Wikipedia talk:File copyright tags/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Creative Commons license proposal

Is there any reason there are no templates for the Creative Commons 3.0 licenses? I tweaked one of the earlier versions to create one: {{Cc-by-nc-sa-3.0}} Gitman00 18:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The Creative Commons 3.0 licenses explicitly incorporate moral rights into the licenses. As a result, nobody's quite certain if the 3.0 licenses meet the definition of "free" or not: see [1]. That 3.0 noncommercial license, however, is clearly not free. --Carnildo 22:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

How is it not free? As far as I can tell, I can use pictures under the license; I just can't make money off it. Am I reading it wrong? Gitman00 13:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You're reading it right: part of the definition of freedom is the freedom to make money off of it. --Carnildo 21:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Gitman00, for further reading see [2] and foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. --Iamunknown 06:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No disclaimers GFDL template

Can someone explain the reasoning behind {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}}? Will this still be an issue under GFDL v2? I'm worried that we may be jumping the gun by doing this migration when all GFDL images are soon going to be switched to GFDL 2 anyway (or so I assume, since our GFDL templates says "or any later version". Kaldari 22:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The latest draft version of GFDL version 2 still requires people to preserve any disclaimers. I figured that someone might want to have a disclaimer-free version like {{GFDL-no-disclaimers}} like how the German Wikipedia has no disclaimers. See section 4 of the latest draft version of the GFDL v2. Jesse Viviano 03:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

A couple questions:

1. It appears all the disclaimers are related to articles anyway. Since the GFDL template is only used for images (and maybe audio/video) does it even make sense to have the disclaimers in the main GFDL template anyway? Rather than creating a new template (and more licensing confusion) perhaps we should consider changing the existing template.
2. It may be worth trying to get images added to the GFDL definition of "excerpts" so that this is not an issue. See section 6a. They already list "up to a minute of audio or video" but no mention of images. I have brought up this issue on the comment version. Please feel free to add more comments there.

Kaldari 15:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

For concern 1, no, it does not make much sense. However, we are required to preserve any warranty disclaimers. This is the motivation for the no-disclaimers tags' creation. For concern 2, contracts are tricky stuff. We do not want to expose anyone to the fear of a lawsuit. Therefore, implying things like that are dangerous. Jesse Viviano 16:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

1. We are required to preserve disclaimers even if they are not applicable? 2. I don't understand what you're saying here. What contracts and lawsuits are you talking about? Are you saying that if we modify the GFDL to not require attaching disclaimers to images someone is going to sue Wikipedia? Kaldari 23:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

For question 1, yes, we are required to preserve disclaimers even if they are not applicable. For question 2, because the GFDL is a license contract, the person who released the image under the GFDL technically gets the ability to sue if the disclaimers are not preserved, because violating even the tiniest portion of any contract allows someone to get sued and lose the case. Therefore, if someone takes an image off of the English Wikipedia licensed under the GFDL with disclaimers and distributes it with or without modifications under the GFDL without disclaimers, the GFDL is violated, and therefore the original author of the image can take the distributor will be able to win a court case against the other person. If Wikipedia removes disclaimers from an image submitted by someone who later becomes an ED troll, that troll will be able to sue the user for copyright infringement on the basis of the GFDL violation. If Wikipedia decides to remove all disclaimers from GFDL images, it will violate the GFDL, and Wikipedians who became ED trolls will then sue to try to destroy Wikipedia, which is one of their main goals. Jesse Viviano 17:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point, but what happens when someone agrees to a license contract under terms that can change, i.e. they agree to a license and "any future versions of the license"? Isn't that inherently agreeing to multi-license the content (under different versions of the same license)? In that case the redistributor has the priviledge of choosing which version of the license to distribute under. Obviously, if the terms of the license changed dramatically, this sort of blind agreement wouldn't stand up legally, but I really don't see changing the disclaimer requirements as being that dramatic. They are already changing the disclaimer requirements for small amounts of text, audio, and video, so why not for images as well? Perhaps it should only be for images up to a certain resolution, but even if we said up to 500K that would cover most of the images on Wikipedia, and save us the trouble of having to manually get them all relicensed by the uploaders. Kaldari 18:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I am just trying to help. If images are not excluded in that list of exclusions, then they are not excluded. If you wish to change this, go to the discussion pages at [3] and join the discussion there to add images to the list of exclusions. Remember, good contracts must be written assuming that all the parties involved could become your worst enemy. Contracts written without that assumption give a lot of undesirable wiggle room that causes messes and lawsuits due to someone misinterpreting the contract, and the other party therefore believes that the contract is breached, leading to an unclear situation on whether or not a contract is breached. Removing as much of the wiggle room in contracts is therefore good practice and reduces the risk of needing to sue or of getting sued in the first place. Jesse Viviano 21:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

All good points indeed. I just think that migrating all GFDL images to GFDL without disclaimers may be something of an impossible task. If we can avoid the problem entirely by modifying the GFDL, I would prefer to take that route first. If it doesn't pan out, I imagine your solution would be the way to go. I would just hate to see all the effort wasted if it might not be needed anyway. Why don't we see what happens with GFDLv2 first. Or if you would really prefer to start a migration now, feel free to re-add the template. I have no serious objections to it, I just wanted to discuss it first. Kaldari 23:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

1905 Italian letter

Hi all. I have a scanning of a letter written in 1905 where it is explained why the U.S. Città di Palermo colours were changed to the current pink and black. I would like to upload it for the Palermo football club article, mainly because I think it would be a great adding for its historical section. So, I would like to know if this letter could be considered in the public domain (I have no information about the year in which its author died, by the way). The letter can be also seen here. Thank you. --Angelo 21:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If the letter was originally published in the United States prior to 1923, it is public domain. Kaldari 23:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

GFDL-presumed

User:Geni edited {{GFDL-presumed}} to indicate that it's not to be used for images uploaded after 2006-01-01 but I am certainly unaware of any such change in policy and there's no discussion on Template talk:GFDL-presumed that would indicate why this is true. So my question is, should this template be deprecated? howcheng {chat} 23:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Because we should not base licensing information on guessing what kind of terms someone intended to place on theyr images. I've used the tag a couple of times in the past myself, but I've come to agree that it is not a very good practice. People frequently upload theyr own prohots under the speedy deletable "non-commercial only" type tags, so there is not rely any basis for asuming that anyone who upload material copyrighted by themselves have by default agreed to use the very spesific terms of the GFDL license. If someone can not fulfill the very basic requirement providing some kind of copyright info (even after beeingn prompted for it) then the image gets deleted, this is long standing policy. --Sherool (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think deleting obviously self-made images rather than GFDL-presuming them is newbie-biting, and it is newbies who will be most affected if {{GFDL-presumed}} is deprecated. I use it frequently when it's clear an image is self-made but uploaded by a newcomer who hasn't grasped that pre-tagging an image during upload as "fair use image of a living person" is tagging it for speedy deletion. —Angr 07:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, so the uploader claims the image is fair use and you think it's a good idea to guess that they actualy meant to say that that "permission to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License has been granted". Why not CC-BY-SA or some other arbitrary free license? They are not all the same you know. Sorry but I don't agree. A lot of people upload "self made" images without intending to release it as free content, or even knowing what free content is. If you think they are confused feel free to notify them and explain what the GFDL/free content is all about, but unless they themselves change the tagging to GFDL (or tell you it's ok to do so) I don't see what possible basis we have for claiming that the images are probably GFDL licensed. The only cases where it might be apropriate is if someone uploads a whole series of GFDL licensed images and then one untagged that is clearly part of the same series, that's probably due to an oversight. But on the whole guessing what license you think something has based purely on the fact that someone saw fit to upload it here but totaly failed to follow even the most basic instructions on the upload page is not a good idea. Unlike for text there is no asumption that user created images are released under any spesific license. Hence the speedy deletion criterea for untagged stuff. --Sherool (talk) 09:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

When they write "I made this image myself" and it's large resolution and metadata are present and it's being used only on their user page, I think deleting it as a "replaceable fair use image" is absurd. Every time you edit Wikipedia "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL." —Angr 09:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I used to use this template too, but agree with Sherool that it's not good practice, and that the template probably should be deprecated. In any case, though, I really do not think the template should ever be applied when the uploader is still active on the project and available for questions. When images are apparently self-made, a polite request to the uploader to confirm its status is much preferable to grabbing rights that they never intended to give, isn't it? There are manners of communicating that are far less biting than template messages, so why resort to this assumption when we don't have to? ×Meegs 09:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess my opinion here comes from my experiences dealing with neophyte uploaders, which tend to go like this:

• Them: "Why can't I use this image? I made it myself!"
• Me: "You can, you just have to license it correctly. Please see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#For image creators and pick one."
• Them: "I don't understand. Which tag should I use?"
• Me: "Whichever reflects the way you want your image to be made available for others to use." (explanation of what ramifications picking GFDL, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, and PD-user will have)
• Them: "Okay. But how do I add a license to an image? I can't find the drop-down menu I had when I first uploaded the image."
• Me (trying valiantly to remain polite and avoid sarcasm): "Just edit the image description page like any other page and type {{GFDL-self}} [or whatever license they chose] to it."

I trust you understand why after half a dozen or so similar exchanges I prefer to just slap a {{GFDL-presumed}} on images like this and move on. —Angr 10:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I've had that conversation many times too. I know you don't need my advice, but when you're not interested in educating them about wp processes, it's a lot easier to just present one license and ask them if they'll agree to its terms; if they say yes, slap the tag on for them. If the GFDL is too much, give them a link to the CC-by deed, which is about as straightforward as it gets. It amounts to two edits instead of one, but at least the exchange confirms that they're aware that they're giving up rights beyond allowing the work to appear on the Wikipedia web site. ×Meegs 10:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Since the uploads page does not include any mention of the GFDL outside the selections box we have no legal case whatsoever for assumeing GFDL.Geni 13:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

← Okay, I'm starting to go through the images I tagged with GFDL-presumed and replacing it with subst:nld. I'm notifying the uploaders with a modified template (found at User:Angr/Presumed) giving specific instructions on what to do if the uploader is also the creator (since I assume they are). —Angr 13:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. Let's take one of the few simple image tags we have and just declare it invalid, and then add a whole bunch of instruction creep and discourage users from uploading their own images. What a great idea. /sarcasm. --Fang Aili ^talk 21:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyright isn't simple. In any case this tag does nothing other than time shift the problem.Geni 01:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I still don't think you have the right to just declare the tag invalid. As you say, copyright isn't simple, and I don't consider your one opinion the word of law. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Rights? the only rights on wikipedia are to leave and to fork. In this case the copyright situation is fairly simple. Someone has uploaded an image without releaseing it under a free lisence. You come along with this tag and say that you think they have. However since there is no real basis for this assumption you should not be makeing it.Geni 17:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

How about some middle ground here? Why not create a {{GFDL-presumed-notify}} template that can be used to notify the user that an image has been tagged and requesting that they come and fix the problem and provide an alternate tag if they so choose or ask that the image be deleted if they don't want to release it under a free license? I'm extremely conservative in using GFDL-presumed, as we all should be ... but if it's obvious that it is a user-created image, I don't see a huge problem with it. I have created {{GFDL-presumed-notify}} to use to notify the user. Please feel free to improve the template. If it is agreeable, we can add a note to the bottom of {{GFDL-presumed}} asking users to notify the uploader with this template. Thanks. --BigDT 18:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually I do have a basis for using it when I do: if it is obvious that it is a user creation (as well as being a useful addition to the encyclopedia), I tag it GFDL-presumed. This is reasonable because we cannot expect every single person to familiarize him or herself with pages and pages of Wikipedia image policy. The user can always remove the tag or request the image's deletion if he or she chooses; we're not talking about anything set in stone here. I agree with BigDT's suggestion above to notify the user whenever GFDL-presumed is used. Previously I just assumed the user would be looking at his/her own images and notice the change, but an additional notification can't hurt. I would also like the big red "legacy images" line on {{GFDL-presumed}} to be removed or changed to indicate that it can be used now. (I am also very conservative with this tag.) --Fang Aili ^talk 19:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the tag for those situations is template:untagged.Geni 20:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Now that Geni has pointed-out that we don't even have a licensing agreement on the upload page, I don't see that we have even a flimsy excuse to assume the uploaders have given-up any of their rights, let alone agreed to the GFDL. Many editors do not realize they're contributing to anything beyond this one website. It might be somewhat safe to assume that they're giving permission for Wikipedia to display their image (intact), but of course we don't allow that kind of license. Notification of our assumption is not enough either, as many uploaders will never log-in again, or may not know how to respond. I hate to say it, but while we wait to hear from uploaders, {{Untagged}} (or similar) is really the only tag for these. ×Meegs 21:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, that satisfies me. I just wanted to bring up the discussion because it kind of seemed like a unilateral move, but I'm happy with not using it anymore. howcheng {chat} 04:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely with not using this anymore, for the many reasons detailed by others above. Wikipedia:Example requests for permission has some examples to use to ask users if they are willing to accept the terms of one of the licenses we accept. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 01:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

