Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use.../Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Screenshots (JPGs) of Google Map photos[edit]

Can we / how do we use screenshots in JPG format of Google Map photos in Wikipedia. First time attempt - walk-through is appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KeithMV (talkcontribs) 06:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"Shareable" images[edit]

I encounter photos in Multiply that allows other users to post it on feeds. Is this applicable to Wikipedia, too? Starczamora (talk) 09:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I've no idea what you are talking about. Can you post a link to "Multiply" ? Megapixie (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Here is the image I wanted to upload: http://francismagalona.multiply.com/photos/photo/37/135.JPG
As you can see, a button below says "Share", which allows other users (and non-users of Multiply) to post the image on feeds like del.icio.us and Digg, as shown here: http://francismagalona.multiply.com/item/share/francismagalona:photos:37:135.JPG?xurl=/photos/album/37
Since the photo is allowed to be posted on other sites, does that mean that I can post the said image on Wikipedia, provided that I credit the owner and license under GFDL or other applicable license? Starczamora (talk) 06:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Not good enough for wikipedia. Best thing to do is to email the user, and either, get them to create an account on commons to upload the images (by far the easiest) - or get them to follow the procedure by asking for permission and filling in a [1]. Megapixie (talk) 12:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Wellington[edit]

I have looked for a image of NZ's capital city and this is probably the best I can find. However; I am very unsure about these copyright rules. This image has a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 License. Is this alright??!! You can view the image here:[2] Tprebble 07:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes if the image is released under the CC-BY-SA license then yes, but try to upload it at Wikimedia Commons first. Can you confirm that it's released under this? Onnaghar Editor Review 21:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The non-commercial thing sounds problematic. Richard001 09:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Berkley Bedell[edit]

I have basically checked everywhere for a free image of Berkley Bedell, and my search has come up empty. While I have found several decent pictures of the man, even high quality pictures of him with both Chris Dodd and Howard Dean, none were released into the public domain/Creative Commons. I am wondering if I can justify using one of the following images with "fair use:" From "Cancer Decisions", or Dr. Rath Foundation, or if none of those, perhaps this image which was taken in the 1930s. Minute Lake 02:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

RAF Syerston air display programme cover 1958[edit]

What copyright licence should I use for a cover image of `RAF Syerston air display programme 1958`? Image:Syerston prog.jpg Palmiped 12:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Image has been deleted. Rudget 18:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Lacan[edit]

This image seems to pop up on lots of pages. Can't seem to find author details anywhere. Seems like it might be public domain. Do you think we can use it (fair use)? [[3]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkAnthonyBoyle (talkcontribs) 08:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Robert Nix[edit]

I would like to upload the picture of Justice Nix found here [4]. He has been dead for some time, and I have been unable to find any other picture of him. Cheers, JCO312 16:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that looks like it would be fine. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Andrea Anders[edit]

Can I use this image? [5] I would like to use it for the article Andrea Anders. If not, could someone please surgest a good place for useable image, i've tried Wikicommons but with no luck.Jamie jca 18:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No, this image does not appear to be acceptable. You need to find an image that's under a free license. Read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for information about how to request an appropriate release. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Delia Derbyshire[edit]

The portrait of Delia Derbyshire, taken from some BBC documentary, is most unbecoming. She died in 2001, and there are only four known photographs of her, of which the most famous and appropriate is available on my site. It is widespread on the net and I forget where I found it, but no one seems to know who took the photo. As it is an irreplaceable image of so significant a person, is this fair use, and what text should I use to justify it? Thanks! Martinwguy 15:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Images for Oreostylidium[edit]

Greetings! I recently read the following: According to U.S. law however, any media published anywhere in the world before 1923 is public domain. Images that can not be assumed to be public domain worldwide will be deleted from Commons, and should thus remain on English Wikipedia. (from Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons#Files not to delete) Is this true? I thought it only applied to anything published in the US prior to 1923. If that category page is correct, could I use a botanical illustration that was published in Germany in 1908 (author died less than 70 years ago)? What license/template would I use? Thanks! --Rkitko (talk) 16:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

{{PD-US}} is what you're looking for. —Remember the dot (talk) 00:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I had looked at the talk page of that template but wanted to make sure I got this right to avoid any problems. Thanks again, --Rkitko (talk) 01:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
No, {{Non-free fair use in}} is the template you're looking for. The German botanical illustration does not fall under the Definition of Free Cultural Works: "There must also not be any limit on who can copy the information or on where the information can be copied." (my emphasis) Physchim62 (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
PD-US seems right to me. Works published outside the U.S. before 1923, except possibly in the 9th Federal Court District, then before July 1, 1909. This image was published outside the US in 1908. Therefore, it would appear that these images are public-domain only when used in the US, which is why I've hosted the images on Wikipedia and not Commons (since Wikipedia's servers reside in the US). --Rkitko (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
After some reading, I guess it can be used on Commons as well. --Rkitko (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Or not... I wasn't aware of the Commons restriction that works published outside the US before 1909 had to be public domain in the source country as well (these images aren't), but that's only on Commons. PD-US works for en-Wikipedia when images are published outside the US, apparently. See Commons:Commons:Help desk for further discussion. --Rkitko (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon coin images[edit]

Can I use an image of a coin from the Fitzwilliam EMC? Specifically, coin EMC number 1924.0391. I would like it for the Egbert of Wessex article.

The Fitzwilliam has a copyright notice, but I believe currency is exempt and is regarded as public domain in some circumstances. So are these images public domain? I assume that they are not two-dimensional art, so cannot be included under Bridgeman. Mike Christie (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The coin is, of course, in the public domain, being roughly one thousand years old! However, the image of the coin is a derivative work which attracts copyright, for precisely the reason you give: the detail on a coin is not two-dimensional, ans so Bridgeman v. Corel does not apply. To put it another way, there are several ways in which you can represent the 3D surface of a coin in a 2D image, and so there is creativity in choosing one particular way over another. Mike Godwin, the Wikimedia Foundation lawyer, appears to be of the same opinion [6]. Physchim62 (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Lizzy Caplan[edit]

Can I use this image on the Lizzy Caplan article? [7] I am obviously going to crop it to exclude Jesse Tyler Ferguson (left) and make it of lower resolution. If I can use it, is it, "Fair Use Of A Living Person"?

We would not accept that picture because of WP:NFCC #1. —Remember the dot (talk) 00:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Megamasso Image[edit]

This image is from one of the member's blogs. I assume it was taken by the owner of the blog.

It does not say anywhere on the blog, nor in the image information, that this work and all others are copyrighted, so it's possible that this image is copyleft.

I read that images can be copyrighted without the copyright holder explicitly stating so. So, can photos of living people, such as this, to be void of copyright of the creator of the work does not want it to be?

