Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

Media copyright questions
Welcome to the Media Copyright Questions page, a place for help with image copyrights, tagging, non-free content, and related questions. For all other questions please see Wikipedia:Questions. How to add a copyright tag to an existing image On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page. From the page Wikipedia:File copyright tags, choose the appropriate tag: For work you created yourself, use one of the ones listed under the heading "For image creators". For a work downloaded from the internet, please understand that the vast majority of images from the internet are not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. Exceptions include images from flickr that have an acceptable license, images that are in the public domain because of their age or because they were created by the United States federal government, or images used under a claim of fair use. If you do not know what you are doing, please post a link to the image here and ask BEFORE uploading it. For an image created by someone else who has licensed their image under an acceptable Creative Commons or other free license, or has released their image into the public domain, this permission must be documented. Please see Requesting copyright permission for more information. Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{Cc-by-4.0}}), not forgetting {{ before and }} after, in the edit box on the image's description page. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}}) Hit Publish changes. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below. How to ask a question To ask a new question hit the "Click here to start a new discussion" link below. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page. Don't include your email address, for your own privacy. We will respond here and cannot respond by email. Note for those replying to posted questions If a question clearly does not belong on this page, reply to it using the template {{mcq-wrong}} and, if possible, leave a note on the poster's talk page. For copyright issues relevant to Commons where questions arising cannot be answered locally, questions may be directed to Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright.
Click here to start a new discussion

(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Unresolved

The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory website disclaimer regarding copyright status reads:

LLNL-authored documents including, but not limited to, articles, photographs, drawings, and other information subsisting in text, images, and/or other media, are sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344. Accordingly, the U.S. Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free license to publish or reproduce these documents, or allow others to do so, for U.S. Government purposes. All documents available from this server may be protected under the U.S. and Foreign Copyright Laws. Permission to reproduce may be required.

So are LLNL works copyrighted or PD?Smallman12q (talk) 12:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I think copyrighted. What it seems to be saying is that the Federal government acquires the copyrights produced by LLNL in the course of its work. The Federal government may acquire copyrights, and once it does, it's just like any other copyright holder.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't the acquired works then be eligible under {{PD-USGov-DOE}}? There's a discussion at Template_talk:PD-USGov-DOE#Note on this template but it seems dated.Smallman12q (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, no - it appears to me to be an assertion of copyright and does not suggest that the license to the US government extends into a general public domain license. Only the named party (the US government) seems to retain a right to republish these documents. Ajbpearce (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It looks like the US has bought, en masse, copyrights to everything the lab produces. When the US does that, it stands in the place of the lab when it comes to copyright. The example I always give on this page is official portraits of Supreme Court justices, the government doesn't take photos of them itself, it allows the justices to hire someone and then the government contracts with the photographer, and the US then owns the rights and controls distribution.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec w. Wehwalt) My understanding is that if a US governmnet department hires a photographer onto the payroll, and sends him out to take pictures, the law requires that these are PD (same for the text on the website) and no copyright can be created. However if the department funds/sponsors/commissions an agency to do a piece of work, the department may have bought the copyright in the work, or the grant agreement may specify that the department is allowed to use the copyright work. In both cases a copyright exists, and the US government is not prohibited from holding copyrights, only from creating them using public funds (there's a principle here I suspect) Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Elen: As a lawyer, I try to use words carefully. I said "the government contracts with the photographer". An independent contractor is a whole other ballgame. He is not an employee, does not get a ten percent discount at Holiday Inn, and the government can buy his rights and then stand in his shoes. Which I think is what is going on here. Sorry about the lecture. So, basically what you said is correct. I'm sure there are volumes written on the policy reasons for the distinction.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

For those who may not fully understand the distinction from your explanation, I'll note that holding a license does not make you the copyright holder. For instance, we grant Wikipedia license to our contributions, but we remain the copyright holders. As set out at Bitlaw: "A license (or more properly "an express license") is an agreement where the copyright owner maintains its ownership of the rights involved, but allows a third party to exercise some or all of those rights without fear of a copyright infringement suit. A license will be preferred over an assignment of rights where the copyright holder wishes to maintain some ownership over the rights, or wishes to exercise continuing control over how the third party uses the copyright holder's rights." Cf. [1] Unless there is other language elsewhere, it does not seem that rights have been transferred through purchase; the copyright holder remains LLC, but because of their sponsorships the Feds have non-exclusive authorization to use or license the material for government purposes. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

-If that's the case, then there are quite a few mis-licensed images. I have brought the matter up at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#.7B.7BPD-USGov-DOE.7D.7D_Laboratory_image_use.Smallman12q (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

A lot of people label based on wishful thinking, I'm afraid. I've done it myself.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It is a sad truth and is made difficult because there seems to be a reluctance to delete on Commons, or at least that is what I have experienced. Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/US government portraits is a classic example of when does a contractee become an employee. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not a government work, and the LLNL employees are not federal employees. The contract between DOE and the manager of LLNL governs whether DOE becomes the copyright holder or just a licensee. For example, DOE contracted with Commerce Clearinghouse to publish the official reports of DOE and FERC. In fact, the federal government paid CCH per keystroke for the editing, printing and x number of copies. However, CCH resold the same series and even placed a copyright notice on its private edition, which was otherwise identical to the one generated under its DOE contract. Similarly, West Publishing prints a number of court cases from various states. They don't really hold the copyright in the court opinion, but they claim the copyright in the page numbering and citations. Racepacket (talk) 07:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I have made a deletion listing at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_November_28#United_States_Department_of_Energy_National_Laboratories_images in hopes of resolving this matter.Smallman12q (talk) 00:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Images from Bureau of Prisons Website

At least eight images have been copied from the BOP website:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USP_Victorville.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USP_Big_Sandy.jpg
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Federal_Bureau_of_Prisons_Seal.jpg
• File:Metropolitan-Correctional-Center-Chicago.JPG
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:USPColemanI.jpg
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FCIMilan.jpg
• File:FDC Miami.jpg
• File:USP Tucson.jpg

Unlike other government website that are very careful about identifying the source of their photos, BOP is relatively silent on who took those photos and whether the photographer retained any rights in them. It is not stated whether the photos were taken in the course of the photographer's employment by BOP. I have sent an email to the Department of Justice asking about this but have not received a response. Could we adopt a policy as to whether it is proper to download photos from the BOP website and then upload them to Wikimedia Commons? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The BOP is an agency of the Department of justice, and includes a link to the department of justice legal policy, which includes a public domain declaration. I would have thought that this was sufficient as a declaration that those photo's were in the public domain and generated by the BOP? This seems more straightforward than the national laboratories discussion above. Ajbpearce (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I have followed a number of these controversies, and the BOP is an unusual sloppy case. BOP does link to DOJ disclaimer which "apply only to the Department of Justice site" and not to all Department of Justice sites. So it is not clear whether the BOP website was ever reviewed by a lawyer, and what it intended by the disclaimer. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I am disappointed that this user may be pursuing this as a matter of retaliation as there as been an ongoing discussion regarding these photos at Talk:Chandra Levy#Bureau of Prisons photo. I pre-emptively pursued a discussion at image copyright help here and at commons to make sure I was proceeding appropriately regarding images from federal government websites. Then deletion requests were posted by anonymous IP 66.173.140.100, timed so that the GA reviewer would direct the removal of files that had previously been in the article. As this is a novel method of gaming the system that I had not encountered before, I am concerned that there may be a breach of good faith here. KimChee (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC) / 15:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• - Well, wikipedia does take copyright issues very seriously and there does seem to be a doubt as to the licensing status of these pictures, so it is better we get it absolutely correct. I gather someone has contracted them and asked them the question, I am in favor regarding copyright of, if in doubt, keep it out. Off2riorob (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• It is interesting that both image copyright help and commons expressed concerns with the course of action -- uploading BOP photos without doing the work necessary to determine their copyright status--which resulted in the photographs listed here. Perhaps this is a case of WP:HEAR? Also note that unlike the legal policy link on the BOP website which goes to the DOJ disclaimer, the Privacy Policy link on the BOP website, goes to a separate BOP specific page that describes the BOP website as being separate from the DOJ website. Racepacket (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• I spoke with Ann Diskell who handles BOP photo permissions and releases. She reports that in general, the photos posted on the BOP website are government photos, but it is possible that some are not. Each facility controls its own website, so she does not know the source of the photos of each facility posted on each of those pages. When people write to her asking for reprint permissions, she will sign a release and generally asked for a photo credit attributing the photo to the Bureau of Prisons. She said that she knew that File:Federal Bureau of Prisons Central office.jpg was taken by a government employee and is not copyrighted. Racepacket (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The solution to this is simple: Assume that the BOP photos are taken by the government unless you have evidence to the contrary. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense for the person who wants to upload a photo that was taken from a website to stop and figure out whether that particular photo is copyrighted or not? If the website clearly indicated one way or the other, that would be easy. But here we have quite a confused mess. Alternatively, if the person seeking to upload the file to Wikipedia was willing to indemnify Wikipedia and anyone else who later uses the image from any future copyright claims, I guess we could "assume" that the files were just fine. I suggest we get this straightened out. Racepacket (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the website as a whole is a work of the U.S. Federal Government, so it is reasonable to think that the components of the website (the HTML, the text, and the pictures) are also works of the feds. If the picture truly was taken by a third party, the U.S. Government would have to take care to identify the picture (i.e. this pic was taken by Joe so-and-so). It would be the fault of the U.S. Government for failing to identify the copyright holder. We can say "feds, you put it on your website, and we saw no information to the contrary, so we have every reason to believe that it is your work" WhisperToMe (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I would say that the foundations position is the opposite to Whisper to me's comment. Its like an addition in content, it is not that the addition-er has a claim to add it, if it is disputed then it is up to the person that desires to add it to show how it is suitable, this is compounded when it is a claim of freely distributing to the public domain the content on another organizations website. Off2riorob (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

