Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Image Tagging for Image:Guysanddolls.jpg

I have been told that i have to add the the source and creator of the image Image:Guysanddolls.jpg How do i do that?

You'll need to do a bit or research to find-out who holds the copyright to the original photograph (usually the photographer or the company they work for), and then edit the image description page to add that information. Unless the copyright holder is the production itself, the theater, or one of their promoters, though, the fair use rationale presented in the {{promophoto}} template will not be applicable. ×Meegs 12:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know who owns the copyright but where on the image description page do i add it? I could not see that it would let me edit the template to add it in.

The image description page is here, you edit it like any other page. You do not edit the license template though, you pick another one. See in the fair use section of Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. --Sherool (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information about the source and copyright holder does not go inside the template. Instead, just type all of the information you have in lines above {{promophoto}} on the image description page. Let us know if you have any further questions. ×Meegs 13:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in order to be fair use at Newington College, the article needs to discuss this presentation of Guys and Dolls specifically. Otherwise it's just decoration. Angr (talk) 14:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the best tag to use then?

Well, as far as I know, there isn't a tag for a photograph of a live production, the way there is for TV and film screenshots. I suppose you should use {{Non-free fair use in}}, but you have to provide a detailed rationale for why it's fair use in Newington College, which as I said above, must include an explicit discussion of this production in order for there to be a valid fair use claim. Angr (talk) 06:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there one that says This image is copyright but wikipedia is allowed to use it? Feedyourfeet 14:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. Ironic as it may seem, Wikipedia policy is that Wikipedia doesn't use images by permission. The images either have to be public domain, or under a free license, or defendable under a fair-use claim. This is because Wikipedia has mirrors and other downstream users who have to be able to use the same images we do. If a copyright holder gives permission only to Wikipedia, then those downstream users don't have permission. Angr (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a more general sense, we can not use images by permission because our goal is not simply to build the Wikipedia website, but to create a free encyclopedia, useable anywhere, by anyone. In this case, the way to keep this picture would be to approach the copyright holder and ask them to release the image to the public domain or under a free license (such as the GFDL or Creative Commons Attribution). If you are merely looking for decorative images for this article, however, the best thing may be to take some images of the school yourself, and release those under a free license. ×Meegs 15:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the copyright issue

Image:SUC40035555.JPG regarding this for example. will someone please tell me how to get that copyright tag? because I have taken this photo.. myself... please do not make it so complicated.. because what you are doing is keeping people away from wikipedia.. people will eventually lose all their interest anyone out there hear me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aynali (talk • contribs)

Sorry that you found things too complicated. See Wikipedia:Image use policy for some more information. I've edited the description page to indicate that you intended to release the photograph under the GFDL. Please don't stop contributing original content! Jkelly 06:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US-GOV-PD and Washington, D.C.

Msclguru asks: "how do I tag things that were created by the government of the District of Columbia?".

I looked at Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags for possible tags. It is known that US States hold copyrights to the material they produce (no PD), as the work of the Federal Government goes generally to Public Domain. But Washington D.C. is a federal district and "Congress has the sole authority over this federal district and thus the municipal government" (from District_of_Columbia), so tagging the work created by the government of the District of Columbia as {{PD-USGov}} is correct? FYI I did multiple searches thorough google and it seems nowhere in Wikipedia has this been discussed. If applicable, please add something to the PD-USGov talk page about this also. feydey 19:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find any decision either, I added the question to image copyright tags to start a discussion. cohesion 21:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took the picture

I took some pictures and uploaded them but in "my talk," I keep getting messages saying I need to source and stuff- waht do i do? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MUBOTE (talk • contribs) 2006 June 3 16:20.

You've already gone back and explicitly stated that you are the photographer, so I have removed the {{no source}} templates. It would also be a good idea to identify the subjects of the photographs on the image description pages, and to add the images to articles. ×Meegs 16:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Peter ward.jpg

I initially got an orphanbot warning for this image saying sourse etc wasn't there. It was. I've now modified the wording and copied and pasted a rationale from a photo of another English footballer's page with similar use. Could someone who knows about these things check that it's OK now?

A further question, if a picture comes from a website that says all of its images are public domain, can we take that as read or do we have to check? I'm talking specifically about this site:

http://footballfocus.xsmnet.com/ which has the disclaimer "All material on this website is from the public domain"Fork me 17:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Peter ward.jpg looks fine now. As for that website saying all material is in the public domain, I frankly don't believe them. The photos look like a combination of promotional photos and journalistic photos, none of which would be in public domain. Angr (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted images with no fair use rationale

Hi, me again. I found some copywrighted images where the editor claims that it is for fair use. What should I do? I want to add a tag that asks for fair use rationale, but I can't find any. Any suggestions on what I should do? I gave him a chance to add a reason. I think he downloaded the copyrighted photos from a non-official website. Disney owns the characters in the images.

Thanks and bye

Here are the images in question:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Starionwolf (talk • contribs)

If they are recent, tag them with {{nrd}}. If they aren't, tag them with {{fairusedisputed}}, and put "No rationale!" on the Talk page, or take them to WP:IFD. Jkelly 02:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the explaination. I wonder why I didn't see those tags in the list of templates. Weird. Bye. --Starionwolf 03:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GayFest picture

Hi. I've been notified that the picture Image:GayFest2006.jpg needs a fair use rationale. I am having trouble deciding what rationale to give it. The image is used only on one article, GayFest, and is used to give a graphical representation of the events described in the article. Does this qualify under fair use? I haven't been able to find a free image of the GayFest, even though I am contacting ACCEPT, the organisers of the event, for such an image. Thanks, Ronline | Today, solidarity and hope 03:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's an annual event, someone can take a free-license picture or two next year, and there's no need to stick a non-free image in the article. --Carnildo 04:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ask the photographer here to reconsider their licensing. Jkelly 04:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jkelly - that's the wrong GayFest :) It's in Spain somewhere. I can't find any Flickr photos of it, though I'm expecting someone may upload one in a few days. Carnildo - I asked contributors in Bucharest to take a photo, but it was at really short notice and no-one's taken any. I am however going to contact GayOne and ACCEPT, two LGBT organisations who have stated that they will upload photos on their websites. I'm presuming that they'll be OK with licensing at least one or two of the photos under Creative Commons.