After answering many new user questions, it's not uncommon for them to think they are only letting wikipedia use the image they made, and they absolutely do not want anyone else using it or changing it at all. You are right a majority would probably be fine with public domain, but I'd guess greater than 10% assume (without explaining it this way of course) they are giving english wikipedia a non-transferable license to use their work and not modify it. - cohesion 23:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Navon Letter

A Navon letter is a letter made of letters. Roughly like this:

    TTTT
  TT    TT
  TT    
   TT
    TTT
      TTT
        TT
  TT    TT
    TTTT

I would assume that an image of this would be pd-ineligible due to the fact that it was simply a letter made up of letters? Thoughts? IronGargoyle 15:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This would be considered a piece of artwork, and therefore gets copyright protection. Jesse Viviano 17:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I think it would be ineligible. It's far too easily replicated to count for copyright for protection in my opinion. For example, I think it would be impossible to prove that IronGargoyle is the creator of the above Navon letter. If I was to type it up myself, I don't think he could claim it as a derivative work.--SeizureDog 18:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it depends on the complexity of the Navon letter. Copyright jurisprudence says that a work must entail some degree of creativity to qualify for copyright protection. Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp is a good case to look at. The Justices in that case determined that the work had to have "some identifiable original contribution" in order to receive copyright protection. I could certainly imagine a Navon letter to which that applied, although I seriously doubt the example above would qualify. Kaldari 19:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a type of ASCII art to me. It's quite possibly copyrightable. --Carnildo 08:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I side with Kaldari on this one. A more complex kind of ASCII art certainly has originality, but not this rendering of a letter.--Jeff 15:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

CAnkawa

{{CAnkawa}} claims to be a public domain-type licence, but also imposes non-commercial restrictions. Should images tagged with this be listed for deletion? --Cherry blossom tree 15:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

They usually get approved before people do these i think this should stay meaning, permission to use on wikipedia etc. Nareklm 00:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Images which have permission simply to be used on Wikipedia are usually deleted, however, due to not being free for reuse. --Cherry blossom tree 10:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've redirected it to {{Noncommercial}} and deleted everything so tagged. That's for pointing this out. Jkelly 18:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting that out. --Cherry blossom tree 00:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Armenica.org

Can i get a license for this? images from Armenica.org, these images have been approved by administrators and wikipedia, under the GDFL license, but i need some help creating a license for them. There's already a category made, [4] Nareklm 17:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Their terms are not compatible with the GFDL, specifically "Material taken from Armenica.org must not be altered or modified without permission from Armenica.org". Thanks/wangi 17:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Like i said its already been approved by administrators and wikipedia, they sent an email to them and they can use it here on GDFL. Nareklm 17:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Erm, so they're happy with any content on their site being used to make derivative works? Specifically against what their terms state? If that is the case (do you have a pointer to the discussion) then just use {{gfdl}}. Thanks/wangi 17:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The copyright issue has been solved before with admins etc, i was just wondering if i can get a new license that states it with armenica etc, without the confirmed tag, like a new license for armenica. Nareklm 17:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Assuming that OTRS ticket number is valid for all content, not just a single map, then check out {{GFDL-Armenica}}. Ta/wangi 17:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, im sure its valid, i received it from the permissions email, Thanks! Nareklm 17:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Just made a mod to the template to clear things up. Also made the Armenica images category a sub-cat of GFDL and "Images with permission confirmed". /wangi 17:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

City and State Tags?

Is there a tag for images created by a city government? The copyright policy page only indicates federal/military tags. What does one use for state or municipal government images? There are a couple that I uploaded for use in articles. Can one be created for states and cities? Nightscream 22:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that state and local governments have different copyright policies, and they don't all release images into the public domain like the federal government, so a blanket tag for states and/or cities wouldn't make sense. I would just go with whatever the copyright notice on the page says, and when in doubt, assume that it's all rights reserved. Ytny (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:PD-LOC should be deprecated

This template was deprecated on the commons (see commons:Template:PD-LOC) for understandable reasons. Much of the works in the Library of Congress are not PD, and the Library has admitted that its copyright screening process is not the best. This may encourage the tagging of images which are not really PD simply because they come from the LOC and say "no known restrictions on publication". I believe this template should be deprecated here as well, and replaced by more accurate PD templates (i.e. PD-old, PD-US, etc.). --tomf688 (talk - email) 13:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Author-requested deletion of free-license images

I was alerted on my talk page to an author-requested deletion of the following images: Image:Clint mathis.jpg Image:Tim howard.jpg Image:Youri Djorkaeff.jpg Image:Jeff Agoos.jpg Image:Mo Johnston.jpg, which were all tagged with {{Attribution}} or {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvided|author credit is given}} (he didn't want them used on Wikipedia anymore). These images were all being used in articles, so we don't have easy replacements. If they had been PD, NoRightsReserved, or CC-BY, I would restore them, but is there any consensus of "revocability" of these other licensing terms? Your input is appreciated. howcheng {chat} 04:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The licenses are probably not revocable, but I'd rather not test it for images that could reasonably be replaced. --Carnildo 04:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

If we were talking about photos of a car or a tree, that would be one thing, but these are photos of celebrities that we're not going to come across every day. I don't really like at all the precedent of allowing someone to have their photos deleted, particularly if they are in use.--BigDT 06:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

IMHO any license that can be considered free must be irrevokable, otherwise it would be no better than a basic {{permission}} to use. We can not have users running around revoking the rights to use theyr contributions whenever they get theyr feathers ruffled a bit. That said I'm a bit hesitant to restore them seeing as the uploader claims he took them on behalf of some sports website. If that was in a professional capacity he may well not actualy hold the rights to those photos, and judging by the state of his talk page I doubht he's in a mood to clearify... --Sherool (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:TNA-photo

I'm a little confused about {{TNA-photo}} - I tagged Image:StinggoodbyeTNA.jpg as replaceable, but the response received was "Read the use template. TNA Wrestling permits its images to be used in Wikipedia."

But because the license says, "Total Nonstop Action Wrestling recognizes and accepts the use of their pictures on Wikipedia, as long as they are credited as the source of said photos. However, the terms of the permission do not include third party use.", it seems that standard fair use criteria apply.

What's confusing to me is that, because Wikipedia is published with a GFDL template, anything that doesn't permit third party use isn't compatible, so I don't get the point of this license. Mosmof 17:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the permission granted to Wikipedia is completely irrelevant. I've left a note at Image talk:StinggoodbyeTNA.jpg to this effect. —Angr 23:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. My next question is, is it a valid/useful fair use tag? {{magazine}} and other non-generic fair use tags have common uses where the built-in fair use rationales apply and generally suffice. But these photographs are non-iconic photographs of living people who appear in public on a weekly basis, so they are almost always going to be replaceable, and therefore not valid fair use. Mosmof 17:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it could be used for photographs of wrestlers who have died? —Angr 06:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

License for Tor Book Covers?

I'm trying to work out how to categorise the general license offered by Tor Books for reproducing their covers. The details are here, but essentially allows any use that isn't just blatantly ripping them off for profit. Note that this isn't a "no commercial use" licence, because it explicitly allows some commercial uses, e.g. as illustrations for discussions about the books. Any suggestions? Just leave them as fair use perhaps? JulesH 14:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The policy explicitly prohibits any deritative works: "Our slightly unofficial policy is that you can reproduce our covers as long as you don't strip out the type or crop, digitally retouch, or otherwise meddle with the image as it stands" which is a big no-no for us. Of course, they say "unofficial policy" but I think fair use should be claimed anway. Hbdragon88 04:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The statement "However, printing them onto coffee mugs or T-shirts to sell on the street is Right Out; likewise, comparable appropriations not involving mugs or shirts" also suggests that not any commercial use is allowed, only commercial uses they approve of. It's nowhere near a free license. —Angr 07:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Licensing issue

A certain image was licensed as public domain for almost 2 years but was just recently changed to GFDL+Creative Commons Attribution 2.5. Should it be reverted or just left alone? It says on the project page that public domain release is permanent but I'm just checking. --WikiSlasher 06:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Was it {{PD-user}}? I'm pretty sure that's nonrevocable. It could already be being used somewhere else. —Angr 07:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it was Image:010105 fireworks2.jpg to be exact. --WikiSlasher 11:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I guess I'll have to revert, hopefully Kvasir will forgive me :P --WikiSlasher 05:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It's done now. --WikiSlasher 07:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Promotional films

I'm presently working on adding copyright notices for a series of images added to the Real Ghostbusters wiki entry, the images came from a promo film/animation and as there was no tag I figured I'd bring it up as a possible new tag to create. -Kingpin1055 19:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with the old {{tv-screenshot}} tag? That said most of them will have to go, unfree material should be kept to a minimum and used only for critical commentary per Wikipedia:Fair use criteria, the use of screenshots in this article is clearly exessive. --Sherool (talk) 09:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Licencing query

I think my tag is wrong for this image HotorNot. What is the correct one? --Sadi Carnot 15:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

{{web-screenshot}}. Don't forget to include a fair use rationale, and don't forget a website screenshot can only be used in a discussion of the specific website in question (not in a generic way to show an example of a certain kind of website). —Angr 16:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it. --WikiSlasher 05:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Should we add a message on all free-image tags requesting that freely-licensed images be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons instead of here?

