done to get the photo to show on the page? I added a copyright, and the source info as I believe is outlined, but the photo does not show up. I only chose one of the two uploaded photos for copyright and sourcing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tflradio (talk • contribs) 14:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your uploads. First, the source information still is unclear for these photos. Did you take the pictures yourself or did you find them on the internet? (And if so, where?) Calliopejen1 16:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Kuching Wetlands photos

All the pics I uploaded of Kuching Wetlands I took and can be used freely. (Not that they would want to!)

file names like 'kuching wetlands beach habitat', 'wetlands from santubong'

If you Can create a template on the 'Kuching wetlands' page I can fill in details.

Thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beavittw (talk • contribs) 15:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed your gallery on the image page--I think the problem is you were just using the wrong image names. (Also be careful, because the names are case sensitive: *.jpg isn't the same as *.JPG.) However, Image:Mangroves habitat.JPG still needs a copyright tag. If you would like to release it under the same free license as your other image, paste {{GFDL-self}} on the image page. (If you want to release it under a different license, you can choose from the tags at WP:ICT#For image creators.) Thanks for your contributions! Calliopejen1 18:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Derek Acorah

Can you put this picture on the Derek Acorah page please. [17]

It is not copyright as shown here: [18] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edd Swain (talk • contribs) 17:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the label "Downloadable Media" is not free enough by Wikipedia standards, because there is no explicit permission for modification and for commercial use. Therefore, the file cannot be uploaded as it is. If you would like to request permission from the copyright owner for the photograph to be released under a free license, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Calliopejen1 18:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

restoration of image for article, "Olga Maynard"

An earlier uploaded image for the article "Olga Maynard" was removed by the editors for violation of protocol. I would appreciate your instruction on the proper way to tag it, thus to restore it. Following are the specifics.

1. It is my digital picture of an original photographic print of the subject, which is in my possession. 2. This image was printed on the dust jacket of one of the subject's books, ca 1959. 3. My version is superior (clearer etc.) than that image print. 4. The professional photo firm that took the picture no longer exists. 5. The book is now out of print (Macrae Smith). 6. The subject is no longer living. 7. I have permission from the subject's estate to use the image.

Thank you. Alethe 20:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Alethe

I think I have it fixed. Take a look at Image:Olga@30.jpg and feel free to modify it as necessary. -- But|seriously|folks 20:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

What permission do you have from the subject's estate? It cannot be for Wikipedia only, or with restrictions on commercial use. If you're in contact with them, ask if they are willing to release it under one of the licenses listed here, and then follow the instructions at WP:COPYREQ once permission is granted to inform Wikipedia of it so the image isn't removed again. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

i dont get it at all

i dont get pi at all how to set it up or anything i need the simpliest explaination cause i dont get it at all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.3.200 (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

To upload images to Wikipedia, you must be a registered user. Go here to register, and if you have any more questions come back and post them here. Calliopejen1 23:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

So you can't take images of of a website like " Google Images " and put them on wikipedia?--70.106.39.156 00:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No. For one thing, Google Image is a search engine that looks for images, just as the usual Google search engine looks for information in text form. Google doesn't host them. Second, unless the image is licensed by its copyright owner for anyone to use, even if the image is from an image repository like Flickr, it's infringement to steal it and upload it here. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Crown Copyright Images

Hi all!

I've just noticed a user (Signsolid) has been uploading images to wikipedia that have been copied directly from the www.raf.mod.uk galleries and has been tagging them as "self" (i.e. He took them). Regardless of whether this is true or not, I know for a fact all images on any MoD controlled website fall under Crown Copyright rules, and are as such unless titled otherwise. The site itself quotes;

The material featured on this site is subject to Crown copyright unless otherwise stated. All material may be downloaded to file or printer for the purposes of non-commercial research or private study. Any other proposed use of the material may be subject to a copyright licence. Licences are issued in accordance with the Re-Use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2005.

Does this user then have any right to do what he/she is doing? Regards LookingYourBest 13:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

As an example:

This: http://www.raf.mod.uk/gallery/chinookgallery.cfm?viewmedia=5 and this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Buzzard-End5.jpg LookingYourBest 13:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No. These images are mistagged. We can only use them as fair use or fair dealing, but since it should not be impossible to take a picture of something like a Chinook helicopter and release it under a free license, this example (at least) cannot be used under the non-free media policy. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:3 soleils de Vinéa.jpg

Hi, I uploaded this picture to put on this book's article. It's obvious for me that the image is being used under fair use because it's the cover of the book. What else should I do? Thanks. Frédérick Lacasse (talk · contribs) 14:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You need a "use rationale" - you can read about that at WP:NFCC or WP:FURG. For inspiration you might look for other images of graphic novel, anime, etc. covers and see what kind of rationale they wrote. Once you've done that you can remove the deletion warning tag. Wikidemo 19:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Lela Tsurtsumia photos

Hello

I received your message. When I uploaded Lela Tsurtsumia photos, on each photo I mentioned the source information. These photos are taken from Lela's official Myspace. On MySpace Lela's photos are free to be viewed by everyone. these photos are captured by me, I'm the webmaster of Lela's official MySpace. [19] --Snowhere 18:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Even assuming that being her MySpace webmaster gives you the right to distribute these images as you see fit -- and it's not at all certain that it does -- the problem is that you tagged them as fair use media but did not provide a specific rationale for each use of the images. The tag indicates that the copyright holder retains all rights and that Wikipedia is using the image under a fair use doctrine and according to Wikipedia's non-free media policy. You need to either re-release them under one of the licenses suggested here or write an acceptable non-free media rationale for each.

In addition, Image:Lela Tsurtsumia live4.jpg is not used in any article at all; this is against policy since fair use depends on the context in which an image is displayed. Image:Lela Tsurtsumia live.gif has no copyright tag at all; you must add one and a rationale if you tag it as fair use. Some of the images you tagged with fair use claims are used in a gallery at LIVE - Lela Tsurtsumia, but fair use images can only be justified in a gallery under certain circumstances. It's usually invalid. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Canadian photo in the public domain

Image:Harold_Innis_public-domain_library_archives-canada.jpg I recently uploaded this Canadian photograph of Harold Innis taken in the 1920s. The photo is on the website of Library and Archives Canada, a government agency which says the photograph is in the public domain. It is from the University of Toronto Archives. Harold Innis, 1920s, photograph by H. James. Source: University of Toronto Archives/B72-0003/Box 034, file 57 © Public Domain nlc-13009

Here's what Library and Archives Canada says about "Public domain material."