Ronline | Today, solidarity and hope 08:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any problem with (Image:Bb794me-1-.jpg)?

I've received a message informing me about tags in images. Could you remove the picture Image:Ron badboy-1-.jpg and any updated versions of it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thorius Maximus (talk • contribs) 12:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Bb794me-1-.jpg does not state what TV show it came from and is not used in any articles. A source must be added, and for any fair-use rationale to be acceptable, it must be used in an article. If these criteria are not met, the image will be deleted. The same goes for Image:Ron badboy-1-.jpg.

If you ever want an image you uploaded to be deleted, just add the text {{db-author}} to its description page (click "edit this page" at the top as for any normal page). This will add the template Template:Db-author, which puts up a notice asking for it to be deleted by an administrator. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License by eMail

How does one get consent by eMail from an elderly lady (not very computer literate) who is willing to allow a picture of her famous mother used by WP:en? The eMail would have to be ~very~ easy to understand as to her choices. The image in question is a low-resolution (small) portrait and free use would seem to be the reasonable option here. ABenis 13:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If she's not very computer literate, I'd say don't intimidate her by insisting on e-mail. Go to Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission and use that as a guide to write an easy-to-understand paper letter. Ask her to send a copy of her answer to

   Wikimedia Foundation Inc.
   200 2nd Ave. South #358
   St. Petersburg, FL 33701-4313
   USA

Or just have her answer you by snail mail and then scan a copy of her answer and you e-mail it to permissions at wikimedia dot org. Angr (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure she's the owner of the copyright? Unless she created the image herself, it would be unlikely. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, she might know when the photograph was taken, and if it's old enough, it might be in the public domain. Gerry Ashton 20:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly wrong license

Image:Charlesfenerty.jpg has been tagged with GDFL-self, but it appears the image is old enough that there is no possible way the creator and uploader are the same person. I'm not familiar enough with media stuff on WP to tackle this issue. Any help would be appreciated. --D-Rock (commune with D-Rock) 06:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've switched the tag to {{PD-old}}. Angr (talk) 08:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleting

how can i delete a picture? i cant find no deleting button nowhere? and i accidentally clicked on the permanent link button. what does that do? i really need help :( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Universitygotlame (talk • contribs) 07:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Only administrators can delete a picture, but you can request deletion of it by putting {{db|XXX}} on it, replacing "XXX" with the reason you want it deleted. If you're the uploader of the image and no one else has edited it but you, you can just write {{db-owner}}. Eventually an admin will come along and delete it. Don't worry about the permanent link button. That just provides you with a link to a specific version of a page (because Wikipedia articles change constantly, sometimes someone wants to link to a specific version). It doesn't hurt or change anything. Angr (talk) 08:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two tagged by OrphanBot

I have had the last two images I uploaded flagged by OrphanBot as not citing sources, even though I tagged them as I always do and they were never marked before. The images are Image:Hughbennett.jpg and Image:R4u.jpg. For the first, I tagged it with {{PD-USGov}} and it was flagged. For the second, I tagged it with {{windows-software-screenshot}} and it was flagged. Anyone know why? Aguerriero (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those are license/copyright tags, but they aren't source information. Don't just say "This image was obtained from the Web site of the United States Department of Agriculture" and "This image was obtained from the manufacturer's Web site"; provide the URLs.

I'm sorry but I must not have stated my question clearly. I realize now that I was not putting in enough information; however, my point and question is that if I have been doing it this way all along, why are they suddenly being flagged? If the few dozen images I have uploaded, I have almost always just put a template in and left it at that (for example, for album articles, I upload the album cover and use the template for album art, and leave it). Aguerriero (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe automated flagging for lack of source has only begun recently. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

copyrighted images

Are screenshots from TV shows copyrighted, I'm currently trying to clean up the Batman: TAS episode list and was wondering about including the title cards from the episodes. THX much.{{--Dylax 20:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC) |Dylax}}[reply]

Only those created after 1923 in the United States, or ones in which the creator hasn't been dead for seventy years yet. Other than that, they're not copyrighted. Jkelly 20:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images published (not created) between 1923 and 1977 (inclusive) in the United States are still under copyright if they were registered and otherwise obeyed the formalities of US copyright, and the author has not been dead for 70 years. Images published within that range outside the US are almost all still copyrighted, unless the author has been dead for at least 70 years. Images published since 1978 (inclusive) are all copyrighted.

All Batman-related images are likely to still be under copyright. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, mine was a poor summary. Jkelly 20:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

image tag

Do you have an image tag that states when the copywrite owner gives a wikipedia editor permission to use an image? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Indin (talk • contribs) 01:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes; it's {{Copyrighted}}. However, using that tag will get the image deleted, because Wikipedia policy is not to use copyrighted images by permission. Wikipedia content has to be free for other people to use too, and permission extends only to Wikipedia, not to the other people who want to use Wikipedia content. Either the image has to be completely free (public domain, GFDL, a Creative Commons license permitting commercial/derivative use) or else it has to be useable under a fair-use claim (in which case we don't need permission). Angr (talk) 07:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:EnergyStarLogo.gif

Apparently it's trademarked, but the trademark is owned by the EPA. Is it {{PD-USGov-EPA}} or {{logo}}? Can they enforce that trademark? --Rory096 05:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pending comment from someone with expertise, stick with {{logo}}, which is sufficient in either case. While trademark law gives them some control over the logo (and, incidentally, the phrase "energy star"), our claim for fair use in the Energy Star article is as strong as any. There's some info on U.S. trademark law at Wikipedia:Logos. ×Meegs 09:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's {{PD-USGov-EPA}}, plus {{trademark}}. There are no issues with using it however we want, provided we don't use it in a way that could potentially suggest that we're affiliated with the EPA. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confused about sourceing an image

How exactly do I go about sourceing an image? I know what the source is but I'm not sure how to actually tag the information properly. Help? Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DeathRattle101 (talk • contribs) .