I have seen that in some foreign language Wikipedias while searching for interwikis for some of our image licensing tags that some Wikipedias apparently have a request that the uploader please upload such images to the Wikimedia Commons instead of Wikipedia on their free image use tags. Should we add them to our templates here? I do not know how to do this myself, as I do not know how to use CSS or make message boxes using Wikipedia syntax. Jesse Viviano 06:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, if proper emphasis was given to the fact that there is more to moving something to Commons than merely copying the file over. I wanted to clean out some of the backlog from the "now commons" categories recently but was only eable to delete a couple of images. All the rest was not properly moved. A lot where missing required history and sometimes even source/attribution info. Some images turned out to just be the thumbnail from the image page rater than the full sized image, and some where just flat out not free licensed images after all upon closer inspection. Previous few where also properly categorized at Commons. I'm all for moving images to Commons, but it has to be done right so a fairly detailed procedure would need to be added, not merely a "please move this to commons" message. --Sherool (talk) 08:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add a note to Template:Nowcommons to encourage users to orphan the image themselves and then perhaps list the image which replaced the tagged image. That's what I usually do on behalf of the admin. --Iamunknown 07:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes please, if it has a different name on commons and they don't specify this I usually delete the tag (witha edit summary of something like, "this isn't on commons" this is actually pretty rare). Redirecting all the local links to the new commons name does take time though, and that would certainly be helpful. - cohesion 18:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Photograph dated 1878 of a person who died in 1940

Can such a thing be presumed to be in the public domain or fair use? The "Licensing" menu at special:upload seems to lack any obviously applicable thing to choose for such circumstances. Michael Hardy 22:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Much more information would be needed to make an educated guess about the image's copyright status. What image? In what country was it taken, and by whom? Where and when was it first published? Where did you get it from? Note that if the subject died in 1940, it is well possible that the photographer also lived that long... Lupo 22:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Here it is. And here. Michael Hardy 01:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Edgardo Mortara. It's clearly a professional photo and as such a "work". But we'd still need to know who the photographer was or when it was published originally. If it was not published ("publication" = making available to the general public copies of the photo), which strikes me as quite likely, it might be in the public domain in the U.S. (because 1878 < 1887 (= 2007 - 120), assuming the first publication was indeed on that Italian web page, which would have occurred 2005/06, and treating it as an anonymous work.) See WP:PD#Unpublished works. If it was published, we still need to know when and where. I'd try asking the CDEC whether they can tell you more about this image (without giving away that you're trying to figure out whether it is PD :-) Lupo 13:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

muhammadimage.jpg

I created this and released it to the public domain. Then I uploaded it. What else do I need to do? BYT 23:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You need to replace the untagged template with a new section called "Licensing" and put {{PD-self}} into it. This'll be done automatically by selecting the appropriate option from the Licensing drop-down menu when uploading the file. --WikiSlasher 05:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Template added. --WikiSlasher 01:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:CR-SLA-2

I was wondering what everyone thought of Template:CR-SLA-2. The Sri Lanka Army Web site notes that photos may be reproduced with attribution, but it doesn't explicitly allow modification and the like. Is this free enough? — Rebelguys2 ^talk 03:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

For an image to be considered "free" under Wikipedia's Image use policy, the license must permit both commercial reuse and derivative works. The template belongs in Category:Non-free_image_copyright_tags, similar to Template:FinnishDefenceForces. I think an image tagged with Template:CR-SLA-2 would also need to include a fair use rationale and an appropriate fair use tag (Help:Image page#Fair use rationale and Wikipedia:Fair use). —RP88 04:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that claim? In a legal citation or relevant legal policy pages perhaps? --Iamunknown 07:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the source of Rebelguys2's information, but I just now took a quick look at the Sri Lanka Army web site. At the bottom it says "Contents of this site are the sole property of Sri Lanka Army and any duplication in any media is liable for prosecution. Reproduction of these465 stories/data is possible provided its source is given its recognition." That sounds similar to Rebelguys2's description, definitely doesn't meet WP's policy. —RP88 07:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I guess it could be appropriate. But, like you said, definitely non-free and with a fair use rationale. --Iamunknown 07:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured. I had started tagging some of these images by chance, but stopped as I wasn't sure if there was a reason we had this tag. We ought to pretty much wipe or retag this category, as well as Template:FinnishDefenceForces and similar ones, for lacking fair use rationales and the like, yes? — Rebelguys2 ^talk 08:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Use of {{pd-ineligible}} on images of signatures? (also: autographs)

In Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images a question has come up with regard to signatures. The image Image:PaulHendersonSig.jpg, is marked PD-self, which is clearly wrong (unless the uploader is Paul Henderson). Would it be acceptable to change its license to {{pd-ineligible}}? The {{pd-ineligible}} tag has been used for other signatures (e.g. Image:Sellars_sig.png, Image:M.KemalAtatürk--sign.jpg, Image:Faruqi_signature.jpg, etc.). —RP88 04:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No, PD-ineligible is for things like common symbols (treble clef, astrological signs), math formulas, charts, chemical compounds... basically anything that if anyone were to create it, it would pretty much end up looking the same. A person's signature clearly does not fall under that category. Otherwise, forgery wouldn't be a crime. :) howcheng {chat} 00:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I tend to agree with you (except with regards to you remark about forgery, which is a completely separate issue from copyright :-). However, since posting this question a couple of days ago I've done some research. For example, in this Google Answers thread on Autograph Copyright Law a librarian who worked on a copyright committee of a university and taught the library copyright classes consulted an intellectual property attorney, who came to the conclusion that "In general, unless the autograph was accompanied by some creative doodle, message, or is extremely flourish-y, it is not protected by copyright law. This is because copyright law only protects the creative expression of an idea or fact. A signature is not generally considered "creative" unless it's really something else." Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find anything more definitive than this answer on Google Answers. —RP88 00:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see the discussion on the copyrights questions page. Signatures and autographs cannot be copyrighted. You can make all the copies you want of someone's signature and sell them to your heart's content. Forgery is a completely different issue, as is fraud. You obviously cannot make copies of someone's signature onto blank checks or contracts ;) But you can use them here on Wikipedia! Afabbro 06:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Suspected wrong copyright tag on an image

Image:Paluma dam A.jpg is tagged as though the uploader took the photo - but if you go to the image, it clearly shows that it is provided "free for use, with acknowledgement". Is uploading of "acknowledgement required" images permitted, and if so - is this the correct tag? Secondly - is this the right place to ask this question? (if not, where is?) Garrie 12:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If the image is going to have a GFDL tag, the copyright holder of the image needs to explicitly say that he releases the image under the GFDL license. Otherwise, he can release it either under a similarly-free license (Creative Commons, etc.) or use a tag like Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat; with the latter, he can require attribution, but must release rights for redistribution and modification. Non-commercial and educational-rights-only restrictions are also not allowed. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 13:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images is the best place to list images with questionable tagging, otherwise list it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. General help/discussion should go to Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. In the case of this particular image, it might be possible to relist it with an {{Attribution}} license if the source specifically permits commercial use, modification, and redistribution, but requires an attribution. If they don't grant that degree of freedom, then you or someone else needs to add a detailed fair use rationale to the image description page and it should be tagged with {{Fair use in|<article name in which image appears>}} and perhaps {{Withpermission}}. —RP88 13:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyright tag request for Sleeping_goldie.jpg

I read that I have to get a tag for my image, Sleeping_goldie.jpg. Can I have one? Pennybiscuit 15:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you take the photo? --WikiSlasher 00:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

User indefinitely blocked per log --Iamunknown 09:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

OK but I might as well answer anyway: you're supposed to select a license from the drop down menu when you upload the file. See Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for info. --WikiSlasher 07:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Why was the "The Case for Free Use" essay added to Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

WAS 4.250, why did you append a 20,000 character essay on how bad NC licenses are to the end of Wikipedia:Image copyright tags? It only seems tangentially related to a page designed as an organizational tool for the image tag templates. If you must post it, please move it elsewhere. —RP88 17:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe it should go somewhere on wikipedia and this was the best spot I could find. It was written by Erik Möller, a board member of the Wikimedia Foundation, and explains why we are cracking down on nonfree images. Eric also wrote stuff on the mailing list explaining this new crachdown, but this is his extended version. People need to understand that wikipedia is about being a free as in freedom encyclopedia not just a free as in no cost encyclopedia. I did not include Eric's name as the essay should be edited as needed to fit (in standard wiki fashion). WAS 4.250 17:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't just append it to a some random existing page, be bold, create your own! I recommend here. Copy the style of the other copyright related essays (e.g. Wikipedia:Publicity photos) by sticking {{essay}} at the top and [[Category:Wikipedia copyright]] at the bottom. —RP88 18:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not put it at a "random existing page". I put it the best place I could find. Please feel free to discuss the merits of where best to place it so we can arrive at a choice of the best place. What arguments do people here have for where to place it? Let us give arguments, then hold a !vote and then act according to whatever seems best to the most people. WAS 4.250 01:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

If it was written by Erik Möller, with no attribution and no mention of his choice of licensing, then it should be immediately removed as a copyright violation. I recommend wholesale removal of the text from this document and adding a "see also" link to the source. --Iamunknown 19:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I quote "Erik Möller 2005-2007. This article is in the public domain. Feel free to use it for any purpose. It is also a living document whose editable main copy resides at http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC. You are encouraged, but not required, to include this notice." [5] WAS 4.250 01:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and reverted, WAS 4.250 can recreate it as an essay, if he or she wishes. —RP88 01:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the explanation of why we insist on a free license because it is an issue that needs to be addressed here and is not addressed here. WAS 4.250 01:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

WAS 4.250, this page is an organizational tool for the image tag templates. Why do feel the need to quintuple its size by attaching the contents of Erik Möller's essay? What is wrong with creating a separate page for his essay? —RP88 01:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

ICT is not the place for an essay like this. The essay is roughly 3 times longer than the rest of the content on the page. If you want to use it as an essay, then find somewhere to put it and mark it as such, but you shouldn't simply dump it into an existing page as if Erik's thoughts are the definitive expression of wiki philosophy. Dragons flight 01:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the essay definitely does not belong on this page. Kaldari 02:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

(reset tab) I hope a link to the page is an appropriate compromise. If anyone has remaining concerns, please, let's not edit war. Discuss on the talk page. --Iamunknown 02:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. If you guys want to move it and link it I'll accept that as the consensus. WAS 4.250 04:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Whee! A REAL PD-StateGov!

According to http://gov.ca.gov/site/conditions#ownership , you can get PD stuff off of California's governors site. 68.39.174.238 04:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's a little more complicated. We used to have Template:PD-CAGov, but it was determined we couldn't guarantee that CA gov images were really public domain. See the whole discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 13#Template:PD-CAGov. howcheng {chat} 04:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Woman Wolfmother

I'm having trouble figuring out how to apply the correct copyright tag to Image:Woman Wolfmother.jpg. If someone more experienced me could assist me in doing this, it would be truly appreciated. Meesheek 11:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

{{Albumcover}} --WikiSlasher 06:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Khflottorp

User:Khflottorp, you had a question (diff) that you posted on the project page. Note that this project page is more for helping users choose which image copyright tag they should use, not answering questions; but I'll be perfectly willing to post a follow up here. I assume that you are talking about Image:XPad.jpg. I see you included the image copyright tag {{Don't know}}. Maybe I can help you figure out what copyright the image is under. Do you own the image? If not, where did you get it from? --Iamunknown 15:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I've uploaded a lot of images, but i don't know how to add tags to them. Can someone please help me out? Happyme22 05:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to give you a hand. Let's take this to your user discussion page. —RP88 05:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia itself violate the GFDL?

If I upload to WP a GFDL'd image containing embedded metadata that indicates the image is copyrighted and is licensed under the GFDL, WP itself removes the embedded metadata from scaled-down copies it creates. This would appear to be a violation of the GFDL by WP itself, according to my reading of the GFDL: it says a licensee may copy a document (the image in this case) "provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies". Has anyone else noticed this? Rling 09:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

When I view your full resolution image on my monitor, my computer makes a derivative copy of your image in video memory that lacks your embedded GFDL license and copyright. Is this also a problem? All copies of WP reproduce the GFDL at Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License. If you believe that this is inadequate, it might be better discussed at one of the Wikipedia:Village pump forums, perhaps Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), rather than here (since this discussion is about WP's copyright tag templates). —RP88 09:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've taken it there. Rling 20:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted image copyright tags

What should we be doing with recently deleted image copyright tags? We could (a) leave them in their place for a while, (b) maintain a list of recently deleted ones to notify editors (which would kind of be WP:BEANS-ish, i.e. bad), or (c) remove them very soon after they are deleted...or other options which I have not thought of. I ask in response to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 24, where four such tags are listed and IMO will be deleted (one already is). Any thoughts? --Iamunknown 03:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete them. If a tag exists, it will be used. I get one or two notices from OrphanBot a week that someone has uploaded an image as {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}, even though that tag has supposedly been deleted. --Carnildo 03:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Remove 'em soon after they're deleted. If we leave it up, we just continue to offer a misleading option to (in)experienced users. Even if it stays up as a red link, it'll still mislead. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 04:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about invalid copyright tags that are not in use on any images? If so, I personally favor outright deletion. I suppose I might make exceptions for invalid tags that are highly likely to be "guessed" by experienced editors or formerly heavily used tags, but I don't think I'd be easily convinced. If I was I'd probably recommend that a prominent "this tag is obsolete, this image may be deleted at any time" message be placed on the tag (along with adding the image to the appropriate maintenance category). On the other hand, are you're instead talking about tags that are scheduled to be deleted but are still in use on a few images? In this case I'm in favor of removing the obsolete tag from the images and retagging them, if possible. In either case I dislike tags that on their face claim to be one thing (i.e. {{PD-SomeReason}}) that in turn actually redirect to something else like {{no license}}. I find them hostile to both users and to machine parsing. —RP88 04:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of the tags I'm referring to are probably not heavily used now. You can see my two edits to Template talk:Image-license here and my edit to Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Deprecated here --Iamunknown 05:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Will do! --Iamunknown 04:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Inherited photos