I've tried asking the owner of the blog in the past about it, but he won't answer. → Hot Dog Wolf 18:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

the image is almost certianly protected by copyright. People tend to say if something is copyleft.Geni 21:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

"Mr. Wonderful" Paul Orndorff[edit]

Hello,

I was wondering could I use this image for MR. Wonderful's Profile page

http://www.accelerator3359.com/Wrestling/pictures/orndorff.jpg

I also did a screen shot of a current picture of him. It was at the WWE Hall of Fame Ceremony and it was deleted. Could you tell me what to do on that subject.

Zlrussell 20:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

School picture[edit]

Can I use the school picture from the school's website for the school's wikipedia article rahul 22:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

:no.Geni 22:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, actually you can. Depending on whether the image adds something to the article, and most importantly if the article is notable or important. Could you clarify what school you refer to? Thanks. Onnaghar Editor Review 21:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
No, actually you can't. If it is not a free content] image, it must pass the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. A non-free image of the school will not pass those criteria. Garion96 (talk) 10:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
It's for Baroda High School, Alkapuri. The picture is from the school's websiterahul 15:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

a simple tree-ring image[edit]

found at this link... http://www.detectingdesign.com/images/Dendrochronology/TreeRings3.jpg

if someone was to only to talk about this tree-ring and nothing else, would this be fair use/dealing? note: the original authur is not known.

It could be but couln't a free image be used?Geni 17:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I have not found a free tree-ring image yet

It should be trivial to obtain one. All you need is a camera and a piece of wood. I might try taking one later today. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 04:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we really need as any tree ring images from different trees as possible, but the tree ring in question is very important to us.

Luca Truilli[edit]

http://powermetal.altervista.org/immagini/lucaturilli/ancient_250.jpeg For The Ancient Forest of Elves Article

The article appears to be being deleted however if it were to survive probably as long as the article talks about the cover.Geni 17:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Promotional Film Posters[edit]

Any advice on where specifically to get promotional film posters that fall under the Fair Use clause? Virtually every article I've viewed in the Wikiproject Films category seems to have already a promotional film poster as its image. I'm trying to find one for Cruel Intentions, but I'm not sure what to do as this is my first attempt at something like this. J Readings 06:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

PDF's of whole books from the EEBO collection[edit]

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

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

Wikimedia Commons has at least a few images from EEBO: Image:Londoners-Lamentation.gif, Image:Relapse_characters.png, Image:Love'sLastShift title.png. The question is, why hasn't anyone had the chutzpah to print out a whole book, scan an electronic facsimile, and make it available to the world. (There are plenty of books in EEBO, notable enough to have Wikipedia articles, whose texts are not freely available in any form on the internet, for example the Old Testament of the original 17th century Douay-Rheims Bible.) Wareh 20:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

They have a legal right to do so because all users agree to the website's terms and conditions, which say the images can't be used in this way. Because of this, it is contract law, and not intellectual property law per se, that is keeping other users from taking their images and reproducing them elsewhere. Any user who did so would be in breach of the contract and could be sued for the resulting damages, and it is likely that a court would enjoin third parties (like Wikipedia) from using the images obtained in breach of contract as well. Calliopejen1 05:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that explanation! Wareh 13:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This image of Big-foot Wallace?[edit]

[8]

Adam Cuerden talk 03:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like it's public domain and could be uploaded with the {{PD-US}} template. 17Drew 03:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Right! I've put it into Bigfoot Wallace. Adam Cuerden talk 05:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The Prodigy - promotional photos[edit]

On this page there are some promotional photos of The Prodigy. Description on the page is:"On this page you can download images, audio commercial for radio stations and promo text for your magazine or newspapers." Is it ok to upload some of them on Wikipedia, and put them in the band's article. If it is, should it be in high or low resolution, and what license should I put? --Lošmi 00:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No, the site doesn't allow others to modify the images, or use them for some commercial purposes, so the images aren't free. 17Drew 00:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mean to modify the images. There are low resolution images here, and when you click on any of them you get the high resolution image. They are promotional photos. My question is priorly: is it ok to put promotional photos on Wikipedia? --Lošmi 01:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not. Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, so we can't accept restrictions on modifying images or using them commercially. 17Drew 01:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I know that. Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I don't think to put them on commons. I wanted to put an image under the terms of fair use and explain why I did that. --Lošmi 01:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
No, we don't accept pictures of things if it's possible to create a free work. In the case of The Prodigy, one can take a picture of them since they make regular public appearances. 17Drew 01:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmmmm... It's possible to picture many things, but that's not easy at all. I thought that some photo can stay under the therms of fair use, until some gets free photo. And what can you load as "promotional photo" as it's offered here?--Lošmi 01:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
[outdent] See Wikipedia:Non-free content#Unacceptable images: "groups still active". Promotional photos can only be used when they meet the criteria for using copyrighted media. 17Drew 02:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Spice Girls[edit]

I was wondering if this screen capture from the music video of Wannabe would be acceptable as the main image on the Spice Girls page. I'm having issues sourcing a free photo and was curious if this would be acceptable. Most likely not but just thought I'd find out. --Theloon 15:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No because it's still possible to take new photos of the Spice Girls. Have you tried searching flickr for acceptable photos? By the way, it's easiest to upload pictures from flickr to the Wikimedia Commons, which has a upload form specifically for that purpose. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright and the line between violation and fair use[edit]

Image:Copyrightquestion.png This is a general policy question, the image I'm citing is a temporary example only so please don't think I'm asking to load Wikipedia up with fictional artwork.

I created the image from scratch (mostly), but since it's of Star Trek fiction I'm pretty sure the uncertain copyright would make a fair use rationale necessary which leads to my next question, what would an appropriate quality be for fair use? Anynobody 00:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

See commons:Commons:Fan art. Since the image depicts a ship designed as part of the series, this image constitutes a derivative work and cannot be released under a free license. The appropriate resolution depends on what you're using the image for. 17Drew 00:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I was unclear, I hadn't intended to upload this to the Commons. If anything like this were needed in an article, it'd have to be uploaded here with a fair use rationale, I'm assuming. Also I wasn't only referring to resolution, but color depth as well (since the rules say "quality" I assumed it meant a balance of resolution/color depth. It's possible to have high resolution, grayscale image that looks "worse" than a slightly lower res, hi-color image.) I'm really sorry if my question gave the impression I plan to actually use this image for anything but an example. Anynobody 23:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hair wax[edit]

I was wondering if this image could be used on Wikipedia for the article on hair wax. If it can be used, how should the image be liscensed? Thanks. —Mears man 14:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Download the "Original" size and upload it to the Wikimedia Commons here (there are instructions on that page). Let me know when you're done so that I can check your work, and let me know if you have any problems. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


Barlings Eau[edit]

I think I can use this photo, but wanted to check. How do I give attribution? Thanks. Chris 20:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wanlessia sedgwicki[edit]

Here's a tough one (maybe): I though about adding some SVG drawings of Salticidae (jumping spiders). Many new taxa have been described recently, and these descriptions are accompanied by a standardized set of drawings; see fig.1-4 in the reference of the Wanlessia sedgwicki article for example.
I was thinking about using such drawings as a model for making a colored drawing of the spider body's dorsal aspect (fig.1 of the above). Naturally, this color drawing would be extremely similar to the published drawing (in fact identical, except being in color rather than b/w) as they both depict the same object. However, most journals run a very tight copyright policy that includes a NC clause for the work and its derivates and is thus incompatible with CC. On the other hand, an accurate representation of the subject in question has to be faithful to the copyrighted drawing too, especially when there is no other source available than the original decription.
What to do? On the one hand, the object in question is clearly below the threshold of originality (the shape, color and pattern of a naturally-occurring lifeform is not copyrightable). On the other hand, my drawing would - especially if no other source is available - arguably be a derivative work of the original drawing and thus not allowed on Commons as per the publishers' license. Perhaps not even on the US WP, where only the original drawing would qualify as fair use. Dysmorodrepanis 02:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Picture of a very simple bookcover[edit]

I spotted this in the homeopathy article, and it seemed a little questionable - It's a photograph of a book cover - 1990s printing of a 19th century book, I'm told. The design is very simple, so it may not be copyright-eligible, but if it is, I don't see how any fair use rationale could be made.