Just put it on the image description page. --Rory096 06:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dang, edit conflict, anyway here is my slightly longer reply: The source is just the information that tell us where the image came from, there is not particular tagging involved, just type in the info as plain text, and in the case of images found on the internet include full URL's to the image and preferably also the page it was found on, and if the image is free licensed also link to the terms of use or license information on the site that proves that the image can be used under a free license. For the copyright status you need to add an apropriate tag though, you can find them listed on Wikipedia:Image copyright tags, if an image is licensed under the GFDL license you add for example {{GFDL}} and so on (unless you are uploading a new image (if the image already exist you need to edit the image page, not upload it agani to change the info), in wich case you use the dropdown list to pick the license tag instead and just type the source info in the textarea. --Sherool (talk) 06:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Hill (Peak District)

Image:P6090104_Black_Hill_Holme_Moss.JPG – I have uploaded this photo of an OS Map to aid in a discussion on boundaries in the Kirklees Article. which I have noted when I uploaded the image. Could someone please take a look and advise the correct tag to use as per the info I uploaded. Richard Harvey 08:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know what OS means. Before we can advise you on the correct tag to use, we need to know who published the map, and who, if anyone, owns the copyright. Please add this information to the image description page. If, however, you only intend to use the image for the discussion on Talk:Kirklees, perhaps you do not mind if it is deleted in a few days. ×Meegs 08:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(continued at User talk:Meegs#OS) ×Meegs 08:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Altering copyright messages

Two questions:

Firstly, because I'm not sure exactly which tag suits me best, I've written out a copyright message in full on my photos instead (eg Image:Kyle of Lochalsh SBR 2006-03-22.jpg. Is this acceptable?

Secondly, it seems that anyone can change my copyright notice without notice, and therefore justify breaching my copyright before I can revert it. Surely this cannot be right?

--Tivedshambo 22:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's not acceptable because the restrictions you put on its usage are too stringent. Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia; material here must be able to be reused freely, even commercially. If you're not willing to release your photographs under the GFDL or under an appropriate Creative Commons License (requiring attribution and share-alike are acceptable; refusing commercial and derivative usage is not acceptable), or both (dual licensing is possible), then I'm afraid Wikipedia can't use it.

To your second point, be sure to keep the images on your watchlist so you can see if any edits (such as changing the copyright notice) are made to them. If anyone invalidly changes your copyright statement, it can be immediately reverted as vandalism, and is of course not binding. Angr (talk) 23:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted, but I still don't fully understand the GFDL licence. What are Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts and Back-Cover Texts? --Tivedshambo 08:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

They don't seem to be particularly relevant to images. From reading GNU Free Documentation License it appears that some versions of the GFDL allow the original author to declare some portions of the text "invariant", meaning those portions may not be changed by future editors. Front-cover and back-cover texts are the text to be written on the front and back covers of books, which are also treated separately. You can read the whole text at Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License. Angr (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the copyright on my images with the GFDL tag, but with the additional statement stating that explicit permission must be requested for commercial use. If this is still unacceptable, please delete all my images from the server and I will replace them with low-resolution alternatives. Sorry, but I cannot accept other people making money out of my photographs when I have provided them for nothing.--Tivedshambo 16:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have added your images to any articles, they have probably already been picked up by commercial reusers (like About.com) and other legitimate or illegitimate forks and mirrors. You can provide me with a list of images needing deletion and I will do it. You should note, however, that if you are similarly uncomfortable with your written contributions being reused commercially, this cannot be resolved so simply. Jkelly 17:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify what Jkelly says, any commercial reusers that have started using your images will eventually drop them when they update their mirror. Alternatively, a list of reusers is available at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks#GFDL compliance, and a much list of some more major and up-to-date ones is here. You could ask any of them to take down your images, and they'll probably comply sooner or later. On the other hand, the probability of any given mirror having adopted your images by now is inversely proportional to the time it will take them to drop them, so it may not be worth the effort. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simple scientology logo