Some of the material you will find on the Library and Archives Canada website is in the public domain (meaning that the copyright term of protection has expired) and may be reproduced without permission or paying royalties as long as you abide by the reproduction conditions listed above. Public domain material will be clearly indicated as such on our website.

Reproduction conditions: List item Library and Archives Canada is identified as the source; List item You exercise due diligence in ensuring the accuracy of the material reproduced; List item You do not manipulate and/or modify the material reproduced; and List item The reproduction is not represented as an official version of the material reproduced or as having been made in affiliation with, or with the endorsement of, Library and Archives Canada.

This would be an excellent photograph for the wikipedia entry on Harold Innis. How do I go about adding the proper copyright tag? Bwark 00:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea where you got the above text from. The "Copyright and Terms of Use" information at the UofT Image Bank is here: [20] and it imposes none of the "list item" conditions. It only asks they be credited according to the form listed here: [21] which we can certainly do as a courtesy even if we might believe (as is the case under US caselaw) that it is not legally required.

Incidentally, a better source for the image is [22] which provides it at higher resolution. I'll take care of re-uploading it, but in the future always upload the highest-resolution copy you can find of PD material.

The correct tag in this case is {{PD-Canada}}. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Cant his really be considered public domain, or even free at all, if one of the list items is "You do not manipulate and/or modify the material reproduced"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ybbor (talk • contribs) 01:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

These list items do not actually exist on the applicable Terms of Use page. Bwark looked at the wrong one, evidently. Follow the link I provide above for the correct terms. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Team Logos

I posted a bunch of Logos on the Slamball page which I got from the Slamball website....exactly what am I susposed to do to them to ensure that I have followed the correct procedure. I understand that I have to give some explanation of Fair Use but I don't seem to see what or where I am susposed to write it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotoenter (talk • contribs) 00:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

In addition to a copyright tag explaining the status of the image, make sure there's a completed {{Non-free use rationale}} tag on each of them. --Ybbor ^Talk 01:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not the tag that's important for the rationale, it's the rationale itself. The template (not a tag in this case) is just a convenience. See this guide to writing a good non-free media use rationale. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia Screenshots in Animation Short

Hi, I am going to use screenshots of the English Wikipedia in my school Art project, a 3D Animation short, to stand for as a theme of the story. Is there any permission needed for such usage and if yes, whom do I ask for permission? Thanks! -- Luchtigern

Wikipedia content is free, meaning anyone can use it for any purpose. However, if your screen shots include any content, you have to credit the source as Wikipedia and also credit the last 5 people who edited the content. You can read the GDFL license on that somewhere. Also, parts of the screen shot will include the Wikipedia logo (which is copyrighted), and possibly other company logos (Internet Explorer, Firefox, etc). To respect trademark law you can't use them in a way that indicates you're affiliated with them, they are the source of your art project, etc. Standard trademark law stuff. Overall you should be fine, I think. Just give credit where credit is due. Please note I'm not an expert in this and I don't speak for Wikipedia, just a user. There is actually some information about Wikipedia screen shots somewhere, I think it's in the section on image use. Hope that helps. Wikidemo 03:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

co-authoring

I co-authored an article a few years back and would like to up-load it. What should I do to make sure such an action is legal? The article was writen for a think tank based in Brussels, Belgium. [23] Jkleymeyer 04:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You'd know better than anyone else whether or not the think tank owns the copyright to the paper. I don't see a copyright notice on the PDF, but copyright ownership would be governed by whatever agreement you had with the think tank over ownership of your work on their behalf. If there was none, you and the co-author own it. In that case you own it jointly with her and you'll need her agreement to license it under the GFDL as required for Wikipedia text. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

geograph.org.uk

The website www.geograph.org.uk seems to be a good source for photos. They all seem to be available under Creative Commons Share Alike 2.0. But I am baffled by the process of getting them correctly into WP. I am mystified by all the small print, the huge number of options available, and all the pages of information which I find completely overwhelming. I was wondering if someone could provide an idiots guide to doing this? What I need is something that will walk me through the process step by step, in particular which options I need to select, and where to save the file. I did discuss this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Somerset#Photos and got a bit further, but I'm still not sure if what I did was right. Thanks! Derek Andrews 14:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The actual license is Creative Commons Atrribution-Share Alike 2.0. That imposes the additional requirement that you provide the name of the original photographer.

It turns out this is one of the simpler cases, but it might require slogging through a great deal of material to find that out. There is no obstacle to hosting images licensed cc-by-sa-2.0 on Wikipedia. The only fly in the ointment is that the dropdown menu on the upload page only lists the 3.0 versions of the Creative Commons licenses, so you have to add the tag manually. The easiest way to do that is to select the 3.0 version when you upload. As soon as that's done, click the "edit" button for the image page. You won't be editing the image itself, but the "image page", which consists of the text beneath the image. Where you see {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} change the 3 to a 2 and you're done.

On some browsers, depending on your monitor settings, the right side of the pulldown menu is cut off , and the arrow that indicates it is a pulldown menu is off-screen. Just scroll to the right and you'll see it.

If you don't select a tag from the dropdown menu when you upload, you can always add a tag manually by editing the image page as I describe above. In this case, to add the tag you type {{cc-by-sa-2.0}} in the Licensing section. At the same time you can feel free to delete any officious-sounding warning message about you not having selected a license. (It will usually look like another tag). The end result is no different than had you selected a license from the menu.

The only other thing we need is that you put the URL of the image source on the image page. This should be the exact page you got it from if possible, not the homepage of the website. You can do this on the upload form in the Summary box. This is also where you can enter the photographer's name. Image:HMP Shepton Visitors.jpg is a good example of what it should look like. In this case, the uploader has used the {{information}} template to place the information he's providing about the image in a neat looking table, but that's not a requirement.

