Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2008/November

Image permission problem with Image:Palin nowhere.jpg

I was informed that there is a problem with the copyright on this, but as noted on that image page, an email has already been sent to you referring to Bob Weinstein's copyright ownership, and his full release of it under the listed license. Where is the problem? Duuude007 (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Best I can tell the relivant OTRS ticket number is 2008091810048421 and the problem is the lack of an explict CC release.Geni 02:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I've asked a couple OTRS people to check that ticket and drop a message here. Stifle (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I am an OTRS person I was describeing the ticket.Geni 15:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Duuude007, for what I can see the discussion stalled before we received a clear Creative Commons license from the copyright holder. If you wish I can try to email him? -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem with that. Mayor Weinstein did say that he had already explicitly sent an email himself (because of that email reply to me referring to the need of explicit consent) from the kpu.net address. Did you receive that one? Please keep in mind that there are multiple images that this copyright applies to, as it was cropped for alternate article uses. There is also: Image:Nowhere 99901 (Crop2).jpg and Image:Palin Nowhere 99901.jpg in the commons, and because of this problem, they are also apparently being flagged for deletion. Please help assure that they also do not get deleted, while his copyright is being reconfirmed, thank you. Duuude007 (talk) 06:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Duuude, Did Mayor Weinstein’s email license the images under a specific license, or did it grant general permission for use on Wikipedia? From what Geni and lucasbfr say, OTRS received an email, but it did not grant a specific CC license. (BTW, I don’t think multiple images are a problem as long as he licenses Image:Palin Nowhere 99901.jpg. The other images are derivative from that, right?) —teb728 t c 08:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I find no email from him (I checked with the email address you forwarded, and his name) on our records. I've sent him an email. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Check the OTRS number given above.Geni 14:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

we recived an email yes. We did not get a solid CC release.Geni 14:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I know, Duuude007 was talking about Mr Weinstein's email. As you can see I've sent an email using this OTRS ticket. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that there is also a fair use justification for this image. While it would be ideal to get a clear CC license, I believe the fair use justification allows the image to be retained even if that is not forthcoming.--agr (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Except for the fact that the image fails NFCC1 (as it's replaceable by text) and NFCC8 (as its removal would not be detrimental to readers' undertanding of the topic; it's used for illustration only). Stifle (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This has already been contested and disproven. Many people have conceded that it does not convey the same message without the image. Duuude007 (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

We've gotten a clear statement of permission at OTRS. This discussion is moot.--chaser - t 06:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Photograph of product

Maybe it's just too late at night, but I'm having trouble figuring out how to tag the picture I just took of a tin of Bag Balm. Is it GFDL/CC-BY-SA because I took it myself, or does it need to be a fair use claim, since the copyright to the artwork resides with the manufacturer? Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:RMS Olympic.jpg for deletion

The Image:RMS Olympic.jpg was confused with Image:Olympic 1911.jpg. Since Image:Olympic 1911.jpg is in the Public Domain of the United States, so I request for deletion of Image:RMS Olympic.jpg. Because these two images are the same one. But I can't find the button that say delete. Aquitania (talk) 05:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You have to be an administrator to delete pages. I've gone ahead and deleted this one for you, since it's duplicated by a free image. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The origin of the word "pipe"

the same word pipa in english,in spanishh,in hungarian .I'm asking what is the origin of the word "PIPA"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.145.137 (talk) 12:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You're in the wrong place. Try the Reference desk. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 20:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Creating a GDFL image based on a Copyrights reserved book

Hi, I would like to create IPA chart images for Konkani language article.

I wish to modify this image [1] which is licensed under GDFL so I guess there is no copyright problem in this case(please correct me if I am wrong).

However my main concern is whether I will be violating the copyrights of the book on which my images will be based. It has a copyright:All rights reserved notice. I dont think that the phonetics of a language are covered under copyrights, are they?. The images will be created by me and not scanned from the book. Nor will they be direct copies(the Vowel chart will be significantly simpler than the one in the book) and the source book will be properly refernced. At present the charts exist as tables. Please let me know if I will be violating copyrights.--Deepak D'Souza 06:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Should be no problem. You are just going to use the information from that book, not its copyrighted form of expression. Information as such is not copyrighted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for clarifying my doubts. -Deepak D'Souza 12:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyright license for Image:Charles Ray Hatcher.jpg

The license tag used for this image identifies the copyright holder as the uploader, which doesn't jive because it is a mugshot. Let me know if this is the case, and I'll find a source and add the appropriate tag. mo ^talk 05:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Calliopejen1 for fixing this. mo ^talk 03:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Non-free image use - Image:FernandoPoeJr.jpg

Hello. Ive uploaded an image (Image:FernandoPoeJr.jpg) which I would like to use in the article Fernando Poe, Jr.. However, I was told that it has unclear copyright status. It is a non-free image. I hope some can help in solving the problem.

Thank you

Mk32 (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's nonfree content policies (see WP:NONFREE and WP:NFCC) require that the copyright holder of any nonfree image be attributed. Since this image is from photobucket, we do not know who the copyright holder is. Without this information, the photo cannot be used on wikipedia. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Proper Licencing for a Licencing letter

Hi, I have recieved a personal letter from the Councel of Europe with permission to use certain materials of the Councel in Wikipedia (Ukrainian project). What licence status shall I state for this letter to upload it as a scan file (image)? Сергей Олегович (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the fact that the letter is not free, the permission is not enough. Wikipedia needs to be redistributable; permission for Wikipedia only is not sufficient for that. --NE2 16:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:What's the use of going through with the Election.JPG

I was going to upload a better version of this, but realized it may be unfree. It's from 1948, by someone who died in 1949. There's a "better version". on the National Archives website, which doesn't appear to make any claims as to copyright status of materials. The only thing that approaches this is the following:

Most of these cartoons appeared on the front page of Washington newspapers from 1898 through 1948. They are part of a collection of nearly 2,400 pen-and-ink drawings by Berryman. In 1992, in honor of former Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield, the Charles Engelhard Foundation purchased the drawings and donated them to the U.S. Senate.

But this doesn't mean that the copyrights were "donated". Further, the PDF with the better version also includes, on page two, a copyrighted image with no indication that it's copyrighted. [2] says that it may be copyrighted; I'm going to tag it as no license pending someone making a more accurate determination. --NE2 16:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Gustav VI Adolf of Sweden and English footballers.jpg

It says in the description the image page, that the copyright has expired, because of the rule of the life span of the author plus 70 years. However, the person credited as author is George Grantham Baine, who, according to the en wiki, died in 1944. Thus, 70 years after his death is 2014 and that rule cannot be the reason for the image being in the public domain. If the reason is that the picture was taken more than 90 years ago, it should say so in the description. Could somebody please look into it? /Ludde23 ^{Talk Contrib} 11:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• The image is located on Wikimedia Commons so this issue should be raised over there. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You can follow the Library of Congress path to the George Grantham Bain Collection that were deposited with Library of Congress and for which there are no known copyright restrictions, which is why the image in question has the licence it has. ww2censor (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ludde23 is correct that PD-old is not the appropriate license tag. I've changed it to the Bain-specific one, which points to the Library's information on the collection. --dave pape (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

contributorship agreements

I am wondering if Wikipedia has any kind of content provider agreements with your contributors, whether it be a policy statement on the webpage somewhere or a click agreement in order to post their content on Wikipedia. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.111.254.11 (talk) 18:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by a "contributorship agreement"? Whenever you edit a Wikipedia page, you agree to release your contributions under the terms of the GFDL, which is basically the "click agreement" you subscribe to when you make any edit. ~ mazca ^t|c 18:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I apologize, I think I mis-identified what I'm looking for. I am wondering about content provider agreements. I have read the GNU agreement and it appears to refer to end users of the content on Wikipedia as opposed to an agreement with a person/entity providing content for the website. For example, how it talks about how the licensee referred to in the agreement as "you" can "copy, modify or distribute the work in any way..." (First paragraph un section 1)What I am inquiring is what sort of agreement governs the submission of content (aka the work) to begin with. I hope that makes sense...

As far as I'm aware, the only agreement governing the submission of work is that statement below the edit box that says "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the terms of the GFDL". It's only one sentence but it's all that really needs to be said, and agreed to, before someone submits. The rules that govern redistribution by the end-user are, inherently, the same rules that the content provider must agree to when submitting that work. Wikipedia doesn't reserve any rights for itself on the content submitted. ~ mazca ^t|c 20:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Why was my DVD cover deleted?

I uploaded DVD cover art that I designed, did all the artwork, used still frames from the movie I made and I own all the copyrights. Why was it deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Of Dreams and Glory (talk • contribs) 18:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It appears that you uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons, which is a separate project (though it's run by the same organization as Wikipedia, and Wikipedia uses a lot of content from the Commons). I'm not an administrator there, so I can't answer your question; you might try contacting the deleting administrator here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair use on multiple articles

Oh dear! The wikipolice (in the form of User:FairuseBot) have noticed that I have used Image:Swisstopo Bluemlisalp 50.png on the page Cartographic relief depiction without going though the necessary procedural hoops.

I think the use is within the spirit of the fair use policies, because the image illustrates the point being made in the article that some Swiss maps indicate the type of ground by the colors of the contour lines. To illustrate this requires a sample of such a map. But I do not understand what I need to do on the image page.

The image was uploaded two years ago, and has been used in three other articles without complaint. There is a {{Non-free fair use in}} for one of these articles (Cartography of Switzerland), and another for the Swisstopo article which does not in fact use the image. I could add yet another {{Non-free fair use in}} but I cannot see the point, because it just repeats the copyright status and then says in shouty bold text I must include a "detailed non-free use rationale".

What should I do? JonH (talk) 12:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have removed it from all usages but Cartography of Switzerland, because elsewhere it violated wikipedia's nonfree media policy. In all of those places, a free map could have been used to make the same point. In Cartography of Switzerland it is still kind of borderline. (Do people really need to see a portion of this particular map to understand the cartography of Switzerland? Maybe, maybe not.) Go to Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline to figure out how to write a fair use rationale. (This is something you have to fill in, and is not the copyright "non-free fair use in" tag.) The idea of this is for you to justify why it is included in the article, and why it meets wikipedia's nonfree media policies. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've resolved the problem for you (though you will have to find a new image for Cartographic relief depiction - try commons.wikimedia.org or ask for someone to make you one at WP:GL). Since I removed the image from the article in question, you don't need to write a rationale for it anymore. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

You took out the {{Non-free fair use in}}. Doesn't it need that in addition to the use rationale? —teb728 t c 22:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

First, some context: if you look at my contributions you will see that I have been editing Wikipedia off-and-on for over three years, and my edit summaries and talk page comments have always been reasoned and rational. But today, having ventured into the area of non-free images for the first time, I FIND MYSELF USING SHOUTY CAPITALS SO THAT YOU KNOW HOW ANGRY I AM. THIS DOES NOT SURPRISE ME – WHEN READING DISCUSSIONS HERE OVER THE YEARS, I HAVE SEEN ZEALOTS TAKING DELIGHT IN CREATING CONFUSING INSTRUCTIONS SO THAT USERS MAKE MISTAKES, GET ANGRY, AND THEN LEAVE THE PROJECT.