Image:Scientology new style logo.png is a very simple logo. Is this image subject to copyright? If it is protected, can it be used in templates? I've been working under the "safe" assumption that that its protected by copyright, like any {{logo}}, and I already removed it from Template:WikiProject Scientology, which is used in talk pages (where it serves only as a decoration). But its also used in Template:ScientologySeries which is used in many articles. So, I would like some more knowledgeable people to decide what's appropriate here. Personally, I think the image is just an unnecessary decoration outside of a few articles. --Rob 07:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely a copyrighted logo and definitely can't be used in templates. I'm taking it out of Template:Scientology-stub and Template:ScientologySeries now. Angr (talk) 07:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Show me where it says a copyrighted logo "definitely" can't be used in templates. The logo is obviously not an "unnecessary decoration", because its purpose is to identify the subject in a pictographic way (which is, in fact, the purpose of any logo), which is why we have a Star of David and an image of a Menorah on Template:Jews and Judaism sidebar, for instance. wikipediatrix 13:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Fair use criteria, point 9: "Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are often enough not covered under the fair use doctrine. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages." Angr (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For more information about why this is the case see fair use. As a quick summary though, fair use applies when you are discussing the copyrighted work, to allow for freedom of speech. For example, if we were discussing the logo we could display it. We shouldn't use the logo though in a way other than as a subject for commentary. But to your example, the Star of David is not a copyrighted logo, so there are not as many concerns. - cohesion 15:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this all assming inappropriate use of the template? If the template is only used within scientology articles then there's absolutely no legal difference between writing [[Image:Scientology_new_style_logo.png]] and {{ScientologySeries}} If used within the proper articles it would still be fair use. There's absolutely no question (to my mind). - Glen Stollery 17:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Fair use criteria is not the same thing as fair use. We don't use unfree content in Template space. Jkelly 19:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Exceptions can be made with consensus" - where would one seek such a thing? Thanks in advance - Glen Stollery 19:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The full quote is, "Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus that doing so is necessary to the goal of creating a free encyclopedia (like the templates used as part of the Main Page)." You'll have a hard time convincing anyone that including the Scientology logo on the navigation template is necessary to the goal of creating a free encyclopedia. Angr (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I didn't mean to imply fair use and our policy were the same or indistinguishable, just as background info. Our policy is just a general rule that helps make things clear, one could certainly still use a copyrighted image in an article in a way that didn't constitute fair use. I think using the image as a navigational element would not constitute fair use even in an article about scientology, the article would need to be about the particular image. Just my opinion though. - cohesion 00:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, the only exceptions made have been for the templates that are used to construct the main page, and for derivatives of the Wikipedia and Wikimedia logos used by a few Wikipedia-related projects. --Carnildo 06:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the point of this rule

Copying from WP:HD, they said to come here. There seems to be a rather strange standard on what is acceptable in fair use images. Namely, cover art (to CDs, games, DVD cases), is often being tagged as "sourceless", to be deleted, even if the image includes the licencing tag, a fair use rationale, and the source of the art (From cover of whatever, copyright whoever). What seems to be missing, according to the this, is a random and meaningless 3rd party source - such as some link online where the image can be found. Many DVD covers have on them now the source being a link to the image on amazon.com. This seems rather absurd to me. The media's publisher is the source of the image, and amazon is just one of hundreds of stores that show the exact same image on the product. Why does listing them as the source make it ok, while stating who really made the image isn't good enough? -Goldom (t) (Review) 15:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to be redundant about this sort of thing. In addition to the fair-use tag for cover art, also say something like "Source: Cover of XYZ CD by Britney Timberlake" or whatever. If you scanned it yourself, say so. If you got it from a website like Amazon or whatever, say that too. Angr (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need a third-party source, necessarily. We just want to know whether you scanned it yourself, got it off Amazon, whatever. In the case of {{logo}}, it's a bit redundant, yeah, so it would seem silly to insist on a source being given explicitly. Who's tagging them as unsourced? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 17:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I saw any for {logo}, it was for {dvdcover} (or whatever the tag is) and {gamecover} (again making up tag I can't remember it). I saw some game box covers being marked is why I posted this, but previously was wondering due to a featured list candidate being opposed because its fair use pictures of DVD boxes were not sourced - even though they claimed the source was the dvd box, as would make sense. -Goldom (t) (Review) 19:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stating the source

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ME_as_a_south_park_dude.JPG The site http://www.sp-studio.de/ is where I "got" this picture. Basically, you can choose from a whole bunch of things and make your own character. The guys said to not say that we drew it, and to cite him. He said that we could use them as avatars and other things of that nature, which is precisely what I am trying to do. Please help me source it correctly. Thanks. --ObiBinks 02:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giving the source is easy enough, just say "Compiled at http://www.sp-studio.de/". The hard part is the licensing. The full statement of how you can use the images is:

   It's okay to print the pictures for personal use, if you want to make a t-shirt, birthday card or desktop wallpaper. But DON'T SELL
THEM!
   If you show pictures on the internet (homepages, blogs, myspace-accounts, message boards), please ALWAYS give me credit! That's all
I'm asking for, just add a little note, that the pictures were created on my website.
   If you want to use the pictures for bigger projects (like movies) please write me a mail about it.

If this statement were to be translated into a Creative Commons License, I think it would be CC-BY-NC, that is, attribution is required, and commercial use is prohibited. Problem is, Wikipedia policy is not to use images that can't be reused commercially. As such, I'm pretty sure you can't use that image here, not even just on your own user page. Sorry! Angr (talk) 06:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you REM something out

How do you REM something out?

You type  after. Angr (talk) 06:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image

I uploaded a personal picture and have no idea what I need to do to tag it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tommydpreston (talk • contribs) .

I assume the picture in question is Image:TOMMY.gif, right? Normally photographs are the intellectual property of the photographer or the photographer's employer. I'm not sure, but I believe that if you paid the photographer to take that picture of you, then you can be considered his "employer" at the time and therefore you are the copyright holder of the image and can release it into the public domain, or under the GFDL, or under a Wikipedia-acceptable Creative Commons License. Just go to Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and pick one. However, if the photographer was paid by someone else (such as your school or university), then the copyright belongs to them, not to you. Angr (talk) 06:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting that the text on the image pages should reflect the source and license of the image, and any usage requirements. It should only include metadata about the image, not information about the subject of the image. For information about the subject of the image usually you should use article space. In this case though, the content may not be a candidate for inclusion, although I am not sure what the consensus is on student government positions. Some useful policies to look over include the policy on articles about yourself, and the policy on original research. - cohesion 17:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If he paid the photographer, the photographer would be a contractor, not an employee. See 17 USC § 101, "work made for hire". Tommy, please ask the photographer if he would be willing to release the image under a license such as the GFDL. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richie Sambora photo

Image:Richiesambora.jpg <<< I'm unsure as to which of the catagories covers the copyright photos area. 06:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Before the correct copyright tag can be determined, we need to know the source. Who's the photographer? Has the photographed been published, and if so, where? Angr (talk) 06:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

promotional copyright

I've been trying to upload a photo and put a promotional copyright tag on it, but there is no such option in the pop-up menu of Licensing. How do I add the promotional tag then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perseusmandillo (talk • contribs)

Go to the image description page, click edit this page, and add it. Angr (talk) 10:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template that you've ask for is {{promotional}}; it and many other tags are described at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Make sure to also list the image's source and copyright holder so that others can verify that it was indeed released for publicity purposes. ×Meegs 10:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

which tag to use???