Say your father dies and you are the sole heir to his estate. You have a photograph you know he took which is not in the public domain but which you want to use in an article. Which tag could you use? You're not the creator, but you are legally the copyright holder and you are the only one who has the right to approve or disapprove its use. --Charlene 17:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are the sole legal copyright holder (i.e. the photographs have never been published previously and you are the only claimant to his estate), you could use {{PD-release}}, {{GFDL}}, or any of the Creative Commons licenses. Just be sure to put an explanation of the copyright status on the image description page. Kaldari 18:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. They are home photographs (of a public building), never published, and I am the only claimant to the estate. Thanks again. --Charlene 03:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Greek tag

I have created a tag {{PD-GreekGov}} to cover certain Greek material in the public domain. Unless there is objection, I will list it on the page of tags by country. Argos'Dad 04:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The name of your tag implies that it covers material generated by the Greek government and placed in the public domain by statute. It shouldn't also discuss material that Greek statue considers ineligible for copyright "...or an expressions of folklore, news information or simple facts and data." as these might not come from a government source and might be eligible for copyright in other jurisdictions (in particular, the US, where the WP servers are hosted). —RP88 05:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, let me clarify that. I'm mostly only concerned with the name of the tag. The name implies a government source, while the content of the tag indicates that it could be used on material that is not a work of the Greek government. If Greece has a more expansive concept of what is ineligible for copyright than the US (ie. {{PD-ineligible}} isn't broad enough to cover Greece) you really need two tags - perhaps {{PD-GreekGov}} and {{PD-Greek-ineligible}}. Another possibility might be just to rename it {{PD-Greece}}. —RP88 05:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this tag would be useful. Everything it covers is either not an image, or already covered by {{PD-ineligible}}. --Carnildo 09:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This is very helpful. I think there actually should be three tags: (1) government-generated, (2) folklore, news information, simple facts and data and (3) another provision of Greek law (Article 25) makes "reproduction ... permissible without the consent of the author and without payment: a) for the purpose of reporting current events by the mass media, the reproduction and communication to the public of works seen or heard in the course of the event; b) for the purpose of informing on current events..." On a seperate note, it seems to me, Carnildo, (and I am no expert) that the concept of "ineligible" works is a creature of U.S. law (Sec. 105) that is analogized to government works of other countries, but Greek law indicates that the works listed here are public domain by law, not "ineligible."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Argos'Dad (talk • contribs)

{{PD-GreekGov}} doesn't belong here. It may belong at Wikisource, if they use templates to indicate these things (I'm not sure). Simple facts republished in Wikipedia do not need an accompanying template, and case 3 is fair dealing. There's no need to create templates to reflect any of this. An article on Copyright law in Greece, however, would be helpful. Jkelly 20:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your input, JKelly, as I am trying to help clarify the copyright status of Greek material. Why does {{PD-GermanGov}} belong here, isn't it analogous to {{PD-GreekGov}}? Also, what tag should be applied to a photograph of a "current event" in Greece? Thanks for your help! Argos'Dad 21:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Now that I have removed {{PD-GermanGov}} from every image it did not belong on, there are two left. We don't need it either, and it should be deleted and replaced with {{PD-because}} on those two remaining images. A photograph of a current event in Greece that was not taken by you should probably be tagged with {{imagevio}}. Jkelly 21:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Which tag to choose

I am not the creator of the images, however I have permission to use the image for marketing purposes. The images are also available on my webpage in the gallery I am not sure what tag to use to upload the images.

As a matter of policy, in order for an image to appear on Wikipedia the copyright holder must agree to allow their image to be modified, redistributed, and used for any purpose, including commercial purposes. All of standard free licenses that Wikipedia accepts, at the very least, grant these permissions. If you don't have the right to grant this entire set of permissions then you're not going to find a license tag that will work for your images. If so, your only choices are to either not upload these images or to go back to the image copyright holder and ask that the images be released under one of the free licenses (perhaps GFDL or Creative Commons Attribution). Wikipedia itself is licensed under the GFDL. —RP88 12:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

How to report an image of questionable copyright status

There is an image (Image:Silverton11.jpg) that has been tagged as being Public Domain and that it was created by the uploader. I believe the image to actually be a screen grab of a BBC television program and therefore not public domain and not (the program) created by the uploader. I've searched WP for info on how to report it but can't find anything. Is there a separate set of templates for images(like copyvio for articles) that can be used to bring the image to the attention of admins? - X201 09:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The names of these pages are pretty self-explanatory, so here they are: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images, Wikipedia:Copyright problems, and Wikipedia:Images for deletion.

Though all of these would work on some level, I'd recommend heading over to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images, scrolling down a bit to read the instructions, and listing the image there. Let me know if you need any help. Thanks. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 09:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Screenshots

If I have programs of say, a messenger, or anything as in a game or movie, that I took screenshots of myself, would that be allowed as long as I put on a license like the one on this article: [6]? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Exo Kopaka (talk • contribs) 04:47, 15 Mar 2007 (UTC)

Is this a free license?

{{president.gov.by}} says that works can be reproduced "at any sites and media without any limitation on size and periods". I can't read Russian, so I can't check if this is correct, but the conditions stated on the template do not constitute a free license. --Carnildo 04:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Based on machine translations ([7] and [8]), it seems the media may be redistributed freely on the Internet; but there seems to be no mention of derivative works, print media, or commercial reuse. Again, this is what I can infer from machine translations, so I may not be correct. --Iamunknown 04:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Amazon book covers

Can I upload a picture of a book cover from Amazon or other booksellers or publishers web sites. If so, what do I write for the tag ? --Dr Lisboa 20:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Help fix some malformed templates

User:Alx 91 has created {{Credit Card Cover}}, {{Cereal Character}}, and {{TVad-screenshot}}. Would somebody weigh in on whether the templates even need to be this specific, and if so, fix up the text as needed? –Unint 23:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Listed for deletion. --Carnildo 00:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

help with my image

i have recently uploaded an image, pwetherhill_sportrak.jpg. i took this image and it is my car, i am not bothered who uses it and i dont want to ask for permission.

i tried my best to adhere to rules when creating my first listing but i missed this. please can you guide me on how to add a copyright tag - or set it to public domain?

--Pwetherhill 15:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. The {{pd-self}} tag is adequate for the licensing. Kaldari 18:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The image of the young Ta Thu Thau has been used many times in various publications. It is from 1925 and is esentially in the public domain. How do I tag this image appropriately?

David Mackenzie

PD template standardization

A couple years ago, some Wikipedians used Template:Image-license to standardize all the public domain templates that existed at that time. However, since then, there have been numerous additions and changes to the list, and very few of them adhere to the same format. PD tags use <small> fonts, normal fonts, or 95% fonts; some include the PD symbol, some don't; some are italicized, some aren't. The result is a hodgepodge of looks that falls far short of Commons' crisp copyright tags.

Fortunately there is a template, {{PD-Layout}}, that allows for easy template standardization. It is already used on some of the PD tags, such as Template:PD-USGov-Military-Marines and Template:PD-USGov-NARA. The template's cousins, {{GNU-Layout}} {{CC-Layout}} are already standard.

I would like approval to standardize the look of PD templates, perhaps by applying this template to them. There are a few exceptions, such as Template:PD, that obviously deviate from the others, and these should probably stay as they are. Tags like Template:PD-US, on the other hand, could definitely use some cleanup. What does everyone else think?

(On a related note, can someone explain the use of <div class="boilerplate" id="pd"...> to me? In particular, what kind of properties do these attributes give to the <div> element? Thanks!) MithrandirMageT 17:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea, if it was only visual standardization I don't think many people would object. Maybe people would like to collaborate on the new standardization template though. I'm sure other people would be willing to help also with the actual work. :) About boilerplate, and id=pd. I'm not sure, it looks like nothing is being styled based on these, there are no active css rules about them. The id=pd could conceivably be some machine readable plan, but I don't think it's one that is actually being used. Could be wrong about that though. - cohesion 17:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Insignia-Sweden

I came across {{Insignia-Sweden}}. Should this be listed on one of these pages somewhere? --Strangerer (Talk) 14:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Tag for animal-created images

According to WP:PD#Non-creative_works only works created by a human are eligible to copyright. We have Image:Chimpanzee congo painting.jpg which uses PD-ineligible, but should we have some sort of PD-nonhuman tag instead, since PD-ineligible really describes a different class of item? howcheng {chat} 21:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

How many animal-created images are there? If only a few, we could use {{PD-because}} with an appropriate reason. Lupo 22:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no sense creating a template tag for 1 or 2 images. If you don't want to use PD-ineligible, just write something different for the licensing section. You don't have to use a template tag after all. Or you can use PD-because as Lupo suggests. Kaldari 22:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, a PD-nonhuman tag would cover machine-created works as well. I don't think we have too many animal-created works but the latter class might be a lot larger. howcheng {chat} 22:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

What is "machine-created"? Lupo 08:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Good question, but rather beside the point, IMHO. I disagree with the statement at WP:PD. For example, from s. 5(2)(a) of the Copyright Act 1994 (New Zealand):

[the person who creates a work shall be taken to be,] In the case of a literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic work that is computer-generated, the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken.

I quote this text not because it is a specificity of New Zealand law, but because it is a general, common-sense principle which happens to be clearly enunciated in the NZ Act. In the same vein, while animal-created works are rare, I would suggest that the PD-claim on Image:Chimpanzee congo painting.jpg is debateable at best. The person who had the idea to give brush, paint and canvas to the chimp has a strong claim to copyright on the result. Strong object to creating yet another dodgy PD-tag. Physchim62 (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Not besides the point at all! The creative choices in the chimpanzee painting were made by the animal, and thus I think that painting indeed is not copyrightable. The fact that someone provided the animal with the tools to make a painting does not give that person a copyright on the painting—otherwise any seller of paints and brushes might have a copyright claim. "I sold the brushes to Picasso, so I have a copyright on his works!" No, I don't think that'd work. :-) BTW, the "human works only" claim is sourced to the Copyright Compendium II, section 503.03(a) from the U.S. Copyright Office.

But in "machine-created" works (satellite photography, automatic surveillance cameras, photo booths, etc.), humans still make decisions about when to take a picture, the direction and focus of the camera, and so on. In Austria, there was a case where such "machine-created" images were considered copyrightable. (See commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Lindh killer image1.jpg.) What has U.S. law to say about such cases?

Computer art is not "machine-created" art. It clearly involves human creativity, the human artist just uses the computer as a tool. There may be borderline cases (such as images of Mandelbrot sets and other fractals), which are just visualizations of a mathematical expression, but I suspect that choices made on how to color these images (and which areas from the fractal to show at all) amount to sufficient originality to give the programmer a (thin) copyright. Fractal landscapes are clearly original enough to warrant copyright. Scenes from computer games are original enough to be eligible to copyright.

I agree that we should not create a special "PD" tag for either animal-created works or "machine-created" works. (Whatever the precise meaning of "machine-created" may be.) Lupo 09:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Help requested to assess picture

I uploaded this picture - Image:Tempranillo blanco.jpg. It is copyrighted but is there a necessity tag or something like that? The reason is because this grape is a new mutation that can't be found anywhere but in this special research facility. There are no other picture of it anywhere and this picture is very important for the article.--Charleenmerced ^Talk 23:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Chaleenmerced

picture of state university's building

What is the copy right case of picture of a state university building like this [9]? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Farmanesh (talk • contribs).