I have no strong opinions about keeping it - it's not a particularly informative illustration - but, well, I don't want to delete it out of hand when it may not be copyrightable. Adam Cuerden talk 08:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sunk Ship[edit]

Hi, was thinking of uploading this pic [9] of a ship that sank 15 y ago (M/T Haven). Obviously there is no way of reproducing a similar picture, but could i claim fair use? It's low resolution btw. Georgeg 15:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why not, as long as your rationale is good enough. However if someone drew a picture of it from a different perspective and said picture were to become public domain, it could be replaced. (I'm not saying I'm going to, but since it's a ship which actually exists the copyright doesn't extend to an artistic reproduction.) Anynobody 02:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Tom Peters[edit]

I want to use the picture [10] for the article on Tom Peters. Can I do so? I have asked for a permission but didnt get any reply as of yet. 04:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Image will be protected by copyright so no.Geni 11:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Image from Alison's History of Europe[edit]

Alison's History of Europe is an atlas of over 100 maps drawn up by Alexander Keith Johnston, Geographer at Edinburgh in Ordinary to Queen Victoria, to accompany Sir Archibald Alison’s History of Europe (published 1850), and printed by William Blackwood and Sons of Edinburgh. The publication date of 1850 would imply that the maps themselves are clearly out of copyright...

However, the image I wish to use is from http://www.village-atlas.com/alison/alison_2.html, a company trying to sell reprints of the original maps. The web-page (please be patient with it - I've had a devil of a time trying to get them to load) asserts copyright on all original material, and HTML encoding, only.

As a result, I'm dubious about the using the image here - who owns the copyright? Village-atlas.com, or is it out of copyright? I really need a map of the campaign for Battle of Barrosa, but am understandably reluctant to upload an image whose copyright status is uncertain.

Thanks. Carre 08:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Never mind this bit - I've got a genuinely public domain version of the image I wanted, not village-atlas.com... of course, other people might be interested in the answer to the question anyway, hence leaving it struck out. The next request still applied though. Carre 17:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

In a similar vein, can someone please check that my rationale for public domain on Image:Barrosa campaign map.PNG is OK? Thanks. Carre 13:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Album Covers -Repost-[edit]

Can album covers (in general) be taken from anywhere and uploaded? I'm not entirely sure of the restrictions, and I'd like to upload the album art for Waterlines. Otisbum 16:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

  • As a general rule, scans of copyrighted materials don't attract new copyrights, so the source of a scan isn't terribly important. Photographs of 2D objects might be copyrightable in some places. Of course, make sure that for anything, you can justify the use as necessary, eh? WilyD 20:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure what you're saying, and I think you misunderstood me too. What I meant to ask is if I can take album art from the internet, say google or whatever, and use that. Otisbum 21:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Provided it meets all the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, yes. Garion96 (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Otisbum 20:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Rebecca Hickenbottom Image[edit]

can i use any of the images from [11] for Rebecca Curci's article? the homepage for the site [12]] claims that no copyright infringement is implied or intended for the images, but id just like to double check before uploading them. thanks. Xchickenx 01:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

you should probably email them from a contact us (me) section on the page to double check. There are some generic emails that you could use on one of the pages floating around here... Sorry that I don't remeber which, you might have to scavange. Cheers!! - Hairchrm 01:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, no you can't. It's a fan site, and in the disclaimer you linked to, they explicitly say they do not own the copyright to the images they host. Calliopejen1 04:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

so, ultimately, does that mean that the images arent acceptable for wikipedia?Xchickenx 10:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. You would have to find a free image, such as one labeled with an acceptable free license at flickr.com, or one uploaded with an appropriate free license to wikipedia. Another way to get an image might be to write Curci or her agent directly and request a free image--see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. See WP:IUP for general information on wikipedia's image policies, or ask here if you have more questions. Calliopejen1 16:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit]

I've seen logos of companies used on pages before, so I think they're allowed, but I don't want a school logo to be deleted. Would it be okay to upload? It is a private school if it makes any difference. - Hairchrm 03:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Eric Bolling Image[edit]

Eric Bolling is a financial television analyst that was on CNBC Fast Money but has recently left to work for Fox new business channel. I was hoping to use his promotional image [[13]] from CNBC or this screenshot from a MSNBC video [[14]]. Sportslit 17:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia does not accept copyrighted images of living people because they are replaceable with free images. See WP:NONFREE for more info. Calliopejen1 22:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Can I use[edit]

I've been working on the Gray Davis page. Can I take pictures of newspapers that had major headlines during his governorship? Can I take pictures of Davis during interviews when he was younger? Can I take pictures of his tv ads (his negative campaigning was a defining feature).User:calbear22 20:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

My two cents: Probably no on the newspaper images--the info they convey can just as easily be described in words. The only exception would be if the newspaper image itself was famous, which I don't recall happening while he was governor. Probably no on the interview pictures--there's nothing in the images that can't be conveyed in words, and it's not necessary to have a picture of Gray Davis at every age. And maybe yes on the TV ad (like one low-res image), if you can find a reliable source that says he was known for his negative advertising and work a picture meaningfully into the text so it adds to the reader's understanding. Calliopejen1 22:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Video Game Screen shots[edit]

Can it be verified that video game screen shots that are typically used in promotion (Start screen or other shots commonly used by media outlets when referencing or discussing the game) are able to be used in commentary on the game or its similar games? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwydeon (talkcontribs) 05:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no hard and fast rule. If you have a specific image in mind for a specific article, perhaps someone can comment. Megapixie 14:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Photo of graffiti tag[edit]

I'm interested in uploading and using the second image found here, which is an old photograph taken of a graffiti tag of the artist Phase 2 (first photo on right side of a train with graffiti). It was presumably taken in the early 1970s and has been put up on a couple of web sites which I am certain are not the copyright holder (I don't know who is). I think this would be acceptable fair use as an illustration of the technique used by this artist but don't know since I never work with images. Just wondering if I can use this and if so what rationale I should provide, thanks.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

images from MySpace[edit]

is it acceptable to use images from myspace for articles? Xchickenx 00:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably not in the general case - if you have a specific image in mind post a link. Megapixie 14:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Creating images[edit]

I'm trying to make some illustrations for some of the math articles I'm working on, and I wanted advice before I even create them. I want to release my works into the public domain, so my concern is avoiding other copyright concerns.