It is a better course of action that free-license images like these be uploaded not to the English Wikipedia, but to the Commons to make them more generally available to multiple projects. You'll need an account there to do any uploading, but the mechanism is more or less the same there as here. However, if you're not comfortable doing that, just upload them any way you can manage. Images eligible for the Commons generally make it there one way or another. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

thank you! This was just what I wanted, and I have it figured out now. Derek Andrews 09:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

creating a wikipedia article

i dont know how you make articals —Preceding unsigned comment added by The smallest slytheirn (talk • contribs) 15:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This page is for questions about image copyright. In the future, visit the help desk for other help using wikipedia. In the meantime, see Wikipedia:Your first article for tips. Calliopejen1 15:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Dissolved "U.S. armed forces organisation" publication

I want to include page 40 of Germany (Territory under Allied occupation, 1945-1955 : U.S. Zone). Military Governor A year of Potsdam, the German economy since the surrender [n.p.: Lithographed by the adjutant general, OMGUS, [1945] 217 p., 1 l. incl. illus. (incl. ports.) tables, diagrs.].

to the article Industrial plans for Germany

OMGUS no longer exists, if that is indeed the organization who had copyright title to this work. Does that mean that the copyright devolves to the United States Department of Defence or some other U.S. legal entity?

My question can be shortened into,

. is this a work of the U.S. Federal Government, and thus without copyright?
. is this a work of a no longer existing legal entity, and thus no copyright issue?
. is this the work of the U.S. department of defence/U.S. armed forced and thus permissible or not permissible to use?
. Copyrighted, but applicable in the article under "fair use"?
. Some even weirder copyright animal with more complicated rules?

--Stor stark7 ^Talk 21:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This is public domain two ways. First, as a publication of the US Government -- OMGUS was under the War Department -- it's public domain by law both under current law and under the law as it stood at the time. It was also published in the US prior to 1977 without a copyright notice, which makes it PD as well. Lacking any more specific tag for that agency, {{PD-US-Military}} is the most applicable. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Great thanks, and also thanks for the speedy reply. --Stor stark7 ^Talk 22:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Mired in the fair use versus free image mud

All I am trying to do is post a screenshot of the website for the company for which I am authoring an article, but I can't find a simple way to do it. Honestly, and maybe I'm just way below or way above the language of the fair use lingo, I simply don't understand it. If I take a snapshot of a website's home page, is that a free image or not, particularly if I'm using it to describe that very business?

If it's not a free image, then can someone explain to me in simple English what my rationale for its fair use would typically be? Sorry for the ignorance, but this has been a stumbling block for me.

--Darkbass98 00:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's begin with a simple idea: if someone sat down and wrote a text, then that text is copyrighted by the one who wrote it first (theorically, that "someone"). If someone takes a picture, that picture is copyrighted by him. If someone reproduces parcially or totally a copyrighted work, he is creating what is considered a derivative work, that is, the copyright still belongs to the original copyrighter. Then, a website is copyrighted by the one who created it, and if you take a screenshot of it, the screenshot is a derivative work of the website, and therefore it is copyrighted by the website creator, and you would be using it under fair use. If you take a picture of a painting, you are creating a derivative work of the painting, therefore the artist has the copyright to your picture as well. While it is not a perfect definition, it is broad enough to cover most cases found in Wikipedia.

Note that, if the site is licensed under a free license (GFDL, in example), then a screenshot of it would be considered a free image as well.

Now, consider whether the screenshot really adds to the article: do we really need to show how the website looks like? Is the business model of the company based on its website? Or would a picture of the building where the business is situated be better to illustrate it? If you really think it adds, upload it claiming fair use, explaining why you think the image is necessary, and tagging it with the {{Non-free web screenshot}} tag. Note that "I uploaded it because it is a nice picture", "The article looks barren without screenshots", "It is necessary for the article" and similar don't really explain why the image is necessary. -- ReyBrujo 04:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you --Darkbass98 17:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Image tag

I upload few photos from fifa.com and what tag is suitable.Thank you--Soehoi 12:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, photos from fifa.com are not allowed because they are copyrighted. See Wikipedia:Copyrights for more information. Calliopejen1 21:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Achaemenid spoon.jpg

Hello, All.

Thanks to those who answered my other question here, a few days ago.

I've just happened upon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Achaemenid_spoon.jpg. Although the tag from the uploader says that (s)he created the image and shares it under a license appropriate for Wikipedia, I do wonder whether the uploader understood the meaning of 'creation'. The image gives two indications of being scanned from ink-on-paper printed media: the 'screen' effect; and the shading at the right, where the page may have curved away from the scanner glass. While it's possible that the user also created the original photo that seems to have been printed on paper and then scanned, it's also possible that it's not his/her work and may be protected by someone else's copyright.

Thanks for your help.

President Lethe 18:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you may be right. I've nominated it at possibly unfree images. Calliopejen1 21:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

RAF Syerston air display programme 1958

What copyright licence should I use for a cover image of `RAF Syerston air display programme 1958`? Image:Syerston prog.jpg Palmiped 20:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Since that was made in 1958, it is copyrighted, and could not be used unless it meets wikipedia's nonfree content rules, which are laid out in WP:NONFREE. In short, it probably is not allowed, because we already have lots of free pictures of Hawker Hunters. (See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Hunter .) The only way we could use it is if there is a reason that that specific picture is historically important and it would be detrimental to readers' understanding not to have it. Calliopejen1 21:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC). Its use would be on RAF Syerston page in relation to a Vulcan air crash at the air display in 1958. Palmiped 22:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You guys are awesome!

Good day to all the staff at Wikipedia, I just wanted to take a few minutes out of my day to let you know that I think the team at Wikipedia are doing a fabulous job. Your encyclopaedia is extremely useful to me and very interesting and easy to read and understand. Keep up the good work! Thank you for helping to make learning enjoyable again! There are millions of people who appreciate all that you do including me. THANK YOU! :)

Kind regards, Roberta Porter, BA Cert CII Cayman Islands

--208.26.95.66 21:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Traced SVG logo

Concerning Image:Arte logo.svg, I don't quite know how to tag it. I traced this in Inkscape from the low-res bitmap logo that was on the page before and which presumably came from the ARTE web site.

So, what does that make the SVG in terms of copyright? Own work, copyrighted, derivative, fair use? Fundamentally, it is still the fuzzy low-res logo, except in vectorized form... Morn 21:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The traced image is a derivative work of the original, and therefore non-free. In fact, at least under U.S. copyright law, it could be argued that you do not really have any copyright claim even to the traced version, since it's merely a slavish reproduction of the original. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hold on there! This may be a trademark, but it's otherwise PD and not a copyrighted logo. According to Copyright Office guidelines, titles, short phrases, and mere "variations of typography" are not eligible for copyright. It still should be tagged {{non-free logo}}, but it should be mentioned in the rationale that it's in fact {{PD-ineligible}} but is tagged non-free due to trademark considerations.