Generally, works by the U.S. federal government are in the public domain, but works by state governments are not. A free image could easily be created of this building, so we shouldn't use this image under a fair use argument, either. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 03:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

News article picture tag

• {{Newspapercover}}—for scans of entire newspaper pages.

This tag is the closest one I can fid to cover images from a news article (newspaper/magazine/electronic). There should be a tag made for images from a newspaper or magazine article.

• {{News}}—for pictures taken from newspaper or magazine pages.

-- Jason Palpatine 06:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

unconfirmed website

What is an "unconfirmed website"? Good friend100 22:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Local flag

This image of the flag of Durham, North Carolina currently has the tag PD-USGov. This is clearly unsuitable because the flag is not "a work of the United States Federal Government." What is the proper tag? --zenohockey 02:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Audio clip from computer game

Not sure what license this should come under. There are templates for "Screenshot from a videogame" and "Music clip", but this isn't either of those. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arganoid (talk • contribs) 20:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Latifa

Hi guys, I work in Latifa's official site and I have persmission from her to use her photos wherever I want including wikipedia.

I am not really sure what tags I should use though, and that's why they are always deleted, could someone please help me? I feel lost :S

radiant guy 09:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for new Image Copyright Tag - Florida Memory Project

I'd like to propose the creation of a new tag for images from the Florida Photographic Collection of the State Archives of Florida (the "Florida Memory Project"), a repository of photos which donors have agreed to release to the PD. See: copyright information

If validation of the Florida Memory Project's PD status is attained, here's a proposed template: User:JGHowes/Templates/PD-FL-Archives JGHowes ^talk - 20:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't sound like a public domain license to me. Kaldari 21:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too hot at legalese, but it seems most of the referenced provisions relate to access to, and copying of public records. Not sure if the image collection is considerd public records or not, but either way the requirement to properly credit the works seems to pretty much rule out a clean public domain release. Pluss the copyright page also says: "Some of the images may be protected by copyright. The user must assume any and all responsibility for obtaining appropriate permission for use or assurance of adherence to copyright restriction.(...)". --Sherool (talk) 22:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That is indeed a statement that the content is made available to the public under some kind of freedom of information legislation; this is not a declaration that they are in the "public domain" in a copyright sense, and indeed it explicitly states they may be copyrighted. Shimgray | talk | 16:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not a lawyer, either, but these conditions seem quite similar to the disclaimer at U.S. National Archives, which is widely used on Wikipedia, of course. (See: National Archives copyright information). Is this the place to request Wikipedia's legal counsel to make a determination about this? JGHowes ^talk - 16:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to ask this question again

What is an unconfirmed website?

Several images I have uploaded have this tag and I am wondering what it means

and how I can fix it. [10]

thank you for the reply. Good friend100 00:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Permission to redistribute

I'd like a little clarification. What do we do where a copyright holder has clearly released an image for redistribution, but they have not permitted derived works? So far all the tags I see seem to be of the totally free or fair use variety. But lots of promotional materials are intended for redistribution but derived works wouldn't necessarily be legal. jbolden1517^Talk 14:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If it isn't totally free, then it can only be used if it meets Wikipedia's policy on non-free content. As a general rule, promotional material can only be used if no free replacement exists and it is impossible to make a free replacement. --Carnildo 22:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. jbolden1517^Talk 16:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

BPfuelcard.jpg copyright

I have uploaded the above file, but am not sure how to Wikify/correctly tag the copyrights to keep it up there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BPfuelcard.jpg.

Copyright is a company called 'First USA' and link is as follows: [11] Thanks --leopheard 10:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps {{Product-cover}} would be the best match. Not a perfect match, but possibly the closest one. -Seidenstud 19:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:CopyrightedFreeUse-User and Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 1 Alex Spade 09:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No permission since

Could someone please introduce Commons:Template:No_permission_since to en.wp. Currently there is no suitable template for images where the upploder claims that a permission exists but doesn't link to the permission or otherwise allows verification. /Lokal_Profil 10:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Where would it be used? --Iamunknown 17:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

On Image:Pmj.jpg for instance. /Lokal_Profil 12:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Copying the template across si something I could do myself but I wouldn't want to introduce this template without checking where such images should be placed etc. /Lokal_Profil 11:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

We don't currently have a category or workflow for this type of problem. I would suggest WP:IFD since the license cannot be verified. The permission-since style template would require some additional criteria for speedy deletion, currently not having proof of license status is not a criteria. - cohesion 23:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I tagged Image:Pmj.jpg as {{no license}}, even if we had full written permission from the website owner it would be moot in this case since it says on the site that he does now hold the copyright to any of the images, just collected them from varios magazines mostly. --Sherool (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess I can always use PUI. /Lokal_Profil 01:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the {{no license}} solution also, the previous tag was not really complete in terms of information. - cohesion 05:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the no license tag states that there is no copyright information. In this case that information existed it's just not complete (by todays standard). /Lokal_Profil 14:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:PD-USGov-NARA should be deleted

In accordance with Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-USGov-NARA, I've nominated Template:PD-USGov-NARA for deletion. Please post comments at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 30#Template:PD-USGov-NARA. howcheng {chat} 17:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 30#Template:PD-WWII-in-Color. --Iamunknown 23:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Freeing GFDL from "disclaimers"

Please see Wikipedia:GFDL standardization, which intends to address the legal morass of having added "Subject to disclaimers" to {{GFDL}} and hence creating a licensing tag that is technically incompatible with the normal GFDL applied at most other projects and Commons. Comments welcome at Wikipedia talk:GFDL standardization. Dragons flight 02:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Requesting derivative work/nonfree tag

I've been having trouble with the copyright tagging of original creation derivative works that use Fair use content. See for example Image:Newspapers.jpg and Image:HebraicaStack.jpg. I would be very happy if a new copyright tag was created for images with this status, since I am unsure how to handle such cases. Thanks, nadav 09:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

IANAL but I'd have serious question as to whether that image is in fact a derivative work of Haaretz. Improper usage might be a trademark violation but I'm hard pressed seeing how Haaretz could assert copyright here. There just isn't enough content copied. The only thing that might qualify (and this is a push) would be the picture on the front of the Israeli language edition. So I'd go for marking this as an image created by Gila Brand and licensed to wikipedia under the GFDL and CCA. jbolden1517^Talk 18:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well that's exactly why there should be a section of WP:NONFREE that expalains derivative works better, or at least an appropriate copyright tag. I thought it was better to err on the side of caution when I asked Gilabrand to add a nonfree tag also, since the image is essentially one Haaretz paper overlaid on another, and in fact is being used at Haaretz mostly for the purpose of showing the logo of the paper. nadav 21:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No its not being used by Haaretz. Gila Brand the uploader is claiming he took it. jbolden1517^Talk 01:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Gila Brand did photgraph the papers. I wrote that the image is being used on the [[Haaretz] article page to depict the logo. You can discuss this on the image's talk page. What I am asking about here is a general derivative work tag. nadav 01:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Question about 8-bit word processor screenshot

A while back, I added a screenshot of the 8-bit SpeedScript word processor (a magazine type-in) to Wikipedia. (See Image:SpeedScript 128 In Action.gif.) Currently, this is listed as a {{Non-free software screenshot}} since the copyright to the software is presumably owned by someone (even though the magazine went out of print about 15 years ago). However, I wonder if it's even eligible for copyright at all. The overwhelming majority of the image (23 of 25 lines) consists of text from the MOS Technology 8563 article, which I typed in to show the word processor in action. This text is, of course, GFDL. The remainder simply consists of a header line that reads, in plaintext, "SpeedScript 128 by Charles Brannon & Bob Kodadek    Insert Mode". Is this screenshot eligible for copyright protection, or can I mark it as {{PD-ineligible}}? According to this site, "Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans are not protected by copyright law. Similarly, it is clear that copyright law does not protect simple product lettering or coloring, or the mere listing of product ingredients or contents. The exclusion of these types of materials is not an exception to copyright law, but merely an application of the requirements for copyright protection. To be protected by copyright, a work must contain at least a minimum amount of authorship in the form of original expression. Names, titles, and other short phrases are simply too minimal to meet these requirements." I think that this screenshot does not contain sufficient creative expression to be copyrighted. I'm interested in hearing the opinions of others on this issue. *** Crotalus *** 10:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

IANAL but I think you could legally assert sole copyright on the image and then grant a GFDL license. This isn't a wikipedia choice though, you have to assert your ownership without that assertion wikipedia can't make its assertion it agrees with your claim. This image is an exception btw for the reasons you listed (basically there is no copyrightable content that isn't yours). jbolden1517^Talk 14:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be completely reasonable for you to assert sole copyright on that image. Kaldari 20:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

What tag if any?

If the source website says "The contents of PDB are in the public domain. Online and printed resources are welcome to include PDB data and images from the RCSB PDB website, and may be sold, as long as the images and data are not for sale as commercial items themselves, and their corresponding citations are included." and "Obtaining and Using Molecular Images from the RCSB PDB Users are free to use molecular images from the RCSB PDB site provided that a proper citation is a given." Would that pd something or some tag like that?--Kolrobie 13:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Their copyright notice is contradictory. Regardless, since they do not permit unrestricted commercial reuse, the images are ineligible to be used in Wikipedia (unless you can claim fair use). Kaldari 20:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"Non-free" prefix on image copyright tags

Since {{Logo}} has been moved to {{Non-free logo}}, should {{Film logo}} be moved to {{Non-free film logo}} and {{K12-logo}} be moved to {{Non-free K12 logo}}? --Eastmain 04:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

More or less, or rather I think most such will be merged into {{Non-free logo}} since these templates are supposed to identify copyright status wich tend to be the same regardles of what kind of organization the logo belongs to. See Wikipedia:Non-free content/templates for more details on the "project". --Sherool (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

New tags for images of art not fitting existing tags

I have created:

• {{PD-Roundart}} - for images of 3D art rleased under a free licesne, must specify source and licesne.
• {{PD-Flatart-Nosource}} - for images of 2D art which are PD in the uS under the Corel decision, but where the soure of the photo is unspecified.
• {{ImageRound-Nosource}} for images of 3D art where the source of the photo is not specified. Thsi is not a free licesne.