But are there reasonable grounds to make the dispute? I elaborated on why we must make the assumption above. There is no evidence that a third party photographed these pictures, and because they are featured on a USGov website, we must assume that they are works of the USGov; if they are third party works, the US Government would take care to post identifying information; if they don't, that is their fault. By appearing on a USGov website with no contrary information we have every reason to state "This image is a work of a United States Department of Justice employee, taken or made during the course of an employee's official duties." Racepacket asked us to consider whether a government contractor did the work. If this was the case, the website would state this as such, as it would have to do so. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Correct (to Off2riorob before the insertion). The upload must read the template and make sure that the facts stated in the template apply. For example, {{PD-USGov-DOJ}} requires you to state the photo is the work of "a United States Department of Justice employee, taken or made during the course of an employee's official duties." (BOP is a subsidiary agency of DOJ, so this is the closest template.) Racepacket (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Responded above. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggesting that it is their fault if they haven't made it clear is not a very strong claim of public domain and not one I would legally want to claim in a court of law. Off2riorob (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, generally if anything that is a product of a USGov employee is in the public domain (that claim is not in dispute), then it is the role of the U.S. government to differentiate what is PD and what is not. It is reasonable for a user of a USGov website to assume that content on it is PD unless the US government makes it very clear that this specific content is not PD.

So when dealing with content on USGov websites we need the "innocent until proven guilty" mentality. Our job is to make sure that the websites do not have evidence that the content is from a third party (a contractor, someone else, etc.). But if such evidence does not exist, then we assume it's PD.

It would be irresponsible for the third parties to not demand for the addition of copyright information, and it would be irresponsible for the USGov to not clearly indicate which content is not PD.

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

After reading more of what is above... Here's how to settle this.

We should compile the contacts for each BOP facility, and the contacts will be able to tell us if the photos were taken by a third party.

If we get a response saying that the photo is copyrighted (and from a third party), then we e-mail the BOP asking them to add a photo credit and delete the photo off of the Wikimedia servers.

Each BOP facility has a dedicated e-mail address in its "Contact" page.

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• There is an easier alternative. Free Use is a bit of an "in your face" approach. The uploader is saying "I have investigated this, and I declare to the world that nobody out there has any copyrights in this image." However, Fair Use is more conservative. It is saying, "even if somehow there is a copyright out there, the way that I am using it in this Wikipedia article would not infringe that right." I think that most of WhisperToMe's uses of the images would qualify as a fair use. You are writing an article about a prison and the infobox shows the prison so that people will recognize it. If you were to upload the images to en.wikipedia and include a fair use rationale template, the problem would be solved for those prison article. However, people would not be able to use the images to "decorate" random articles that have little to do with the prison. Racepacket (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• No sorry, re-read WP:NFCC - we can't use fair-use images where a free image could be created that would serve the same purpose. I think we must reluctantly conclude that, as the BOP does not seem to have considered copyright/ the needs of wikipedia when creating its website - and so cannot say with certainty whether images are free or not, that absent a specific public domain declaration from the BOP, we can't use these images on wikipedia. Ajbpearce (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, since we have the contact information for all of the BOP units, and we know that the BOP has an obligation to differentiate what is PD and what isn't.. it will no longer "not seem to have considered copyright/ the needs of wikipedia when creating its website" after a few well-placed e-mails that will get to the bottom of things. I am now awaiting responses that indicate which units have images that are not PD. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree; the obligation of the BoP is to run the prison system. Beyond mug shots, we do not know they have any experience in photography, and it is entirely a reasonable possibility that they would contract out. This means that it would be an acquired copyright, and the feds stand in the place of the photographer for purposes of copyright.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The BOP refers to the DOJ legal policies. The USDOJ says: http://www.justice.gov/legalpolicies.htm "Information generated by the Department of Justice is in the public domain and may be reproduced, published or otherwise used without the Department’s permission." - This is presumed to apply to the BOP site in addition to the main DOJ site. The DOJ copyright notice doesn't say "Watch out as pictures are taken by other people and are therefore copyrighted!!!" - If these copyrighted photos are a significant factor in the website, the DOJ has a responsibility to indicate where they are copyrighted and make a note of it in the general copyright notice.

Also it is common to see government agencies use their own employee photographers, including military and civilian agencies.

I have already sent out the e-mails inquiring about copyright status, and I will send more. In receipt of any e-mails saying "Oh yes, this is copyrighted" I will ask them to indicate the copyright on the photo and on the USDOJ copyright disclaimer

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes? So? That disclaimer does not say anything about the website's content; it is a general statement of copyright law. It tells us nothing about what on the website is and is not generated by DOJ. And please, if you say they "have an obligation", be so good as to point out the relevant statute or regulation.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

"It tells us nothing about what on the website is and is not generated by DOJ." The DOJ didn't generate the very copyright statement on its own website? How do you know this?

A copyright statement ought to be taken at face value. It ought to be a general statement of everything we need to know about the website's copyright.

"so good as to point out the relevant statute or regulation." - It is a moral obligation. An obligation doesn't have to be under law. It is not ethical to have a copyright statement that doesn't warn people "Hey, this website has some copyrighted information that is NOT public domain like most things are"

The beginning of this discussion indicates very reason why this is under dispute is because of a deficiency in the BOP's reporting of the copyright status. The copyright status should be straightforward and clear. Apparently in this case it isn't.

The BOP understands this is an issue, so now it is working with us to resolve all of the copyright disputes.

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

WhisperToMe, you have asked for help here, we are trying to help, please listen. I simply noted that the DoJ disclaimer does not address what on their website is PD, since we do not know what is DoJ-generated and what is not. We cannot go with an "innocent until proven guilty" approach, anyone seeking to use material should be cautious on copyright status, that way no one gets sued. The government does use photo contractors from time to time, I often give the example of official portraits of Supreme Court justices. When I did the Scalia article, I could not use either of the two official portraits he has had, as they were not done by government employees, but rather by contractor; the government purchased all rights and now controls them. The Court was willing to have them on WP with conditions; those conditions ran against our policies therefore we did not use them.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay - My point was that if the DoJ does not sufficiently address what is PD on its website and what isn't PD on its website, then it needs to begin doing so.

