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)

image:491.jpg

Could someone please add this as an Album or Single cover for a band, as I forgot when uploading and I cant see the way to do it. If it's deleted I can upload again and add it, but it would be easier to have it tagged first :)

Thanks, Rob

Question on fair use of a single Glossary entry from a book

I would like to upload an image of a single word definition that appears in the glossary of a book published in 1930 in order to document the use of a particular Sanskrit technical term as used in Buddhist Chinese translation. The book is in English, the Sanskrit word is shown in IAST romanization of the Sanskrit, and the Chinese translation for the term is shown in Chinese characters. I do not read Chinese and have no idea of how to type the characters into the computer. Also, the visual nature of the Chinese characters seems to call for a visual rendering so others can assist in identification of them. I have prepared an image of the single glossary entry, so it is not a scan of the entire page. Does this constitute a fair use, and can I go ahead and upload the image? If yes, what tag do I put on it? To help you figure this out I have been bold and uploaded it on the assumption that fair use is permitted: Suzuki 1930 image Buddhipriya 05:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not the best way or reccomended way to do it the but here are are the characters you wanted, (密意)(密語)(一切深密義), you can copy and paste these into the article. If you need any more help tell me what page you're working on and I'll see if I can be of assisstance.KTo288 09:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the help. Can you please clarify for me what the copyright issues are with this type of fair use? I could not find this type of usage situation documented in the upload options, but it must come up now and then. Are the rules for this documented anywhere? The content question pertains to a debate about the relevance (or lack of it) of this term to the article Yantra. Buddhipriya 20:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't help with regards to copyright questions, I'm only visiting this page because I have copyright questions of my own. However I saw that you wanted to input Chinese characters and thought I could help. Anyway thank for your cookie, does anyone have a cup of tea to go with it.KTo288 21:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you think including this picture adds beyond just describing what the glossary says and adding a citation. If it doesn't add anything, it is definitely not within Wikipedia's free content guidelines (though as a matter of law it might be fair use). Calliopejen1 02:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you please tell me what the law is? The functional value of the picture is that it shows the exact Chinese characters in use in that book. It was used to permit recognition of the characters visually by persons who know Chinese. For that purpose it worked, as the comment above shows. However verification that the Unicode characters provided by the user above are in fact equivalent to the visual print version is still needed before we can safely assume that the digital reproduction is not needed to establish the point of fact. It would be helpful if someone can state positively what the rules are for this type of use. It is not a full page from a book, and I was unable to figure out what the rules might be for this type of partial reproduction intended to deal with a visual recognition issue. The upload interface doesn't cover this, as far as I can tell, and I found the upload process confusing for this specific license. If it is a fair use, what license should it have? If the rules cannot be articulated, how can we know if this case is permitted or not? Buddhipriya 03:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

In this case, the limiting factor is probably Wikipedia policy, not the law. Wikipedia says that nonfree content should be used only where necessary and where equivalent free content is unavailable. Here there is no reason to include an entire glossary entry, even if it would be legal, because all you want to do is show what the Chinese character is. If all you want is to include the Chinese symbols themselves, you could crop those individually and mark them {{pd-ineligible}} because no one can copyright an individual word. Normally though in entries where Chinese is used I assume that unicode is preferred because it is standardized, searchable, and smaller. If the issue is whether the unicode is accurate, it would be easy to ask Wikipedia:WikiProject China to confirm. So in sum, because you could either use unicode (probably better) or an image of a single word, both of which are free, you cannot use a nonfree image instead.