In particular, I want to make a graph or diagram from a known function. This requires several steps:

  1. Creating code to compute the function. This step requires creativity (and a lot of effort, although that's irrelevant).
  2. Calculating the points based on the function.
  3. Plotting the points.
  4. Finishing the image (adding labels and axes, annotations, and such). This step may require creativity.

Now each step has potential hazards, and I want to avoid what I can. For step #1, I will be using code I created entirely myself to avoid any intellectual property claims on the code. For step #2 I'll need to use some pre-existing language (Pari, C++, Mathematica, etc.) for calculation. This doesn't cause trouble, does it? For step #3 I'll need to use some program to display points (Pari or perhaps Excel). Now in general I don't think of this as making trouble (documents I make and print in Word are owned by me, not Microsoft), but I get the impression Wikipedia is overly cautious here -- what need I do to be safe here? For step #4 I hope that whatever image-editing software I use doesn't cause trouble, since whatever I add will be purely my creative effort: correct?

I'm just trying to ward off any future trouble.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Any graphs of math functions are going to be borderline PD-ineligable so I wouldn't lose sleep. Producing the graphs in excel won't cause any problems either. Plot away. Megapixie 14:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Great, thanks. I was thinking that myself, but I wanted someone else to make sure I wasn't missing something. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Jack Grayson[edit]

I would like to upload this pic of Jack Grayson onto his page. [15] It is the only picture I could find of him, so there is no free version I could use. I've read the guidelines, but they confuse me, so if someone could help it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! ~ Chokolattejedi 05:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Worlds of Fun[edit]

Can I use this picture for the Worlds of Fun article? It's from a city government site. --Skylights76 08:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

New logo for The N[edit]

It's here: [16].

Is it OK to use under a claim of fair use? WizardDuck 03:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Signature Tower Nashville[edit]

Can I use these renderings from the developers site: http://www.giarratana.com/newphotos/NightShot.jpg http://www.giarratana.com/newphotos/CloseupDowntown.jpg Gaming Freek 00:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

APA Dictionary of Psychology[edit]

In several cases I have used 5-20 word definitions of psychological concepts from the Amer. Psych Assoc.'s APA Dictionary of Psychology (2006) in the lead of WP articles, quoted, fully attributed. I have a few questions.

  • Is this OK?
  • How much more often can I do it before it is not OK? In some ways it's a good ad for them, but I don't know how they would view it.
  • Do I have to economize on its use? It is extremely helpful to prevent disputes. If there is a serious risk of over-use, then I can save it for dispute resolution.
  • Does paraphrasing the definition and footnoting the dictionary help or hurt?
  • I presume that I should not use it at all in Wiktionary. Is that correct?

DCDuring 00:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

A link to an example would be helpful. If you are quoting the entire entry from the dictionary, then that's probably not okay (i.e. you are using all of the work in question). Megapixie 23:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think I have ever quoted an entire entry and would not. Instances of APA Dictionary use: Habit (psychology); Affect (psychology); Affect display. Looking at them again, they are paraphrases for the most part. Assuming that they are 1., not very close paraphrases OR 2., that the WP def is merely consistent with the APA def., would that be OK in general terms? I'm not asking for specific "approval", just some guidance as to how to reduce the likelihood of trouble while getting dispute-control-in-advance value from the APA Dictionary. I can provide more specifics if entering a complete APA entry here doesn't get WP in trouble. Is there anyone who works this page who might have the dictionary in question in their possession? DCDuring 23:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Palm Centro[edit]

Images from the internet of it from the palm site (http://www.palm.com/us/products/smartphones/centro/) or scanned images from a brochure I got at DigitalLife? Tonyb2006 01:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Replacable fair use. No. ViperSnake151 15:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use of architectural photograph[edit]

I have found a photograph of an architectural work that I would like to upload. The architectural work itself is almost certainly copyrighted, but I'd rely on fair use provisions surrounding images of 3D works of art. Freedom of panorama does not apply - these are shots from on the property.

My problem: I didn't take the picture. Is there a separate copyright to the photo itself, held by the photographer? If so, and if I can't get an appropriate license from the photographer, then is there a fair-use rationale that would apply to the photo itself? Or is the assumption that there are other possible sources for the photo, even if there's no other possible source for the architectural work? Ipoellet 15:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Well the photographer holds the copyright in the photo seperately from the copyright in the architectural work, so we seem to be talking about a non-free image here (assuming that you can't get an appropriate licence). As for whether this would be acceptable under WP:NFCC, you don't really give enough details to judge the question. Physchim62 (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Can I assume this .gov image is public domain?[edit]

We're looking for a free image of Nancy Brinker. This http://hungary.usembassy.gov/ngb.html .gov url has an image, and I understand US government images are normally public domain, but I'm not sure if this means the images on their websites are free unless otherwise stated. There doesn't seem to be an explicit declaration about copyright. hu.wiki is using it (hu:Nancy Brinker), but I can't read their tags :)) Of course if anyone knows of another good, free image of her, that would also be useful! Thanks -- SiobhanHansa 08:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hungarian WP is using it under a {{PD-USGov}} tag: I think this is a fair assumption, as the image seems to be an official photo of someone who held US public office at the time it was taken. A more recent photo (and even more obviously official) can be found at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/92472.htm . Physchim62 (talk) 11:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Great - that's even better (and it clears up where image:Brinker nancy 200.jpg came from). Thanks. -- SiobhanHansa 11:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Takako Tokiwa[edit]

I want to add an image to this actor's article. I was wondering if I could use one of these images : takako tokiwa takako tokiwa 2 Please help. Thanks Unknown identity 09:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Basically no. Megapixie 23:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Undark radium paint product from the 1920s.[edit]

Undark was a product from the United States Radium Corporation that contained radium. There is a copy of a promotional poster showing the "benefits" of the product. The image has been used by a few websites and in some reports on the radioactivity investigations from the Orange, New Jersey, headquarters of US radium Corp. The Undark article would benefit from the inclusion of this image/poster, can we use it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Read-write-services (talkcontribs) 23:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Playboy magazine cover[edit]

An answer to this question referred me to here.