At the moment we will have to ask the DoJ about every image on its website and we will have to take a "guilty until proven innocent" approach. However this becomes aggravating as they will have to respond to constant requests asking "Hey, did you take that picture?" and editors will have to take time out to send those messages.

I get the fact that the USGov does use contractors. But my bone of contention is that the USDOJ disclaimer in this case does not warn people about this, and that content from contractors is not clearly indicated. Racepacket had said above that "I have followed a number of these controversies, and the BOP is an unusual sloppy case." The problem is that the USDOJ does not clearly warn people that this is the case.

I understand that we want to avoid legal trouble and that all uploaders need to take care that a particular image had the correct copyright. But at the same time government agencies need to be crystal clear on their copyright statuses so that our jobs as Wikipedia editors and image uploaders are made easier, and their jobs are made easier (as they don't have to respond to a battery of questions about image licensing).

Consider this copyright disclaimer: The State of California Department of Corrections says here: "In general, information presented on this web site, unless otherwise indicated, is considered in the public domain. It may be distributed or copied as permitted by law. However, the State does make use of copyrighted data (e.g., photographs) which may require additional permissions prior to your use." - This does two things: it establishes that most content on the site is PD, but some material is not, and it also states that the state will give a heads up on whether a piece of material is copyrighted

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• The person I spoke with at the Bureau of Prisons Public Affairs Office seemed cooperative. I think that she would give us an answer on specific images on her website just as she did on the photo of 320 First Street. It would be best if our request listed the specific images that we want to copy from the bop.gov website, and we would get an answer as to whether they were Federal Government works. In response to Ajbpearce, WP:NFCC does not control this situation. If the only image we have of a prison is one of dubious status, we can claim fair use on that image. Wikipedia does not expect us to travel around the country taking our own photos of each federal prison. But if a free image is available, such as File:Federal Home Loan Bank Board Building.jpg, we should use that instead of File:Federal Bureau of Prisons Central office.jpg, which may not be. My suggestion to WhisperToMe is to use the questionable material under a fair use claim, rather than assuming that it is free content. Racepacket (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Good. I'll be happy to collect a series of links to all BOP images on Wikimedia servers, so you can send them to your contact.
  • Fair use can be possible IF we are prohibited from taking a representative photograph of the particular facilities. If a representative photograph can be taken, then equivalent fair use images cannot be used.
  • WhisperToMe (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is what we have: We should say that we want to "copy" these images, and we'll get an answer for them: BOP images on Wikimedia of prisons

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:USP_Victorville.jpg - http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/vip/index.jsp
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:USP_Big_Sandy.jpg - http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/bsy/index.jsp
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Metropolitan-Correctional-Center-Chicago.JPG - http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/ccc/index.jsp
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:USPColemanI.jpg - http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/cop/index.jsp
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FCIMilan.jpg - http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/mil/index.jsp
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FDC_Miami.jpg - http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/mim/index.jsp
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:USP_Tucson.jpg - http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/tcp/index.jsp
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MDCGuaynabo.jpg - http://web.archive.org/web/20080626004629/http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/gua/index.jsp (old picture - BOP site now uses new picture)
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FDC_Honolulu.jpg - http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/hon/index.jsp
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:USPATL.jpg - http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/atl/index.jsp
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CarswellFMCFortWorthTX.jpg - http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/crw/index.jsp
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FCI_Bastrop.jpg - http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/bas/index.jsp
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FCIBastrop2.jpg - http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/index.jsp
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FCITerminalIsland.jpg - http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/trm/index.jsp
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ADX_Florence.jpg - http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/flm/index.jsp
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FCI_Coleman.jpg - http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/col/index.jsp
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FCI_Miami.jpg - http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/mia/index.jsp
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:USPColemanII.jpg - http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/clp/index.jsp
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:USMCSpringfieldInterior.jpg - http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/spg/index.jsp
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FCI_Edgefield.jpg - http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/edg/index.jsp
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Federal_Correctional_Institution,_Edgefield.jpg
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FDC_Seatac.jpg - http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/set/index.jsp
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FPC_Alderson.jpg - http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/ald/index.jsp

Also http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Supermax_prison,_Florence_Colorado.jpg states that the BOP is the author, although the image was printed from the Miami Herald website (which credits the BOP)

I would also like to inquire on the status of the new MDC Guaynabo image at http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/gua/index.jsp WhisperToMe (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there any quick way to translate those into URLs from the bop.gov website? Racepacket (talk) 10:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes - Lemme match the URL to the image. Done. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The point about fair use if photography is prohibited may not be correct. I would suggest consulting User:Fasach Nua, who is the expert I consult in that area when questions arise.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the translations. I am working on wording the inquiry. Racepacket (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• By the way, contractor photography is a common problem. I worked for the Federal Government years ago, and was involved in some construction matters. My agency's files had many photographs documenting facility construction, and few photos were taken by Federal employees. Most were taken by the architecture/engineering/construction firms. I can see how if a new prision is built, the architects and construction contractors would take photos and share them with the BOP central office. It would be less likely for a BOP employee to spontaneously have the urge to photograph the prison building for the website and/or files. Racepacket (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I am unsure if this will address the contractor issue, but I received the following response from info@usdoj.gov:

Photos on the BOP's public website are considered to be in the public domain; but if you plan to use them, we ask that you appropriately credit the Federal Bureau of Prisons as the source.

The Bureau's Public Information Office is (and has been) located at the agency's Central Office at the following address:

Federal Bureau of Prisons ATTN: Public Information Office 320 First St., NW Washington, DC 20534

We hope this helps.

The above was in response to the following inquiry sent to info@bop.gov:

Hello,

I am gathering basic research for an article. I would like to ask the following:

• What is the copyright status of images on the BOP website. Are they in the public domain?

• Where is the BOP's Public Affairs (IPPA) department located? Do you recall if this address changed in the past 10 years?

Thank you very much!

Out of curiosity, would this pose a problem with WP:OR? KimChee (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Bestiarii (EUR Museum).jpg

This file probably needs moving to Commons. We seem to have permission of some kind from Barbara F. McManus, Co-Director of the copyright holding body, though perhaps not the clearest. This was in 2006 and our standards have probably changed. The question emailed was:

"I am writing to you as requested, to ask permission to use your image of bestiarii in the online encyclopedia "Wikipedia" (en.wikipedia.org), to illustrate the article on bestiarii. The image is linked at (link). Wikipedia is non commercial, however it is conceivable that some articles may appear in print, or in a DVD or other version, in future, and third parties may use Wikipedia content for purposes outside Wikipedia's control. Would you be willing to allow use of this specific image, for this purpose? If so, could you please visit the following web page, and confirm this is in order, giving a name and position, so that others in future may be sure we asked properly."

The response was: "I added the permission statement"; also "Photo of bestiarii courtesy of the VRoma Project". here.

Comments on the need to update this? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• - I wouldn't move that to Commons with a IP talkpage assertion. If she wants to release it under a commons license and she alone has that authority then she needs to contact OTRS and get checked out and verified. Until then it needs a fair use rationale. It can't go to commons even if you accept the statements she has made as it is not freely available for third party use, or perhaps I am reading that wrong, anyways her statement is unclear and doesn't make it clear what commons license she is attempting to release it under. Off2riorob (talk) 11:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, in the absence of unambiguous free licensing, the fair use option isn't an option either: it's clearly replaceable, so there's no way this would be legitimate under NFCC. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I hadn't considered the fair use possibilities. If there is no acceptable fair use rationale then, its on its way towards deletion. Off2riorob (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• Simple answer: email the photographer again asking for clear permission and forward to OTRS. If the photographer does not respond, delete the file. (I am assuming that the artwork depicted was originally made a long time ago and is now PD, so fair use does not apply.) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Moving/copying images from commons to en.wiki