As an irrelevant side note, the law of fair use is complex because it is determined by the accumulation of caselaw made by various judges. In many borderline cases, it is impossible to tell in advance whether a specific use would be legal. Here in my lay judgment this is pretty clearly fair use by legal standards, although for wikipedia purposes you just should use free content instead (because the goal of Wikipedia is to create free content). Calliopejen1 06:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The comment gives a helpful suggestion in that the characters themselves could be uploaded as individual images, that that may be a good alternative to uploading the citation that shows them in context. I agree that use of the unicode is preferable for Wikipedia electronic text, but that is irrelevant to the original problem, which is that the image needs to be visually examined by someone who knows Chinese so the characters can be identified accurately and verified as having been corrected rendered by the Unicode (密意)(密語)(一切深密義), supplied by a Wikipedian here who saw them by chance. I did not have a way to get these characters identified except by uploading an image of them because I have no idea how to generate Unicode Chinese characters and do not read Chinese. The Chinese characters are pictures (ideograms). I ask again, where is the law on this type of functional use documented? So far no one has provided any link to a clear statement of what the rules are for this type of usage. So far opinions range from clearly forbidden by Wikipedia policy to probably legal, but what are they basing these opinions on? If it is legal, what tag should be put on the image? Buddhipriya 03:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no range of opinions here as far as I can see--it is simultaneously both probably legal and forbidden by wikipedia policy. (Wikipedia policy is more restrictive than copyright law.) WP:NONFREE (the relevant policy) says that if a nonfree image can be replaced by a free image, that nonfree image is not acceptable. In this case, you could replace this glossary entry with pictures of individual words, which would accomplish your purpose and which are not copyrighted (a picutre of an individual word isn't copyrightable, except maybe if it were calligraphy). So that is what is correct to do according to wikipedia policy, and when it is done, the new images should be tagged {{PD-ineligible}}. Calliopejen1 06:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict]The law is that the image would probably qualify as valid fair use. One can only ever say "probably" when it comes to fair use because its legal definition is rather vague, and judgment must be made on a case-by-case basis. But by all the usual tests, this qualifies. (It's a very small portion of the original work, it has no effect on commercial exploitation of the work, it's mainly for educational use, Wikipedia isn't profiting from it themselves, etc.) The Copyright Office has an informative circular on the subject.

However, Wikipedia policy is stricter than the law requires because we also have the goal of the project to consider. The non-free policy is designed to encourage the creation of free media by limiting the use of non-free media under doctrines such as fair use. In particular, where fair use media can be replaced with free media then the fair use media are disallowed. So the answer to your question is that both opinions are correct even though they seem contradictory, which may account for your confusion. In this case, since the same information can be conveyed by simply adding the Unicode Chinese characters, the image isn't usable by policy.

Incidentally, I note that KTo288 left out a character from the Chinese for sarvadharma. It should be 一切法深密義 if I'm not mistaken. I don't know Chinese either, but in this case I was lucky since the radicals are easy to recognize. It would, of course, be wise to ask someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject China to verify.

Calliopejen: No, calligraphy as such is ineligible for copyright under US law. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Uncertain License

I added Image:Zodiac-logo.gif which had transparency where Image:Zodiac-logo.jpg did not. I tried uploading a new version of that file, like I've seen done on other image pages, but I couldn't see how, and so I uploaded it to .gif instead of .jpg. I knew it would come up as untagged, but I couldn't see how to add the same tags that the original image had. So now I am asking here. --Gohst 23:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit the description page for Image:Zodiac-logo.jpg, copy the tag you find there, and paste it into the description page for Image:Zodiac-logo.gif. If you don't want to do that, open the GIF page and add {{PD-ineligible}}.

There are two reasons you had trouble uploading in place. The first is that ".gif" and ".jpg" are parts of the file names. It would be a very bad idea to upload a GIF with an extension that says it's a JPEG. Since the file names are different, one cannot take the place of the other. The second reason is that the JPG actually lives on the Commons and not on the English Wikipedia. If the GIF version is useful, it would be a good idea to move that there too.

Two copyright-unrelated comments: First, a transparent version of this may not be very useful. Since users are able to customize their skins, you can't assume that a set of thin black lines will show up very well when set against a page background. The opaque background of the original guarantees it won't be a problem. Second is that if you're going to convert a JPEG to a format that supports transparency, PNG is preferred on Wikipedia. (Mind you, this image never should have been a JPEG to begin with.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I've been through these sorts of processes before... its not worth the headache. The first comment here was exactly what I did. Including the tag. Also neither the Wkipedia or Commons page had an "upload new version of this file" - at least that I could see. That's why I uploaded it as a .gif. However I couldn't see how to add the relevant tags... So that I didn't do it wrong, I left it blank. Then it got tagged for deletion for being untagged. Ugh. --Gohst 11:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Below the file history on every image page on both Wikipedia and Commons you'll find a link that says "Upload a new version of this file". You won't see it on the Wikipedia page for the .jpg in this case because the file really resides at the Commons, but if you go to its page there you'll see the link.

If a transparent background was your goal you couldn't have used a JPEG anyway; it doesn't support transparency. Both GIF and PNG do. So you had to upload a new file. As I said, it had no business being a JPEG in the first place, but that's hardly your fault.