For the Kata Kärkkäinen article, can I use the December '88 cover image? Basically, is the text of the article enough to justify the fair use tag that would be needed on the image? The image is here. Dismas|(talk) 21:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

So does anyone have any input besides what I've been told at the Help desk? Dismas|(talk) 03:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

North Sea[edit]

This image was published by the government of the UK [17] on this website [18] and the copyright info it linked to (crown copyright) said:

"You may re-use the material featured on this website (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium. You must re-use it accurately and not in a misleading context. You must acknowledge the material as Crown copyright and give the title of the document/publication." [19]

so i assume this is usable but i dont know what template to use when i upload. i figured id ask here cause ive had stuff deleted before. thanks Jieagles 14:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Foreign government graphic same as USG?[edit]

The Quebec Portal is an official Government of Canada website. It has a map that shows the Saint Lawrence Lowlands (in purple). The copyright question is: can I upload a Government of Canada graphic under the same rules as USG? There seems to be no guidance in the Image Upload macro, at least not that I could find. The Wiki article Saint Lawrence Lowlands is lacking a map and I think this might be the best choice. While it is in French, there are few words and they are mostly cognates anyway. If there is some rule against putting a foreign language map in the English Wiki, maybe the copyright question is moot. Let me know. I appreciate your efforts at dealing with so many queries. --Pat 06:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No, Canadian government documents are under Crown copyright: in Canada, they are released under a "no modification" license, which is unacceptable for free use on WP. Physchim62 (talk) 12:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Photo of Nobel Prize medal[edit]

Is it a copyright violation to use a personal photograph of a Nobel Prize medal in the Nobel Prize article and other articles related to Nobel Laureates? In the event that it's relevant, information about what the Nobel Foundation has copyrighted and trademarked can be found in their terms of use, pdf version and at WIPO. (I'm wondering since I believe I've seen personal photographs of stamps removed before for violating copyright, but I may be mistaken.) –panda 22:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Using a wiki logo in a userbox[edit]

Some userboxes call attention to other wiki projects, and I decided to create one for BhamWiki (by the Project to Document the Birmingham District of Alabama). I'd like to use the BhamWiki logo, shown in the upper left corner of the web page, at 48 pixels wide. The creator of the image gave me permission here to use it in a userbox. I know this would not be sufficient for Wikimedia Commons, but can I get by with it for this limited use? If not, what would you suggest? -- Rob C. alias Alarob 03:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

George P. Kane[edit]

I have an image of George P. Kane that I got from the digital library at the NY Public Library. Kane was marshall of police of Baltimore in 1861 and later Mayor of Baltimore. Is it ok to add this image to the article on Kane? How can I figure this out without asking every time?DGHistory58 00:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC) <a href="http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/id?1547358" title="George P. Kane. Digital ID: 1547358. New York Public Library"><img src="http://images.nypl.org/?id=1547358&t=r" alt="George P. Kane. Digital ID: 1547358. New York Public Library" title="George P. Kane. Digital ID: 1547358. New York Public Library"></a>

Image from Guitar Hero 3 Website[edit]

I wanted to use a screenshot from the official guitar hero 3 website I had taken in the Guitar Hero 3 wiki, but am not sure if its allowed. Would this image be wrong to use? http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/8535/guitarshw7.png VxMorpheusxV 17:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Governor James B. A. Robertson[edit]

The Governor James B. A. Robertson article needs an image, the Oklahoma Department of Libraries has one this image [20] on this page [21] the pages "Publication Rights: Permission for reproduction or publication is given on behalf of the Oklahoma State Archives as the owner of the physical items. The researcher assumes all responsibility for possible infringement, which may arise from reproduction or publication of materials from the Oklahoma State Archives collections." Usable or not? Vantar 22:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Image of Henry Walter Bates wanted[edit]

I need an image of Henry Walter Bates, both for the main article and Batesian mimicry, at minimum. There is an image here that is quite good, and another here. One of these, I believe the latter (they both look quite similar) appears in his entry in the print version of the current Britannica edition, with the caption 'Lithograph by W. Purkiss (haven't been able to find out who he is, though there are more images of his here), c: 1880. BBC Hulton Picture Library. There are some other images of him as well: here (This is from The Naturalist on the River Amazons, see this version, so should be usable, though isn't exactly what I'm looking for), here (this is quite a good one, though the site isn't even in a language I can read), here (another good one) and variations on this one.

Any advice for trying to obtain copyright information about the images? In the case of many of the websites it's unlikely I will be able to contact anyone who would know, though the educational sites with biographies of him may be a better shot. Has sufficient time passed to simply presume that they are PD, or would I still need to obtain full copyright information about them? Richard001 09:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Image of Imette St. Guillen Wanted; Can I use this one found through Internet Archive?[edit]

I am looking for an image of Imette St. Guillen to post on her Wikipedia web reference. OrphanBot deleted the image that was present. Can anyone inform me if it is okay to use any of the images from this now-defunct website?

http://web.archive.org/web/20060506044642/http://www.imettelaws.com/

FYI, I used to work with the protestors until last year. Thank you for any input.--MurderWatcher1 18:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Beryl Ford Collection[edit]

The Tulsa Public Library is putting digitized copies of the pictures from the Beryl Ford Collection online. Beryl Ford was a local Tulsa historian who collected a massive (75,000 - 100,000) collection of pictures illustrating Tulsa and the surrounding area's history from the earliest known photographs to the recent past. (I have found images as recent as the 1960s in the collection.) Because of copyright concerns I have been very sparing in uploading these pictures, limiting myself to images from the 19th century. However the library recently converted the final link one has to click to see a picture to text that says "View photograph from Beryl Ford Collection. You are free to distribute this photo provided the content is left unchanged. Photo credit should be given to the Beryl Ford Collection/Rotary Club of Tulsa and Tulsa City-County Library." example here. The collection itself is owned by a not-for-proft subsidiary of the Rotary Club of Tulsa. See here and here for more information on the collection. Many of these picture, so far as I know, have not been published before, and almost all are anonymous. Is the text on the link sufficient permission for me to upload images here or do I need more permission. Or does each image will have to be considered as separate case depending on its age. I would especially like to be able to use images from the 1920s and 1930s to illustrate an article I am developing on Tulsa's architectural history in order to illustrate now demolished, but important buildings. Dsmdgold 03:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Meteora images[edit]

I got these images of Meteora in two websites, but I'm not sure if I can upload them:

  1. [22]
  2. [23]

--Zacharycrimsonwolf 13:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No indication that they are "free", so don't upload. Megapixie (talk) 06:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Mugshot of Norman Hsu[edit]

I uploaded the booking photo of Norman Hsu using the rationale that I found here. Explicitly:

Whenever a public duty is the cause of the expression, the incentive justification under the copyrights and patent laws is absent, and any construction of the Copyright Act to protect such official work product would be unconstitutional. - Henry H. Perritt, Jr., JD.