Resolved

There are several photos of modern toys and dolls now on commons that sooner or later will end up deleted as derivative works. Many of them could be moved to en.wiki and used here under fair use. But I have no idea how to go about properly moving them while reliably preserving the data documenting when and by who and under which license the photographer originally uploaded it. I asked on commons but there doesn't seem to be an established procedure in place. Any ideas how to go about doing this would be most appreciated. Thank you. Siawase (talk) 10:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to make sure these image meet all 10 of the required criteria in the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy. Part of this is that that image should also meet the Wikipedia:Image use policy. The first issue I see is that "reliably preserving the data documenting when and by who and under which license the photographer originally uploaded it" must be retained in order to meet the Requirements and Adding images sections of the policy. See also the Fair use images section. If the files in question are all Derivative works you should look at File:Pepsicup.jpg for an example of how to do it. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that is exactly what I'm wondering about. Any idea how I technically go about moving/copying images to en.wiki while "reliably preserving the data documenting when and by who and under which license the photographer originally uploaded it"? I could just download the image from commons and upload it again on en.wiki and link back to the original commons image page, but once that is deleted the license data is no longer available, and can no longer be verified. The only thing I can think of is preserving each commons image page on archive.org but that seems incredibly clunky. Any ideas? Siawase (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This is one the overall issues when moving around files. I just want to clarify something to make sure we are both on the same page. For Wikipedia "author" and "Source" are meant to be the original author and source. In your scenario you are saying/asking about linking "back to the original commons image page", but that is not what is really needed. If the files at Wikimedia Commons give the original author and original source you just need to move *that* information over. Back linking to Wikimedia may tell people where *you* got it, but if the file will be, as you suggest, deleted there, it would do nothing to verify the actual license and source. That would lead to a {{di-no source}} tag being added, even to a fair use file. (See NFCC#4 - Previous publication. Non-free content must have been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia. And NFCC#10 - Image description page - Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder; this is to help determine the material's potential market value.) Without any links to actual files I can't really be more specific, that is why I suggested reading Adding images as a good starting point. Beyond that, I know about Commons Helper but I have not heard about a reverse tool. Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

CommonsHelper 2 can help transfer files from Commons to other projects, although if I recall correctly it will not be able to create the page or upload the image for you. That has to be done manually if transferring to other projects, but it's not exactly difficult to re-upload the image and paste in the provided text for the file description page. Reach Out to the Truth 19:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I did this with a typical file: File:Flatsydoll.PNG. But is this sufficient? Once the original is deleted from commons there is no longer a way to verify the original source. Siawase (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The file description page and upload log is reproduced on the page, and a link to the original file description page is provided. A Commons admin can click through and view the deleted history to verify if necessary. Reach Out to the Truth 05:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh ok, so that is enough then! Thank you so much for the help, I guess I can go to town now. Marking this as resolved. Siawase (talk) 05:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Can I use public domain images from Commons Wikimedia on handmade itens for resale?

I would like to know if the public domain images fro, de Commons Wikimedia can be used on handmade itens for resale? Many thanks Silvia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.115.127 (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If an item is truly in the public domain, the answer is an unqualified yes. The problem is determining if something is truly in the public domain. Even though the item is in the Wikimedia Commons, that is not an ironclad guarantee of its status. Could you specify which items you're considering? It's easier to give advice about specific images than to make a broad generalization. --Quartermaster (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There is not one blanket answer of "yes" or "no" that will work. I say that because your question is not specific in regards to any one certain file. In general Public domain means there is no copyright at all, but a lot of Wikipedia and Wikimedia users mistake "free" as "public domain", which is not accurate. Not everything distributed by Wikimedia Commons is public domain, but everything is supposed to be "free". A few specific examples - it has become fairly common for registered trademarks to be uploaded at Wikimedia Commons as "public domain" or "no copyright", however you could not place that trademark on an item for sale if it implied that the item was actually a product of the company that owns the trademark. Another type of specific are files licensed via a CCL where moral rights, including attribution, are part of the licensing terms. If you were to use one of these images on a product for sale *without* required attribution it could result in issues. (To see how somehting like this has affected a rather large Wiki project read the German Federal Archives won't extend collaboration with Wikimedia article in a recent Signpost. Part of which is that users are not following the license terms of attribution such as the case of a vendor who had offered 104 of the images as "vintage postcards" in a militaria marketplace, the Bundesarchiv had him excluded from that marketplace and charged him 4,000 euros in fees.) So the best answer, without any specifics, it to say you need to take each file and clearly understand what the terms of use are. Also keeping in mind such things as Derivative works, De minimis, Freedom of panorama and moral rights and personality rights. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

About using public domain images from Commons Wikimedia on handmade itens for resale- II

Thanks for your answer. The images I am talking about are posted at Commons Wikimedia with a clear notice regarding public domain, like ( here goes a copy paste) "This image (or other media file) is in the public domain because its copyright has expired. This applies to the United States, Australia, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years" Mostly botanical illustrations and 1900 fashion illustrations. Is this enough to consider the image in public domain? Thank you so much again. Silvia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.115.127 (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

But *what* is that image? Can you provide a link? Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

About using public domain images from Commons Wikimedia on handmade itens for resale- LINKS

(see #Can I use public domain images from Commons Wikimedia on handmade itens for resale?) – ukexpat (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course, here goes the links of some of the images I intend to use as part of my designs:

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CorsetsSM_A_laParisienne1913.jpg
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paeonia_albiflora_var._rosea_Bot._Mag._56._2888._1829..jpg
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Frockovercoat_1903.jpg
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kustum_a_laFledermaus.png
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Travestissement_chauve-souris.png

THANKS A LOT Silvia

A cursory inspection indicates that these are probably in the public domain since they were all stated as having been clearly published before 1923 (in most cases, WELL before then). Note that neither I nor the Wikimedia foundation can warrant if this is absolutely so (read this Wikimedia Commons disclaimer). To be absolutely airtight about the status of the images, you would probably have to obtain copies of the sources from whence the images were derived. The larger your financial stake in re-using these images and profiting (nothing wrong with that) the more diligent you should be in verifying the copyright status of those images. It's all about risk-benefit analysis. --Quartermaster (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

About using public domain images from Commons Wikimedia on handmade itens for resale- III

Thank you so much for you answer. I am doing jusy some pieces, not a big businesse. But if you can answer one more thing... I case I want to do as you said, to obtain copies of the sources from whence the images were derived, I suppose I should contact the "USER" mentioned at the FILE HISTORY of each image? The user owns the original image?

for example, the file File:CorsetsSM A laParisienne1913.jpg at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CorsetsSM_A_laParisienne1913.jpg

FILE HISTORY Date/Time Thumbnail Dimensions User Comment current 21:52, 20 August 2007 1,314×3,039 (228 KB) Haabet (talk | contribs) (

File information

Description	Corsets S. M. A _la Parisienne; S. MAURICE & Cie; 208, Boulevard Voltaire. = PARIS
Source	LES DESSOUS ELEGANTS advertising page
Date	JUILLET 1913
Author	P. D.
Permission (Reusing this file)	PD

[[Categor)

The use in the case would be "HAABET"? Many many thanks Silvia

No, no, if it's public domain, well, it's public. Haabet probably just found the picture somewhere and decided to upload it. If something is truly public domain, you can use it for whatever you want. The source of the image is "LES DESSOUS ELEGANTS advertising page". /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleting images

How do I delete an image that has not been placed into an actual article yet but rather only uploaded to a page?PREMIS2010 (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The Image I am trying to delete is : File:Illuminator Image.JPG if someone can delete it please PREMIS2010 (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done. File:Illuminator Image.JPG has been deleted. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

What's the right license for File:Mmix.png?

What's the right license for File:Mmix.png? {Non-free with permission} seems sort of right, except there was no restriction that it be wikipedia only. Ariel. (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

One of the easiest things would be to have them place a notice on the source page. However it would be best to use one of the acceptable free licenses. If it is really {{non-free with permission}} it also needs to meet the Non-free content criteria policy and would require a FUR. Permission is always the first choice, but currently what you have on the image is not good enough. Aside from what I already said you can read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for more detailed information. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

3 Image Questions

1) Provided a suitable rationale is provided, is this a suitable image for the Perry Como statue?

Perry Como - Musician Statues on Waymarking.com
Perry Como Statue

Waymarking Terms of Use

3. License to Use Site; Restrictions
6. License to Use Submissions

2) Is it ever permissible to use a portion of a magazine cover when the subject of the article is not the magazine?