I see that it is tagged appropriately; what was wanting was source information which I've just added. This kind of thing is what comes of having a bot place these problem/deletion warning tags. We have to use them because so much inappropriate material is uploaded that human beings can't deal with it all, but it sometimes happens that a patently PD image such as this one gets hit. It's nothing you did wrong, really. In the future, you can prevent this kind of thing by saying where you got it from even if it seems trivial or obvious. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

HxSeek

""Thanks for uploading Image:700AD.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images""

I;m afraid I have found the help page regarding copyright quite confusing. Can you please help clarify what i need to do? I have already put the source of the image Hxseek 02:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You're looking for {{Attribution}}. However, you're going to need an e-mail as proof that you have permission to use the image. --Boricuaeddie 03:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Boricuaeddie is incorrect. The permission given at the website says, 'You may use the Euratlas images and maps, as they are available on the websites euratlas.com and euratlas.net, for educational or illustration purposes but you must mention the source in that way: "© 2003 Christos Nussli, www euratlas.com". No commercial use is allowed."' Wikipedia cannot accept media with these restrictions. See the text in boldface at the image use policy.

Fair use isn't available either, since maps can always be redrawn, and the non-free media policy doesn't allow fair use when a free equivalent can be made, even in the interim. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

copyright

what do I say or put or do for my copyright on my picture?

Image:Zac Efron In Maui summer of 2007 .jpg looks okay as it is. I assume you actually took this picture, like you said you did? If so, you still own the copyright on the image, but note that the licenses you have chosen basically allow anyone to use or modify your image in any way, as long as they credit you and continue to share the image. If these terms are not acceptable, please drop a line here and let us know so that we can take care of it. Calliopejen1 07:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Unknown author

This image is an photo of a UNICEF bus, found on this news article on the same website. I have a hunch that the poster of the news report did not take the photo, as I have seen a few other different photos of the same bus elsewhere online. However, I can't find this exact image anywhere else online, and therefore, not knowing the real author and the image's current copyright status. If anyone could give me some guidance as to where I could find the author, it would be much appreciated. Kind regards, –sebi 09:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if anyone will be able to help you find the author of that image. Wikipedia does require that we know the source of images though, so until the source is found it wouldn't be compliant with our policies. - cohesion 03:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:SacredHeart.JPG

can someone help me find, the right liscesce for this image, or a image that is also of the school that will enhance the image, if neither is possible i will locate a digital camera and do it myself.Please inform me on my talk pageBlacksmith2 ^talkEditor Review 09:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have sent an e-mail to the webmasters of the website where you found the image. If they agree to letting us use the image, you may tag it with {{Attribution}}. If they don't let us use the image, I'm afraid the image must be deleted or we must use it under a claim of fair use. --Boricuaeddie 14:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That's one approach, although the user's alternate plan was better. To answer his question, the picture is copyright, as all media are unless otherwise licensed. Copyright is probably owned by the company whose website it is, although it might have been provided to them by the school, in which case they own it. We cannot use it here without a free licnese. Contra Boricuaeddie's idea, without that licence it cannot be used under fair use either because it's replaceable with free media. See WP:NONFREE. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

ok so i should take a photo myself, be warned that my camera is OLD and takes forever to upload .Blacksmith2 ^talkEditor Review 06:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I got permission! I will now fix the image. --Boricuaeddie 02:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright of PIETA by Michaelangelo

I am interested in finding out, if, I as an artist, can make a copy of the Pieta by engraving in glass and exhibit the art work and offer it for sale in the exhibition. Would there be any infringement of any copyright? If so who has the copy right? What can I do to be able to display and offer for sale my art work?

Vijaykharkar 15:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Vijay Kharkar

This page is for copyright questions related to media hosted at Wikipedia and not for general legal advice on intellectual property rights. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Prove copy right

I am tryin to prove copyright for picture that belong to a group. i am the do the page for them —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Silentnight23 (talk • contribs).

Please restate your question. Copyright attaches to the individual person or entity that created the image. For more help please clarify your question and give some more background. - cohesion 03:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright?

The picture of the Bulldog logo I want to use for the North Bend High School (Oregon) page is taken from the school website : http://www.nbhs.nbend.k12.or.us . How do I know what the copyright information is?

The bottom of the page states, "All images and stories on this website are Copyright North Bend School District © 2005. Any reproduction of images and/or stories in any form without the expressed written permission of North Bend School District is strictly prohibited. All rights reserved." Assuming this is correct and the image is original this would not be acceptable for use in Wikipedia. If you would like to request permission please see our page on requesting permission. If you have any other questions let us know. - cohesion 03:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Drawings of prominent people in lieu of non-free photos?