WHEN I SAW WHAT YOU HAD DONE, I SPENT THE NEXT 10 MINUTES PACING UP AND DOWN, SHAKING MY FISTS IN ANGER. I THOUGHT MY QUESTION MADE CLEAR THAT IN Cartographic relief depiction THE IMAGE IS ILLUSTRATING THE FACT THAT MAPS PRODUCED IN SWITZERLAND USE PARTICULAR COLOURS. YOUR SUGGESTION OF CONTACTING WP:GL IS STUPID – THEY COULD PRODUCE A MAP WITH PURPLE AND GREEN SPOTS, BUT THAT ISN'T WHAT SWISSTOPO USE; THEY COULD MAKE A MAP THAT LOOKS LIKE A SWISSTOPO MAP, BUT ONLY BY SLAVISHLY COPYING THE SWISSTOPO STYLE (AND IT PROBABLY WOULDN'T LOOK SO GOOD). WHAT IS NEEDED IS A SAMPLE OF A CURRENT SWISSTOPO MAP, LIKE THE ONE THAT YOU REMOVED, AND THE NON-FREE CONTENT GUIDELINE ENCOURAGES THE REUSE OF AN IMAGE FROM ANOTHER ARTICLE INSTEAD OF USING ANOTHER NON-FREE IMAGE.

I AM SORRY THAT THE EDITORS OF Cartography of Switzerland HAVE LOST THEIR IMAGE GALLERY, BECAUSE I STIRRED THINGS UP INSTEAD OF QUIETLY ADDING A RATIONALE TO THE IMAGE. I DON'T CARE WHAT F***ING SECTION WP:NFCC3a SAYS (and people who know me know that I hardly ever use swear words), THE THREE IMAGES IN THE GALLERY ARE OF THREE DIFFERENT MAP SERIES, AND IT IS QUITE REASONABLE FOR THAT ARTICLE TO SHOW WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE.

I DIDN'T REALLY NEED ANY HELP WRITING THE RATIONALES, WHAT PUZZLED ME WAS THE COPYRIGHT TAGS. AFTER I POSTED MY QUESTION, I REALISED THAT THE ORIGINAL UPLOADER HAD PROBABLY MADE A MISTAKE WHEN THEY USED TWO TAGS, AND THIS HAD CONFUSED ME. I THINK THE CORRECT SOLUTION MAY BE TO JUST HAVE ONE {{Non-free fair use in}} TAG (TO JUSTIFY UPLOADING THE IMAGE) AND A {{Non-free image rationale}} FOR EACH USE. BUT I CANNOT SEE WHY IT IS NECESSARY TO SPECIFY ONE ARTICLE IN THE TAG, WHEN THIS DOESN'T APPLY TO {{Non-free 2D art}}, ETC.

I HAVE DECIDED TO REVERT YOUR CHANGES AND MAKE MY OWN STAB AT THE RATIONALES; WE CAN CONTINUE FROM THERE. I'M NOT SURE WHAT A NON-FREE CONTENT REVIEW WILL MAKE OF MY ATTEMPT TO INVOKE WP:BIAS IN A RATIONALE.

PERHAPS I WOULD NOT BE SO ANGRY IF YOU HAD ANSWERED MY QUESTION (What should I do?), CONVINCED ME OF YOUR ARGUMENT, AND LET ME REMOVE THE USES OF THE IMAGES. JonH (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but may I suggest that if you want to deal with U.S. bias, you can find an older map that has fallen out of copyright, or find a country that releases their maps under a free license (Canada does, but that's still Western Hemisphere). —NE2 04:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Several points:

• Thanks to NE2 for your calm reply.

• I now accept the changes to Cartography and Map. Easter Island is a nice example.

• I have written a reply at Talk:Cartographic relief depiction, and asked the original uploader (User:Dbachmann) if he can help.

• I am a bit disappointed not to get a reply here to my question about the use of {{Non-free fair use in}}, because in fact the solution is simple. The template allows for the use of up to 6 arguments, but this is not mentioned in the documentation. I will try to fix the documentation.

JonH (talk) 00:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

how to upload photos that are not copyrighted and may be freely used for non-profit educational use

I found a website that was not copyrighted that I want to use some photos from on my Wiki article. The photos and other images there clearly state than they may be used for non-profit educational use. WHY DO THEY KEEP GETTING DELETED?

I need to know what to post, list or whatever so they stay in place. This is for a class project and I'm getting really frustrated to find that everytime I log onto my page someone has edited it. I understand that I do not own the page, but there must be some happy medium that could be reached.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by OpossumOpete (talk • contribs) 00:19, 6 November 2008

Wikipedia does not accept permission for non-profit educational use. In order to be useable here the photos must be licensed for reuse by anyone for anything including commercial use and modification. See WP:COPYREQ for the permission Wikipedia requires and how to handle it. Image:PDGcomic.jpg was deleted because you did not indicate a license that allows reuse by anyone for anything. Image:PDGartrodankles.jpg is scheduled for deletion because it is licensed only for non-commercial use. —teb728 t c 01:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

If you want to create a draft article, you could put it in User:OpossumOpete/Artiocetus. That page doesn't belong to you either, but people probably won't mess with it as long you don't try to add a non-commercial use image. —teb728 t c 02:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

image from North Korean website

I'd like to add an image of Spirulina nutitional supplements to the article of the same name, and I've found a pretty good one ona page from the North Korean government website, see [3]. Can we freely use images from North Korea? I'm not sure of the relationship with regards to copyright between the US and North Korea. I notice they are not in the list of countries with copyright tags and I think the US doesn't have diplomatic relations with them. Basically, would anything the North Koreans publish not be under copyright in the US, and free to use as we see fit on Wikipedia? Oaktree b (talk) 02:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Circular 38a of the U.S. Copyright Office lists the copyright relations of North Korea with the U.S. as "Unclear". Wikipedia:Copyrights#Comments on copyright laws by country recommends (citing this e-mail by Jimbo) that, for countries with no copyright relations with the U.S., Wikipedia should nonetheless aim to respect the copyrights of their inhabitants. I believe the same principle should apply, even more strongly, for countries for which the relations are merely uncertain. So, yes, legally we might be free to use anything published in North Korea, and certainly in practice it's extremely unlikely that anyone from North Korea would sue us, but even so, Jimbo's advice appears to be that we should still treat such works as if they were copyrighted even in the U.S. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 03:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

North korean copyright law is fairly clear except when it comes to figureing out the copyright on their websites.Geni 14:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Plot Elm, Westonbirt, UK, before 1913.jpg.

I uploaded this image copied from Trees of Great Britain & Ireland because the photographer, Augustine Henry, has been dead for over 70 years, which was formerly a criterion for fair use. Is this no longer the case? Ptelea (talk) 08:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The confusion here is one of terminology: "fair use" is the doctrine invoked to use an image notwithstanding the fact that it's copyrighted and unlicensed. What you're alluding to is "public domain", which means that nobody owns any rights over the photograph in question (and which is far preferable for Wikipedia's purpose). If you change the tag on the photo to either {{PD-UK}} or {{PD-Ireland}} (depending on the appropriate jurisdiction), you should be fine. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I & India doesnt have the keyboard of key " Rs. "

now i identified in our INDIAN keyboard doesnt have a key called " Rs. " but we have $ & £ keys , is it that Indian Software pupils are really not talented???? expecting from our Indians Software & Hardware Heros to be done this as soon as possible...i know that we are not using our Indian brand...but even though it is my suggestions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.54.169.137 (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you're in the wrong place; this page is for questions regarding copyright issues as they relate to using content on Wikipedia. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Can I use an image of a picture painted c.1911

Hi, I'm fairly new to wikipedia and have been trying to get the hang of things. I want to use an image from the National Gallery of Art website of a picture painted around 1911. Can I just save the image from the website and upload it as per Wikipedia:Public_domain_image_resources#Visual_arts? Thanks. DeepestGreen[talk] 12:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. As a two dimensional reproduction of a two dimensional work, the photograph has no copyrightable element, and the painting itself is in the public domain in the United States. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That's great news. Thank you. DeepestGreen[talk] 17:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there's one more wrinkle... For it to be public domain, the painting must have been published, not just painted before 1923. In general, we're a little lax about this requirement, but if for some reason you know that this painting was lost and later found (after 1923) or something like that, it shouldn't be uploaded. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification. The paintings in this case were listed in an exhibition catalogue of 1919, so I imagine that would be OK. DeepestGreen[talk] 18:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Book covers

I have recently created the article Tomás Graves and would like to illustrate it with a scanned image of the book cover of Tuning Up at Dawn. Obviously, the illustration and cover itself are copyright, but would this be allowed as 'fair use'? Emeraude (talk) 12:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, no. The cover would be suitable for upload to an article about the book but, barring unusual circumstances, not one about the author. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought the rules might mean. Many thanks for the clarification. Emeraude (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyright infringrmrnt when I wrote the original copy, huh?

I put up article on my book Catamount a North Country Thriller. I used the description that is on my website www.rick-davidson.com and on my publisher's website www.beechriverbooks.com. This is not a copyright infringement. I wrote the description and own the rights to it. How do I resolve this? Even though I am logged in, I am not allowed to respond to the Discospinster as the page is protected. I guess I can rewrite the description but that seems sort of foolish since I wrote the article in the first place. If you go to either of the above mentioned sites, you will see that I am the author of the book. That is the reason I linked to those sites.