3) Under what conditions can screen captures from TV shows or movies be used?

Thanks!

We hope (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

For (2) you cannot grab a cropped part of a magazine cover and use it. There may be some special situations, such as if the picture is and old public domain image, or too simple for copyright (eg one word).

For (3) this is a non free image usually. You could use it if the movie was so old to be public domain, (or work of US govt). As a fair use you could use a TV station logo on the article about the station, or a screenshot of a character on the article about the character, or one iconic picture from an episode for an article about the episode. You still have to satisfy the fair use criteria Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much! Will keep fingers crossed re: statue photo! We hope (talk) 22:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

For (1) the image is not licensed to be free, and someone else could take a free picture, so I don't think you can justify that image under fair use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again--will just have to hope someone might have a free picture of it. We hope (talk) 03:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The other issue with (1) not mentioned by Graeme Bartlett is that of freedom of panorama which in the US applies to modern statues/artworks (post 1978) per the commons FOP entry for the United States. In essence the statue/artwork is the copyright of the artist and any image of the statue is a derivative work and requires their permission for a free licence and even though someone can go out and take a photo and then release that photo under a free licence, the statue is still under copyright and that restricts the use of any image of the statue irrespective of the photographer's copyright wishes. Under such FOP restrictions, images of modern statues are sometimes used under the fair use doctrine but this is usually in articles about the statue/artworks itself, such as File:Zephyr Small.JPG used in Zephyr (Wooldridge). ww2censor (talk) 05:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like I'd be better off forgetting about a photo of it entirely. Had hoped a suitable one would come along but it doesn't sound like that's going to happen. We hope (talk) 05:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Can I use this?

(NOTE: See also Commons:Questionable Flickr images that lists this Flikr account as containing "images from various non-free agencies and magazines" Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

[2] seems to have been uploaded by the genuine author, but I'm not sure. Can I have a second opinion, please? Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you can upload that image. We recommend you upload it here. Click the "image from Flickr" choice. License it with Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 2.0 (CC-BY-SA-2.0) and fill out everything else appropriately (source, author, etc.). Jsayre64 (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

No, he can't - see below. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, you can not use it here. The image was taken by Kevin Winter and is being sold via Getty Images. Glad you asked however because had you uploaded it first it would have been speedied as a copyvio. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Chicago Fabulous Blog should be asked to change the licensing on the Flickr image to "copyright" to avoid giving the impression that the image is a free use one. Yeah, it's definitely a mislabeled copyrighted image. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (In reply to this) No, I doubt it is an "honest" mistake as all the images I have looked at are "licensed" the same but they are all from different sources. For example this was taken by Johnny Nunez. This is clearly watermarked and says "Photo by Nigel D". This one was taken by John Parra. And this one was taken by Theo Wargo. That is just a simple look. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see that Getty Images thing. Sorry. Now the copyright is being held by Getty Images. So even though the Flickr version was created first, you can no longer upload that image to Wikipedia, right? Jsayre64 (talk) 04:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

That is not fully the reason - see my reply above. That Flikr account is clearly hosting other peoples work, which based on the users name, could mean they may be purchasing images from Getty and other sources to use on their "blog." Even so they can not re-license them as they do not own the copyright. In general material from commercial content providers is not allowed on Wikipedia, even under claims of Fair use for various reasons. One of the biggest being our "free" use fails "respect for commercial opportunities". Also I don't see where "the Flickr version was created first" - The image was taken at the MTV music awards on September 12. The Flickr account says "onstage during the 2010 MTV Video Music Awards at NOKIA Theatre L.A. LIVE on September 12, 2010 in Los Angeles, California" and Getty says "LOS ANGELES, CA - SEPTEMBER 12: Usher performs onstage during the 2010 MTV Video Music Awards at NOKIA Theatre L.A. LIVE on September 12, 2010 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by Kevin Winter/Getty Images)" (and as an aside - not all images are vague in their sources - see this one which actually syas "(Photo by Michael Loccisano/WireImage for Verizon)") Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I know about uploading to commons, and usually use [3] to do so. I have often been caught out by these sorts of images, and it smelt a bit suspicious, so I thought I'd ask first. Oh well. Thanks again! Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a classic case of Flickr washing, so it is good to see editors are carefully checking Flickr uploads. There are many false licences which may be due to ignorance of copyrights or on purpose. ww2censor (talk) 05:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. After this discussion I agree that I and everyone else should be much more careful examining Flickr images to determine whether or not they can be uploaded. Jsayre64 (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Would this be a fair-use image?

A Wikipedia biographical article would benefit from an image of the subject. Seeing as the person died in 1998, could I use his photo which I downloaded into my PC from this BBC site: [4] It is highly unlikely that an image will become available in the future, so can this be considered fair-use? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we are really talking about "non-free use" as opposed to "fair use". If you can satisfy all the non-free use criteria then yes, it can be uploaded and used. – ukexpat (talk) 16:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Choosing the correct image tag

The photograph in question has been given to me by the son of the person to whom the photograph was originally given by Jane Carr herself, hence the handwritten information on the lower front of the photograph.

I am not sure where to find the correct place to add details of the license status of the image, and your instructions do not seem entirely clear. I shall look forward to receive further instructions.

One of the main reasons for wishing to include details of this lady on Wikipedia is that she was one of the first, if not the first person to appear on a British television transmission, through assisting John Logie Baird.

It is unfortunate that there is another actress by the name of Jane Carr, and I am inclined to think that using dates to differentiate the two would be useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelhendry (talk • contribs) 15:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Without knowing anything I can say that no free license license currently meets has been given to me by the son of the person to whom the photograph was originally given by Jane Carr herself. In order to use an image such as that Wikipedia needs permission from the *original* source/author - which seems to be vague, but the closest might be "Jane Carr herself". If the image is *of* Jane Carr than she would need to also establish if she owns the copyright on the the image, and, if so, how she obtained it. (i.e - she hired a photographer via a "work for hire" contract to take photos of her). Unfortunately an image given to you by someone who got it from someone else who got it from someone else is never going to pass as a valid permission. Please read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for more detailed information on how to proceed.

NOTE: I am guessing you mean File:JaneCarr1943.jpg? I have tagged it as {{di-no permission}} as "Ron Wall, son of original recipient" and "I own the original" are not valid permissions because the "original" (As in negative, not a print) would belong to either the photographer or Jane Carr. As she has died if the copyright was owned by her it would have passed to a family member. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

on Robert Gaudino Image

I received a notification about this image. I added a Non-free use rationale to the file. Have I done enough to prevent the file from being deleted? If so, could someone remove the warning? If not, what do I need to do? David.Kane (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

If the copyright owner has given permission to use the image, assuming that permission is for all purposes and not limited to Wikipedia only, you don't need to worry about non-free use rationales. Just send the permission to OTRS as described at WP:IOWN. The permission will be reviewed and if it's OK, the image will be tagged accordingly. – ukexpat (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Originality vs Sweat of the brow

Am I right in thinking that something like File:Carpenters (Carpenters album).jpg would be {{PD-text}} as it doesn't meet the threshold of originality and is American based. I'm fairly sure about that. However, how far would originality go. Would it stretch to File:The Carpenters-The Singles 1969-1973 (album cover).jpg.