Because the book photo is a public duty, San Mateo County would be unable to enforce a copyright on this material according to this opinion. However, the image was recently slapped with an invalid non-free use justification. Can someone please help me figure what to do here? Thanks. Ronnotel 04:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No. WP:NFC#Unacceptable_images #12. We can always take another photograph. Megapixie 04:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I guess the question is whether the image qualifies as non-free. As per the legal opinion quoted above, it would appear that copyright cannot be applied to a booking photo since it is produced as a public duty and there is no incentive justification. And in response to your suggestion to take another photograph - Mr. Hsu is being detained and unlikely to be available for a photograph for a considerable period of time. Ronnotel 14:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
It has been argued in the past that these images are free - however the current state of play on wikipedia appears to be to treat these images as unfree. See Template:Non-free_mugshot and Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2007_August_28. Clear as mud. Megapixie 15:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmm - my take on the links you provided is somewhat different. It seems as though the booking photo for Larry Craig is almost an identical situation. Surely the justification provided for that image (which has been kept) can be applied to Norman Hsu's booking photo. Ronnotel 15:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Photo of a mural[edit]

I know that photos of artwork and things like movie posters are unacceptable, but what about [24] the purpose being to illustrate the advertising for Halo 3. The image is under CC-BY-SA but is it allowed on Wikipedia because the photographers don't always know copyright law (ie they might not be able to release under CC). Thanks in advance. James086Talk | Email 11:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Image from an academic journal[edit]

I would like to upload an image from an academic journal. The image in the journal is a copy of a historical rock inscription, and is not a photograph, but a processed image where the letters are shown in black against a white background, and no other details are shown. The photograph was uploaded previously as Image:Kanai Baraxiboa rock inscription.png, but which was removed because I failed to act in time on a WP:NFCC#10c notice ([25]). I could upload the file again under fair use and satisfy the WP:NFCC#10c conditions, but I thought the appropriate license would help. So please let me know what kind of license I should use for this upload. I cannot seem to find a fair use license that fits this upload. Thanks. Chaipau 18:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Pekka Auvinen(Jokela school shooter)[edit]

Some have said that the current image in the article is not appropriate. There are a few images circulating the internet which he himself put out. Here is one of the numerous sites the "press package" he composed has been uploaded to. I was wondering if this image would be more appropriate for the article mentioned AND if it could be legally used in Wikipedia. Essesense 20:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Such images will be protected by copyright. if they could be used under fair use is hard to say.Geni 19:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Old atlas image[edit]

Can I use this image, from Muir's Historical Atlas, from 1911? I'm sure we have other images from it on Wikipedia. Adam Bishop 22:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Depends where and when it was originaly published.Geni 20:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
London, 1911, so as far as I understand, since 70 years have passed, it is okay to use those images. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Um no. Problem is first publication is outside the US and UK law would be life +70 (which probabloy hasn't expired due the issues of multiple authors) That leaves you with trying to show it was published in the US before 1923.Geni 01:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Extract from UK Ordnance Survey[edit]

I want to put a map on the River Biss page showing the source and outflow of this river. I went to Mapquest.co.uk and asked them for permission. They referred me to the Ordnance Survey, a government body, but essentially a commercial enterprise. They gave given me permission by email (a) to use this image only (b) in Wikipedia only. I would like to know (i) is this likely to be problematic, (ii) how do I refer to this email on the image page and (iii) they haven't (yet) requested an attribution but I assume this is required; where would it go? I understand it's normal to add it to the image caption. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 12:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Replied 'no' on the user's talk page. Megapixie (talk) 06:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Torchlight Iconset Screenshot[edit]

I would like to use images from this page [26] for the article I am creating on this page [27]. Please tell me if I am allowed to use them in my article. --FluxD

Ignoring the notability issues: tag the images as {{LGPL}}. Megapixie (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Oxford United F.C.[edit]

I have looked for free use images of Oxford United's crest from 1972 to 1979 and i cant find one. Im not sure but is this image suitable? Host: OxKits Image: [28] Eddie6705 (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably not - is the short answer. It would probably fail the economic fair use test. See Fair use. However you can always draw your own. Megapixie (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit]

Can i use the logo from the from their website to put on their Wikipedia page? Hatmatbbat10 (talk) 01:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I saved an image from Google images to my computer.I would like to upload it to Wikipedia,but I don't know is that legal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleksandar665 (talkcontribs) 20:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Dorothy Levitt Frontespiece The Woman and the Car, 1907.jpg

Dorothy Levitt[edit]

Hi, I want to use the low resolution image (image:Dorothy_Levitt_Frontespiece_The_Woman_and_the_Car,_1907.jpg) of Dorothy Levitt that was published on the frontespiece of her 1906 /1907 book - The woman and the car. I assume that copyright has expired, and that both she (1882-unknown) and the photographer are dead. Is this OK? It was captured from a Google books site that is x-referenced from the Dorothy Levitt page. Many Thanks. Autodidactyl (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Assumeing the publication was in the US it should be fine.Geni 17:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Oops - I should have said it was published in England, I don't know about the USA. Ans apparently with some debate about the date - AnnK's copy says 1909. Autodidactyl (talk) 11:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
1907 could be a problem.Geni 22:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Lord of the Rings image[edit]

There's an article for the Evenstar pendant in the films, and I thought about adding a picture of it. I want to use a screenshot, but is this allowed? 1wngdngl (talk) 00:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Genadendal[edit]

For the article Genadendal, I was wondering if I could use these images:

Hempfel 03:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)User:Hempfel

almost certianly not since they do not appear to be under a free license.Geni 03:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Kutkh[edit]

I am trying to illustrate an article on the indigenous far eastern Russian Raven god Kutkh. There is very little material avaialble on the web, but I did find an excellent image of a wooden carving - very typical of Koryak handicrafts, here, on the website of an "art-salon" (http://www.northernlights.ru) geared towards selling Kamchatka souvenirs. What would I need to do to be able to post it? I can e-mail their contact, and I imagine they wouldn't be opposed, but I wouldn't want to ask them to make an account, upload the image, etc. Is there a way they could release it so that I could upload it? Since they are dealers that are representing the work several artists, does that somehow complicate things? Can I link TO the image in the article? How do I avoid "advertising"? Thanks for your help, Eliezg 18:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

There are several artists involved in the image itself (photographer and whoever made the statue). You could try asking them to release the photograph via the process at WP:COPYREQ#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries. You might be better using a free image of a Raven instead. Megapixie (talk) 06:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

KTM Images[edit]

Can I upload images from www.ktmimages.com? at the image description it says: Copyright: Copyright free when mentioning photographer. If I click download I have to click agree to :

Using images of this data base for media purpose is copyright-free when mentioning the photographer. Please find that name in the image description.

Publishing any foto without mentioning the photographer will result in a breach of copyright and there may be additional claims through the photographer.

are the images OK for Wikipedia? I believe they are but I dont know the appropriate license to use Chris Ssk (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Tag with {{attribution}} and link back to the source, and clearly state the photographers name. They would appear to be free provided the photographer is attributed. You might want to confirm by dropping an email to the site owner Megapixie (talk) 06:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Picture from website to illustrate wrestling pay-per-view article[edit]

An article that I expanded (Royal Rumble (1994)) was passed as a Good Article yesterday. The reviewer said that she might go back and change it to a fail if I did not add at least one more picture. Her biggest concern was that I include a picture that shows what a "Casket match" is. I can't find a Free Use picture, and I'm assuming that no more are going to be made, as the event happened 13 years ago. On the WWE website, there is a relevant picture that would illustrate the article ( http://repository.wwe.com/galleries/special_casket/images/02.jpg ). Would it be acceptable to add this picture if it has been specifically requested to add clarification to the article? It would illustrate the article, it's not replaceable, it would be of a low resolution, it is already used on other sites ( http://www.studentsoftheworld.info/sites/sport/895.php and http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipuri_de_meciuri_de_wrestling#Casket_match ), so it seems to fulfil some Fair Use criteria. Is this enough, or is there just no way it can be justified as Fair Use? Thanks. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The best image to use under fair use would be an image from the broadcast itself. I can't see a problem with using a single frame capture in the article to illustrate the casket match plot point. Megapixie (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


fair use image for Tamara de Lempicka?[edit]

I want to get a pic of Tamara de Lempicka for her Wikipedia article. I've found several on the Internet, taken in the 1928-1938 range, with copyright info. For instance here's a good one.