Filmrd (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC) Rick Davidson November 3, 2008

The fact that you hold the copyright to the text in question does not allow you to post the content on to wikipedia, as all wikipedia content is licensed such that it can be freely modified and redistributed (See the text below the edit box when you perform an edit "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the terms of the GFDL'". As such you would need release the text on your website under a Wikipedia friendly license like the GFDL. This would consequently allow everyone else to use that content for other purposes as well. Mfield (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Mfield: Actually, I don't think you're correct on that. If a person is the owner of copyright, types that copyrighted work into the Wikipedia editing window and hits "Save page", they are explicitly releasing that work under the GDFL and thus the content instantly becomes "licensed such that it can be freely modified and redistributed". If you're the owner of a copyrighted work then you have the power to license it however you like, which includes giving up most (all all) of your rights to it. Assuming that Filmrd is aware of this, understands it, and agrees with it, there's no problem here. -- Hux (talk) 06:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Filmrd is admitting that they are adding information to an article about their selves on Wikipedia, but they are not be allowed to claim "authorship" on the article. What this means is that another Editor could come along and simply read the text on Wikipedia and then read the exact same text on the "official" website. (As seems to be what happened and why this discussion is happening) That editor is not going to know about this conversation and, unless the website clearly stated that all material could be reproduced verbatim by anyone, for any purpose, it would be tagged as a possible {{copyvio}}. In that sense Mfield is correct. The other issue coming into play with this is it appears to be a Conflict of interest as the Editor is admitting here they are also the subject (of one of their works is the subject) of the article. ("I put up article on my book...") Conflict of interest issues aside, "Do not include copies of primary sources" is one of the principal guidlines for any article: Avoid including entire texts of treaties, press releases, speeches or lengthy quotations, etc. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I was referring to, even if I didn't put it well. You may own the copyright to the text and thus may hold the right to release it under GDFL, but copying a large portion from your website that does not specify a similarly permissive license will leave the text and article liable for WP:COPYVIO as no one else has any way of knowing that you were that one that added it. Also there are bots that are capable of searching out copyvio text and marking the article accordingly. You will either need to paraphrase the text or release the content of your website under GDFL explictly. Mfield (talk) 02:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually I don't consider the text in question to be copyrighted, but obviously, the easiest way around this is to rewrite the information. Filmrd (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC) Rick Davidson

Can't figure out how to add Copyright Tag

Two problems:

1. When I go to the image, there is no "EDIT THIS PAGE" option

2. Re uploaded it, added the tag, but still I'm getting "no Copyright tag" message. Where do I put the tag?SteveWoolf (talk) 08:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you edit it here? —teb728 t c 09:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Make image bigger

Please help me replace the image Image:SS Friedrich der Grosse.jpg with the same image that has bigger size by going to the image's source (http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-h/id1408.htm) and click at the image to see the bigger size and then replace the image with the same name. Aquitania (talk) 02:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done Image is now 90kb instead of 12kb. ww2censor (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Missing School Listing

I am viewing the schools available in California. I notice Pacific Hills Schol of West Hollywood is not listed. Is there any reason why this school is not included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.1.104 (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This page is for copyright questions not for new article requests. No one has written them yet, so do it yourself, or go here to request new articles. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 03:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually the article is there, but it is spelled Pacific Hills School. —teb728 t c 03:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

NYPL Digital Gallery

Is it okey to use the images from the New York Public Library Digital Gallery [4], such as (for example) this [5]? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Not per their terms and conditions[6], downloading would constitute agreeing to terms that are incompatible with wikipedia. You could get them to explicitly allow use via OTRS or could use a small version with a suitable claim of fair use. Mfield (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Could the images be used by using a "Permalink", which they show on the right side of the page here [7]? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No, the wiki does not permit or provide a mechanism for embedding off site images. Mfield (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Further thoughts - as it is a piece of artwork from 1868, it falls into the Public Domain and copyright cannot be claimed over the two dimensional artwork. Thus if you could photograph the illustration , the museum would hold no copyright over the subject. As far as I know, they do still hold the copyright on any image they themselves have made, until they release it. As far as fair use goes: if it is possible for anyone to photograph it in situ, then a claim of fair use will be difficult. If it is sealed in a vault somewhere then a fair use claim should be easy enough. Mfield (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC) is PD (in US law only) per NE2 below. Mfield (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.... I will have to think about this a little. Thanks for the help. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is public domain per Bridgeman v. Corel. The tag to use is {{PD-art}}. --NE2 19:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

NE2, Would the same apply to all images on the New York Public Library Digital Gallery? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Only to those that are public domain by normal rules. You need to know when the original was created or published, and possibly when the author died. --NE2 12:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the help. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

How to change copyright tag and re-publish deleted images?

Looking through the Wikipedia articles on night vision technology I have noticed that they lack images of sample products based on this technology. Such images are available to me through my company, which sells such products. Company owns the images and does not mind their publication with adequate reference.

I have uploaded images, but they were deleted as lacking copyright information, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:NVS7_big.gif&action=edit&redlink=1. That was my first attempt at publishing images and I have made a mistake in copyright tag. I have also missed the deadline for changing the tag - I watched them for a week, while they were deleted on 8th day.

I would like to publish the images tagged as {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}. What is the best way to get images to wikipedia without creating duplicates?

If you don't personally own the copyright, you can't license them yourself. See WP:COPYREQ for what permission your company would have to give and how to handle it. —teb728 t c 21:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Out of copyright image

I uploaded an image from public domain and keep getting a request for a rationale from administrators. Isn't author dead for more than 100 years sufficient? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kagura8 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

What image is it? The only message I see is about Image:Blowedup.jpg, and it was given once on 1 November. —teb728 t c 21:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Octane December 2008.jpg

The use of this image appears to being disputed by Wikipedia's editor. Could I just confirm that I am the Assistant Editor of this magazine, and have directorial permission to use this image on Wikipedia. If it's just a case that I have tagged this image incorrectly, please let me know and I will re-submit the image correctly.

Regards Keith Adams Assistant Editor Octane magazine <email removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadams1970 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

What the bot is telling you is that you have not provided a complete non-free use rationale as described in WP:NFURG. You don't need to resubmit it: you can just edit Image:Octane December 2008.jpg and complete the rationale. BTW, the permission for use on Wikipedia is irrelevant; Wikipedia does not accept such permission; it only accepts permission for reuse by anyone for anything. The non-free use rationale is a rationale for using it without permission. —teb728 t c 10:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I had my uterus removed, and am wondering if it could regenerate?

In 2001, I had cervical cancer which spread into my uterus. My husband and I still want to have children. I still have my ovaries. Is there any chance of regeneration. Has it ever happened to anyone else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.134.108.9 (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

We cannot offer medical advice. Please see the medical disclaimer. Contact your General Practitioner. Also this isn't the forum to ask anything close to these questions. The closest would be the Wikipedia:Reference desk, although they will say the same about the medical advice. -Optigan13 (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Threshold for fair use of imagery from exhibitions

Greetings. I'm interested in using the image on this page, which is taken from a museum exibition called Visionary San Francisco in an article on a related topic (Skinner's Room). The image shows a squatted bridge, of which the article contains third party description, and the exhibition itself is the subject of critical commentary from The New York Times in the article. I'm confident that the addition of the image would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, but is all this enough to justify using the image under WP:NFCC? Any help appreciated, the skomorokh 21:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Bookcover - fair use

I'm sure this problem has arisen before but I can't find the note about it.

I have uploaded a bookcover to illustrate the associated article on the book and have now included the following comment under Licensing: "This bookcover is used for identification purposes only, associated with a commentary based entry. As per WP:NFC Acceptable Use Images."

I'm not sure if this is sufficient. Any advice will be greatly appreciated.--Perry Middlemiss (talk) 10:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

That should be fine. In the future, you might want to check out WP:FURG for more instructions on fair use rationales. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. --Perry Middlemiss (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Pictures of product boxes

Just out of curiosity what is the status of and what do we license our own pictures of a product box as?--Crossmr (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless it is a very old box that has fallen into the public domain, it would be licensed {{non-free product cover}}. The photographer should also release his/her creative contributions to the derivative work under a free license, if it's not just a reproduction of a 2D image. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Buildings in Bulgaria

WE have the following issue at the article Chiprovtsi - two of the images there are either the inside or the outside of buildings which by Bulgarian copyright law (see Freedom of panorama at Commons) can be used only "for other non-commercial purposes". The pictures are really needed for the article - what Fair-use tag should I put? --Laveol ^T 20:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably {{Non-free 3D art}} or {{Non-free architectural work}}. The photographer will also have to license his work under a Wikipedia-compatible license in addition to that tag. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, they are already uploaded to Commons which means he has agreed to wiki rules. Does he have to do it again if they are moved to wikipedia?--Laveol ^T 20:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not necessary to move, or duplicate the images to individual language wikis because an image reference placed in an article of a Commons image is available for all wikis to use in their articles without moving or duplicating them. That is one of the reasons Commons criteria are more stringent then for images on individual wikis. ww2censor (talk) 03:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Combat Arms

Can I use the combat arms icon? The one you click to start the game? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aj00200 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean Combat Arms (video game)? Where do you want to use the image, and why? Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Behavioural Science

Motivation of employees may not in all instances be positively related to organizational parformance.Elaborate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.199.3.129 (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, this page is to answer questions related to copyright. You might want to ask at our reference desk for knowledge questions. In the meantime, you can also review our article Principal-agent problem. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

©-free

The Adelaide Institute, a website whose contents may be objectionable, has what appears to be a copyright release notice at the bottom of every page: "©-free".[8] Is this enough to establish that the materials on the website are public domain? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is sufficient (it's kind of unclear). Could someone email the webmaster for an explicit public domain declaration? Also, they appear to host a lot of images that I doubt they hold the copyright on, which is another concern. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not sufficient for the images they host, the vast majority of which they obviously don't hold the copyright to. The copyright release might hold for the original text, but I doubt that WP would ever want more than short illustrative citations of the text in any case. Physchim62 (talk) 00:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Help

On the upload form what does "Destination Filename" mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratman9513 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It is the name with which the file will be saved and consequently referred to on Wikipedia. You can effectively rename the file as you upload it. It is helpful for uploading an image to a more wiki suitable name without having to rename your local original copy first. Mfield (talk) 18:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

How to publish permission from the images author.

I posted an image that I have permission to use freely from a colleague. I don't know how to document this for you.

Colin

See WP:COPYREQ --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Official County Seals

My question has to do with the copyright status of county seals. As they are a seal representative of their respective government offices, where does their copyright status fall? Edit Centric (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably it is different for each county. The copyright might belong to the artist who designed the seal. Or if it was done as work for hire, it might belong to the county government. Of if the seal is old enough, the copyright may have expired. —teb728 t c 04:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Insignia and symbols from the Nazi military

I have uploaded Image:17 Panzerdivision.JPG for the 17th Panzer Division (Germany) article. I've created it myself, its a simple enough image but I'm not the copyright holder, obviously. Does anybody know what the situation regarding the copyright with military symbols from the Nazi era? I would think, the copyright may have expiered but I'm really not sure. Could sombody please point me in the right direction and tell me, if its ok to upload the image, how to tag it properly? Thanks for any help you can give me, EA210269 (talk) 15:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I would call it {{PD-ineligible}}. Do others agree? Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, seems pretty clearly ineligible. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. I guess it makes sense, it would be hard to put a copyright on the letter Y. EA210269 (talk) 23:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, that's one that even I can go for as PD-ineligible, and, frankly, there aren't many of those ;) it would be nice if the IDF had some link back to a source as to how we know this was the logo of the 17. Panzerdivision, but then maybe I'm asking too much as usual! Physchim62 (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, the 17th PD doesn't have a website as such (understandably) but there is plenty of books and inofficial websites that feature it, I can quote some of them if it does any good. EA210269 (talk) 07:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Done! EA210269 (talk) 07:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Want to create a new page, image question.