The solution at the Commons to this sort of thing to use a separate trademark tag that doesn't mention copyright, but I haven't heard we should use anything but {{non-free logo}} here. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If this logo is in fact ineligible for copyright, then the proper tagset should be {{PD-ineligible}} plus {{trademark}}. However, I'd be somewhat uncomfortable making that decision in this case, which seems to me likely to fall into a gray area, at least without some solid case law backing it up. In particular, that's because a company is a lot less likely to be pissed at "hey, they're using our logo in their article!" than at "hey, they're using our logo and claiming that we don't even own the copyright to it!". Even if we're right. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

HSDPP

please send me more detail information about how to add free copyright to my image ( HSDPP) ' Hybrid Solar Diesel Power Plants' i would be very grateful if you realize it thank you for your cooperation wishing you all the best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hussainaa (talk • contribs) 09:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

with regard to former question about free copyright of the imag HSDPP here i am enclose to you the link: Image:HSDPP.jpg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hussainaa (talk • contribs) 09:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If you own the copyright of the image and you have uploaded it please select a license from this list. If you have any questions please let us know. - cohesion 21:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

UAAP cheerdance championship pics from Business Mirror

I was given permission to upload it:


    

Dear Mr. Fernandez:

Sure, just credit our paper and photographer. Go right ahead and thanks
for asking. A lot of people would just copy and paste.

Ruben Cruz Jr.
Online editor

-----Original Message-----
From: {{emailremoved}}
[mailto:{{emailremoved}}] 
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 8:50 AM
To: {{emailremoved}}
Subject: UAAP cheerdance competition 9/17/2007



Inquiry Details
===========================================================

Name: Rick Fernandez

Age: 

Email_Address: {{emailremoved}}

Message_Type: Something else

Subject: UAAP cheerdance competition 9/17/2007

Message: May I have the permission to upload the image in your
 newspaper
for Wikipedia?

Note that you should contact them to ask which license they can use. We accept {{cc-by}}, {{cc-by-sa}}, {{gfdl}} or {{PD-user}}. Unless he can license the image under either license, it will be considered a fair use one (even if they grant us usage). -- ReyBrujo 20:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hong Kong District Emblems

There are 18 administrative districts in Hong Kong, each has its own district emblem (see the top of this page - [24]). I had uploaded these emblems in Commons a while ago under public domain, but then Commons admins subsequently decided that they were copyrighted and deleted them all. So my question is - can I upload them here in English WP under non-free fair use? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably, but their use on English Wikipedia will be controlled by our non-free content policy. This limits the types of pages you can use the image on, so please read through it. If you have any questions feel free to ask. Here is the list of available tags. - cohesion 21:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

King Street Station (Seattle) -- Image used to illustrate article talk page

Hey there. I'm trying to illustrate an argument I want to make on an article talk page (Talk:King Street Station (Seattle)). I have created a composite image using source material from a photograph taken circa 1913. The composite I created and want to post can be found here. The inset image was taken from the Museum of History and Industry website, and that photo's description can be found here. The remainder of the image is a photograph I took of an paper enlargement of the original photo. The use would be to demonstrate in my argument on the above talk page that the subject building originally had a tile roof. I am not aware whether this photograph was published prior to 1923. Is my composite considered an original work, a so-called derivative work or is this fair use? May I upload this composite to Wikipedia for the intended purpose? Thanks in advance. -- Ltvine | Talk 22:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a derivative work, but it may be derivative of a work in the public domain. It seems like the image was taken in 1913. Is there another image you are referring to? Simply republishing the original image does not change the copyright issues. So, for example if the original image was republished in 1980 it was still originally published in 1913 and is public domain. If I am misunderstanding something, or if there are actually 2 images taken at different times this advice is obviously not valid. - cohesion 21:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Image made by the NYPD

I'm expanding the article about the so-called Mad Bomber, George Metesky. I recognize that I probably won't be able to use any of his newspaper photos to illustrate the article (unless there's some sort of fair-use rule I can use), BUT I found a a photo of a circular produced by the NYPD to show the public what a pipe bomb of the Metesky era looks like. The photo can be viewed here (PDF). I would crop it so only the NYPD photo and not the surrounding text gets uploaded. Thanks for any other advice on illustrating this article if this is not OK. --CliffC 04:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you know what license this image is under? Do you have some reason to believe it is freely licensed? If not you will still need to have a use rationale and follow the non-free content policy. If you have any questions let us know. - cohesion 23:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Are this photographer's CC-BY attribution rules free enough?

On flickr, he says:

"My attribution rules:

1. Use of photo must include a link to my website: christopherpeterson.com 2. Use of photo must include the caption: "Photograph by Christopher Peterson" 3. Use of photo must include informing me of your use of the photo 4. Use of the photo must be placed in writing and sent to me detailing your exact use of the photo"

Does his requirement of being informed of the use of his photo violate wikipedia's nonfree rules? Also, the caption thing is a little different than our normal practice, but sometimes we do credit photographers in the caption. This photographer has quite a few very good photos of current top models, which are normally quite hard to get. 140.247.225.118 19:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are acceptable. We have some photographers who require such captions, and while it may contradict our GFDL license (after all, the license states we can change any text, but the attribution states that special text should not be modified). Just make sure you tell him that he will be credited in the image page, and in every page that is used. However, also tell him that, if the image is not being used, only the image's page will contain the credits. Remember to upload the image to Wikimedia Commons directly, not this Wikipedia. -- ReyBrujo 20:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, copy his original attribution rules in the image page so that others can also fulfill the requirements when using it. -- ReyBrujo 20:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that the terms are acceptable. I haven't seen a corresponding policy statement on en.wp, but on Commons the images would not be allowed - Commons:Licensing specifically lists "notification of the creator required" as a restriction that must not apply. --Davepape 01:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you are right, I did not know that requirement was not accepted. -- ReyBrujo 02:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I want to delet a image

I have just made a new image on Wikimedia Commons that is much better then the last image that I made here on Wikipedia.