Suppose we don't have a free photo of some prominent person, but non-free footage exists all over the place. Would it be clean from a copyright perspective to commission a gifted artist to produce a GFDL drawing of that person? AxelBoldt 21:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• As long as the work is sufficiently different from any existing photos of the person, I can't see why not. Portraiting someone from existing images is done all the time. -Nard 22:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

MySpace content license?

Hi,

Can anybody tell me what license (if any) content posted on MySpace is available under? I can't see anything obvious about it on their site or Wikipedia article, but I may not be able to see the wood for the trees.

Thanks. Blair - Speak to me 05:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

They're owned by the people who posted them. Except for those rare occasional common very typical posts that are themselves copyright infringements. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

fa:Image:Persian wikipedia poster.JPG

I'm the creator of this image. Is there anyway to publish this photo on my user page? (knowing that Fair Use is not allowed in other namespaces). Is this a derivative work? Hessam 17:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is a derivative work as it prominently features the Wikipedia logo which is trademark and copyright the Foundation and is not licensed. I don't believe it can be used on your userpage, unfortunately. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

ThankQ! Hessam 23:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Help with sports image

I would to include Image:FK1.jpg in an article about a well-known play in a specific football game. I found the image on sportsillustrated.cnn.com and I believe it to be fair use since the image is irreplacable. Am I correct? If it is fair use, what do I need to do?

Looks like it to me. Tag it {{non-free fair use in|articlename}} and be sure to add a fair use rationale showing how it conforms to the non-free media policy. And by all means, insert into an article ASAP. Orphaned images can't be valid fair use. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Image uploaded "with permission", but suitable for fair use

Hi, folks. Recently, Wookiesmith (talk · contribs) uploaded Image:Raposo joe.jpg for use in Joe Raposo. When a bot told him that he needed to provide licensing information, he wrote the copyright owner's info in an edit summary, with the following note: "permission granted to include photograph for permanent archival and non-commercial/educational purposes. Contact photo submitter for documentation and det" (presumably cut off because it exceeded the maximum characters in an edit summary). Clearly, this was a good faith attempt to provide licensing info; however, Wookiesmith was apparently unaware that Wikipedia doesn't allow images "with permission". WP:IUP says "Images which are listed as for non-commercial use only, by permission, or which restrict derivatives are unsuitable for Wikipedia and will be deleted on sight." Now, as it so happens, this is an image for which a reasonable fair use rationale can be provided; the subject is deceased, and it would be difficult to obtain a freely licensed image of him. I've written up a rationale, to the best of my (limited) ability. However, I'm unsure whether the "delete on sight" orders apply in a case like this. If Wookiesmith had not mentioned the copyright owner's permission, we could have kept the image with a fair use rationale. Does the mere assertion of "with permission" mean that the image must go, nonetheless? If so, why? (I feel the necessity to remind people that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, despite appearances.) Can we keep this image? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

"Permission only" images are handled the same way as non-free images, if the image passes the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria we can keep it. Otherwise we would have to delete Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg on sight. Garion96 (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Good. I think the Joe Raposo image does pass those criteria now, so it should be fine. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

COPYRIGHT TAG ON YOUR OWN WORK

I was told that I needed a copyright tag on my own work. I uploaded an image to the WB page and it is my own work. But I am told that I need a Copyright Tag. Please send me the format for doing a copyright tag. thanks Chrismaster1 15:01, August 10 2007

Presumably you mean Image:TheWB...logo.gif. That's not your own work. It's the form of the logo, not whether or not you drew or processed it yourself, that determines copyright status. At best, it's {{non-free logo}}, as long as you can add an adequate non-free media rationale that shows how it conforms to policy. (But if you can justify including the logo, you might as well grab a better copy of it from somewhere.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Logo, or public domain?

Could you guys take a look at Image:MontananRailroad.jpg? It's a corporate logo from a small railroad that existed from 1895 to 1908, cropped from a scan of an 1899 railroad map. I uploaded it as a logo with the appropriate Fair use tag, but believe that it might qualify as a free use image because of the date of the map and because the entity ceased to exist prior to 1923. Thanks! Pitamakan 21:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You might have spelled the name of the railroad correctly in your second post, but you misspelled it as above when you uploaded the image, so here we are.