I am interested in creating a page for a relatively popular band called Brokencyde. Usually, an image would accompany such a site. Now, if one image searches brokencyde on google, they would find this picture [9], which is the only photograph that I could find that includes every member and is at least ambiguous about its copyright status. I am wondering that even if a photo's copyright status is unknown/unsure, it can still be used under fair use terms because "no free alternative could reasonably be created"? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamangir1214 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

No, if the band are living and still performing it would be a trivial matter for someone to obtain a public domain image of them together so fair use could not apply. Mfield (talk) 05:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

So, in order to get a public domain image of the band for instance, you would need to either capture an image yourself or get an existing photo released into the domain. *goes to concert* Kamangir1214 (talk) 05:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. The rules are pretty strict when it comes to living persons. I guess you'll have to take one for the team and go out and enjoy yourself with a camera. This collaborative encyclopedia stuff is tough work, huh? ;) -- Hux (talk) 07:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Taking a images from a books

Can we take a photo of a images from a books and then upload it into Wikipedia if the image is in Public Domain?Aquitania (talk) 06:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

If the image is in the public domain, it can be used with no problems. --Kamangir1214 (talk) 06:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Can't figure something out

and time's against me.

I added this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Total_centurion.jpg to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burlington_Cars

And I need to convince someone that the image is appropriate but I can't follow the instructions to state my case due to my lack of intelligence.

Any help very much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Decampos (talk • contribs) 01:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't imagine any rationale for using this image. The rationale would have to show how the image use conforms to Wikipedia's policy on non-free images. It can't be used to show what a Berlington car looks like because as you can see in the article, there is a free image of a Berlington car; so it fails WP:NFCC#1. And it can't be used to show the use of the car in the movie becuase the article has no critical commentary on use of the car in the movie; so it fails WP:NFCC#8. —teb728 t c 07:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Noronic49.jpg

Earlier this year, using a different IP address (both of them are shared), I posted the item seen here: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 June 26#Image:Noronic49.jpg. The response by Stifle agrees that the image is legitimately used on WP, but does not address the issue of whether the copyright status shown is correct, which was the reason I posted the item in the first place.

(Meta-comment: there are too many twisty little passages to go through to report these things! I posted originally on Wikipedia:Copyright problems and my item was relocated to the above page. As for this page where I'm now posting, I never heard of it until I followed the link to Stifle's talk page and saw that he asked not to be left messages.)

(By the way, please don't reply to me on the talk page for this IP address; I rarely use it. If you have something to say, reply here and I may remember to look for it.) --70.48.230.220 (talk) 08:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Images from public universities

I want to upload this image for the article on David J. Smith. Should this be given a "Work of a U.S. government agency", or would the image be unacceptable for Wikipedia (being given the "fair use of a living person" license)? I was going to go ahead and upload the photo, but I thought I should check here first. Parthian Scribe 08:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Public universities are not US Government agencies. The link you provide is from Arizona State University, which is a *state* institution, NOT a *Federal* one. So, the "Work of a U.S. government agency" does not apply here. --Ragib (talk) 09:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Question about combining images

Hi! I just combined multiple images that are usable under the GFDL (specifically and ) and was wondering if I need to in some way indicate the previous files in the description when I upload my image, and if so, how? Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC) EDIT: Actually... I think I used one of the pictures' SVG format rather than the JPEG format, but I can't remember which one it was. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going to go ahead and upload the image, and if there's a problem it can be addressed on the image's talk page. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you definitely need to specify the previous images, as the copyright holder to those images would share the copyright on this new image with you (presuming all involved made a copyrightable contribution to the image). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal Letter

What is the copyright status of a personal letter received by me from an expert source for the purposes of validating information given on a Wikipedia page? Both my correspondent and I live in the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brucexyz (talk • contribs) 23:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

A personal letter is not a Wikipedia:Reliable source —teb728 t c 23:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

How do I find where this image is stored in Wikipedia (uploaded already) and delete it?Brucexyz (talk) 00:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted it (taking the above as a request on your part to do so). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks! Brucexyz (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

GNU FDL Website

Please tell me that are all of the images in the website [10] (MaritimeDigital Achive Encyclopedia) are Public Domain and some of them are GNU Free Documentation License. I saw that some image came from a collection of someone and were Public Domain. I want to know this because I want to upload some of its image. Aquitania (talk) 01:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all, note that public domain and GFDL are separate concepts, and an image can't be both. As to the status of those images, the contents of the site are listed as copyright Frederic Logghe and released under the GFDL. My presumption would be that this applies to all images without a specification to the contrary (some of them are indeed listed as being public domain), but I'd suggest contacting the site to make sure. Ounce of prevention, pound of cure, etc. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Untill we have sorted out the license migration issues copying GFDL stuff from third parties is a really bad idea.Geni 15:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Also a good point. Though if somebody's willing to license something under the GFDL, the odds are good that they'd agree to do so under CC-by-SA if asked. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Image Rationale

I don't understand. I upload images but it says all this stuff about copyright, standards and rationale. And I got a message saying I coulg get blocked if I don't give resons for stuff. Please help me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Rogue Leader (talk • contribs) 02:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello - in brief, the problem is that most images used on Wikipedia need to be "free", meaning that they should be reusable by anybody for any purpose. The images you have uploaded do not meet this standard. If non-free images are used, they need to meet Wikipedia's policy on non-free media. The good news is that, from a quick look at your uploads, most of them should be usable under this policy (except for Image:Leslie1325.jpg, which is almost certainly not usable). However, you'll need to add a fair use rationale to each image, explaining why i. the image improves the reader's understanding of the article topic, and ii. no free image could replace it). I hope this helps. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The reason why Image:Leslie1325.jpg is unusable is that almost certainly it could be replaced by a free image. —teb728 t c 07:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Images deletion

Please delete the two unfree images include Image:RMS Georgic (1932).jpg and Image:RMS Oceanic III.jpg because I had moved two free images from wikipedia commons to RMS Georgic (1932) and Oceanic (unfinished ship) to replace those two unfree images, but I can't delete those two unfree images. Aquitania (talk) 03:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the second, because I'm able to do so on the basis of your request (since you're the uploader). I can't delete the first as long as it's still used in the article. I'd suggest that you first take it out of the article (replacing it with free images as appropriate) and then tag it with {{subst:orfud}}. That will get it deleted after seven days. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Postcard Georgic.jpg has been nominated for deletion on Commons for having an invalid copyright tag. —teb728 t c 20:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

False Image Copyright

I ask for the deletion of the Image:SS Conte de Savoia.jpg because of the following reason:

• This image is not a work of Frederic Logghe that is free license because this image is from a collection of George Carr.If you don't believe me, you can find the image in George Carr's website [11] by typing the ship's name into the search box on the left or you can go to the image's source [12]. This image is all rights reserved and also replaceable. Aquitania (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Take it to Possibly unfree images. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

video downloads

can one download any private video or will it only allow itunes video and selected mark videos to be downloaded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.144.237 (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

What is your exact question as it relates to Wikipedia? Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over two million articles, and thought that we were directly affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the online free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is a help desk for asking questions related to using the encyclopedia. Thus, we have no inside track on the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the left hand side of your screen. If that is not fruitful, we have a reference desk, divided into various subjects areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. —teb728 t c 19:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)—teb728 t c 20:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Photograph of Portrait

Can somebody help me out with Image:LloydThom.jpg? It is a photograph which I took, of a portrait hanging in the public old hall of the University that this gentleman was the principal of.

I feel as though there is some justification for it being here - it is a low quality reproduction (the colours are terrible compared to the original!), and it illustrates the article where I feel an actual photograph might be more difficult to justify - not least because since he died 24 years ago, no new photographs can be created. The photograph is currently listed as a fair use artwork, which seems entirely inappropriate, but I really have no idea how else to classify/justify this image's inclusion.

Many thanks in advance for your help Twrist (talk) 13:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but you own no copyright over that image. Two dimensional reproductions of two dimensional works are not considered to have any creative element and are therefore not copyrightable. The copyright status of the image is therefore the same as the copyright status of the portrait. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Not bad news at all, I have no desire to 'own copyright' over this image or any others - I just want to be able to keep the image on Wikipedia - is there nothing I can do? Twrist (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Since the subject is deceased, it may be usable under a fair use claim, but you'll need to put up a fair use rationale. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Erroneous warning tag

I uploaded Image:Gossip in 1888.jpg and this warning tag (automatically generated, I suppose?) appeared on it: "WARNING: http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/gossip.html does not appear to exist!" It does exist: when I click on the URL, I'm taken right to the page. Is there a way to fix this? Thanks! Krakatoa (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the you put the url in the "article" field; that field is supposed to be used to indicate the article the image is used in. Since there's no Wikipedia article by the name of the url you included, it gives that error. You can fix it, but is there some reason you're not claiming the image as being public domain? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have fixed the FU rationale but look at what I did and you will understand for the future though as Sarcasticidealist suggest this may actually be a PD image. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Sarcasticidealist and ww2censor, for your assistance and enlightenment. I didn't claim the image as public domain since I didn't know exactly what the standards were. I knew the author being dead 100+ years was significant, but alas I don't know the author, let alone how long he/she has been dead. Krakatoa (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

In the United States, anything first published before 1923 is in the public domain. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Anything published first in the United States before 1923 is public domain. If its first publication was elsewhere it may not be. --NE2 22:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not true, at least as far as en.wiki is concerned. Anything published before 1923 anywhere is public domain in the US. (It may not be PD in the country of origin.) Since en.wiki only requires that images be PD in the US, any image published anywhere before 1923 is OK to upload here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Calliopejen beat me to it - see the Hirtle chart. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Rainfall image from the Mexican Government

I'm not sure what the license for a rainfall image from the Mexican Government would be. The image is located in a post-storm report on Tropical Storm Dora in 2005. Summary of Tropical Storm Dora (Mexican Report) I've asked an administrator, Hurricanehink, and he said that the image is fair use but neither of us know how to correctly upload it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The only image in that document that I could see qualifying as fair use is the satellite one, and then only if there was no free equivalent from NASA. All other images in there are replaceable by free images. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

How could the rainfall one be replaced by a free image? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Somebody could make an image that served exactly the same purpose, and release it under a free license. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Did I Do Everything Correct?

I got the messege about my pics and I was wondering did I add the tag corectly? I'm kind of new to this so I realy don't know how it works..Is there anything else that I need to do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beasley23803 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

What are you asking about? —teb728 t c 02:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This user has been blocked indefinitely for vandalism. -- GateKeeperX (talk) 02:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Would an image of a print from an 1893 magazine still be in copyright?