The website (http://www.leninimports.com/tamara_de_lempicka_magnets.html) says this pic was taken in 1929 by the d'Ora studio in Paris. Can I fair use it? --JaGa (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll take this silence as a resounding YES. --JaGa (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately silence is just silence. Because the image is post 1923, and the photographer only died in 1963, the image in question is most likely copyright (although this is a fiddly matter). Basically using the image in an autobiographical article is simply not fair use under law. Megapixie (talk) 13:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Review video[edit]

As part of WikiProject Video games/Cleanup, we're cleaning up List of locations in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars to comply with policy (assert notability, remove in-universe information, etc.) After cleaning up the Reception section, I pointed out we might have a problem with NPOV, because when I originally wrote the section, in order to write from a neutral point of view, I included reviews that were only partially relevant to the setting (such as reviews of the game's characters). Since we've removed them, the reviews are almost all positive. I found another review from the NAViGaTR (National Academy of Video Game Testers & Reviewers Corp.) of the game that points out a problem very specific to the game's setting.

“Some games really tick you off from time to time. Super Mario RPG is one of them. In one section of the game, you have to climb vines to reach Nimbus Land, which is floating high in the sky. Our game guy, Tom Allen, was so mad, he almost broke his controller in half. The play control in this area is awful. Especially this jump right here. He’s still trying to make this jump without falling.”[29]

I explained that we can use this citation in order to improve the quality of the article and help establish NPOV. We reached a consensus that we should use this source, but the only problem was how. The reviewer specifically states “Especially this jump right here.”, meaning we would have to show our readers what he's describing. I suggested we use a screenshot of Nimbus land, but the other editor with whom I'm working from the WikiProject Video games Cleanup depatment, User:Guyinblack25, indicated, “I don't think a screen shot of that will accurately illustrate the 3D problem as well as the video did.” I indicated that we could use a short clip from the video (21 seconds) instead of a screenshot, and Guyinblack25's reply was, “To be honest, I'm not sure what restrictions Wikipedia has about such videos. I've tried finding info on it, but haven't found the necessary info.”

So, that's the problem. We just don't know if this qualifies for fair use. Can we use a 21 second video clip from this video under fair use to establish a neutral point of view and to illustrate this game's 3D problem as part of the critical commentary we're providing on the subject? Taric25 (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It would not be fair use to use an video clip from a review, inside what is essentially a review of the game. Far simpler to recreate the scene in question in a very brief video clip. Megapixie (talk) 13:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
What if I ask permission for them to release their review under a free license? Taric25 (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
That's where it starts to get complicated - since their work is actually a derivative work to start with (a video of a computer game). At best the tag for the clip is going to be fair use. In they release their part of the video copyright as PD or GFDL, then it's probably acceptable (but the video would still need to be tagged as fair use. Megapixie (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, I received permission from them yesterday, and I forwarded the e-mail to OTRS. OTRS responded and gave me the ticket number: 2007121310017637. If I use this on the image description page, would you approve the fair use with {{reviewedfairuse|pages = List of locations in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars|user = User:Megapixie|date = 08:58, April 21, 2015 UTC (purge)}}? Taric25 (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Perfect. Megapixie (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

John Gosden photo[edit]

I found a photo for John Gosden at the National Thoroughbred Racing Association website, at [30]. Can I use this image? Thanks, Erythromycin (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be under a free license so no.Geni 21:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Mal Evans photo[edit]

I found a picture of Mal Evans (Beatles roadie) here (bottom of page). It's much better than the picture we have for him right now. Is there any way it could be used? Admitted, the photographer is probably still alive, but it could be possible to find out who he (or she) is. The site that has the photo up says:
"All photographic images on this site are copyright of the respective photographer, as well as Copyright © Apple Corps Ltd. All images are reproduced without permission and are for non-profit historical purposes only. No infringement of copyright is intended. This site is not affiliated with Apple Corps, the Beatles, nor the photographers."

any ideas? Thanks, Samboha (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Do not upload any of the images. It seems unlikely that any of them would fall under the umbrella of fair use. Megapixie (talk) 13:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Risley Park Lanx[edit]

For Risley Park Lanx article. There is an engraving of the original lanx commissioned by William Stukeley which I'd like an image of. I can, and do, link to a copy but the resolution is so poor it's all but useless. There's a much better photo-plate in a book by Piggott(1985). Can I upload all &/or any part of this photo-plate? I should add the book has 32 plates, and is 180 pages long with only one paragraph on the lanx. Cheers Aukker (talk) 08:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Basically no. Since the photographs are of 3D objects, they are copyright the photographer. Since you are commenting on the objects and not the photographs, there is no way these would be fair use. Megapixie (talk) 09:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Zac Efron Photo[edit]

Can this photo be used? I'm not entirely sure if the CC Attribution-No Derivative Works 2.0 Generic is the right type for it to be used on Wikipedia. Thanks --Dan LeveilleTALK 22:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately not (it's a shame) - the no deriv works (nd) part kills it as far as wikipedia is concerned. Consider mailing the guys flickr account and asking him if he would consider uploading it to wikipedia under cc-by. I've had some luck in the past with doing this. Megapixie (talk) 23:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Megapixie. Just to clarify, uploading it to Wikipedia would be a derivative - which is why it wouldn't be fair use, correct? --Dan LeveilleTALK 23:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
No derivatives means no altering the image - i.e. we can't crop it, adjust the levels (it's a policy thing). About 60% of the time a polite email gets the desired result in terms of allowing us to use it. Ask him to either change the licensing on the individual flickr image to cc-by - or to create an account and upload directly to wikipedia. Suggest that he could release a reduced resolution version if he is uncomfortable releasing the full resolution photograph. Megapixie (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Good ship SS Ophir[edit]

Here is an important ship which was broken up in 1922. The only usable pic I have found is on a Shipping Times database page. The original pic is available at http://www.clydesite.co.uk/clydebuilt/ships/1891/OPHIR_421.jpg
A copyright notice states: Copyright http://www.clydebuiltships.co.uk and http://www.clydesite.co.uk (except where otherwise stated). Extracts from the database may be used so long as credit is given to this website with a full url published in printed material or embedded in your website, plus credit to the editor(s) who supplied the information. (Their relevant credit is: "Photo supplied by Joe McMillan Collection". Does the above release constitute an acceptable licence for Wikipedia? Aeronian (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If the permission extends to derivative works, it should. However, it's not really clear whether the statement "Photo supplied by Joe McMillan Collection" might imply that the copyright remains with the Joe McMillan collection (whatever that is) rather than with the site. It's also worth noting that the photo in question is old enough that, depending on if, when, where and how it was published, whether any renewals were filed and how long the author lived, it might be in the public domain at least in some jurisdictions. In particular, see the documentation for Template:PD-US. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I use a snapshot sent by the subject of the article?[edit]

If the subject of an article personally sends me a home snapshot they or their family member took to do whatever I want with it, would that suffice as a "free" image? How should it be documented?