Furthermore, am I right in thinking that PD-text wouldn't apply to File:Katy B - Katy On A Mission.jpg because the label is British and the sweat of the brow would apply to British works. What would happen for File:Lights On.jpg (clearly not original). The label is now Columbia Records (American) but probably a UK branch, or is all that irrelevent and would depend on where the graphic artist made it? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

First file, PD, second file, possibly PD?, third, PD (we base it on US laws as we are in the US, I think?), fourth, same as third. I tend to be a little too lenient in applying PD textlogo, though, so I'd ask for another opinion, too. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The issue of originality isn't just a case of determining the simplicity of a design. If that were the case then Mondrian's paintings could be considered as just a bunch of colored squares. Our opinions about the amount of originality are ultimately only determined by litigation. How much effort was expended in determining the exact shade of the background, and the design of the font used for the cover of the album? Who determined the color and size of the font, the proportion taken up by the entire cover, and the location of the text? And, yes, this is a slippery, difficult, ambiguous way to go about things (as with almost all of intellectual property law). Far easier to err on the side of "not public domain" here. --Quartermaster (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in the case of the album art, I'm fairly sure that fonts and basic coloring don't matter, but taken as a whole, it may very well not be PD. I'd also just leave them here rather than deal with more issues on Commons if you transferred the files. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, Commons are far more given to declaring something PD for insufficient creativity than we are. I've had a Commons editor argue upside down and backwards that UK road traffic signs couldn't possibly ever be copyright, even though what they had in front of them was the original documents from the creators of the original scheme for traffic signs in the UK, who invented the full set of colours, signs, shapes, fonts etc, and every single image was stamped Crown Copyright. Go figure. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't planning on moving any to Commons really but I like yo get a grasp of the licenses. It should really be the other way round as en.wiki only requires PD-US but Commons requires PD-source-country as well. Even though the US may interpret most UK road signs as PD if the UK doesn't then they shouldn't be on Commons. As for my examples I find it hard to deal in hypotheticals, so like to quantify things against real examples. Personally, I think only the first example would be a dead cert. for PD. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

District of Columbia = U.S. federal?

Are D.C. agencies, such as the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, operated as part of the U.S. federal government? I ask to determine the copyright status of booking photos taken by the aforementioned agency. Thank you. KimChee (talk) 12:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

According to Copyright status of work by the U.S. government and the cited Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices, § 206.02(c): "Works of the government of the District of Columbia, as now constituted, are not considered U.S. Government works." Unless for some reason the agency is run directly by the feds (which it doesn't appear to be since it links to a city HR site for employment), I'd say no. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification. KimChee (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

When are movie screenshots acceptable?

WP:NFC says that (movie) screenshots are acceptable to use, but nothing else really goes into detail about them. When can they be included? Swarm ^X 20:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If you use a screenshot, it must meet all the requirements of WP:NFCC (the part in the blue box transcluded onto the page you cited. So you can't use it just to illustrate what the movie star looks like, but you could use it if it was say a character shot or an fx shot, and you were talking about the movie, the character's makeup or the special effect in the article, and the picture showed what you were saying more clearly than just text would. It has to meet the requirements re resolution, minimum usage, not using in a gallery, having a properly written fair use rationale etc. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

James Ross Snowden

Hello. I am posting here to let everyone know that I believe I accidentally uploaded a photograph without proper permission. The photo is File:JamesRossSnowden.jpg. I believe that this should be deleted for two reasons. #1: When I uploaded the photo, I was a very new member I did not thoroughly understand the rules of what constitutes a public domain image. The image comes from www.usmint.gov, but they give credit for the image to the Numismatic Guaranty Corporation. #2: I have since discovered that the photo is much more likely one of George T. Morgan and not James Ross Snowden. I sincerely apologize for the oversight on both counts.-RHM22 (talk) 23:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• If you want it deleted, you can tag it with {{db-author}}. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I tried to add that tag, but it didn't work. I tried it a few different ways too, but it all it was leave a small red link that said "Template:Db-author".-RHM22 (talk) 01:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit: I have added the right template. Thanks goes to both Jsayre64 and ChiZeroOne for helping me figure out how to nominate the image for deletion.-RHM22 (talk) 02:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

jpg scan of magazine article

Can I use a .jpg image of a magazine article providing I have the editors consent?
I want to use an interview with John Gordon (author) which was originally printed in a literary magazine. I have the permission of both the subject and the magazine editor, so copyright shouldn't be an issue. My questions are:

1. Does Wikipedia allow scans from publications to be used as resources, and if so are they treated as images (both administratively and legally)?
2. Can the file be used as a link on the page (eg. in References or Further Reading)
   

Thanks, Selseywill (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Permission to use on Wikipedia is absolutely meaningless to us. In fact, it's even a criteria for speedy deletion. So copyright is still very much at issue. If you want to get release of the interview contents, then your best bet is to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission to obtain release of the material under a free license. You can source commentary in the article to that interview, but using the contents of the interview verbatim or in a scan will violate copyright, even if we have their permission to use it here. We must have release under a free license. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Permission to use on Wikipedia isn't absolutely meaningless (see {{Non-free with permission}} and it takes care of WP:NFCC#2); it's permission to only use on Wikipedia which is almost meaningless, and it would still need to be treated as non-free content. As Hammersoft said, it needs to be explicitly released into the public domain or under a free license for it to be usable. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that I need to release the material under a free license (I have done so with other material using CC-by-SA 3.0), however my question was more: would this application be successful (i.e. are Wikipedia cool with scans) and if so (creative commons license granted) would the material be filed as an image and free to use as such?
Just wanted clarification of the protocol rather than the legality. Selseywill (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing in principal wrong with scans, as they will produce a better result than photographs of the same thing. One thing to watch out for is artifacts produced from the dot pattern, so you may have to scan at a high resolution. And another obvious thing is to make sure that the material is flat on the scanner. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, misunderstood. Yes, if you upload a freely-licensed scan it will be treated just like any other image, and you could link to it in a citation or further reading section. VernoWhitney (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks Selseywill (talk) 12:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Pine City Logo

Hello. I work as city staff for the City of Pine City. We'd like to have our newly-adopted, official city logo in prominant display on the "Pine City, Minnesota" Wikipedia page.

However, everything I've tried doesn't display the photo. I have followed step-by-step uploading instructions but it still doesn't appear. Can you assist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by John2690 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• I added it. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you but it's not large enough, and it's not entitled the "seal". It's a logo.

If you could assist, I would appreciate it. Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John2690 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The log and seal image sizes are pre-determined by the template to give a similar look and feel to similar types of articles. It appears you have a conflict of interest in this article and you may not have a neutral point of view especially when you want to have our newly-adopted, official city logo in prominant display, so please be careful and read WP:COI. Good luck and please sign your posts by adding four tildes to the end of your posts, like this ~~~~. ww2censor (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks! Could you try to use this file = File:Official Pine City Logo.jpg and upload as the City's logo? It's not a conflict of interest. Thanks. It's just simply not working for me.

I fixed the infobox to display the logo properly. I have also made a number of other edits to comply with the Manual of Style and the external links guidelines. And yes, you do have a conflict of interest, a big one, please take a look at WP:COI. – ukexpat (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Adriaan Blaauw

Most of the current text in the article Adriaan Blaauw has been copy&pasted from the web site of the Kapteyn Institute here. Could someone please have a look at that? I'm not familiar with the procedures on the English wikipedia. Thanks. --Wrongfilter (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Reverted and user warned about copyvio. – ukexpat (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Coyright permission question

hello Im trying to download a picture of wreslter Jennifer blake... I TOOK the picture, its mine. Im not certain how you credit ownership... is it the name IM uploading under? If its been posted on the internet... its still mine . Othewise I have another one I could post that hasnt had any exposure. PLease direct me to a CLEAR how to... IM tired of somebody pinging me off and not really clarifying what the problem is. Seems rather immature and Im willing to learn... Seems a shame you have a picture up thats not current.

this is one of the links... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jennifer_Blake_(wrestler)&oldid=400325796<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jennifer_Blake_(wrestler)&oldid=400325796/ref> <ref>16:32, 3 December 2010 CommonsDelinker (talk | contribs) m (12,797 bytes) (Removing "JenniferBlake_1.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by Krinkle because: Copyright violation: google - http://forums.rajah.com/showthread.php?t=139610&page=38.) (undo)/ref>

NOw.. Im the owner of this.. regardless of where it ended up... how do i prove it? I have another i can post in its place from the same series... though i liked the first one the best —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casey1960 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Please follow the process set out at WP:IOWN. – ukexpat (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

John Turner

I would like to use this image of John Turner on our John Turner page. It is a copyrighted image. Could it be used on that particular biographical page at an appropriately low resolution? --Doradus (talk) 03:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

No, under non-free content criteria we don't allow copyright images of living people, because it is presumed that a freely licenced image can be taken of the subject instead of the non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 04:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Scans of old membership cards?