I'd like to add an image to an article on a British politician. The image is a caricature from an 1893 edition of Vanity Fair magazine. I photographed the image myself from a print I purchased. Given that the image is now over 100 years old, is this still under copyright? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr-john (talk • contribs) 23:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It's out of copyright in the US (see {{PD-US}}), so you can upload it here at en.wikipedia. To upload it on the commons, it also has to be out of copyright in the country of origin (here, England). English copyright expiration depends on the date of death of the author. Do you know who the cartoonist is? Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Calliopejen1. The cartoonist is Leslie Ward, who signed his works as Spy. He died in 1922. Dr-john (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC).

Then it should be public domain in the U.K. too, as their copyright term is life of author plus seventy years. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

CBS News fails Fair Use ?

I believe that this image (Image:CBSEveningNewsKatie.jpg) being used at the Katie Couric Article may not meet the fair use criteria. "a screenshot from a movie is acceptable to use when talking about the movie itself — it is not acceptable to use it to talk about the actress who happens to be in the picture. (It is possible for a free content picture of the actress to be taken.)" [13]] In this case, Katie Couric is stil alive and already has a free image available in the lead section. I would suggests that the Image be used at CBS_Evening_News. I'm listing this here for more opinions. -- GateKeeperX (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you are correct, I read it the same way, that particular image is not irreplaceable or particularly compelling or informative. The text suffices to explain she appears as an anchor on CBS. Mfield (talk) 06:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Political campaign brochures

In the article about the campaign, where the wording on the brochure is the title of the article, and shows the strategy of the campaign. E.g., in the article Save Our Children, the brochure cover reads "Save Our Children from Homosexuality / Vote for Repeal of Metro's Gay Blunder June 7 / Here's Why". Not sure of which licensing tag to use. Save Our Children obviously no longer exists. Image was provided by Stonewall Library & Archives.

Do you have a copy of the original brochure? If there's no copyright notice and it was published in 1977 or earlier, it is {{PD-Pre1978}}. If there is a copyright notice or you don't know, or if it was published 1978 or later, it's {{non-free fair use in}}. It doesn't matter whether the organization still exists. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It was 1977. I can use the {{PD-Pre1978}} tag, I suppose? Good news. I don't have a copy of the original, but the Stonewall Archives does. --Moni3 (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

However, it's possible that the image is in the public domain, depending on its contents, e.g. if the brochure shows nothing more than text in a particular font ({{pd-ineligible}}). Without being able to see the image in question it's not possible to give any kind of firm answer. -- Hux (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I can upload it using the pre-1978 tag, and I suppose the sorting of the licensing can be decided. --Moni3 (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. That'll work. -- Hux (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Save Our Children From Homosexuality Brochure.jpg As it appears here. Please check licensing. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Since we don't have the entire brochure, there's no way to know whether it was published without a copyright notice. (That's why I asked if you had the original.) It's extremely simple, however, so I'll retag it {{PD-ineligible}}. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Image from old season

Would an image from a still running T.V. show with a past season be considered copyright? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdude2 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would still be copyrighted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Arshad Mehmood.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Arshad Mehmood.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 08:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This bot posted a message for me about an image, I am not sure how to put more information than is already there, the image is not replaceable and I couldn't find the appropriate way to add the pic (wikipedia keeps evolving and I came back after a long wiki break). User:Waqas.usman (Talk) 05:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, under current Wikipedia standards, the image would be considered replaceable, since the subject appears to be a living person; there'd be nothing stopping somebody from taking a picture of him and releasing it under a free license. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• NOTE: I reverted User:Waqas.usman edits back to the version by STBotI as no fair use rationale was added but all the tags were removed. The tags needs to stay there until this issue is resolved. Thanks Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Prout in a picture

I would like to include this image (the triangles) in the Wikipedia article on Prout (Progressive Utilization Theory). Am I correct to assume usage of this image in this particular article would be acceptable since it is directly pertinent to the article AND I have permission from the copyright holders?

If so, do I need to write the formal letter to the copyright holders and submit that to Wikipedia etc. (I'm confused about that whole process) -- or can I simply place an "image copyright tag" near the image in the Wikipedia article -- if so, does THEIR copyright symbol need to be removed from the image -- or what needs to be done? Sorry, I'm very confused, but I do want to do this correctly.

I have already contacted the copyright holders, and they have granted permission to use the image. However, they had the image copyrighted specifically because they do NOT want it altered in any way. This obviously means the image is NOT "free" material, and I don't want to use it on Wikipedia if there is no way to prevent it from being "altered". However, Wikipedia does seem to allow for the use of copyrighted images, as long as certain (complicated, extensive) steps are taken. I'm willing to take whatever steps are necessary. I just don't understand the procedure, and I don't want to mess it up. Can someone help please? Thank you David Kendall (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Whether the copyright holder allows use on wikipedia is basically irrelevant. (Though if you forward the email to OTRS, following the instructions at WP:COPYREQ you can add the {{withpermission}} tag to the image page.) Basically you just have to ensure that the image meets the non-free content criteria and add a fair use tag as described at WP:FURG. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Life photos hosted by Google

As of today, Google is hosting millions of images owned by LIFE magazine. See here. They are all high-res scans as far as I can tell, and many are pre-1923 (some dating to the 1700s). However, the website says that many images were not previously published. Can people help brainstorm ways to figure out which images have been previously published and which haven't? Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Photos of products, not in box

What copyright header applies to a photograph I have taken of a manufactured product, in this case a toy which is identifiable to a single producer, but wherein the manufacturer's name and/or logo are not visible? The product packaging is not in the photo.

I would just use {{non-free fair use in}} (the generic tag). (This assumes that the toy is sufficiently creative to be eligible for copyright, which is probably true but might not be depending on the circumstances.) Also be sure to release your creative contributions to the photo under a free license. (There are two copyrights here, yours as the photographer, and the company as the toy-maker.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyright status question

What is the copyright status of a book published in 1933 in the United Kingdom. Is it out of copyright? Mjroots (talk) 11:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Depends on when the author died. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Is copyright an issue if someone wants to type out a page from a book for viewing on the talk page for other editors, if it's in quotes and attributed? I ask because this request regards my request to see the text from the book (which I cannot access any other way) in order to improve the representation of material from it in an article. Tiamut^talk 15:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Author died c1976 as far as I can discover. Guess it's still in copyright then? Mjroots (talk) 07:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It's "life + 70 years" in the UK, I believe. So you'd have to wait until 2046 or so before that work went into the public domain. :( -- Hux (talk) 08:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Licensing images

Can somebody please have a look at Image:Gator-Amaz.gif and Image:Puzl jdg.gif‎. I uploaded the images upon request by email from User:PraeceptorIP. I then asked him to fill the permission field. He did so. What should be added now in the "licensing" section? Is "See above permission" sufficient? Thanks for any tip/help. Cheers. --Edcolins (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Neither of them are correct. :( For Image:Gator-Amaz.gif, Praeceptor doesn't own the copyright so he cannot license it (and he didn't license it freely as a matter of fact, either). It is copyrighted by Amazon and Half.com. The image needs to be tagged with {{non-free fair use in}} and given a separate fair use rationale for every page on which it appears, assuming it meets the non-free content criteria. (The use of these images should be reviewed to make sure this assumption is correct.) To write a fair use rationale, see WP:FURG. Next, for Image:Puzl jdg.gif‎, this image cannot be used unless it is licensed under a truly free license, for use by anyone anywhere, even for profit. See WP:ICTIC for a list; I recommend {{cc-by-sa}}. If Praeceptor is not willing to license it under a free license, it must be deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

With regard to the popup image, you make a point of fair use. Let me add that although its use may conform to US fair use law, Wikipedia's policy on non-free content is substantially more restrictive than fair use. The reason is that Wikipedia has a goal of creating freely reusable content, and to this end it accepts non-free content only when it is absolutely essential to an article. Sorry —teb728 t c 23:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for the responses. For Image:Puzl jdg.gif‎, things seem to be improving... For the other one, Image:Gator-Amaz.gif, still not perfect as I understand. If you have a suggestion to help the author of the image, please could you post it on his talk page User talk:PraeceptorIP. Thanks in advance. I had actually asked the questions here to help this new user. Cheers, --Edcolins (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

financial risk mangement

pl heip me to know every thing in financial risk mangement i am new in this departement and if there is any training courses in this field to learn mor and more i will be appreciate your help

i need to learn more about Market risk- interest rate risk - currency risk - value at risk - liquidity risk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adjanna (talk • contribs) 05:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over two million articles, and thought that we were directly affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the online free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is a help desk for asking questions related to using the encyclopedia. Thus, we have no inside track on the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the left hand side of your screen. If that is not fruitful, we have a reference desk, divided into various subjects areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. —teb728 t c 06:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Linking to images in violation of copyright

We're having a discussion about linking to images in violation, or probable violation, of copyright over at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Photobucket as a reference when photobucket is not really the reference. I'd appreciate it if someone more knowledgeable than me could take a look at that discussion and clarify what images are and are not OK to link to. hbent (talk) 02:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

want to update wikipedia image to the same Wikipedia commons image

Resolved

 – --Mfield (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

On the Winnipeg page in wikipedia theres a satalite image of Winnipeg labeled " Winnipeg.jpg ", later i found an other image of Winnipeg from a satalite view labeled " Winnipeg.jpg " in Wikipedia commons, only the wikipedia commons photo is much more high definition. I was wondering how i could get the " Winnipeg.jpg " photo from wikicommons to the main Wikipedia page so it can be put on the winnipeg page?

the commons version is this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Winnipeg.jpg the wikipage version is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Winnipeg.jpg

As they share the same filename, it is impossible to specify the commons file for use on wikipedia (unless there is a syntax I have never come across and not been able to search out). I have put a rename request on the Commons image to rename it to "Image:Winnipeg satellite image NASA.jpg". When the rename bot gets to it you will be able to use that name. Mfield (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The Commons rename bot has finally got round to dealing with my request so I am switching the image in the article for you. Mfield (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Usaf-laser.jpg

Yet again, an image has been moved from Wikipedia to Wikimedia, and then deleted at Wikimedia because there is insufficient sources information. The first we get to know here on Wikipedia that there is a problem is when the image disappears from the article, too late to do anything on Commons. The original information is long gone from Wikipedia, this one was moved over two years ago. So how can I see the original info uploaded with the image? Possibly the problem can be resolved if that was available. This image has been in the speed of light article for literally years. It is ridiculous that such good images are thrown away for the bureaucratic reason that data was not properly transferred to Commons. Far from the only image I have seen this happen to. Can something be done about this? SpinningSpark 18:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