Image:The Mansfield News Journal.jpg I would like to delet this image that I uploaded here on Wikipedia because I just uploaded a better image on Wikimedia Commons that you see beside (right) in blue wikilink. The old image has to be deleted above so that the new image can come up]]

commons:Image:The Mansfield News Journal.jpg

---OHWiki 22:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. If you want to you can always add {{db-author}} to an image with an explanation and someone will be along shortly, or this way, either one :). - cohesion 23:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Jennifer.GIF

How can I remove the template "Publicity photographs with missing fair-use rationale" for: Image:Jennifer.GIF ? A fair-use rationale has been provided for the image. Karel leermans 16:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I think I understood. Karel leermans 13:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the template, when you add a templae to a page it should "expand" meaning you shouldn't see text with {{ for example. It's usually good to check and make sure your templates expanded correctly, both to ensure that you used the syntax correctly, and that the template you added it appropriate. - cohesion 21:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Karel leermans 17:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Derivative Works?

I have modified several copyright images, and do not claim the lineart as my own. However, I'd like to know if these derivative works are allowed to be uploaded as illustrations. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nero Link (talk • contribs) 02:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No. It is copyright infringement to create derivative works based on copyrighted images. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

How to add Public Domain copyright tag to an image?

I don't get it how to add Public Domain to my image,I can't find it in any scroll-down menu,yet I see many other images on Wikipedia tagged as public domain.I'm asking specifically for the images published in the U.S. between 1926-1963 with a copyright notice which has not been renewed.Please help...

Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteTie (talk • contribs) 12:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You can use that tag only if you have positive information that the copyright was not renewed. An explanation of how you know for sure the copyright was not renewed would not be out of order.

To tag an image manually, navigate to the image page and click the "edit" link. This will edit the text that appears beneath the image, not the image itself. Type {{PD-US-not renewed}} and any other text that might be appropriate. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

the image was given to me

I was informed that the image Luga_clan_circa_1935.jpg will be deleted if no copyright will be posted. Let it be known that this photo was given to me by direct descendants of Gen. Mateo Luga. Which means then the copyright is being held by the Luga family. So, how can this copyright issue be solved then? Please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrybalais (talk • contribs) 15:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Possession of the physical photograph is not the same as a license to publish it. Have the actual owner of the copyright from the Luga family -- likely, but not definitely, the person who himself inherited it -- send an email to permissions-en at wikimedia dot org granting license to publish the photo under one of the acceptable free licenses. One of these licenses must be specified for the permission to be valid. Otherwise it can only be used as non-free media which is subject to certain restrictions.

However, depending on the circumstances it may have fallen into the public domain at this point. Where and when was the photo taken? Has it been previously published? TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

copyright tag info?

I uploaded Image:Egressioncover.jpg and I thought that I put the copyright tag information in correctly however, it still shows a note stating that it was not done right. Please advise on what is missing. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50secondst (talk • contribs) 20:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You need to tag it {{non-free album cover}} and add a non-free media use rationale. You also need to give the image source: if you scannned it directly from the CD cover, then say so. This is a copyrighted image and is not available to us under a free license. It also must be inserted into an article. It is against policy to upload a non-free image without actually using it. (Please pay particular attention to where the non-free images may be used and where they may not.)

By the way, you need to fix your edit to List of poets from the United States. You put meeK under the "A"s when she belongs under either "R" or "M". List her alphabetically under either her pen name or her real name, depending on which one you plan to use as the title of an article about her, but not both. If you want the article to be under her real name but you want to list her under her pen name, use wiki pipe syntax, like this: [[Tamika Y. Richardson|meeK]] TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

backbone

do scorpion's have a backbone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.231.11 (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrong place for this question. Try WP:RD. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Show some backbone and answer the question! ;-) -- But|seriously|folks 00:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ouch, that's gotta sting! (sad...;) - cohesion 01:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No, scorpions do not have a backbone ... but as you can see, the sense of humor of some Wikipedia editors has only a slightly venomous sting. ;-) Askari Mark (Talk) 02:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Photo of graffiti tag

I posted this question at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use... but it seems few people respond at that page. I'm interested in uploading and using the second image found here, which is an old photograph taken of a graffiti tag of the artist Phase 2 (first photo on right side of a train with graffiti). It was presumably taken in the early 1970s and has been put up on a couple of web sites which I am certain are not the copyright holder (I don't know who is). I think this would be acceptable fair use as an illustration of the technique used by this artist but don't know since I never work with images. Just wondering if I can use this and if so what rationale I should provide, thanks. Incidentally this is article is in the "Did you Know" section of the main page so adding in an image right now would be good.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've now uploaded an image (a better one than the one I linked to above) and added it into the article. The image can be found here. I do not know the copyright status so it is at risk for deletion. If someone knowledgeable about image copyright issues and fair use could help me out with this that would be much appreciated. The image nicely illustrates the artist's technique so it would be good if we could keep it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a photograph of graffiti on a subway qualifies for panorama rights as it lacks creative elements... PHASE 2 would be the copyright holder then. east.718 at 19:21, September 26, 2007

Thanks for replying East. I'd never heard of the idea of "panorama rights" but did a bit of reading on it and I'm still not sure how it applies here. Though this goes against my own personal beliefs to mention this, I think it is unlikely that PHASE 2 has a copyright claim to his piece on the train. The fact is that, under U.S. law, graffiti art on subways is illegal--it is defacement of property. Just as someone who painted a portrait on the side of another person's house without permission would have no copyright claim, I don't think aerosol artists who tag or piece on public or private property do either. I could be completely wrong about this, but this argument seems logical to me.

As such I have a feeling that if anyone is a copyright holder here it is the photographer, who was basically taking a picture of a New York City train car which had markings on it which some at the time considered art and others considered defacement of property. It is entirely possible that the person who took this photo was Henry Chalfant since he probably took more photos of NYC graffiti than anyone else, though it could also have been another photographer obviously. Chalfant published many of his photos in books, and thus presumably owns the copyright to them, which also suggests that there was not concern for the copyright rights of the graf artists (I think this is unfortunate, but probably simply true). I'm hoping others can weigh in here and we can get further clarification, because copyright issues with respect to photos of illegal art like graffiti seem to me to be a bit more complicated.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

NO, a graffiti tag is not eligible for copyright protection. According to the Copyright Office, "Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring" are ineligible for copyright, and that's pretty much all a tag is. Copyright of a photograph of a tag is therefore owned entirely by the photographer.

It's highly questionable that even graffiti vandalism that is not a tag composed of lettering is eligible for copyright. None of the rights that ordinarily inhere in copyrighted visual art attached to a building are available to graffiti artists. For example, it has never been held that building owners are required to offer the vandal an opportunity to remove the graffiti at his own expense before destroying it, as Federal copyright law mandates. In many places it's even inverted: building owners are required by law to destroy graffiti vandalism of any kind as soon as practical after it's made. I believe, absent qualified legal advice to the contrary or an example of caselaw that says local ordinances of this sort conflict with Federal copyright law, that we are justified in treating photos of graffiti vandalism of any sort as entirely the property of the photographer.