Hi everyone, I would appreciate any help or advices. I recently uploaded some pictures of cigarettes, which were downloaded from Cigarettespedia. The pictures were a bit modified so that they suit the topic. As far as the Cigarettespedia states that all texts are available under the terms of GNU Free Documentation License and don't put any restrictions on downloading their photos, there was no breach of copyright. The images are widely known, as they represent famous cigarettes brands. Please advise which tag should I use, so that I don't break any rules within Wikipedia? Thanks Craftni 12:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the images are released under the GFDL at Cigarettespedia, then just tag them {{GFDL}}. But it would be good to give more specific source information, such as who uploaded it to Cigarettespedia (author information is required under GFDL) and the exact URL of the image description page there. One worrisome point is that the statement at the bottom says "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License" (emphasis added), so it's possible the images are not necessarily GFDL. It's confusing. Angr (talk) 12:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recently uploaded pics

I have just uploaded some pics, for ID purposes for two TV shows. I just wanted to know if the info provided is enough to stop them being deleted, if not what else needs to be added. I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, only joined a few days ago.

Images can be found here:

Image:TheGirlfromTomorrow.jpg

Image:TomorrowsEnd.jpg

NeilEvans 15:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They could use a little more source information. Where did you get these screenshots from? From your own DVD? From a website? That sort of thing. Angr (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What tag to use for an ad in a magazine?

The image is for the article Browncoat and it's an ad that the fans paid for to appear in Variety magazine. Here's the image: Image:Fireflyvarietyad.jpg - plange 14:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have retagged it and added it back to the article, it would be fair use because it is the subject of the discussion at the article, but it doesn't really fall into any of our already defined categories. :) - cohesion 17:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Cohesion! - plange 20:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i cant find the copyright tag help

i cant find the copyright tag for Image:Armedpdogs.jpg --Dinodan14 16:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be {{imagevio}}. Jkelly 16:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of the licenses seem to apply

How do I figure out which license applies to this image?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nshewry_chopping306.jpg

The one you have selected seems ok, unless after reading it it isn't accurate. (if it was published after 1923). - cohesion 04:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

uploading images

If I have a scan of a personal photograph that was given to me personally by the subject of the article, what would be the appropriate copyright tag? Sh76us 23:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How did the photographer license the image? Jkelly 23:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the photograph doesn't own rights to it; the photographer does. It's unfree. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

image tag help

I uploaded two images of dictionaries from Chinese Wikipedia articles into the corresponding English articles, but I apparently made a mistake with the image tags. thumb|right|2004 10th edition Xinhua zidian thumb|right|1996 Zhonghua Shuju edition Erya Could someone help this clueless newbie? Keahapana 23:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the 2004 one with {{bookcover}}. We should probably get rid of the other one. We could use a public domain cover from an old printing in our article, and we don't know who the photographer is. Jkelly 23:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

screenshoot

I took a screenshoot of a WikiMedia site (Image:Lyriki_SS.jpg), uploaded it, and received a message asking to specify it's creator and source. How do I do it? --PedroFonini 09:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Click "edit this page" at the top of the image desciption page, and add a section with that information. Will you be using this image in an article? It may fall under our fair use guidelines, so you will need to use it in an article for it to be retained on wikipedia. - cohesion 18:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did it, but when I click "edit this page", the only thing appears is "{{no info|month=June|day=18|year=2006}}" --PedroFonini 18:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, that's a template for the existing tag. You want to replace it with the text {{web-screenshot}}. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure of copyright status

Image:Knowsleyexpressway.jpg

I have uploaded the above image, however I am unsure of what copyright status to give it. The image is a picture of myself aged 10-years-old, and was taken in 1996 for use in various local newspapers and the Local Council newsletter. I am unsure of who would own the copyright of the image.

--Pendo 18:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who took the photograph? A newspaper photographer? The newspaper would probably own the copyright in that case. User:Angr 18:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday photograph

What copyright tag should I give to a photograph I took myself on holiday? --Dontheguy

If you're the photographer, you can decide what license you want to give it. Take a look at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#For image creators and see what you like. Many people like to double-license photographs under the GFDL and Creative Commons BY-SA-2.5. To do that, click edit this page on your image, remove any tags complaining about the absence of a copyright tag, and replace them with {{self2|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5}}. Doing this allows maximum flexibility for future users while retaining as many rights for yourself as photographer as possible with a freely licensed photograph. On the other hand, if you don't care about being attributed as the photographer, and you don't care what people do with your image in the future, then use {{PD-self}}. With that tag, you irrevocably release all rights to the picture. This tag is more often selected by amateur photographers who are uploading snapshots rather than more artistic photographs. User:Angr 20:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A few more points: it looks like you've uploaded two copies of the exact same image. Wikipedia only needs one copy of an image, so once you've put the correct copyright tag on one, please put {{db-owner}} on the other one; that will tag it for speedy deletion. An admin will then delete it within a few hours. Also, please don't indiscriminately upload your holiday photos! (I know you haven't done that, I'm just saying in case you were planning to.) Please only upload photos that can actually be used in Wikipedia articles, and please also add them to those articles! In principle, there's nothing wrong with freely licensed photos kicking around unused on Wikipedia, but it's not very helpful, as people aren't likely to find them. User:Angr 20:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, {{db-author}} is the correct tag for this. {{db-owner}} is for use only in the userspace. If you have other freely-licensed images that probably aren't much use in an encyclopedia, consider uploading them to the Wikimedia Commons. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FOTWpic