For a start you could go over to the commons and ask the deleting editor commons:User_talk:EugeneZelenko to discuss the deletion and ask him for information you want. It may weel be that the image was moved when it did not fulfill the Commons criteria. ww2censor (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is ridiculous. There's a problem with the deletion process at Commons not making any effort to check usage of the images on other Wiki projects and post messages on local wikis where people who know about the image might be able to resolve the problem (or who would certainly be more concerned with fixing the problem and retaining content rather than just itching to hit delete with no interest in final use). Perhaps we need to do more to encourage people not to move images to Commons unless they are completely certain of the correct procedure, and we should verify that any bots or scripts people are using are performing the task completely and up to commons requirements so we don't lose any more content this way. Mfield (talk) 19:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Well thats another problem, because of past bad experiences I try to stop anything I create being moved to Commons, but there is no arguing with the simple souls carrying out this process who are just doing it "by the numbers". I have had this argument several times including over this worhtless piece of trash that I only drew to illustrate a point on a talk page. I pointed out the futility of doing this move several times and then gave up as it was obviously not going to change anyone's mind. Laughably, it has now been tagged by a bot at Commons because it cannot categorise it. Of course it can't, it shouldn't be there in the first place. I am on the verge of giving up contributing diagrams to Wikipedia because I have to spend so much time defending them from moves to Commons. Now getting back to the particular image at issue today, yes I can go ask EugeneSelenko but I have been round this loop before. They will say the information is missing, I will say well was it on the original Wikipedia upload, they will say they don't know this is Commons, not Wikipedia, I will say can you put it back on Wikipedia how it was and we will try and fix the problems there. They will say no they can't. Life is too short to keep having this conversation over and over. So yes, I could go and hassle Commons, but no, I am not going to because it will go nowhere. Where is the original Wikipedia image page? I want to look at it and all the information it contained. SpinningSpark 20:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, first, if it is Image:Usaf-laser.jpg you are talking about, that actual image is available. Second, you should be chewing out the admin who deleted it here if there was full information here but it wasn't copied over to Commons. That's his fault; the first rule before deleting here is that you need to verify that all the information was passed on. If you want, message me and I can restore it, but that image just says "USAF" without any more information. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Between the uploader with just "USAF" (admittedly in 2003-2006 when image sourcing was more lax), the person who copied it to Commons even though it was incomplete, and the admin who deleted it because it was incomplete, I'm really curious how this is the admin at Commons' fault. The person at Commons is going to assume that all the information was passed up because it shouldn't be deleted here if it wasn't. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure why you are blaming Commons the image was never sourced on Wikipedia when originally uploaded in August 2003 the only comment Laser (USAF) then an IP user added PD-USGov in November 2004 and it was moved to commons with the same tag in 2005. It was presumable sent to Commons because of the unproven PD-USGov. It was picked up on a recent featured article review that it was unsourced which lead to it being deleted on Commons. So nothing to do with commons it has always been unsourced it has just taken time to notice it. MilborneOne (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but all of that is completely invisible to me, I cannot see the original page so I did not know what was on it. I hope in that case that the original uploader has been contacted who might be able to provide the information. Does this mean that all pre-2006 images will eventually get deleted from Wikipedia because we were not insisting on source information at that time? Bearing in mind that people move on and the original uploaders will no longer be around in a lot of cases. SpinningSpark 00:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It was uploaded by User:Mbstone who has not edited since February 2008. MilborneOne (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Many have been. Many fair-use images have been deleted. Policies change. It's like arguing that information that has been removed because of WP:BLP should be saved. I'd rather they don't get themselves deleted, but they would have been sometime. So, your issue is that the admin at Commons who deleted the image after the person who moved it to Commons didn't bother to tell the person who originally uploaded it to English about it? Shouldn't the person who moved it to Commons who gets notified about the image's deletion be responsible to pass the information downward? Why should the admin try to figure out who the uploader at Commons got it from? I've seen images added with "from French wikipedia"? If I go to delete it, am I supposed to try to solve where there they got the image from (many get re-named)? Or shouldn't the person who is uploading someone else's images be ultimately responsible? You can always just ask an admin here to look it up for you. Most would readily restore images that have been transferred to Commons and are now gone there. I would at least. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this really compares with BLP that is a different issue altogether. Certainly, I agree that an uploader to Commons should pass on a problem to the original uploader. But it cannot be relied on, the uploader to Commons may no longer be around. The original uploader and any information he entered should be on Commons so it should be straight forward to notify the original uploader. This is why I don't like my work being uploaded to Commons, it is one more layer that isolates me from what is going on and one more layer of process for things to go wrong in. Are we not assuming good faith here, that the original uploader acted in good faith and obtained the image from a free source, that the IP who later added the tag acted in good faith and new that the picture is US Gov? You are assuming that these people might have acted in bad faith because boxes were not filled in that did not exist at the time. I could upload a picture now, fill in the source and tag it as free. That has ticked all the right boxes but proves nothing, I could have got it from a random site on the internet or photocopied it from a book. No one has actually asserted that this image is actually violating anyones copyright have they? Anyway Ricky, does your last statement mean that you are willing to restore THIS image? SpinningSpark 01:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

As to the person who lies and makes up an entire source, well, that's the problem of Wikipedia's structure. For the changes, I feel bad but that doesn't mean we have to let them sit here while we add more restrictions to newer images and keep older ones out of historical luck. Well, I'd restore it but is there a better source? It literally does just say "Laser (USAF) {{PD-USGov}}" at best. Someone would delete it in a second if you don't have more to add. Here is the image in question, from an old Answers.com version of physicist. I'm honestly not seeing it from www.af.mil. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No, 'fraid not, I can only see the same google images that you have found yourself, all likely copied from Wikipedia. That does suggest to me, though, that the original source was not simply scraped off the internet. SpinningSpark 16:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

User claims copyright

On this image, there is a clear copyright claim to a photographer named Dean Staples. The imaged was loaded by a user named Shenasmart (talk · contribs), who claims ownership as the creator of the work. Is this a valid copyright claim (since there is no way to verify that Shenasmart is, indeed, Dean Staples)? Or should this image be removed for copyright infringement? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As it is an image on Commons this would not be the place to discuss it. You should bring the question up over there. It is hard to tell if the uploader is the photographer as they only have this image in their history. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:5-cube solved close.png

How can I challenge the CSD18 tag on this image? I cannot see how the CSD template has been generated. When this image Image:Rectifier with reservoir.svg was tagged for commons, the tagger agreed to mark it as not for deletion. I can see how that one worked but this tagging is using a different template. SpinningSpark 16:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:4-cube horribly scrambled.png

Same as above, CSD 18 challenge please. Is there a template I can pre-emptively use on images that have not yet been moved to Commons either requesting that they are not moved or alternatively that the local image is not deleted? Thanks in advance for your help. SpinningSpark 16:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

But both images are already on commons. CSD I8 is for images that have already been moved to commons so I am not 100% sure what the question is. An image can be moved to commons for various reasons, what reason do you have for not wanting the images listed on Commons? Is there an unseen copyright issue with them? Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't apply to these images, but if an image is {{PD-US}}, if could be tagged {{do not move to Commons}}. That's the only such tag I am aware of. —teb728 t c 19:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The question is in two parts, (1) I wish to challenge the CSD on Wikipedia of the images that are already moved to commons and (2) I am asking for a method of preventing future CSDs arising on similar images that might be proposed for commons. I have no particular wish to stop a move to commons, or anywhere else, other than as a method of preventing CSD18 arising. SpinningSpark 20:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

To stop images which have already been copied and tagged being deleted, remove the {{NowCommons}} tagging and add {{NoCommons}}. To stop images being copied, add {{KeepLocal}} to them. Should work. If it doesn't, let me know. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I am still confused as to why though. Now we have the restored image(s) with multiple tags saying it is a duplicate of an image on Commons, which may lead to another CSD i8 unless, as Angus McLellan pointed out, the {{KeepLocal}} or {{NoCommons}} tags are added. But I need to quell my curiosity on this one. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If the image is here on the English-language Wikipedia, it can only be used on articles here. On Commons it can be used in articles on any Wikipedia, or on Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wikisource or Wikiversity. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand that, but I don't think it was/is Spinningspark's ultimate quest to have the images only for Wikipedia use. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all thanks to everyone for your help, Especially AngusMc for the fast undelete. My reasons for doing this (since you are asking you are getting a long post) is that I have spent a lot of time chasing after images that have been moved to commons, commons have found a problem and deleted it and the first anyone on en.wiki knows about it is when the image disappears from the article. In fact, if you are really not on the ball, it is possible to miss that it has been deleted altogether as a bot comes round fairly sharpish and deletes the redlink so there is no visisble sign that there was ever an image in the article. The circuit diagram in Lecher lines, for instance had been there for years and I am pretty sure that a simple circuit diagram is never going to be a copyright problem but commons deleted it because of insufficient information and I could not persuade anyone to put it back (the current drawing is a more recent svg created by me to replace it). There used to be an image in Rubik's cube generated by the same software package as the images just restored (but not uploaded by me in this case), that went the same way, moved to commons, challenged and deleted on the basis of an irrelevant copyright statement on the website which the deleters perversely misread in the worst possible way. Even though, in my opinion, a free licence was clearly intended, I went to great trouble and needed to ask three seperate companies to make statements (I'm sure they have better things to do) before I could get an OTRS ticket for this. I did not really care very much about the Rubik's cube image (it has still not been restored) but I did care about a number of images I had uploaded for other articles hence the lengths I went to over the OTRS ticket. The basis of my opposition is that I really do not trust that all relevant information finds its way onto commons. Given the past history of deletions of this class of image, the OTRS ticket is really important: I note that the first image in this thread was transferred to commons without the ticket thus confirming my determination to carry on insisting the images stay here. Also not transferred is the history of that image page on Wikipedia which shows that, amongst other things, it was user Roice3 who changed the licence from GFDL to PD. Roice is the owner of the IPR to the software which generated the image. He believes that the IPR of the images are the property of user of the software (and the OTRS ticket will confirm this) and as a believer in free distribution felt PD was more appropriate for Wikipedia and changed the licence (with my full blessing on e-mail). All of this history, important licencing history, is lost when moved to commons. This is to say nothing of upload history of the file which may be needed sometimes. I could go on with this tale of woes but I think this gives you the idea. Thanks again for pointing me to the templates, I will be making a lot of use of those. SpinningSpark 21:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, makes sense. Isn't the OTRS ticket always "on file" though? In other words the uploader has that information so if it was missing it could be added? it is good to know these things and perhaps that is something that can be added to the actual upload area. (An option to enter an OTRS number for an image) Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I owe you a grovelling apology for not copying the OTRS ticket to the Commons image. I am usually quite compulsive about making sure all tags are present, but alas I'm not infallible. I entirely take your point about the deletions, especially when they are combined with a bot which removes links from wiki articles silently. While there's nothing we can do here about the deletions, we could easily undo them if only it was obvious that they were deleted. So, I'm going to see if I can get the bot flag removed from CommonsDelinker (talk · contribs). Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

(to Soundvisions) and if the uploader is no longer around? that is when the majority of the problem deletions arise, the uploader is not there to provide missing information. Or it could be that the uploader just does not use watchlists and would miss the deletion altogether - I have to maintain a watchlist of 1000+ which takes enormous time and effort to go through to guarantee catching these. I am quite sure that not every editor does that. To Angus, no need to apologise, mistakes are bound to happen, which is why I think that the original has to stay on en.wik. I would be happy with it if the whole package - image, talk page, page history and file history - were moved to commons as a block, but that's not the way it currently works. SpinningSpark 01:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Company information update

I work for a company that is attempting to update it's "orphaned" page. I want to upload our company logo. It is registered. I also want to update the company info.