I would like to upload scans of some old membership cards for the now defunct trade unions, NUCPS, PTC and CPSA to help illustrate those articles. I assume that any residual copyright would now reside with the successor union PCS, though the original organisations no longer exist. Would I need to seek permission or would this constitute "fair use"? Many thanks. KenBailey (talk) 11:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Based on the dates those images would have been created, they would still be copyrighted. I would also guess that the copyright now belongs to PCS, but it would depend on whatever the merger agreement (or similar) said. What exactly is shown on these membership cards? WP has stringent rules for the use of copyrighted materials that are even stricter than what fair use would allow - see WP:NFCC. Depending on how important it is for the images to be used, we might need to get permission from PCS for them to be released under a free license. By the way, something like this image would fail the requirement that it significantly add to readers' understanding. (That is, readers can understand the article perfectly well without seeing it.) So if it is something like that, your only option would be to seek consent from the organization - see WP:CONSENT. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Alternately, if the image is extremely basic (say, it only has basic fields like "name" etc, and it belongs to a relative so you hold the copyright to the photo on it), it may be ineligible for copyright. If you believe this to be true, you can upload the image and we can advise further. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your views. The cards are mine and contain basic fields (name, branch, membership number etc but no photo). I take the point about it not significantly adding to readers' understanding. However, I particularly wanted to illustrate the logos so perhaps a crop of just the logos would be appropriate? KenBailey (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

If they have logos, then they probably wouldn't be PD. (The logo is probably creative enough for copyright protection.) I'd just crop the logo, upload it, and tag it {{non-free logo}} with an appropriate non-free usage rationale (probably {{logo fur}}). Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

That sounds a good plan. Thanks for your help and advice. KenBailey (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Question from IP

HOW TO SAVE THIS FILE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.79.243.201 (talk) 13:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

To upload images (if that is what you are trying to do), you will need to create an account. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

General question about WP copyright policy

why is wikipedia so strict with copiright? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeys 9711 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

See Copyright_infringement#Criminal_LiabilitySmallman12q (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Even more than that, it is because wikipedia is, in many ways, an ideological project. The whole idea behind wikipedia was to create a free content source of knowledge that could be freely used, distributed, and modified without the restrictions of traditional copyright protection. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Permissions question

I've been working on various articles about the Ashley-Cooper family and have questions about uploading images. Dinah Ashley-Cooper (wife of the 12th Earl of Shaftesbury) has emailed me some photos and given permission for me to use any images from the estate website. In uploading the images, I'm guessing that Dinah is the source for those that she has emailed, with the website as the source for the other images. Do I choose "The work of someone else, who has given permission to release it under a free license or it is already under a free license" or "An image from a website" when I upload? It's kinda either/or with Dinah sending me some images that are also on the website. I'm guessing she will need to send an email stating permission for use. What does she need to say in the email? Sorry for the confusion. Thanks for your help, Cindamuse (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The procedure in WP:PERMIT can be used, but she will needto be clear she is not just donating them to use on Wikipedia, but making it free fro all. The simplest solution would be to attach a statement of a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license for all the images on the web site. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Couple of tags I need help with

I'm new here, my account is Toothless99. I uploaded a couple of photos for articles, but I don't know what to tag them with. The two files are File:Kosmoceratops.jpg and File:Return to the lost world book cover.jpg. I have provided the URL for the page they came from, but I can't do much else. Please help,

Toothless99 (talk) 10:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• For the first it looks like you lifted it off a web site. I cannot see any evidence on this site that the images are free. If you know of a copyright statement that permits free use and modification of the images, then please link it on the image description page and state the copyright license, otherwise the image will have to be deleted. If you do not know what license to use for someone else's picture it probably means that you cannot use it here.

• For the second case, this could be fair use if your article makes it to article space. I have added a fair use rationale and a non-free book cover template. You have under a week to move your article draft to the named Return to the Lost World (novel), otherwise this too will get the chop. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia and commercial use

If I create test prep study questions based upon Wikipedia text, can I copyright the sample questions and answers that I created based upon the Wikipedia text? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.168.181 (talk) 13:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

This page is for copyright within wikipedia. For information about reusing Wikipedia content, see WP:REUSE. Basically, you will have to abide by the Wikipedia license, which is "share-alike", meaning any derived works (which probably includes such test prep materials) will also have to be freely licensed. We do not give legal advice about reusing Wikipedia content, and suggest you speak to a lawyer. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hindi movie posters

I want to use the movie posters at galmsham.com for the article Toonpur Ka Superrhero, which has the old movie poster (notice the new spelling i.e. superrhero). Well, can I? And a related question: what is the copyright law in India about movie posters? --Siddhant (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Well you could use one poster under fair use, so if you want to use a different poster, you should get the old one deleted. The exception would be if there is critical commentary on both the posters. This is really a topic for the article talk page to determine what one is best to use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

question

Greetings, I am trying to post my article about Ramón Smith under username Herrero Ragde. I tried uploading a photo, but now I know there is a process of approval before it can go public. I apologize for my ignorance of these details. I would like to understand the steps to specify the copyright status of the photo, and then how to post the article, with the uploaded photo. This photo has belonged to my family for over 25 years; so I really have no way to know who took it originally. I'll appreciate your help. The Photo in question is labeled R.Smith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herrero ragde (talk • contribs) 18:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You are slightly confused about the process. If you set the information correctly at the start, then further approval is not required. That is the idea of the free license, that approval is granted by the copyright holder in advance. The information that we need is to show that the image is free. So We need to know the license, Is it public domain, or a Creative Commons license? Who is the copyright owner and what is the evidence that they released the image freely. Just because you own a photo does not mean that you own the copyright, and the photographer, or their heirs would. If you are the heir then you can grant the free license, but if you just don't know who owns copyright, or can show somehow that the picture is public domain, then we cannot use it on Wikipedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

what is the tag used to upload your own pictures

what is the tag used to upload your own pictures prefix:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sitarlady (talk • contribs) 23:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I have uploaded the picture which was taken by me? how do i add the tags to show that it belongs to me? can i get some examples —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sitarlady (talk • contribs) 04:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks as if you uploaded about 5 different pictures using the same name at File:Paul hm.jpg. you could add tages like this: {{CC-BY-3.0|Paul Livingstone}} {{CC-BY-SA-3.0|http://www.tanpura.com/}} or even {{PD-self}}

giving

Some other suggests are to load up different pictures under different names, and to use commons:upload so that pictures can be used in other projects and languages. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Sid_Meier's_Alpha_Centauri#Images question about the use of a sequel's box art in an article about the original game

Guyinblack25 raised an issue of whether the box art of a sequel can be used in an article in addition to the box art of the original game in Talk:Sid_Meier's_Alpha_Centauri#Images. I would appreciate any opinions. Thank you. Vyeh (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Graphics from really old newspapers

Question: Can I grab a graphic from the Los Angeles Times of November 1, 1899, as posted on a Web page provided by the Los Angeles Public Library to use in Wikipedia? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You should be able to do this since the contents of a November 1, 1899 issue of the LA Times is in the public domain. Could you be specific as to what you mean by a "graphic?" There's always the possibility that an old graphic could still be under coverage as a trademark. If it's a photo or a drawing within an article, there shouldn't be any problems using it. Also, how do you intend to use the graphic? Non-profit personal use is a lot less problematic than for-proft commercial use. --Quartermaster (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The graphic would be a news photo or a drawing originally used to illustrate a news story in the L.A. Times. My present use would be to illustrate a WP article — possibly in two categories: (I1) To show what a person looked like where no other likeness exists or can be found, or (2) to illustrate a historical scene such as an accident or cavalry charge or explosion aftermath, which words alone could not accomplish within the WP article. Yours sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

What you're seeking to use seems to be pretty unambiguously in the public domain. I've personally used pictures from pre-1923 works for just such purposes. You're actually on more solid ground in that the pictures and drawings you're seeking to use were actually published. I.e., you can prove that they're in the public domain (though I doubt anybody would question them). --Quartermaster (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much, QM! You have cleared up a lot for me this morning. In uploading such a file, what rationale should I use to assure the cautious and curious that it is truly a Free Image? I have had bad results previously in having certain files deleted, perhaps by tyro editors who didn't know the rules or who were not adapt at expressing them. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm used to uploading to the wikimedia commons, but, independent of the specifics, so long as you cite the source of the image to be LOS ANGELES TIMES, November 1, 1899 (specific page would be nice also); that should make it clear it is in the public domain. Determining whether something is PD or not can be tricky, but in this case it's pretty clear cut. The key is to cite the source properly so those who are overseeing image and copyright issues will see that this is indeed in the public domain. Published items' copyrights prior to 1923 are all expired. --Quartermaster (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Can terrorist organizations copyright works?