A non-free image of a tag may not be used since it should be trivially easy to create a free image of one, unless it has some historical value as discussed in the text. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed reply. It actually is not at all easy to create a free image that illustrates Phase 2's graffiti style, since basically all of his old graf art no longer exists. As such old photos are about all we have. The image in question does have historical value, as it serves as an example of the "bubble letter" style of graffiti which was invented by the subject of the article and which the article discusses. I can't think of a way to create a free image of graffiti done by Phase 2 in the bubble letter style, so would the image I uploaded then be acceptable, and if so what kind of copyright status/tag should be applied to it?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I was speaking in the general case. Of course non-free photographs may be used where no free media are available, within the constraints of the policy, but the copyright issue involves the photographer, not the tagger. This is especially true about one who was working prior to 1978 when a copyright notice was required. (This applies to published works. A publicly visible tag can be said to be published within the meaning of the law.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

help?

an image i uploaded a loooong time ago was just tagged because i hadn't added...something. the whole picture thing confuses me. I did it a long time ago before i even really had any clue about wikipedia at all. the picture is image:hunnam.jpg. it was a screenshot from a film he starred in and i cropped it and shrunk it to make it look good on the page. I've no idea what to add to the item description to make it NOT be deleted. Its hard to get pics of this guy because they're all copyrighted by photographers and such which is why i opted for a screenshot. Thought it was safe LOL thanks for the help, Princesskirsty 12:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That image can't be used here. It is from a copyrighted film, so it is not a free image. Non-free images of living people are generally prohibited here, because a free image could be created to replace them. Sorry! -- But|seriously|folks 17:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lavenderbrownopenauditions.jpg

Image:Lavenderbrownopenauditions.jpg has a fair use rationale, but it also has the metadata information, which I thought was only accessible if the image was not fair use -- i.e. if it came from your own camera which processed those details like date and time and random things like lens focal length. I would think, then, that the user uploaded this image with a FU rationale since that is a constant source of deletion of a lot of photos, thinking it was necessary for all photos, even though he/she him/herself took it. Is it true that metadata cannot be accessed from photos that were taken on a camera imported into your computer? --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 22:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Tofts using wrong copyright templates

I was looking through images uploaded by this user and he seems to be using the GNU {{GFDL-no-disclaimers}} instead of what would be acceptable. I don't think I should act like I have any authority here on the English Wikipedia and warn him about this. Can someone take care of this? --Stebbiv 00:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not? You have as much authority as anyone else around here. (Admins are not a position of authority; they're in the position of a monumental PIA.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

rename image

Image:Images1.jpg needs rename. Hard enough trying to find this page to notify, but that needs a rename. Guroadrunner 03:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Erm. This actually is not the place to ask that it be done. Post the request at the requested moves page. Any time you need an administrator's help with something, head here and you'll find where you need to ask.

But yeah, that's an awful name for an image. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it should be tagged with {{ifr}}, and anyone can take care of it. WP:RM doesn't handle image renaming. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I will add the tag. -- Guroadrunner 22:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Im actually working on a bot for image re-naming. β^_command 04:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion/rant - I have a hard time finding this location because it is not easily accessible. I created Media and copyright questions and media copyright questions as redirects and both got deleted (I understand why, but that's not the point!). There are no easy ways to get here. I wish there was a link to Media and Copyright Questions at Wikipedia:Images For Deletion. I navigate to IFD through the mainspace IFD disambiguation page, by typing "ifd" into Wikipedia search. (I also use AFD to get through to the Articles for Deletion page.) I'm not really interested in discussing this, but the navigation links to get here are not as widely available, and I am frustrated by this. Usually I use my contribution history to find the link to get in to Media and Copyright Questions. -- Guroadrunner 22:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The short cut for this page is WP:MCQ. Is that what you're looking for, or do you mean there is a more systemic problem of publicity for this page? Most of the warning templates point here, and it is linked on Wikipedia:Questions. Any suggestions would be appreciated though. In general a lot of wikipedia pages have these shortcuts, so maybe that will help you out. For example WP:AFD and WP:IFD exist, and may be faster than your current method. - cohesion 00:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

When I have WP:MCQ among my recent contributions, it's easy to find it within that list. Otherwise it is troublesome finding this place. I would say that it is known well enough but the links are not spread around enough. Sometimes the easiest way to get here is Google "Wikipedia Media Questions".

I have added a link to this page on IFD, which should make things easier for me and help solve the issue. Now I can search for "ifd" -> click WP:IFD -> click WP:MCQ link.

Incidentally, my page Media Copyright Questions was deleted because I guess mainspace pages are not to redirect to background WP: pages, but Articles for Deletion redirects to WP:AFD... so, huh??? -- Guroadrunner 04:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is not the page you were looking for anyway, so I don't see why you feel that finding it should be made any easier for the purpose you had in mind. The name of that image had nothing at all to do with copyright. This page is linked to from every image tag where it's relevant, so in those cases finding it is trivially easy.

It's pointless to add {{ifr}}, by the way. That tag is intended as instructions to the uploader, or anyone else watching the image page, that it should be renamed -- and then it gives directions that say exactly how to do it. Since it's used on all of one page, you can do it yourself without much bother. I.e. re-upload the image under a different name, point all references to the image to the new name, and tag the old one for deletion with {{db-redundantimage}}. Re-uploading will require saving it to your own machine temporarily, but for such a small image that's no problem even on a dial-up connection. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

And I'm sorry, but when it comes to ease of finding this page in general, I am not sympathetic. Finding it is trivially easy -- if copyright is what you really want to ask about. Click on "help", as most people will do when they want help with Wikipedia. You're asking about an image, so "Images and media" seems like the natural place to look for more information. What you find is a fairly short list of topics, and a link to this page is right there in the middle of it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I also don't fully understand the problem. I'm not sure if you understood, Guroadrunner, but WP:MCQ is an actual shortcut page, not only an acronym. It can be typed at the end of the url area directly, or in the search box and you will end up here immediately. Failing that, you might try bookmarks. - cohesion 03:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright unknown

I found an image that I liked for an article..sent an e-mail to the webpage in question (http://westwales.co.uk/), and got the following reply:

In a message dated 26/09/2007 12:20:56 GMT Standard Time, xxxxxxxxxx@talktalk.net writes:

I am one of millions of volunteer writers for the free encyclopedia Wikipedia. I am currently working on an article related to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiff_Arms_Park. Your photo at http://westwales.co.uk/graphics/stadium.jpg would look great in the article.