I'm new to Wikipedia and I have signed up to be adopted, but my adoptor is sick and on leave or something.

Any assistance on this would be greatly appreciated,

-Marty Testing123 (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

To upload the logo, click on Upload file in the sidebar of all pages. Then click “The logo of an organization” and fill out the form, setting the Licensing to “Logo.” What else do you want help with? —teb728 t c 22:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pearling crew 1926.JPG

I had earlier uploaded this image. However, I personally requested its deletion when an administrator kept tagging it repeatedly as if insisting upon its deletion. However, I feel quite convinced that it is perfectly right for this image to be included in Madras Presidency#Trade, Industry and Commerce. Pearl fishing is clearly mentioned in the paragraph on fishing industry in the Presidency. See here:

"The Madras Presidency also had a thriving fishing industry. Shark's fins[122], fish maws[122] and fish curing-operations[123] comprised the main sources of income for fishermen. The southern port of Tuticorin was a centre of conch-fishing[124] but Madras, along with Ceylon, was mainly known for its pearl fisheries.[125] Pearl fisheries were harvested by the Paravas and was a lucrative profession."

The photograph appeared in a National Geographic Magazine issue dated February 1926. The photo is not in public domain as per Template:PD-US but is in public domain in many other countries of the world. I am not sure, however, whether its copyright has been renewed. But I don't feel any harm in including that photograph with a fair-use rationale.

The pearl-fishing photograph is a rare image from British India. The southern part of India was internationally famous for pearl-fishing. In fact, pearl-fishing activities in this part of the world have been portrayed in the fiction Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea by Jules Verne. Yeah, I can add a recent image of pearl-fishing but I feel that the methods and implements would have changed a great deal in these eight decades. And if I were to find a replacement for this particular image I would have to add another from the same article which would, obviously, not be in public domain, either. Practically speaking, I don't find anything wrong in adding that image as it is highly unlikely that the February 1926 issue of the National Geographic Magazine is in mass circulation now and the inclusion of the image would not harm the business interests of the National Geographic Society. I've clearly stated these points in the fair-use rationale for the image.

I request administrators to intervene in this regard and help me with the fair-use rationale and the reinstatement of the image. I feel quite convinced that it belongs to the article and that there is no harm in having it there. If you wish to verify the source, then I'm here to provide all the info you need.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 05:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that the uses you describe meet Wikipedia's stringent non-free content criteria, especially criterion 8 (and possibly also criterion 1; I couldn't evaluate that without seeing the image). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. According to this the February 1926 issue of National Geographic Magazine was renewed on 13 February 1953. So the image is not in the public domain. This means that any use of the image on Wikipedia must conform to Wikipedia’s policy on non-free content, in particular WP:NFCC#8, which says, “Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.” It is not enough that the article mention the subject of an image. The image has to be critical to the article so that its omission would be detrimental to reader’s understanding of the article.” The article’s statements, “Madras, along with Ceylon, was mainly known for its pearl fisheries,” and “Pearl fisheries were harvested by the Paravas and was a lucrative profession” are perfectly understandable without any image. Sorry, —teb728 t c 06:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Photo of the statue of Anne Frank

The statue of Anne Frank image:AnneFrankstatue.jpg is by Mari Andriessen who died in 1979. It is less than 70 years ago. It cannot be public domain yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malumma (talk • contribs) 08:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The Netherlands has fairly liberal Freedom of panorama. As the sculpture was designed to be put in a public place and the photo was taken in a public place photos of it are not an infrindgement of the sculptures copyright.Geni 16:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

image questions..

now say i take a screenshot myself, and did not put it on a website.. would i still have to say what website it came off..? even if i took it myselft? havnt yet but still want to no.. 949paintball (talk) 12:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

What is the screenshot of? If it's a screenshot of any kind of creative work produced by somebody other than you, it is very likely that the copyright for the image would rest with them and that it would be unsuitable for us on Wikipedia. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

runescape.. i accualy did and it gave me the copyrite thing.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 949paintball (talk • contribs) 21:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Image of Wolfgang Paul

A Image of Wolfgang Paul which I found on the net states: Photo: Humboldt Foundation Reproduction free of charge - specimen copy requested Would a use in Wikipedia be OK? I have a email from them that a use at Wikipedia is OK for them. What liscence and what copyright staus would be good for a image like that?--Stone (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Not okey to use on wikipedia because it doesn't allow for derivatives.Geni 17:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

derivatives? They allow the use for wikipedia expicitly in the email!--Stone (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes but that doesn't mean you can edit the image or sell it.Geni 19:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not accept permission for use only on Wikipedia. Wikipedia accepts permission only for use by anyone for anything, including commercial use and modification. —teb728 t c 19:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Wait wait wait people! Please note that Wolfgang Paul is long dead and a free image of him is nowhere to be found. This image can probably be used under our general non-free content criteria. Permission also never hurts when using non-free images. You can tag the image {{non-free fair use in}}, add a fair use rationale, and tag it with {{non-free with permission}} (forward the email you received to permissions-en@wikimedia.org). BUT FIRST please email the foundation and explain that Wikipedia prefers not to use images that have not been freely licensed, and ask them politely if they would be willing to license it under a free license. Instructions for this are available at WP:COPYREQ (read this first to make sure you ask for the right thing). Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Sojourner Truth and The New Colossus

I need to know if these article are in the public domain. Can you help me determine this fact. If they are not in the public domain, can you help by giving me the publishers from which I would need to get permission to use these articles. Thanks, Ĺ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.83 (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly, they are covered by GFDL licence but this should answer your question. ww2censor (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

See also WP:REUSE. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Japanese book cover from 1920

Yo, does the "everything from before 1923 is public domain" rule apply to images of Japanese book covers from 1920? The image in question is Image:The Ego and Its Own - Tsuji Jun translation.jpg. Thanks, the skomorokh 17:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

If the book was published before 1923 with that cover, then it is in the public domain in the United States, which is sufficient for use on Wikipedia. If it is possible to identify the author of the cover, then it entered/will enter the public domain in Japan fifty years after his/her death. If it's not possible to do so, then it entered the public domain in Japan fifty years after its publication. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, great! Do you happen to know what templates ought to be stuck on it? I'm wondering what will stop FU-bots from targeting it. the skomorokh 18:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

{{PD-US-1923-abroad}} would probably be best. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help :) the skomorokh 18:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Women's suffrage

Is Susan B Anthony's speech at the Seneca Falls Convention copyrighted? If it is who would I contact for permission to use an excerpt in print. Thank you

Ṃ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.83 (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

As Susan B. Anthony died more than a hundred years ago, anything she produced would now be in the public domain in any jurisdiction I'm aware of. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I need some help. I don't know what I'm doing wrong.

I always put the copyright information in, but for some reason, I get a message saying I neglected to to that. Marvinrashad (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

If you are referring to non-free images, they need a full fair use rationale for each page they are used on. For things like book covers and the like, I usually upload the image with no information, add it to the article, and then use WP:FURME to add the appropriate information in the appropriate manner. Hope this helps, the skomorokh 18:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

How to upload promo photos?

The upload page offers "A promotional photo from an advertisement, press kit, or other promotional source or a historically significant fair use photo" as a choice.

I have promotional photos for a theatre production, and the aforementioned page seems to encourage me to upload them. But the list of licensing possibilities does not cover any sort of promotional photo. Is "historically significant fair use" the appropriate choice in this case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wspr81 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

preventing image deletion

how do you stop a copyrighted trademark logo from being deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twinsday (talk • contribs) 18:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

In general you tag it with a copyright tag (like {{non-free logo}}), use it in an article in a way that conforms with WP:NFCC, and provide a non-free use rationale. If you are asking specifically about Image:Header 2.jpg, the thing that was lacking was the use rationale, which you have now provided. (BTW, that is a poor choice for an image name.) —teb728 t c 19:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Moondog

There is an image in Wikimedia Commons that I would like to add to the Moondog article, and which is an image of a musical instrument made by Moondog. However, when I add it to the article I do not get the image I do not get the image of the instrument, but what looks like an image of someplace in South East Asia. The actual image can be found in Moondog in Wikimedia Commons. Any solution to this problem? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Image:Trimba1.jpg

If a duplicate filename exists on wikipedia, the local copy will be used in preference, there is no way to specify the commons version from en:WP. Either the commons one needs to be renamed, or the En one needs to be renamed or moved over to commons with a new file name and the local copy deleted. The first solution is easier. I am a trusted commons user, I will add a rename on the Commons one to a more specific name. It will take up to a few days for the bot to actually perform the rename though. Mfield (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It can be done by hand if you need it done faster, just reupload the image with a new name, preserving the information and then the original can be deleted as a duplicate. That's the process that the bot automates. Mfield (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Or you could delete the orphaned local image as a copyright violation of http://www.nashik.com/corporate/ahirrao.html MilborneOne (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggesting that I could make the change myself might be misguided. I may be the most computer illiterate WP user there ever was. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have tagged the local as a copyvio. If it goes before the other one gets renamed, I'll pull the rename template off the other. Mfield (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Just deleted local image and a musical instrument appears! MilborneOne (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the rename tag from the commons image so you can add it to the article without fear it will change. Mfield (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

New York Times archive

The New York Times archive goes back to 1851. Are any of these articles old enough that their copyright has expired and thus (where appropriate) we could use verbatim text for articles? If yes, before what date is the content public domain? If no, how old does the content need to be before it ages out (if ever)?--68.237.2.254 (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Certainly some would be. Have a look at copyright in the United States or something like that (I think the date is 1923 for published works?). Richard001 (talk) 02:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I appeciate that you attempted to answer but that's not very definitive at all, which I was hoping for. Note that all of the pages on NYT.com, right back to 1851, indicate an existing copyright at the bottom; here's an actual copied example: "Published: September 29, 1851 Copyright © The New York Times". Just because they say it, though, doesn't make it true does it?--68.237.2.254 (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

No, they certainly can't just declare that something they published almost 160 years ago is copyrighted. Anything before 1900 will definitely be okay. From United States copyright law: " All copyrightable works published in the United States before 1923 are in the public domain". Richard001 (talk) 02:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Licensing questions regarding the nature of attribution

Can an author require than an in-image credit be retained (not cropped out or otherwise removed, or if removed a similar credit added), and/or can they require that Wikipedia credit them on the article itself, while staying within the criteria required by Wikipedia? The conditions require modifications to be allowed, but requiring an in-image credit doesn't prevent image modification even though it may constrain it a bit. Can we accept either of these requirements? I ask because one person has given us a lot of images, but they are a bit annoyed that they get no credit unless you view the image page itself. It's not a huge deal, but could always be the last straw for someone. Richard001 (talk) 02:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that requiring the continued presence of a watermark as a condition of reuse isn't free enough for Wikipedia. Regardless, though, according to Wikipedia's image use policy, "images should not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free use, unless, of course, the image is intended to demonstrate watermarking, distortion etc. and is used in the related article. All photo credit should be in a summary on the image description page." Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

But what about credit on the article, which is a substitute for watermarking. Where do we say that we won't accept an image if the condition is that we have to provide in-article credit (as many other Encyclopedias do by default)? Richard001 (talk) 02:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyright status of sculptures

Does anyone know the copyright status of 3D works of art? I know photographs of 2D artworks aren't allowed unless the painting or whatever is in the public domain... Cavie78 (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a complicated issue that depends on where the sculpture is located. See Commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama. —teb728 t c 22:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Private Dancer Single Cover

I was granted permission from the owner DANNY FERNANDES to upload the image on the song article. DANNY FERNANDES is also a facebook user with a fan page with all of his single covers, and album covers. This image is the cover of the audio recording. Hometown Kid (talk) 10:38, 24 November 2008.