Template:FOTWpic has been listed on TfD, and I think some more input on the validity of the copyright claims is needed. Please see here. Thanks, da Pete (ばか) 08:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image question

I got an image from a google search, and am not sure about the image tag to add, the image is part of a small website, here is the link to the actual site http://creed.rockmetal.art.pl/, and here is the link to the pic, http://creed.rockmetal.art.pl/grafika/mont1.jpg

i am not sure what to do for an image tag, no copyright info is given on the website

my image is below

thank you

--Bluedemocrat 11:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:creed1.jpg

The presumption is that all images are copyrighted unless there's good reason to believe they aren't. This is true even when there's no copyright notice. The only way it can be used is under a "fair-use" claim (see Wikipedia:Fair use for more). Is this an album cover? If so, the tag to use is {{Albumcover}}, but it can only be used in articles explicitly discussing the album cover itself. User:Angr 12:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use image

I'm finding that tags that are listed are then not listed in the drop-down so I cannot pick it and so have to use the "do not know copywright" and so have to go through this each time. The image is Image:IMD-1151.jpg and it's for Alejandro Agresti and I gave it a promotional tag but that choice was not listed in the drop-down. What am I to do? -plange 13:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure about what you are asking exactly, but I think there may be two parts to your question. First, when you go back and give it the {{promotional}} tag, you can remove any other tags that may be there inappropriately. The drop down menu only fills in the template for you as a shortcut, it's not a permanent attribute of the upload. Also, you don't have to choose anything from the drop down menu at all, there are a lot of tags that are highly specific listed in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags which are not listed in the dropdown menu, those are only commonly used ones. So, in your case you would probably not select anything at upload, then edit the page after uploading.

As to why the promotional tag isn't in the drop down menu in the first place, that tag is misused at a very high rate, and actually should not be a very common tag. When it is in the drop down menu it is used a lot though, which causes more work for people cleaning up image tags. It's a trade-off, usability vs. correct tagging. And it's a problem I think most people will agree, we haven't completely solved. - cohesion 18:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So when I edit the page, what would I put under licensing? -plange 19:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think the promotional tag is probably ok, or {{promophoto}}. We do always prefer to have freely licensed images when available, and there may be one of him available. If so that would be better. -cohesion 16:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fanart okay?

Is it okay for me to use fanart I drew myself in this article that I'm writing?

[[:Image:Quintaglio.jpg|

The above file's purpose is being discussed and/or is being considered for deletion. See files for discussion to help reach a consensus on what to do.]]

I'm writing articles for Robert J. Sawyer's Quintaglio Ascension Trilogy, a series of SciFi novels... the picture is accurate down to the letter of descriptions given in the books, and I'm okay with letting it be in the public domain so it can be used on Wikipedia...

-K00bine

So long as it's not a tracing or otherwise a duplication of a copyrighted drawing, it should be okay. If you would like to retain some authorship rights to it, I'd recommend double-licensing it under the GFDL and the Creative Commons License BY-SA-2.5 (which requires you to be attributed as author and that any future use be licensed the same way). To release into the public domain, add the tag {{PD-self}}; to double-license it under GFDL and CC, add {{self2|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5}}. User:Angr 19:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basing it on a specific creative character or race is potentially sufficient to make it an unfree derivative work. However, it seems to pretty much just be a T-Rex wearing a sash or something, so it's probably fine. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's a depiction of a Quintaglio, a fictional species presented in the books.

Deleting an image

how do I delete an image I have uploaded? --Ozmercy 10:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Put {{db-owner}} on it, and an admin will come along within a few hours and delete it for you. User:Angr 11:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

source information

How do I provide source information on my Train Trak Entertainment picutre Image:Traintrak Entertainment 5.jpg? It keeps getting removed.

On the image description page, click edit this page and say where you got the image from. Did you make it yourself? Then say "Own work". Did you lift it from a webpage? Then give the URL. You also need to provide a copyright license, such as {{logo}} if this is a company's logo. User:Angr 20:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Foggy and sparky.jpeg

I found this picture at this website http://members.shaw.ca/fuhrmanr/digipics/zoodec03/index2.html Which tag do I use?

{{imagevio}} Jkelly 21:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshots

How do you tag hi-res screenshots from copyrighted games? I believe that such a screenshot, if used to illustrate the material in question, constitutes fair use.

Screenshots from games are tagged with {{game-screenshot}} however hi-res screenshots should not be uploaded. Keep the image size low, not much bigger than what you need to use inline in the article. If you want to show some detail zoom and crop the image rather than uploading a full sized hi-res copy. --Sherool (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

advice re: image allowed for educational or non-profit use

Image:Planetx.jpg is an image I was hoping to use for the Solar system article, and the authors give explicit permission for it to be used for educational or non-profit purposes, but I can't find a tag that explains that. Thanks Serendipodous 23:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be ~~{{Db-unfree}}~~ {{Db-noncom}}. Jkelly 23:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat flummoxed; I thought Wikipedia was a non-profit, educational organisation. Serendipodous 23:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are both, indeed. But we're also trying to be as freely-licensed and reusable as possible, and we want to be able to contribute to projects that may invovle commercial aspects, like print editions and the "One Laptop per Child" project. We allowed "non-commercial only" use for a while, but it became clear that it was undermining our reusability. Do check out commons:Category:Solar system and its subcategories for freely-licensed images. Any image created by NASA is also free (but not everything at their website was created by them). Hope that helps. Jkelly 23:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

Hi,

I have permission from the Fairfield University Marketing VP to use these images. I indicated the images web addresses. What else do I need to do to satisfy the Copyright requirement. I apologize for my confusion and ignorance here.