An image I'm using in the article Tine Thing Helseth has been flagged, even though it's a promotional photo from their management company specifically for release to the public at large. Why this is a problem but frame captures from copyrighted broadcasts aren't is unclear to me.

For that matter, can I use a frame from a TV broadcast featuring this person? Docsavage20 (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It hasn't been released under a free licenses and the person is still liveing thus we can't use it.Geni 13:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not clear which of the three scenarios above you're referring to. 1) A snapshot taken and sent by the person the article is about 2) The specific photo file I've referenced or 3) A single frame taken from a tv broadcast. If I understand what I've read about "free licenses" on here, it supposedly gives permission to use it in ANY way. That seems like an impossible standard. What if someone copies the pic off Wikipedia and uses it on a NeoNazi site, pornographic site or something else offensive to the artist? Further, why is it that an image of a living person can be used from a copyrighted broadcast where there's NO licensing process undertaken? This seems contrary to the notion that Wikipedia wants only images that are "free" given there's a disclaimer attached to the broadcast image saying use outside of Wikipedia could be a violation of copyright. Why is it Wikipedia can't use the same pic that's used by numerous other websites for the exact same purpose from a source that specifically states it's okay to do so? Images could be culled just as easily from any of the other sites.Docsavage20 (talk) 14:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Sceenshots should not be being used to illstraight articles of liveing people. Such images should be listed for deletion. As for the free license being an imposible standard well you seem happy enough to release your text under a free license.Geni 09:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
At no time did I ever use the term "screenshot". I mentioned a "snapshot" which is a totally different thing. The photo that's currently in place is a downloadable .jpg file provided by the artist's management company on their website specifically for such purposes. Again, someone please explain why this is unacceptable but an image from a copyrighted broadcast for which NO permission is sought or granted and which cannot possibly be considered "free" is considered fine? Docsavage20 (talk) 05:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
IT isn't considered fine and what you just described is a screenshot. Please show the licenseing terms the picture is under?Geni 13:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The term "screenshot" in any context I've ever seen it used refers to using some image editing software such as Paintshop Pro, Photoshop etc. and capturing whatever happens to be on the screen whether the entire screen or a portion thereof, which re-renders it, as opposed to actually downloading a bit for bit copy of a specific image file such as a .jpg or .bmp that already exists. Apparently TV broadcast frames are in fact allowed, see an example of one being used with the Tonight Show Band article with the following tag:

This image is a screenshot of a copyrighted television program or station ID. As such, the copyright for it is most likely owned by the company or corporation that produced it. It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents 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. For more information, see Wikipedia:Non-free content. Docsavage20 (talk) 14:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Err you do realise that there are a couple of people in that picture who are slightly dead right?Geni 16:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Look at the entry for Last Call with Carson Daly - logo from a TV broadcast, Real Time with Bill Maher, The Sopranos, Sex and the City, Sex and the City: The Movie also a promotional pic, both actors still alive. The Howard Stern Show pic of Howard who last I heard is still alive. The Simpsons episode The Last Temptation of Krust, Doc Severinsen also taken from a broadcast. He's still alive. And whether or not there are deceased persons in the picture isn't what's offered up as substantiation. Many of these are still images taken from copyrighted broadcasts for which no licensing has been requested. Docsavage20 (talk) 21:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Program logos are not considered to be replaceable. Photos of people in character are may or may not be considered replaceable. Photos of living people that are there to show what they look like would generaly be considered replaceable.Geni 15:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ebbw Vale Railway[edit]

Hi, found an image located at http://www.blaenau-gwent.gov.uk/ebbwvalleyrailway/images/opening/DSC_0323%20Low%20Res.jpg which shows the new Ebbw Vale Railway station. I suppose it is used as a promotion, and can be found at http://www.blaenau-gwent.gov.uk/ebbwvalleyrailway/map/EbbwValeParkway.htm. Am I allowed to upload this to Wikipedia?

Not under a free license so no.02:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, on "screens of death"[edit]

Under my impressions and what I've read, you claim that "something is in the public domain automatically if it consists of common property", like just a font for instance. This possibly could mean that even though we have them tagged as fair-use, those Windows and DOS error screens may be considered public domain since they only consist of a typeface.

Is this proper logic? ViperSnake151 00:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

No because they consist of a typeface text and layout of that text combined with a choice of colour.Geni 15:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

How can I use Scans of newspaper articles and advertisements in Wiki Articles?[edit]

I've uploaded clips from newspaper articles, that describe, and show images of events, written about in the articles themselves. These are the only Images that capture, and display these moments in Canadian Music history. I originally uploaded them with a fair Use Rationale, that they were "Low resolution" promotional material. They were disputed, an removed.
Being the un-knowing Wiki-Newbie that I am, I made the stupid discussion to upload them as "My own works" releasing them into the public domain. This only brought suspect, and disputes to all of the other legitimate photo's I've uploaded for use in these articles, that I've worked hard on to research, buying and reading books, and interviews.
I will never make that mistake again, and I'll always "Get the answer" FIRST before attempting anything, in future on Wikipedia. That is why I'm here.

I know the newspaper clips will be removed / deleted with the existing copyright disputes. I ask here... What copyright . rationale can I use, to be able to include the newspaper clips, in the article about The Revols Any help would be appreciated. Qwepasdl (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they would qualify at all. What do they add to the article and how is there no free equivalent that exists or could be created to serve the same purpose? Stifle (talk) 11:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Journal article abstracts[edit]

Can the abstracts that are part of academic journal articles be legally reproduced in full in a public wiki context? --Belgrano (talk) 19:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No, abstracts (as well as the original article) are under copyright. Garion96 (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Evanescence[edit]

This page had a link to their own YouTube site, which I originally considered a copyvio; however, it would be no different to linking to this band's own official website, which may contain sample videos. I therefore removed it, it has since been replaced, removed and now I have replaced it pending advice here. Problem is that the YouTube site has no copyright/usage info at all that I can find. This is not the normal copyvio link. Can anyone help out? Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

  • If it's their own YouTube channel, I don't see an issue. They still own the rights to the video. ViperSnake151 00:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't be a problem linking to YouTube, as long as it was uploaded by the band/label/studio. Megapixie (talk) 10:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)