I hope these will be useful. DES ^(talk) 17:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Can I suggest that we only need one new template? This can be simply added to PD-art images where no source has been provided to kindly ask that a source be provided - both to enable users to verify the copyright status AND to provide a way to verify the identity of the image and so conform to WP:IUP and WP:V.
• For any 3-d works of art which have been mistagged as PD-art or are missing sources that enable copyright to be verified then the normal {{PUIdisputed}} does the job fine as it calls for a review of the copyright status and/or source - and essentially that is what is needed, it also gives a chance to notify the uploader in a friendly manner and ask them to rethink the copyright tag that has been used and/or provide a source. This tag is also appropriate when the PD-art status of any image is in doubt. Madmedea 18:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• The problem is that an image of a work of 3-D art needs, if we are to retain it: 1) info that the art work itslef in in the PD or under a free license (most often due to its copyright having expired); 2) info on the license under which the image (photo) has ben released,. since images of #D works of art have their own separatge copyright; and 3) info on the source of the image, both to verify the license and for proper attribution. {{PD-Roundart}} is intended to provide all three, adn to remind editors that all three are needed. As for {{PD-Flatart-Nosource}}, the problem is that {{PUIdisputed}} doesn't quite handle this case, as if it is confirmd that the @D work is PD, and that the image is a "slavish copy" the image is PD no matter who took it, but we still want source info for proper attribution, even though the image is free. That is the set of cases for which i created {{PD-Flatart-Nosource}}, , but quite probably it can be improved. We could handle this with multiple separate templates insted, if we so choose. DES ^(talk) 18:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• I just like {{PUIdisputed}} as a coverall because it gives an opportunity for the copyright and the source to be discussed without looking as scary as {{nosource}}. But, hey, maybe that's just me.Madmedea 18:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• We could edit {{PD-Flatart-Nosource}}, into lookign more like {{PUIdisputed}} if we choose, and have it not threaten authomatic delete, if we so please. DES ^(talk) 18:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• What template should we use on images tagged with {{PD-old}}, {{PD-old-70}}, {{PD-art-US}} etc, which have no source specified ? Should we use {{nosource}} which states "copyright status is provided and a source is given, the image should be deleted seven days" ?
• A possible solution would be to create a common {{PD-nosource}}, which states something like, "Although this image is claimed to be in public domain, source information is needed ...", without threatening immediate deletion. Another copyright tag on the page can then specify the exact rationale for claiming the image is in PD. Abecedare 18:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • That could work, yed. I still think that {{PD-Roundart}} is useful for corretly tagged and usable images of 3-D art, varients for the 70 and US cases could be created, or even incorporated in the same template with conditional parameters. DES ^(talk) 18:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Now I understand a bit more about 3-d art copyright thanks to DES I think the {{PD-Roundart}} is top notch for images of 3-d art where the original work is in the public domain and the uploader can provide a source and license for the image itself (that's right, isn't it?).
    • I still don't have a clue on how to make {{ImageRound-Nosource}} crystal clear to users that even if the 3-d artwork is in the public domain itself, the photograph of it needs a source and license. People are so used to images of 2-d art, where the artwork is over 100 years old, being copyright free, trying to explain that an image of a 2000 old vase's isn't copyright free isn't easy. I'm sure it can't be just me that gets confused.Madmedea 18:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• My main concern with {{PD-Flatart-Nosource}} was that it is combining source and copyright tagging in one template... but maybe I'm over complicating things and that is clear enough. Madmedea 18:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand the point. The first one is kinda useful, but it should be a template that just says something like "The 3D artwork in this image is public domain however the photograph is not. Please be sure to use a license tag from Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. This tag shouldn't be used alone" or something. The important thing is that the image is gfdl, or creative commons etc. If people use this template the actual license tag wouldn't be used, but would be hidden in a non-uniform freetext parameter. The second one is a little optimistic, if there is no source we shouldn't wait until a better image comes along, we need the source. The third is just confusing, I don't think we need a deletion template for every nuance of image. The normal ones do a pretty good job of explaining the need for a source and a license. Maybe a new one for user talk pages explaining the situation? - cohesion 01:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

As to the first one, part of the poitn is that even if the image is relased by the photogropher, it is not free unless the work of art is also free. Yes, we could do it with two tags as cohesion suggests, i thought that having one would be simpler, but if people thaink that two would be better, the tempalte can be edited to work that way. As to the second, I disagree, particualrly for existing images. A source is highly desireable, but not needed for copyright purposes if the image is a slavish copy of a 2D PD artwork. The thirs was intended for the cases where PD-art had been incorectly used, to make clear why with a 3D image we must have a source, while this is not as essential with a 2D image. But if people don't like these, so be it. DES ^(talk) 13:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok...

I'm going to have a go at summing up....comments are very welcome...

2-d art

1. Images of 2-d art where the creator has been dead for x years (depending on the tag used) i.e. {{PD-art}}, {{PD-art-life-70}} etc. but where the source information is missing:
   1. Add a new tag which simply states that the source information is missing from the image and that all images on Wikipedia should have source information.
   2. I've had my first go at designing a template based on {{disputed}} - see {{PD-nosource}} and let me know what you think. This tag could be used on any PD image that is missing its source information.
2. Images of 2-d art where the claim for PD is in doubt (normally because its not been proven that they are old enough).
   1. The standard {{PUIdisputed}} needs to be added and the uploader notified as with any case where the copyright and/or source is indoubt.

3-d art

1. Images of 3-d art or other objects where the object is in the public domain due its age:
   1. Needs be tagged with a version of {{PD-old}} (or its variants? {{PD-US}}, {{PD-old-50}}, {{PD-old-70}}) that specifically refers to 3-d art and states that the object depicted, rather than the image, is in the public domain due to its age. If {{PD-art}} has been mistakenly applied it should be swapped for one of the new tags.
      1. Draft templates are now exist for {{PD-art-3d}} and {{PD-art-70-3d}}. As 3-d works aren't published but created I'm assuming that the {{PD-US}}, {{PD-old-50}} aren't applicable as they refer to date first published so I haven't created 3d versions of them.Madmedea 18:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
   2. In all cases a second tag needs to be applied to indicate the copyright status of the image of the object... standard tags are ok for these.
   3. If a page is missing the tag for the copyright status of the image either {{PUIdisputed}} or {{nolicense}} should be added and the uploader notified as this is the same as if any image was missing copyright information.
2. Images of 3-d art that is not clearly in the public domain due to age - even if the image has been released under a suitable license:
   1. Use {{PUIdisputed}} to indicate that the copyright status is in doubt and start a discussion which an explain that 3-d objects themselves can be subject to copyright.
3. Images of 3-d art that is not clearly in the public domain due to age and the image has not been released under a suitable license:
   1. Use {{nolicense}}.

Madmedea 14:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• I like the new templates that Madmedea linked above. I think this whole PD art issue is pretty complicated for someone who has not come across it before, and it would be useful to provide some help. Therefore I suggest:
  • The template usage guidelines that Madmedea listed above also be added to the new templates' main/talk pages, so that someone seeing them for the first time has more information than just the template message itself.
  • These various templates be interlinked by, say, adding a message along the lines of Template_talk:PD-art#Looking for the right copyright tag ? to their respective talk page. This will hopefully lead the tagger to the right template.
  • Perhaps all Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. related templates should provide a link to the commons page Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag so that a user can read up on the 2d/3d and object-copyright/image-of-object-copyright issues.

In short, I think any information we can provide that will lead to accurate copyright and source tagging in the first place will be useful. Abecedare 18:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • As no one has come back with any further comments is it ok if I list these - {{PD-nosource}}, {{PD-old-3d}} and {{PD-old-70-3d}} - on the main project page and we can start using them?Madmedea 08:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Dunno, seems redundant to me. If the object in a photo is PD, but the photo is not then what's the point of the PD-3D tag, we can't actualy use the photo anyway (since it would presumably be replacable). Simmilarly if the object in the image is non-free does it rely matter to us that the photographer have released the photo under the GFDL? The image can still only be used on Wikipedia if it satisfty all the non-free content criteria, the extra GFDL tag would serve no usefull purposes since non one can actualy use the image under those terms. If the photo is free that is naturaly one less copyright to worry about, but we could just mention that in the fair use rationale itself, rater than a seperate tag IMHO.
        P.S. When creating drafts for license or process related templates consider using a user subpage rater than an actual template. Sometimes people will stumble across rejected draft templates and start using them once discussion dies down since no one bothered to have them deleted: --Sherool (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure that I see you point - all images of 3-d objects have two "layers" of copyright - one for the object itself and one for the image of it - both need to satisfy Wikipedia copyright criteria. These new tags, {{PD-old-3d}} and {{PD-old-70-3d}}, give information about the copyright status of the object itself and are therefore not redundant, as at the moment there isn't a template for this. Why should it go in the image summary? No other copyright information does, it goes as a template. Then a 2nd tag, of any license acceptable to Wikipedia, can be added for the image itself. You're right, if the object itself isn't under a suitable free license (PD or otherwise) then it shouldn't be on wikipedia (except possible under fair use), even if the photo is under a free license - but I haven't made a template for non-free objects so I don't see the problem.....Both 3-d objects and the images of them need to be released under an acceptable license - this is why an image of a 3-d object should have two tags. Madmedea 15:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Just saying: If the object is PD then only the status of the photo itself actualy matters. The point of the tags are to easily identify the copyright status of our images. IMHO adding multiple tags just confuse things. If the object is public domain and the photo is GFDL licensed then IMHO all we need is the GFDL tag, the PD status of the object makes no difference whatsoever in how the image can be used or distributed. So seeing as the fact that the depicted object is PD would have no effect whatsoever on the use of the image (a non-free photo would still need a fair use rationale, a GFDL licensed photo would still have to be used per the terms of the license etc) adding such a tag seems pointles, just write in the summary that the object itself is PD. That's my view anyway, If we do want to keep it at least make sure it is not mistaken from a image copyright tag, and that is says very clearly that the tag can only be used in combination with a real copyright tag that actualy describe the status of the photo since that's the important part. --Sherool (talk) 07:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Ok, I accept that that is your opinion. Although an example might help (or not). I can go into a sculpture park in the US and take a picture of a modern piece of sculpture and upload it to Wikipedia under a free license - but that image is still breaching copyright of the original artwork and therefore breaches Wikipedia guidelines - so the copyright status of the original artwork does matter. The reason for creating these particular tags was that old 3-d art works are often tagged with {{PD-art}} which only applies to 2-d art. Although the object may be in the public domain, the image isn't - it may have been taken from a museum website etc. - and therefore there the copyright status needs to be declared/investigated separately. People have a hard time understanding why an image of a very old object needs itself to be free, as images of 2-d old works of art do not attract new copyright. I have, however, made it very clear on the templates that an additional tag is needed for the image itself.Madmedea 08:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
            • The real answer for this problem, which I tried suggesting above, is that there needs to be a general derivative work tag. I envision this as a container template that leaves space for the correct copyright tag of the original non-free work, as well as room for an additional free tag licensing any new creativity incorporated into the work. As a whole, the picture would still be considered non-free, but the derivative work tag would make it clear that the free aspects of the picture are still subject to GFDL, say. nadav 09:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• But if it's a derivative image of a non-free object - doesn't the image needs a fair use tag with rationale or not be on Wikipedia at all, as with all derivative works in these circumstances? I think this is a valid, but different debate, as the new tags are about free 3-d artwork - ok their license tag could be combined with that for the image, but I don't really see the problem in having two, one for each "layer" of copyright. Madmedea 09:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, of course they would still need a rationale. The template I'm proposing would simply take as a parameter an existing non-free template. Or, if the original work is public domain (like an old statue) it would take the PD-old tag. And then there would be an additional parameter for any new creative input. I myself have been running into the problem of people taking a picture of a logo and not understanding that it's still subject to copyright, and of course your statue example is the inverse. We need to address this problem directly with a template that adequately explains the general problem of derivatives. nadav 10:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Yup, that sounds good to me, go forth and create. The only problem is as PD-old refers to the image, with 3-d art we still need specific tags referring to the objects themselves. But then these could be "drawn" into your dual-template... this is the fundamental problem with using any of the license tags that use the word "image" when you need to describe the copyright status of the object depicted. If that makes sense Madmedea 10:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, I agree with you. I'll get to work on creating this template. It'll be my first, though, so I don't know how successful I'll be, given the complexity. But I think it's important. I'll come back here when I have something to show. nadav 11:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Good luck. These were my first templates otherwise I'd offer to help - my tip is steal as much as possible from existing ones!Madmedea 13:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Protein database image template

The Protein Data Bank contains very useful structure images of biomolecules. They are public domain [12] but require citation of the entry ID and the scientific publication linked to the entry.

I looked around in the copyright tags, esp. the PD ones. Nothing seems suitable. Therefore, I would like to propose as new tag template for this after consulting the specialists here. Let me know what you think.

Best, Jasu 10:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it says it's public domain, but then it says "Online and printed resources are welcome to include PDB data and images from the RCSB PDB website, and may be sold, as long as the images and data are not for sale as commercial items themselves", which doesn't sound very public domain to me. This needs to be clarified. Pagrashtak 14:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not public domain, but close to GFDL - use commercially with attribution - except for that problematic sentence. I would recommend getting in contact with the site and ask them more about what they mean and if they would be willing to released them under a Wiki suitable license.Madmedea 14:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I've contacted them before and they just said the images were public domain and referred me to that help file. Tim Vickers 17:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

object to PD3D

Madmedea -- You are making some very strong claims about copyright law here.