File:Fairfield Dolan Aerial.jpg

File:Bellermine panoramic.jpg

Thanks,

Scott --Scottrstanley 13:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, counterintuitive as it may sound, we can't use copyrighted images "by permission". Because this is an open content encyclopedia, images have to be free to be re-used by others, including for commercial purposes. If you are near Fairfield University yourself, it would be much better if you went and took pictures yourself and uploaded them under a free license, rather than lifting images from the university's website. The correct tag to put on images used by permission is {{Copyrighted}}. User:Angr 15:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non US public domain

Is there a copyright tag for non US public domain images? For example this image Image:Bursa Anadolu Gymnasium.jpg is in the public domain and not copyrighted or licensed. What would be the proper way to tag it? DeliDumrul 15:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The source provided for that image isn't working for me right now. What's the evidence that all rights have been released to this photo? The absence of a copyright notice doesn't prove anything, by the way; all images are to be considered copyrighted unless there is a specific reason to believe otherwise. User:Angr 15:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I fixed the source link. The copyright at the bottom of the main page in the source is the copyright for the web page design, not for the contents. Other than that, the site is a Turkish Government web site. DeliDumrul 15:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we think that this image is in the public domain? There's nothing at all that suggests that at the source. Jkelly 18:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was taken by the government and released in a government website. It's not common in Turkey to use license tags, especially in the government. Other than this particular picture, is there any tag for non-US PD? Anyways, that's what I know about it and I think it's not copyrighted, unless you know otherwise.. DeliDumrul 18:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can see a list of templates at Wikipedia:Image license tags. We don't have specific templates for the works of most governments, because most governments do not release their work into the public domain. Jkelly 18:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any suggestions? DeliDumrul 18:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{subst:nld}}. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wowturkey.com images

Just to keep people informed about hundreds of images from wowturkey, that were being uploaded under misleading licenses.

First, the true license, as translated by User:Paddu

edit this template

This photo is copyrighted by http://www.wowturkey.com/ (or their sister site http://www.worldturkey.com/)

The licencing info. (for www.wowturkey.com photos ) is at this page in their website with an English translation at User talk:A.Garnet#wowturkey.com images that states:

"Please use our photographs as you like!"
"If you really have to delete the tiny logo of our site from the photographs, then please mention our site as the source at the site that you are using our logo. This is unfortunately a legal must."
"The copying and usage of the photographs on the site without permition from the photograph owners is a crime according to Idea and Art Works Law number 5846."
"For a commercial purposed use, permission must be taken, you can take permission by sending a private message to our member. You can be sure that both permission and an original of the photograph will be given."

(The licencing info. for www.worldturkey.com photos at this page states:

"Note: Deleting the link on the photos, using the photos on a commercial basis or writing your own link on the photos is forbidden."
"You may only use these photos if you have a non-profit website or if this website is for giving information about Turkey on a non-profit basis." )

Hence these photos are currently applicable to be tagged as {{noncommercial}}{{permission}}.

I've asked User:Cool Cat, who speaks turkish, as afavor, to review the license, and he indeed confirmed that the images are not public domain and are non commercial/with permission only, which agrees with Paddu's translation. As we all know, such images are not suitable for wikipedia per Jimbo's ruling and so they have to be speedied.

Now, Paddu, when tagging images with the text found at User:Paddu/wowturkey.com photo says that they will ask wowturkey for release. Now, this is doing things backwards, as first the images have to be released and then posted. Thus I'm removing and deleting the images (specially since now images can be undeleted, so should wowturkey ever release their pictures under a free license (allowing commercial use without requesting permission), they can be easily restored.

And now, the point that rought me here. There are many images that were being tagged with fake licenses. Instead of "noncommercial", they were tagged as "all rights released", "public domain", "creative commons", etc. Most of those were done by User:System Halted, User:Metb82 and User:-Inanna- (the latter being an indef banned user by Arbcom). Here is a small sample of fake tags (I put the wrong names at first before realizing they were several users):

[1] [2] [3]
[4] [5] [6]

Bottom line. Wowturkey says "images can be freely used" but also says "permission must be requested for commercial use", that's not the same as public domain, not gfdl, not creative commons and definitely not uncopyrighted. I've removed a hundred of them yesterday, but there are many many more there that need to be removed, fix the fake tags if applies, and process them. -- Drini 23:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason a lot of these were tagged as "attribution" and "cc-by-*" is two-fold:

The site mentions that they have to be attributed if their watermark is taken off, and people who didn't know non-commercial-only images were banned, took this to mean {{attribution}} or {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}}.
An earlier version of WP:ICT wrongly specified that {{attribution}} is deprecated and one should use {{cc-by-2.0}} instead, and a few admins passed this on to the folks uploading wowturkey.com images, e.g. [7], [8].

--Paddu 13:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which Copywrite???

I have uploaded some pictures and plan to do some more on the same subject, but i can not find a tag sutible for my pic which is royalty free, taken in france and "owned" by a french company.

Could you help me???

Chris5897

Looking through your upload log, I found three images: Image:Plan1608.jpg, Image:Plan1692.jpg, and Image:Fort barraux.jpg. If the first two are drawings from the 17th century, as their names suggest, the tag is {{PD-old}}. The last one is more problematic: it appears to be a modern photograph of a scale model. As such, its copyright lies with the photographer, and Wikipedia can't use it unless you can make a good fair use claim for it. User:Angr 07:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AllAroundBarnstar

Image:AllAroundBarnstar.PNG Not sure what this falls under. Made it myself from the pic of a regular barnstar. --Will Mak 050389 02:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the license of the pic you modified? User:Angr 07:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably Image:Original Barnstar.png. Will, choose an image copyright tag from Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#For image creators. Since the work you based yours on was released from copyright, you can pick any one you like from the selection there. (In point of fact, you agreed to license it under the GFDL when you uploaded it, but you may want to pick another license as well.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do I know what the appropriate tag is?