This is a rather unusual and possibly macabre question, but does Al Qaeda retain the ability to copyright its works? I ask because I'm working on an article that involves the murder of Nicholas Berg, the famous individual wearing the orange jumpsuit surrounded by the armed terrorists. Obviously I don't plan on using a screenshot of the actual killing, but the image is iconic enough. It was created in Iraq by Abu Musab Al Zarqawi (killed in 2006), which apparently has no copyright treaties with the US, but because of the occupation has its own strange laws, as noted in: File:Iraq, Saddam Hussein (222).jpg. If I can't make a case for PD, I'm going to use historical relevancy, but either way I'd like to know what kind of legal ground this is. Please send responses to my talk page. Palm_Dogg (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

A terrorist or criminal can copyright something. But what is relevant is if PD-Iraq applies, if the photo was taken on 7 May 2004 then the new law applies (for a week) and it will be protected till 50 years after the author's death (2056). If an image was iconic, then it may be possible to use it under fair use in an article about the picture. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

My Copyright Status images

I previously upload my image and i was in a hurry and i forgot to put a Copyright Status. The Image is Indra Putra Mahayuddin (Indra_Putra_Mahayuddin.png).

So i uploaded another similar image, but this time i put the copyright status in. (IndraPutraMahayuddin.png)

I hope it is ok, if it is not, you are free to nominate the image on speedy deletion and you are free to do anything with the image until this problem is solved.

i am really sorry if i caused any problem to you and i hope this would not be a huge of a problem.

Thanks for your time...

From user name 016iman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 016iman (talk • contribs) 21:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You've done well with the most recent copyright tag on the image. But can I ask what MNT FC@ Images is and your relation to it? Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, I am the one of Malaysia National Football Team Fan Club© ( MNFT FC© ) admins and one of their founders. My task is to upload any images that is related to Malaysia football. As you know, all of my images is about Malaysia National Football team, so my relation with MNFT FC© is that i am one of their founders and i am one of their admins.

Thank you, i hope you reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 016iman (talk • contribs) 18:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Ally Sloper's Half Holiday

File:Ally1884.png and File:AllySloper'sHalfHoliday.jpg are redundant (but not identical) images of the 27 December 1884 cover of Ally Sloper's Half Holiday. Both files are public domain in the United States (if I'm not mistaken, also in the source country, the UK) and could be moved to Commons under the {{PD-old-100}} license tag.

However, the source for File:Ally1884.png no longer works and File:AllySloper'sHalfHoliday.jpg contains a "British Library" mark. Would it be acceptable to move File:Ally1884.png to Commons while changing the source to http://www.bl.uk/images/content/ally1884.jpg, or does that pose an attribution or copyright problem? Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia considers faithful reproductions of the original to be void of any copyright, so it wouldn't be a problem. But the easiest solution is to include both the old and new source with the exact explanation you've just provided here to avoid any unnecessary ambiguity. Commons will certainly take it under this situation - at least I don't think anybody would be enough of a stickler to nominate it for deletion.

Also, for licensing, you'll want to make sure it follows {{PD-UK}}, which deals with not the year of publication, but of the death of the artist, if known. Are we sure that Emilie de Tessier and/or Charles Henry Ross had passed away before 1940? Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

There appears to be some controversy (see here and here) as to who actually created the character: Charles Henry Ross or his wife, Emilie de Tessier (a.k.a. Marie Duval). Ross died in 1897 ([5]). I could not find a year of death for Duval, though I did find that she was born in 1847 or 1850 (based on the claim that she was 18 years old when she married in 1868 or 1869). William George Baxter, who created this particular cover, died in 1888 ([6]). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

book cover

I want to add a photo of a book cover to a page. I have been granted written permission by the publisher to use the image on wikipedia. They created it and have full rights to it and have extended that right to me. When I went on my account it said that Bolt or something had removed it. I should I identify it when reapplying it to the page so that it stays. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corydjhughes (talk • contribs) 22:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, the owner of the copyright has to release his rights completely so that the image can be used anywhere, not just on Wikipedia. That's it in a nutshell, but others more knowledgeable that I can tell you more. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

We may be able to use it under fair use, I will check it out. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

We can certainly use it on English Wikipedia as fair use, meaning without their permission. However, if we want the freedom to use it more broadly (e.g., to add it to your userpage, or to upload it to commons for use on other language Wikipedias), we'd need the explicit release under a license. "For Wikipedia" isn't good enough for legal reasons (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#F3). A good place to follow instructions is {{Di-no permission-notice}}. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

One problem that I see is that the image is not used yet in article space. For fair use the iamge must be used. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

In simple words, without getting too complicated, why is it "fair use" to use a book cover? Didn't an artist design it for a specific use, and doesn't that artist have as right to control where the image is placed? I have a book cover myself (my own book) that is used all over the Web, including Amazon, and I have no problem with that, but I'd just like to know where they get the right to reproduce it? (If somebody could just answer the question without referring me to another page, I would greatly appreciate it.) Sincerely, your puzzled friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Copyright laws in most countries permit the use of copyrighted works, without permission, by other entities under certain conditions. This is called "fair use" in the United States (where our servers are based). A simple example; if I were to create my own book, and use your cover, I would be violating your copyright. If I were a news anchor talking about the NY Times best sellers list, and showed your book cover as an example of one of the top ten, I'm not violating your copyright. That's "fair use". There's a huge amount of law underpinning this, and there's little in the way of black/white on the issue. But, in a small nutshell, there you go. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, that is very clear, Hammersoft, and I appreciate your courtesy in responding so promptly. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Afghanistan/EPA image

In a deletion discussion, someone said that since an image was taken in Afghanistan, it's in the public domain. The image was taken by a professional photographer for the EPA. I thought the photographer or the EPA would have a copyright claim, regardless of the fact that it was taken in Afghanistan. What would be correct in this instance? Swarm ^X 22:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The PD claim made by the admin is false. Afghanistan does not have an agreement with the US/Berne Convention about Copyright so material that is within that country (i.e - a film, a book, a newspaper) is generally considered copyright free. However any reporter, or other entity, that is working within Afghanistan for someone else outside of the country is not creating copyright free material simply because it was done *in* Afghanistan. For Wikipedia purposes the image in question is owned by the European Pressphoto Agency, which is headquartered in Germany, and they distribute it worldwide. The implication by the admin was that anybody who steps foot inside of Afghanistan and creates something is doing so without any copyright protection. That is not true. You can take a look at Afghanistan and copyright issues for more general information. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

A question

Hi, i uploaded a recent file which is a self portrait photo which i took which was then edited via photoshop to appear as a cartoon. I was then warned about file deletion due to lack of copyright so have added what i think is an appropriate copyright but was just wondering if i have completed this correctly as my WP skills with things like this can be abit rubbish Johnsy88 (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Use of our images - can I allow free use to others, but require them to insert a hyperlink to our site?

I have a few wonderful images that would help women with adhesions, pelvic pain or infertility. I would be glad to post them on Wikipedia for others to use, but I would like to place a source, preferably a hyperlink on our images, that people would include, if they want to use them. Is this OK? How do I do that, and make sure it is not deleted by others?

Thanks! Larry cptherapy@aol.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.88.122.6 (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleting unused photo

Would you please delete this photo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:KateChase_in_1873.jpg I uploaded the image over four years ago and it is not being used for the Kate Chase page. Calm Seas101 (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)