• all images of 3-d objects have two "layers" of copyright
• You're right, if the object itself isn't under a suitable free license (PD or otherwise) then it shouldn't be on wikipedia (except possible under fair use), even if the photo is under a free license -

etc... What are you talking about?

Most 3D cannot have a valid (that is enforceable copyright at all). Most courts (and there is tons of caselaw on this) that a change of medium (3D art to photo) would sever the copyright protection. So lets assume that A made a statue and sold it to public park. B took a picture of it with permission. B uploads it to wikipedia and authorizes redistribution under the GFDL. What would A need to prove to win a suit against wikipedia:

1. That A's sale of statue didn't terminate his copyright (highly, highly unlikely)
2. That A's copyright on the statue is still valid after public display (highly, highly unlikely)
3. That B's picture is in fact a derived work (highly, highly unlikely)
4. That making the figuring available didn't constitute a waiver with respect to picture derived works (highly, highly unlikely)
5. That Wikipedia did not act in good faith in accepting B's assertion of license. And thus liable for more than a simple take down. (this one is only highly unlikely).

So lets assume .01 * .01 * .01 * .01 * .1 = 00.00000001% chance of winning. No lawyer in their right mind would take that suit. American copyright is obnoxious enough. Lets not make it stricter than it is. jbolden1517^Talk 13:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. There seems to be some relevant info on this Commons page, that would seem to invalidate your first four bullet points.

Also, I'm not sure that the distinction between "valid copyright" and "enforceable copyright" is germaine to the building of a free encyclopedia. Unfree content is unfree content regardless of whether or not its restrictions can or will be enforced. Current copyright law is static at the time of uploading. Enforcement priorities and enforcement technology can chage quickly. -Seidenstud 14:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy isn't based on weighing up the likelihood of getting sued and on balance accepting an image, the policy decided upon is that to ensure that as far as possible images used either meet the free license or fair use criteria set down. 3-d works of art do definitely attract copyright around the world (with variation of course) the same way that 2-d works of art do - so distributing an image of that 3-d work of art can be a breach of copyright, making that image ineligible for wikipedia except under fair use. This is well explained at Artlaw - which also explains the complexities that freedom of panorama brings into the equation as this varies from country to country - so I'm not sure what "tons of case law" your referring to. To prove that an image is eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia both the 3-d work of art and the image of it need to available under an appropriate license - hence the two layers - or this will breach Wiki policy on copyright. You may not feel that getting the details of copyright correct on Wikipedia is important, but the policy does. Madmedea 15:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel getting the details right is important which is why I'm opposed to going this extra level. The Artlaw article you cite:

1. Has not had a verdict rendered so it isn't a cite at all
2. If a verdict is rendered the fact that walmart sold 3d versions of the art may make it hard to use as a precedent nearly as widely as you are intending it here.

Butting in again.... the article gives explains the law in general that 3-d works hold their own copyright. The case details of the examples given are irrelevant to my argument. Madmedea 20:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Further you are simply incorrect about wikipedia caring about the status of the underlying image. We care solely about the fact that the uploader has a valid copyright. Taking the easiest example, there are texts which are under very strong copyright but for which wikipedia has received a GFDL distribution license from a holder of copyright. We don't care about the status of the original, what we care about is that we have a valid license. To pick a weaker example, once the statue has been sold, (c) In the case of a work lawfully reproduced in useful articles that have been offered for sale or other distribution to the public, copyright does not include any right to prevent the making, distribution, or display of pictures or photographs of such articles in connection with advertisements or commentaries related to the distribution or display of such articles, or in connection with news reports wikipedia has 1st amendment protections (didn't catch that one but its yet another reason). jbolden1517^Talk 19:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• I am quite sure that jbolden1517 is mistaken above on several points.

1 A person who createds a statue or other 3D work of art does have a valid copyright on that work of art, which lasts for the same time period as the copyright on a printed work created at the ame time;

2 A photograph or drawing of such a work is generally a derivitive work, and like all derivitive works is subject to the origianl copyright

This one I'm questioning. A photograph of a 3D work located in a public place (i.e. public property) in an encyclopedia. jbolden1517^Talk 19:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that many 3-d works of are are not on public view in the way that a staue is. Note also that even if a transmisison (such as a TV program) was under the "display or perform" right anf that was considerrd waived for a publicly displayed statue, a photo would not come under that ruling. DES ^(talk) 19:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If you are willing to grant the statue case (and argue that the statue) then we are done as far as my main point. All I was trying to argue is that we only care about the legal status of the photo not of the original. I certainly would agree this gets murkier and murkier and we need to err on the side of caution. What I don't agree with is that we should pretend the law is even worse than it is. jbolden1517^Talk 19:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Butting in (after the fact I know).... but the copyright status of the 3-d artwork impacts on the copyright status of the image - hence the hoo haa. If you take, and publish, a photo of a non-free 3-d work of art than that photo is breaching copyright no matter what license the creator releases it to wikipedia under.Madmedea 20:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

3 There is an exception for so called "panaromas" images of scenes which include copyrighted works in situ as part of the actual surroundings. So for example a street sceen in which a copyrighted work is visable, but is note the sole or primary content, is not considered a derivitive work.

4 There is a special exception in US copyright law for photos of buildings.

I can find and cite sources on all this if anyone needs them or disputes this. Whether Wikipeida is actually at serious risk of being sued is anothe questions: policy forbids hosting copyright infringments even in cases where the risk of suit is as a practical matter zero. DES ^(talk) 16:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm arguing we aren't infringing. Again to pick an example from your own cite To perform or display a work “publicly” means —

(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or

(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times. jbolden1517^Talk 19:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that To perform or display a work “publicly” is one of the exclusive rights that are part of a copyright under US law. Doing any of the acts you mention requires permission, explicit or implicit, from the copyright owner. DES ^(talk) 19:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC):Note also that "useful articles" in copyright law is a term of art. Works of art are not themselves sueful articles. Thsi is to cover things like design copyrights on fabric pattesn or spoons, or decoratiosn on lunchboxes or teeshirts. etc etc. DES ^(talk) 19:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Existing fair use tag for 3-d

Please note that there is a long existing "fair use" tag for 3-d works of art - {{Non-free 3D art}} - to match that for 2-d art. This reads as follows:

This is a two-dimensional representation of a copyrighted sculpture, statue or any other three-dimensional work of art. As such it is a derivative work of art, and per US Copyright Act of 1976, § 106(2) who owns copyright of the original has the exclusive right to authorize derivative works.

Per § 107 it is believed that reproduction for criticism, comment, teaching and scholarship constitutes fair use and does not infringe copyright.

It is believed that the use of a picture

• to illustrate the three-dimensional work of art in question,
• to discuss the artistic genre or technique of the work of art
• or to discuss the artist or the school to which the artist belongs
• on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, might be copyright infringement.

To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as copyright information on the original artwork.

This clearly shows the need to identify the copyright of the object as well as the image - there is no reason why this should differ for 3-d images under a free license. Hence the creation of the new tags. This is therefore an established Wikipedia principle!Madmedea 20:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that if the 3D artwork is non-free then any photo of it is considered a non-free derivative and must comply with the non-free criteria even if user created. Hence we need that tag. However if the artwork is public domain there is no such concern because per definition no copyright exist on something in the public domain. Only the copyright on the photo itself exsist in that case. It's naturaly nice to state who created the artwork, and when and things like that in the summary, but a seperate license tag for the PD object is not needed since the point of our image copyright tags are to tell us how the image can be used. The presense of a PD artwork in the shot simply does not affect the usability of the image in any way, and thus no additional tag for it is needed. --Sherool (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

In the case of obviously ancient artefacts, I admit a tag for the copyright of the object seems over the top, but for other objects how do you indicate that the item is out of copyright unless the object has its own tag? We don't take free use on faith. Madmedea 21:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

images of 3d images vs. 3d art

tting in again.... the article gives explains the law in general that 3-d works hold their own copyright. The case details of the examples given are irrelevant to my argument. Madmedea 20:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm moving this down here. AFAIK that's not a point in dispute. The point in dispute was about photos of public statues having their copyright be dependent upon the copyright status of the statue. jbolden1517^Talk 21:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• This was the bit that I thought was fairly clear and directly related to the point under dispute: "Under US copyright law only works of architecture - not outdoor sculptures - that are 'ordinarily visible from a public place' can be reproduced in two dimensions without the permission of the copyright owner."[13]. I'm presuming that indoor sculpture would not be under any less strict regulation. In the UK, this is not the case as 2-d reproductions of 3-d works of art on public display (indoors or out) are not considered to need the permission of the original copyright holder. So it is even more complicated by where the art is on display. Madmedea 21:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well in that case, it is fairly clear in the article, it just happens to be essentially false as the discussion above shows (which is quoting from the US copyright office). In the US you have to prove derivation and harm. Further most public display would constitute a waiver of rights with regard to a 2d image. And again the point is its the copyright of the image not the original that matters. jbolden1517^Talk 01:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you link to the source so I can take a look too? Thanks. nadav 02:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

us gov jbolden1517^Talk 20:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I am looking at it now. It doesn't seem too germane, since the quote you gave says that the works may be used only in the context of commentary, which is a provision similar to fair use. Also, it doesn't discuss the problem of derivatives. nadav 20:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

First principles

It's clear that there is a wide variety of opinions on this matter, and copyright law is very complicated, so I guess that's to be expected. I'm not sure that there is going to be a conclusion to this discussion, so I'd like to just explain why in the dim distant past this particular debate got started before I bow out.

I wanted a way to help the process of explaining to an uploader why their image of an very old 3-d work of art was not automatically PD and that {{PD-art}} could not apply. By creating {{PD-art-3d}} with its clear statement that yes, the object is PD but the photo generates a new copyright license I thought it might help this process. My original image of this type was Image:0511.jpg - clearly a very old piece of artwork, but a vase, so 3-d. The source information has recently been added, a scan from a 1986 book, so it is highly likely that using this image is a violation of copyright. However, I was unable to convince the uploader that this was the case. If other people don't find the new templates useful, then that's fine, they don't have to use them; but they don't breach Wikipedia policy so I hope they stay. Madmedea 10:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here is arguing that issue. I think we all agree you can't steal a photo just because the subject is pd :-). Its the other direction being disputed jbolden1517^Talk 14:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I just reminded myself of why I started this off and realised that we were no longer debating that point! ;) I'm not sure we're going to reach a consensus on the "other direction" so I'm just going to stick with what we do agree on and use the new tags as a tool in the way I explained above - as otherwise my brain may implode! Madmedea 08:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Portuguese Military Tag

I require the creation of a tag destined to articles related with the Portuguese Military. If anyone is able to do this, Id apreciate.

Thanks in advance

PS - If you need some help with the tag specifics contact me.

HKFlash

Self-taken pictures

I've been reading about copyright (tags) and image(s) (tags) on wikipedia and haven't been able to find anything clear on it, and if it's there, it confused me...so I haven't seen it. So, I was wondering...if I were to take a picture of a hockey/football/baseball player myself while at a game, what kind of tag would I put it under? Bsroiaadn 02:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That's up to you. Assuming you can legally take pictures (which you need to check) then you own copyright and can put whatever tag you like. You determine the license. jbolden1517^Talk 03:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. Thank you very much. But, where might I find out the legality of taking pictures of a certain player? Would the player decide whether it's legal? The team? The stadium/arena they play in? The league? Or could it be any combination or all of the four? Bsroiaadn^Talk 03:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If you took the picture, you own the copyright. There are exceptions, such as taking a picture of something that is itself copyrighted, but in general you shouldn't have to worry if the subject is a person. Pagrashtak 19:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Can the owner of an original photo of a trademarked product place the image into the public domain? Does inclusion or exclusion of the product trademark affect ownership? For example: if I take an original photograph of my own iPod™ for use in a publication, must I secure Apple's permission to use it? bMagargal 16:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The above is false [14]. As for your specific circumstances of a game, the game may prohibit photography in which case they may assert copyright on the underlying photos. You can claim copyright but I think you'd be incorrect. Wikipedia's status would still be questionable since I think they'd have good reason to believe you are incorrect. Whole different story if you are allowed to take photos in which case you decide the license. Anyway it has to do with the game not the player.