How do I know what the appropriate tag for a picture is, and how do I know what the copyright status is for a picture on a website. The one's I use are typically government seals, e.g., http://www.oft.osd.mil/images/banner_pentaseal_static_030506.jpg at www.oft.osd.mil.

--WilsonjrWikipedia 03:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they're works of the United States Federal Government (which includes the U.S. Military), the tag is {{PD-USGov}}. User:Angr 07:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help is needed to provide copyright before deletion

Please help with my images which I have placed online. The three imagines in concern are: (1) SaidVassallo coat of Arms is own by myself ; (2) Louis-Charles d'Orleans Pictures were taken by my own Camera ; (3) Gonzi, were linked from the web site in which it was taken from. I looked at trying to wikipedia them, with failure, Please help. --Charles Said-Vassallo 18:15, 26 June 2006 (EST)

1) Who actually drew the Said-Vassallo coat of arms? Did the author base it on a preexisting work, and if so, who drew that? Where were the relevant works made, and when? 2) Please link to the pictures in question. 3) Please link to the pictures in question. In general, doing nothing more than link to an image's source is not enough to make it usable. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that by 3) you meant Image:Melanie Miceli Demajo.gif. As I said, linking to the source is not enough to make it usable. It will be deleted.

About Image:Image003.jpg: you do not know who created the picture? If you do not know, it must be deleted, unless it is very old. There is no difference whether you own the subject of the picture or not; copyright is owned by the one who made the picture. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- Thanks for your reply, in regards to what you have stated, the following are answers to those questions posed. All understood apart from Image:Image003.jpg: which is a Tomb in St John Co-Catheral in Valletta Malta, which I took the photographs in 2000. The tomb is part of the Catheral or own by the Roman Catholic Church, I assume in which your referring to. Charles Said-Vassallo 18:45, 27 June 2006 (EST)

Image:Image003.jpg is okay, then. You want to allow everyone to use it for anything? The current license says you don't care if people use it without asking, without saying you used it, for money, etc.

Also, are you the same person as User:Bullfighter@rep4.com? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. government agency logo

What's the appropriate tag for Image:Armed Forces Entertainment logo.jpg? Is it PD, or does it have to be used under fair use. The source web site says that the material is in the public domain. But the "SM" indicates, to me, it's protected. I used {{logo}}, which seems most likely, but I wanted to verify this is appropriate. --Rob 08:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"SM" indicates that the image is a service mark, which is irrelevant to copyright—copyright, trademark, and patent are pretty much unrelated legally. However, it's likely that the DOD hired an outside contractor to make the logo, so unless that can be ruled out, we can't assume it's a work of the US government and should use it under fair use. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking more closely just now, I see it was probably made by this private company. I guesse that means its not public domain, and is copyrighted. So, who owns the copyright? The government agency or the private contractor? I realize either way, its not public domain, but I would like to understand the situation (and state who the copyright owner is, in the image description). Thanks.--Rob 02:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It could be either, depending on contractual terms. By default, it would be the contractor. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source simply claims image is not copyrighted

Here is the image:

Image:Peirene.jpg

And here is the source page:

http://gbgm-umc.org/UMW/corinthians/peirene.stm

...What do you recommend?

That isn't the original source page, because that page gives http://apollo.classics.unc.edu/ as the source. You have to see whether the original source (which isn't working for me right now) says all rights have been released. Remember that the absence of a copyright notice does not mean the image isn't copyrighted. You have to assume everything is copyrighted unless there's a very good reason to believe it isn't (work of the U.S. Government, author dead more than 70 years, published before 1923, etc.). User:Angr 18:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bluedog32.png

Image:Bluedog32.png contains errors and has been updated with the correct Image:Bluedog32.jpg. I am unsure what to tag the .png version with since I cannot find a tag that will state it needs to be deleted because of errors within the image. So, I just removed the copyright status. How do I get the .png file deleted?

I've deleted it for you. Next time it happens, just add {{db-i2}} to the page. That tags it for speedy deletion on the grounds of being a missing or corrupt image. User:Angr 21:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Redd Dragon 21:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright help

the image Image:redrocks.jpg is from colorado.com and the site has given me permission to use it on wikipedia granted that it not be used for profit, which is described on the image description page, please check it out and apply the proper tag as I can't get it to work...thanks! All the information to help you select a tag should be there.

--Ebbybuddy 00:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although the Wikimedia Foundation, which operates the Wikipedia website, is a nonprofit organization, the goal of our project is to create a free content encyclopedia, useable for any purposes, including commercial ones. Unfortunately, the email permission that you posted on the image's description page is quite clear that for-profit use is not acceptable. Given that the article Red Rocks Park already has a free image, this photo is not a good candidate for fair use, and I'm afraid it will have to be deleted. ×Meegs 02:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Scarcult.jpg

I tried to edit accordingly to our suggestion the tags on Image:Scarcult.jpg, sourcing better their nature of screencaptures from the given episodes, took via recording (RAW, when it was listed on www.animenfo.com as avible) and capture, and deleting the originals to not have copyrighted material. I believe it applies for fair use, and tagged accordingly If the license is no more appliable due to the sussequent licensing of DVD in EU and USA, I'll excuse, and I'll remove the screencap searching for alternatives. I hope to have not been cause of troubles. DrTofu83 09:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the unsourced image, and put on its place a fully sourced one. I'm waiting for removal of the "unsourced" tag --DrTofu83 07:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once you provide the source, you can (and should) remove the "unsourced" tag yourself. User:Angr 09:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images copyright

For all images I uploaded I got consent by original author. How am I to prove this one to you?

Images are:

--borisha 16:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly was the permission? If the original author agreed to release the images under the GFDL, then please forward a copy of your request and the author's response to permissions@wikimedia.org. If the original author gave you permission to use the images on Wikipedia, but did not allow the images to be freely used by anyone else for any purpose, then Wikipedia can't use the images and they will have to be deleted. User:Angr 19:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]