Specifically, I would like your permission to use the image at http://westwales.co.uk/graphics/stadium.jpg in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiff_Arms_Park.

Thank you for your interest - happy to support Wikipedia, but this picture is NOT our copyright; I believe it to be copyright-free.

Best wishes

John M Hughes

West and Wales Web

Not really sure what to do now??? What would you suggest?? I have already done an Advanced Google search on I R Andrews and J R Andrews (just in case) but I cannot find anything... Seth Whales 08:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Was the text quoted in the reply the entirely of your request for permission? If so, please be aware that it was virtually useless. I don't want to discourage you in any way from trying to free up media, but it needs to be done in a way that achieves the goal. The request you sent is likely to elicit a response that's either so vague we have no idea what license is being granted, or "Wikipedia only", "educational use only" or "non-commercial only" none of which we can use. We have some guidelines that tell you exactly what to ask for and what to do afterward, as well as some sample requests to help you out.

The webmaster is clearly mistaken that the image is copyright-free; there's no such thing in the UK, and not in the US either for any work created after 1977. If he doesn't know, then either he's using it illegally himself, or under some license he's only vaguely aware of. Or possibly under UK fair dealing rules. (Note that he claims the copyright owners do not give non-commercial permission for re-use [25]. Perhaps that's the permission he has, but he doesn't clearly say.) Fortunately, we have the name of the copyright owner -- I R Andrews (I think that's most likely an "I") -- and that's enough for conformance with the non-free media policy, assuming it meets the other criteria. All we have to do is identify the copyright owner; we don't have to track him down to where he lives.

But free is better. So get back to Mr Hughes and ask him for the photographer's contact information so you can ask him for a free license. He might even be willing to provide a higher-resolution version, which would be great.

Failing that, we may be able to use it as non-free media if it can be shown to meet the 10 criteria given in the policy. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Photo files and content from Indian state goverment's website

What option i should select while posting photos and contents that i obtain from Indian governments and other state government's websites? To be precise, photos and contents about the city, town, roads, bridges etc ?Saravan.manoharan 12:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That depends entirely on the copyright law of the government in question. India's Copyright Act of 1957 (IV.17.d,dd) provides that works of the Indian government are copyright to the government. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Gastroenterology

gastroenterology . iam a dnb family medicine resident doctor iam doing my thesis topic on gastroesophageal reflux disease so i want to download book on gastroenterology from where or which site book will be available and what is the procedure —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.116.87 (talk • contribs)

Any such works will either not be free, or old enough to be out of copyright and obsolete. If you want current information, won't you want papers anyway, and not a book? I suggest the research library of whatever institution you're attached to. You might start with the Wikipedia article and follow up on the sources given in the refrences, which links to a number of papers on PubMed. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter cow

Image:Harrypottercow.jpg is being considered for deletion for an inadequate fair use rationale. But as I said in the rationale, a free-to-use image of the cow is impossible, because the statue it depicts no longer exists, and it is used specifically to illustrate the image in question. Serendi^podous 07:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason the bot has tagged the rationale as incomplete is simply because it has no link to the article the image is being used in. Just add a {{Non-free use rationale}} to the page, according to the guidelines at WP:NFURG, and make sure it contains a wikilink to Parodies of Harry Potter. And don't forget to remove the dispute tag when you're done. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

coyright info

i have a photo of myself taken by a friend. Do I have the right to use this photo if I give her credit and do not receive any monetary gain from it? Or does she reserve all rights to the photograph just because she took it?--24.18.106.182 16:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The latter. She is in complete control of the distribution of the photo, Wikipedia is no exception. you could however, always ask her to release it into the public domain, or under a creative commons license, or the GFDL. --Ybbor ^Talk 21:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Image fair use thing for dethalbum

I was notified by a bot that the image that I got from amazon.com for the dethalbum deluxe edition is invalid, even though it has the {{Non-free album cover}} tag. Image:Dethalbum.JPG --Finest1 01:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The links in the tag explain the problem with exhaustive thoroughness. Please read them, and then come back here with a specific question if you're still confused. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Help with legalese of automated bot message

Hi, there is an old Norwegian classroom poster (Image:Skjold kaares til konge.jpg) of which the publisher allows free use on condition that it is attributed. I know that it is of paramount importance that copyright legalese is respected to the letter, but I fail to see in what way this isn't this a clear case of free use. Help will be appreciated.--Berig 09:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the template for you. The problem was basically that fair use only applies to fully copyrighted images, whereas if your description of the licensing is correct, your image was essentially "free." In this case, a fair use rationale isn't necessary. Your uploading and description were perfectly fine. The bot just saw a fair use tag without all the necessary components of fair use (in this case thebot probably didn't see a link to the article it's used in, generally indicating a problem with fair use), and assumed the license was wrong. It shouldn't be a problem anymore. --Ybbor ^Talk 13:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ybbor! It is much appreciated :).--Berig 13:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Legality of Anime screenshots

Is it legal for me to upload screenshots from animes? For example pictures of characters to go with the list in the respective article. Is it a different case for licensed animes? Licensed in US? Licensed in UK (where I am)? (Please note I am asking this question before having taken any such screenshots.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prem-aka-Prince (talk • contribs) 23:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Screenshots are copyrighted to the original owner, so we can use them under Fair use claim. We usually limit the amount of fair use images in articles to the minimum (in example, if you have a list of characters, instead of uploading one picture of every character, we try to upload just one picture with all the characters (or at least as many as possible) in it). So, please examine the WP:NONFREE page which states when you can upload and what you need in order to upload. Unused fair use images are deleted, as well as those images that haven't been correctly licensed. We don't encourage edit wars, so think before uploading images (in example, when you want to upload another screenshot because you like it more than the current one, or just because it is from a later episode than the current one). -- ReyBrujo 23:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

How do i know if I'm uploading a copyright image?