Now if you mean photo of the player outside of a game (like in a resteraunt) then you need to prove he is a public figure to distribute the image without permission. So for a major league baseball player no problem. For AAA probably, AA ... eh getting dicey. jbolden1517^Talk 20:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's a little harsh. I said there were exceptions. (clarified the above) Pagrashtak 20:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is most likely going to pertain mostly, if not exclusively, to NHL players. More specifically, the New Jersey Devils..but really I'll take pictures of whoever I can when I go to a game. There are pictures of Devils players on Wikipedia already (not by me) that haven't been deleted and they've been up for quite a long time, so does that mean it would most likely be ok for me to do so? Or have those pictures just slipped through the cracks somehow? Bsroiaadn^Talk 20:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well with the change its no longer false. jbolden1517^Talk 20:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Musical pictures

Apologies... Not sure how or where to inquire. How do I input please, a copyright tag (

<---I am guessing is the one I need to use? ) so as my images which are slated for deletion TODAY, are in fact not deleted? I am unsure where to input a tag. The image page has no area for editing. Pardon my ignorance. The pictures in question are under "Edan Everly". If anyone could help, would greatly appreciate! -admin@edaneverly.com

{ {Wikipedia-screenshot} }

Is it possible to make this particular tag easier to find? --Dbiel 06:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I took it on my own to make it easier to find. Hope no one objects, --Dbiel 06:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Personaly I think that's an "icky" tag that we should not be advertising too much. It's hardly ever used correctly since it only mention the status of Wikipedia text and the MediaWiki software. Meanwhile most so-called Wikipedia screenshots are full screen-grabs including browser, OS, the non-free Wikipedia logo and often non-GFDL images appearing in articles, making the copyright status of such screenshots muddled at best unless they are carefully cropped... --Sherool (talk) 07:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a better tag to use for the purpose? --Dbiel 07:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Depends on what the purpose is. Unless great care is taken to include no non-free elements most such screenshots should be considered non-free IMHO (the lack of attribution of included free licensed material may also be an issue), as such they should not be used on userpages or project pages, but that's almost exclusively where they are beeing used. I've tried to raise the issues with the tag in the past, but it's proven hard to get anyone to say anyting about it eithe way. That said some relevant issues have come up here Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Main Page/Screenshots. --Sherool (talk) 07:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, and I do see your point. It appears that no one really wants to address the issue. Bury it deep enough and maybe no one with ask? I would agree that the subject should be discussed and guide lines developed for the proper use of screen shots and how they need to be cropped. I guess that just makes me the trouble maker. Thanks for your straight forward reply. Dbiel 08:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

ESA multimedia

We have had {{ESA-multimedia}} for a while as a "semi free" (non-commercial basicaly) tag. Recently a new user who didn't know capitalisation mattered in page titles created {{ESA-Multimedia}}, wich is basicaly a fair use version of the former. Keeping both like this is probably overly confusing but what to do? The "old" tag should not be used anyway so maybe move the lot to a new "fair use" variat at {{Non-free ESA multimedia}} or something. Any thoughts? --Sherool (talk) 12:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Church pictures

I have posted a page for my church and want to add pictures taken by members for use on the church's own website (interior and exterior photos). What do I have to do before uploading them on the Wikipedia page for the church?

alternative logo template

I did an test alternative logo template at User:Soman/test-template. The idea would be that the template could added as {{test-template|name of organization}}, and the variable of 'name of organization' would appear in the template, identitying exactly which organization's logos is portrayed and that the article is only fair use in that specific article. Thus it would be possible to discovered non-fair use by bots. --Soman 06:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposition

To place a file in this category, add the tag {{PD-Italy-new}} to the bottom of the file's description page. If you are not sure which category a file belongs to, consult the file copyright tag page. If this category is very large, please consider placing your file in a new or existing subcategory. Free files can be moved to the Wikimedia Commons.

This is for ones that are used under copyright, but not with their copyright expired. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dreamafter (talk • contribs) 13:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC).

Looks like a by-permission tag, which isn't a free license, and certainly isn't public domain. I think it should be deleted. --Carnildo 21:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. howcheng {chat} 21:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

How should we deal with bad tags?

There are a number of them. We still have tags with lots of images that should have been deleted back in 2005! Just redirecting them or replacing the template with a note and a dated or undated no license or whatever tag presents the problem that the status of the image changes invisibly. Kotepho 20:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to {{no license}}. OrphanBot will come along in a day or two, apply a dated tag, and notify the uploader. --Carnildo 22:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

New tag

To place a file in this category, add the tag {{Military-Rank}} to the bottom of the file's description page. If you are not sure which category a file belongs to, consult the file copyright tag page. If this category is very large, please consider placing your file in a new or existing subcategory. Free files can be moved to the Wikimedia Commons.

Instead of using the deprecated tag, use this one. Dreamy 14:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

creator of image decides license?

The pages says "If you are the creator of an image," - but doesn't mention derivative works. Should this be made a bit clearer? Dan Beale 11:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Help; which tag?

Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask. Which tag should be placed on a photograph of a miniature that I have painted and photographed myself? ([15] for example). On one hand the model itself is made by a toy company, on the other hand the painting is my own work. For now I have tagged it as creative commons, as this seems to be placed on other photographs of toys I've checked. Thanks, Marasmusine 20:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri

I want a picture of this Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri for his article. He is big news right now, as his case was just heard and has major impact on Bush administration policy. There are images of him all over google images, but I do not know how to find one that I can download with confidence that its public domain. Any thoughts? I could make a good case for fair use here, but would rather go with a free image. thanks. —Gaff ^ταλκ 20:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

All the images I found were mugshots, and the copyright status of mugshots was an issue of contention that still hasn't been settled. I wouldn't use them, unless you can prove that they were made by the federal government or some other law enforcement agency that releases its images into the public domain. A fair use rationale could perhaps be made if you could argue that it would be impossible to make or obtain a free image of this man. nadav (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Wanda L Bass School of Music

I have been getting messages about copyright tags on the pics I uploaded. I got them off the website of the school but what do i need to do to tag them, this is my first page and I want it to turn out all right please help!

Thanks

The short answer is that you can't use them on wikipedia because they are not under a free license.Geni 00:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

PD-USGov-Congress

{{PD-USGov-Congress}} states:

...or because it has been released into the public domain and posted on the official websites of a member of Congress.

Has anyone actually verified this is true? What if a Congressperson obtains permission to place a copyrighted image on his web site from the copyright holder (e.g., http://obama.senate.gov/photo/001172.html which is an AP photo). The mere act of placing it on the web page doesn't turn the image into a public domain one, does it? That doesn't strike me as correct. howcheng {chat} 22:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

tags for PD

For some reason choosing the PD tag from the dropdown menu while uploading doesnt seem to work. In addition, I'm a little confused by the {{PD-self}} tag. Isnt there a clear way to state that the contents of an image is already in the public domain and that that the typesetting of a musical example is not original copyrightable work for me to "release"? Sparafucil 06:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. The tag you're looking for is {{PD-ineligible}}. howcheng {chat} 17:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

tags for governors

I was using PD-US tags for Michigan governors (example [16]) yet they were not older than 1923. I want to put new tags in, but I am having trouble finding appropriate ones. Is it possible to use PD-release? If someone could help that would be great. I don't want these images to be deleted. Thanks Jjmillerhistorian 20:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Flag of the World Food Programme

The image "WFP_flag.gif" is a flag of a United Nations organization, the World Food Programme. It is therefore in the public domain.

images published outside the US before 1909

According to http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/Hirtle_Public_Domain.htm, these are in the public domain. Do we have a tag for this? I can't find one. This seems like a much-needed tag (I've had to write pd-because rationales for lots of images because of this), so if this website is accurate can someone create a new tag? Thanks. Calliopejen1 08:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I see that the PD-US tag applies, though I still think that it is confusing to have this be a part of the main PD-US tag. Calliopejen1 08:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Project Gutenberg

Related item to the last - is there a specific tag for pictures from texts published by Project Gutenberg? - PKM 17:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

{{PD-old}}, {{PD-old-70}}, and {{PD-US}} should cover everything. --Carnildo 08:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

MLB copyright tag?

I need some help creating an MLB copyright tag for a JD Drew and Jake Peavy photos. --HPJoker 22:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

{{CrownCopyright}} tag

Please comment here: Template talk:CrownCopyright#Need for this template.3F on my suggestion to deprecate this tag in favour of using a specific fair use tag instead (it can, and is, causing some confusion).--Konstable 05:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll go over there to look, but isn't there a little confusion? {{CrownCopyright}} is a license tag. Every image need one of those, plus a fair use rationale for every time it is used in an article. So those are two separate things. If you deprecate it, you'll need to tell people to use a different license tag but they'll still need fair use tags in addition. Wikidemo 06:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Textiles

Do we have a ruling on whether fabrics, tapestries, and embroideries are considered as 2-dimensional objects for purposes of tagging with {{PD-art}}? There are a few items tagged this way in the Commons, and my assumption is that this tag should only be used if the photo of the textile is from an old book or otherwise PD. If the textile itself can be considered 2-D art, that would be great. - PKM 19:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Template for Permission from owner to release under the GFDL?

I have the permission of the owner/creator to release the image at [17] under the GFDL. However the GFDL licence templates seem geared to the assumption that I am the licence holder. How do I handle this, please? --Irrevenant [ talk ] 08:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This page may answer your question, else feel free to post a follow-up. Abecedare 08:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this tag legit?

I'm not so sure about {{PD-Gutenberg}} for a few reasons, most of which are shared with the now renamed {{PD-NARA}} or {{PD-LOC}}:

• Not all works on Gutenberg are out of copyright (Echo NARA's "...the vast majority of which are in the public domain")
  • It gives no warning of this and could easily be (Like NARA's old template) used to "PD" something which is copyrighted.
• It gives no reason WHY they're out of copyright (On Gutenberg main, all they check for is United States copyright), hence fails to state that it's potentially only PD-US and may be copyrighted elsewhere (All the Gutenberg download pages state that they ONLY check United States copyright).
• There are multiple Gutenbergs, from the original, which IS mostly PD, to the German one, which claims copyright (!), to the Australian one, which is for Life+50 stuff that's in copyright in Life+70 countries.

As such, I suggest it be redirected to {{PD-US}} or changed to a source tag or just deleted outright. 68.39.174.238 01:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Tag review

I created a tag, {{PD-RoM}}. Could someone please review it and let me know if it may be used as a legitimate tag. I personally think it is overly long, is there any way I can minimize it's contents? Thanks. Frightner 10:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, I don't think a work can be "possibly copyrighted [...] but [be] public domain". Check out something like {{PD-UA-exempt}} for an example of tags for countries like this one. 68.39.174.238 01:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The only place this tag is used is on Image:Goce delcev odred small.jpg which says it was taken in 1943. Since this tag says "This work, created in the Republic of Macedonia, is entirely free because it is a work of folk literature and folk art or 70 or more years have passed since the death of the author." that can't be right, since even if the author was known to drop dead at the instant of clicking the camera button, it isn't 2013 yet! --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Tagging help

Hi, I got some questions about the images: Image:10 large subunit.gif and Image:10 small subunit.gif‎. The uploader thinks they are US government PD, but I see them coming from a non-profit merely funded by federal agencies. Secondly, the site declares the images PD, but then lists conditions for use. Is that contradictary to the concept of PD? ccwaters 14:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Tag Help

I created a page about the Black Watch Cruise Ship and took the image from a promotional image on Fred Olsen's (the cruise line operator) website. The image is Image:Black-Watch.jpg how do I legitimately tag it?

"Non free promotional" looks good. However you should scale down the image, both file-wise and in the page itself. Thanx. 68.39.174.238 01:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)