The problem is that your use rationale did not name the article where the image was used. The name of the article is required for non-free use rationales. I added the article name too a couple of your rationales. —teb728 t c 21:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

copyright over a specific photo of a painting vs copyright over any reproduction of the painting

i would like to post a low resolution image (but quality enough for posting it), (A photo I took from a painting). I have the painting author autorization to make free of use this particular image . i'm wondering if i do that, what happens about the the real painting copyright and any other image of it? more precisely, if we agree to make public this specific low res image, does the copyright of the painting itself fall in the public domain? and what about any other hi-res photo? Erikto (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

See WP:COPYREQ for how to handle third party authorization. We can't give legal advice here, but if someone tried to post a hi-res photo on Wikipedia, arguing that it was authorized by the license on your lo-res photo, I would try to delete it as a copyright violation. —teb728 t c 01:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Screenshot of Website

I was wondering if it would be permissible to upload a screenshot of the following website (TVCatchup) to help give a visual context to its related article? I'm a bit hesitant as I understand that logos that are not free use (I think that's the word) aren't allowed, but the screenshot contains logos from BBC, ITV, five etc. So would those logos be considered not for free use? Thanks. londonsista | ^Prod 23:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You can upload a logo like this. Just use the non-free use method, as the person above asked about. Since they are a .com their logo is almost certainly copyrighted (even Wikipedia's is, in fact). Richard001 (talk) 02:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

In fact, being a .com has nothing to do with it; all creative works are copyrighted upon creation. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

What I meant is that it's unlikely that they would have released any of those rights. Richard001 (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

So I guess I can't upload the screenshot of the page as the TV logos are most likely copyrighted? londonsista | ^Prod 18:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, just upload it under a non-free license. Provided a photo is significant in improving the article and a free alternative is not an option it's okay to use fair use. Richard001 (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your help. :) londonsista ^Prod 07:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Question about a derivative work

I came across Image:Wlm logo remake.png and the subsequent SVG. The image clearly states it's a derivative to get around fair-use issues. My question is: Don't derivatives have the same copyright status as the original image? Which in this case appears to be a mixture of Image:Wlm logo-ic.png and Image:Windows Messenger XP Icon.png. Thanks for your time. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 02:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It's clearly based on it, though if it was much more dissimilar it wouldn't be recognizable (for example the green and blue are around the other way). I doubt it's worth bothering about myself, though some might feel the need to eradicate it. I suppose the shinyness effects and perhaps even the arms could be done away with. Richard001 (talk) 02:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I my (decidedly amateur) opinion, this is dissimilar enough not to qualify as a derivative work. But yes, derivative works do retain the copyright status of the works they're based on. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Under 17 USC sec. 103(a), no copyright exists with regard to an unauthorized derivative work. Therefore, its copyright is abandoned or forfeit, so that the work is in the public domain. -- PraeceptorIP (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

digital sphygmomanometer

I wonder if I can get the more informaton about digital sphygmomanometer such as block diagram or electric circuit of it and how it works with best wishes Aborusl (talk) 07:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the wrong place, you want WP:RP. — neuro^(talk) 07:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

would like to use image in my book

Statue of Coatlicue displayed in National Museum of Anthropology and History(Mexico) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.135.250 (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If you click on the image, the link takes you to Image:Coatlicue.jpg. It says there that the image was uploaded by User:Arturoramos, who claims authorship of the image and releases it to the public domain. —teb728 t c 21:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

... a screenshot of Poptropica?

I took it thinking it would be useful in the article. Vltava 68 (talk contribs) 05:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

This is intended as a constructive suggestion

Because of the numerous disputes that arise over the copyright status of images and other works used in connection with Wikipedia articles, particularly as to fair use issues, might it make for less controversy and speedier resolution if Wikipedia established a volunteer panel of Wikipedians who are copyright professors or copyright law practitioners -- to address these issues? It seems to me that many tags are placed by enthusiastic persons who are not well informed in this complex and difficult area, particularly as to what rights are in derivative works and what is fair use.
--PraeceptorIP (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC).

Something you do not seem to appreciate is that as a matter of policy Wikipedia intentionally restricts non-free content far more than fair use law. See the policy at WP:NFCC. Among other restriction, it accepts non-free content only if it is essential to understanding the article and only if it could not be replaced by free content. The reason for this policy is that Wikipedia has a goal of producing reusable content, and when non-free content is used, it potentially hampers the reusability of a page.

If you and other copyright professors or copyright law practitioners are interested, you are perfectly free to give your opinions at Images for Deletion and other deletion forums. But in order to be effective you and they would have to learn about Wikipedia policies, which are also quite complicated. For example, the reason your image, Image:Gator-Amaz.gif, is up of deletion is that it does not have a image copyright tag, as required by policy. See the explanation above at #Licensing images. As it says there, {{non-free fair use in}} is probably the best tag. As it also says there, it also needs a non-free use rationale for each use, explaining how that use conforms to WP:NFCC. —teb728 t c 23:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/All for a list of such tags. Since this is presumably a non-free image, see particularly the non-free content part of the list.

• A couple of points. First, I wasn't volunteering for the panel. I was inviting others to volunteer. It makes no sense to have people making what purport to be legal arguments when the arguments are insupportable, at least on a legal basis. Somebody (someone else) should volunteer to short-circuit the needless dithering.

--Essentiality is always a continuum. An image typically makes it easier for the reader to understand a point (hence the maxim about a picture and 1000 words), but how hard without or easy with must things be to satisfy policy? I would say that any substantial increment of greater ease in understanding justifies a use as fair, even though it is not impossible to do without it. Consider the Ninth Circuit's analysis in the Perfect 10 and Arriba Soft cases. Use of thumbnails in those cases is not absolutely essential to having an image search engine, but it it very beneficial. The courts saw that as enough to make thumbnails fair to use.

--One should not take pride in Wikipedia policies being complicated (or, gasp, user unfriendly). That may be a feature but it can be a bug too. It would be a benefit to everyone to make policies simpler and less complicated, as well as easier to understand. That would further compliance with policy. There is no benefit in having an inner priesthood that constitutes the only circle of those who understand policy, except possibly that of building self-satisfaction for the priests. Also time spent learning complicated policies, unless the policies serve an essential end, might better be spent editing articles or crearting them.

--I might add that the courts have spent many decades developing the concepts of fair use as a way best to trade off the interests at stake between the public and copyright owners. I cannot believe that the savants of Wikipedia can do a better job by re-inventing that wheel.

--I took the liberty of bolding what I was responding to. I hope you don't mind.

--PraeceptorIP (talk) 05:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• • The “legal basis” is that Wikimedia Foundation owns Wikipedia, and they have a right to make a policy on non-free content that is more restrictive than fair use law. And that policy is in fact substantially more restrictive than fair use law. You may think that the policy should be otherwise, but it is not up for discussion on this forum.
  • The purpose of the policy is not “to trade off the interests at stake between the public and copyright owners”; rather it is to minimize non-free content in order to maximize reusability of content.
  • It is not enough for use of an image to be “beneficial”; in the words of the policy, “Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.”
  • I don’t take “pride” in the policy being complicated; perhaps I shouldn’t have used the word complicated. My point was that the policy effectively includes fair use law; so that knowledge of the policy is important, whereas knowledge of fair use law is of little if any use in considering non-free content. —teb728 t c 10:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Image from defunct newspaper

Hi there, I have been looking for an image to place in the infobox on the Bobby Lennox article. Whilst looking for refs I came across this website. There is a photograph there from an old defunct newspaper which would suit it. Would I be able to download it? The newspaper, the Evening Citizen, has not been in circulation since 1974. I'm still trying to get my head round these things, so any advice would be very welcome. Thanks. Titch Tucker (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The website images are copyright and that will apply to the newspaper's images too. Non-free images are not supposed to be used in infoboxes, so you need to search some more for a PD image. ww2censor (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The search goes on. Titch Tucker (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Please check my "Fair use" rationale

Is this how you're supposed to add fair use rationale? Please let me know if the image needs anymore explanation. I don't know much about copyrights. Thanks --Unpopular Opinion (talk · contribs) 21:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I added a note about replaceability, which is also required. Otherwise the explanation looks ok to me: I removed the dispute tag. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 23:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot--Unpopular Opinion (talk · contribs) 06:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Plain text fair-use rationales are not recommended any more. You should use this template based rationale. The page gives detailed examples. ww2censor (talk) 06:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I added the template, thanks for all the help. --Unpopular Opinion (talk · contribs) 07:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

That's the way to do it. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Mangral

Why the image:sarfraz Mangral m.jpg has been removed from Wikipedia under subject Mangral. and also the image:Raja sakhi Daler khan.jpg is being removed from wikipedia as same above.§SARFRAZ MANGRAL (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

These were removed because they do not have an copyright status or because you had uploaded several identical photos (in which case, the duplicates were deleted.) Your log [14] shows the list of files you created. If you click on them, the explanation for their deletion is clearly listed. (EhJJ)^TALK 02:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Costs

What is the definition of direct unit costs and direct cost of unit sales when I'm am talking about a preschool business in a business plan? It is the cost of start-up sales? How do u figure it by full-time rates and part-time rates? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CreativeTeacher (talk • contribs) 19:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You might get a reply to that at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. This forum is media copyright questions. —teb728 t c 23:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)