I don't know if im using copyright pictures. i don't want to be in trouble for violation wikipedia's rules. Please help me understand what images to use and not use. I get images from Kryptonsite.com, photobucket, and google images. Am i doing something wrong because i'm getting warning about copyright violations. i just created an account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beachdude0213 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you appear to be violating Wikipedia's image use policy. Many websites will simply say what the copyright status is for the content on their websites. So for instance if you had taken the time to notice, Kryptonsite.com on its front page has a notice that reads:

"Smallville and its characters are copyright ©2007 Warner Bros. & DC Comics. This is an independent website and not authorized by the WB, the CW, or DC. The term "Kryptonite" is a trademark of DC Comics. Page copyright ©2007 KryptonSite, unless the material is noted as coming from someplace else or being by an individual author."

Further, you might have also seen this notice as well:

"PLEASE DO NOT TAKE GRAPHICS, NEWS, SPOILERS, ETC. FROM KRYPTONSITE WITHOUT FIRST ASKING PERMISSION AND PLACING A LINK TO KRYPTONSITE.COM. OR, JUST SEND PEOPLE OVER TO THIS SITE! THANKS!"

Please refrain from uploading these copyrighted images to Wikipedia. Please read the Introduction to Wikipedia first. Also, before uploading images read the Wikipedia's Image Use Policy. All of the images you have uploaded so far that infringe on other's rights will have to be removed. Please introduce yourself to some of Wikipedia's policies before proceeding. Thanks. -- Ltvine | Talk 06:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beachdude0213 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:BayBridge2007

Yesterday (29 Sept.) I uploaded a picture of the Bay Bridge, the next morning (today) I found a notice saying that the image didn't have a copyright notice. I just put a userbox that I got from Wikipedia:Image copyright tags saying that I allow this picture under the GNU Documation Licence. Can I please remove the notice?

MusicaLucas 06:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Please include a source on the image description page. Did you take the image? Also, the tags are templates, not userboxes. Userboxes are a specific type of controversial template some people like to put on their userpages. If you took the photo yourself, and you source and tag the image you can remove the warning. - cohesion 21:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Package Images

I'm not sure how to tag this image. It's for packaging of an action figure. Image:Steel-s3-variant.jpg

--Raxfrost 04:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Raxfrost

Please see the non-free content policy. Most of the images on wikipedia need to be free content. For the exceptions, they must follow a series of criteria. One of which is that they be used in an article. Currently the image under discussion is not used in any article. They must also have a source. For more information about the image policies of Wikipedia please see Wikipedia:Image use policy. - cohesion 22:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

What about when someone claims copyright on an image they don't really own?

thumb thumb Over on Talk:Omar Khadr we are discussing the wikipedia's use of Image:Omar Khadr.gif. It is being argued that the wikipedia can use this image because mainstream media sources have used this image, and they claimed Omar Khadr's mother handed it out to reporters.

So, if this claim is true, does this constitute putting the image in the public domain?

Another argument put forward to its use here is "fair use". Policy currently allows the use of reduced resolution images if there are no free alternatives. Well, I recently uploaded Image:Omar Khadr hears Judge Brownbacks ruling.JPG from The Wire (JTF-GTMO). The DoD publishes a weekly newspaper, circulation 700, for the GIs and contractors who guard, interrogate, and analyze the data, from the Guantanamo captives. It is full of pictures -- about two thirds or three quarters of them are credited to the dozen GIs who staff the Public Affairs office that put out this weekly newspaper. The other fraction of the images don't seem to be any diffferent from the credited photos. Since all the credited photos were taken by GIs, in the course of performing their official duties, I believe they are all in the public domain. That is what Template:PD-USGov says. Well, if the credit is left off? When an official site of a US Government agency uses an image, without offering a credit, how safe is it to assume it was a PD image because it was taken by a GI or other Federal government employee?

Now if that sketch was drawn by a US Federal employee, and was therefore in the public domain, the fair use argument for using the Khadr photo would be eroded, because there were free alternatives? How to find out, for sure, whether the sketch is a PD image? Write to the editor of The Wire, and ask?

What about images a GI took during his off-hours? All the Abu Ghraib photos seem to be regarded as PD. But, if some of them were taken by off-duty GIs, would they no longer be PD?

In a related vein I have noticed that some publications honor what are almost certainly bogus copyright claims, or otherwise allow or encourage PD images to be claimed in the private domain. Case in point, this official mug shot of Dilawar (human rights victim). I can't imagine any possible conditions through which Jigsaw Productions could legitimately claim ownership of that image. If a freelance photographer takes a photo of a photo, and doesn't add any creative spark to it, like solarization, or drawing devil's horns on it, then they can't claim a copyright on their copy, can they?

Am I correct that if someone took a picture of an out-of-copyright picture, like, for example, the Mona Lisa, and drew devil's horns on it, that this would constitute a "creative spark", and they could then claim copyright on it? Am I correct that there are circumstances where someone could do the same thing for a picture that was under copyright, make a copy, under "fair use", make some modifications that they could claim constituted a "creative spark", and claim to own the copyright on their modified version, even though the original was still under copyright?

I came across a web-site where freelance photographers could upload low-resolution and high-resolution copies of their freelance photos. The site displayed the low-res image, and would allow the photographer to bill downloaders before they could access the high-res images. How legitimate was this? One photographer had about two dozen photos from a visit he paid to Dilawar's village. I accept he owns the rights to all the photos he took there, except one image, which is just a copy of a photo owned by Dilawar's family that predated his capture. By our rules Dilawar's family would own the copyright on that image, correct?

Obviously, IANAL.

Cheers! Geo Swan 11:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a lot of questions, but I'll give it a shot. Copyrights in photographs generally belong to the person who took them. An exception arises under certain circumstances when taking the photo is part of someone's job, in which case it can be (but it not necessarily) a "work for hire", which means that the employer owns the copyright. If a GI takes a picture in the course of his or her duties for the US Government, the picture is in the public domain. If the picture were taken outside of his or her duties, I believe the GI would own the copyright.

Devil horns are probably not creative enough to obtain copyright protection. Mustaches as well. But if someone modifies an image using sufficient creativity, the modified image would be protected by copyright. If the original was under copyright, the modified image would have two copyrights -- that of the original image and that of the modifications.

Handing out copies of an image does not make the image public domain. Neither does making it freely available on a website. There has to be clear permission (a "license") in order for us to use it here as a free image. Fair use, or, more properly, Wikipedia's non-free content policy, might apply, but keep in mind that non-free images of living people are generally not allowed per WP:NFCC#1.

Hope this is helpful. -- But|seriously|folks 23:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)