Yes, a design that old is PD. You can tag it {{PD-US}}. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! And clearly, this is one of those days when I shouldn't even be trying to type.  :) As for the mistyped name, any preference on if should I re-upload with the correct name, or just leave as-is? I assume an admin can't simply rename the thing. Pitamakan 23:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No, not directly. First re-upload it under the correct name, and then tag the original {{redundant|Image:MontananRailroad.jpg}}. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, thanks! Pitamakan 01:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Which tag to use

The Danish Socialist People's Party has adopted a new logo. I have therefore replaced the old logo with the new one: Image:Sflogo.JPG. The new logo would qualify as fair use just as well as the old did but the party has allowed further uses of the logo. The party's website (http://www.sf.dk/index.php?menu=687) says in Danish that:

"SFs logoer kan frit downloades og bruges i forbindelse med tryk af SF-materialer, etablering af websites eller til brug for mødeindkaldelser, artikler om SF og lignende."

Which in English transletes into:

"The logos of SF can be downloaded and used freely in connection with printing of SF material, establishment of websites or for the use of calls for meetings, articles concerning SF, etc."

Which tag should the image of the new logo have?--Regicollis 09:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I would still use the normal {{non-free logo}} tag, and just note in the description the terms that the company specifies for permitted use. Since modification of the logo is not explicitly allowed, this image is not free enough in the wikipedia sense to deemed a totally free image. Calliopejen1 10:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Russian naval captain

Hey, is it possible to upload this image from this page to wikipedia, and if so what tag should I use? The image is of Soviet Submariner Nikolai Vladimirovich Zateyev for his article. SGGH ^speak! 12:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright status of images from old books

I would like to upload an image of Embleton Tower scanned from "The Life and Letters of Mandell Creighton" by Louise Creighton (1850-1936) published by Longmans (London) in 1904. Is such an image still covered by copyright? If not, which category of license do I specify when uploading the image.

--Cffk 13:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

An image published before 1909 outside the United States is no longer copyrighted, nor is an image whose author died over 70 years ago. You can use the tag {{PD-US}} and {{PD-old-70}} on the image page to cover both cases. Calliopejen1 15:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Asics.svg

Could someone please lower the resolution of this image for fair use qualification? I don't have the nessecary tools on my computer to create a .svg image. Thanks! — Moe ε 21:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Soviet-era images

An aggressive German admin type is determined to remove my uploaded Soviet-era photo image because it has no licence. Soviet-era publications are not copyrighted and no licence is required, but Wiki insists that some type of licence for old Soviet images must be selected from the drop-list. (Yet a soviet tag is offered in the how-to section) How do we upload these free images if there's no licence option (such as the US Government free licence)? BomberJoe 02:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I've checked your upload log and there are no deleted images. In fact, you have only uploaded one image, and it doesn't seem to match the above description. Am I missing something? -- But|seriously|folks  03:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Moon_Demo_Tape.JPG and Image:The_Smashing_Pumpkins_Demo_Tape.JPG

i was told that i need to confirm that these images are copyrighted, or some such. i found them on a smashing pumpkins fan site, the moon cover can be found at http://spfreaks.com/?page=COLLDETAILS&item=506 and Teh Smashing Pumpkins cover can be found at http://spfreaks.com/?page=COLLDETAILS&item=505

please let me know if this helps IDISLIKEcaugette 04:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Uploading a chapter of a book now out of publication?

I would like to upload a chapter of a book which was written by my grandfather. He died 20 years ago but is survived by his wife who is happy for the text to be uploaded. The book was published by Max Reinhardt in 1953. It has no mention of a copyright and from what I can see the publisher no longer exists. Nor can I find any mention of another publisher taking over the business from Max Reinhardt. If there is no copyright notice printed in the book can this article be legitimately uploaded and if so how do I go about it?

Where was the book published? If a work was published in the U.S. between 1923 and 1977 without a copyright notice, it is in the public domain. ( See Wikipedia:Public_domain#Published works.) However, there would need to be proof to that effect. I don't really have any expertise in this, so hopefully others will chime in, but it seems like the original book, which doesn't contain a copyright notice, would suffice?

If the work is not in the public domain, whether you can put it on wikipedia depends on whether your grandfather sold the copyright to the book to the publisher. If your grandfather sold the copyright, it is irrelevant the that publisher is out of business. (I'm not sure what practices were in 1953, but I would guess that your grandfather sold the copyright to the publisher.) If your grandfather did not sell the copyright, however, his heir (who inherited the copyright) could release the work under the GDFL, the free license used by wikipedia, or into the public domain. The executor of your grandfather's estate would probably be the one to ask about whether your grandfather kept the copyright, and (if so) who owns it now. If someone in your family is able to release the work under a free license, you probably send an email confirming this to permissions@wikimedia.org. Calliopejen1 15:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding images from the Victoria and Albert Museum

Hello! I am a member of the Web Team at the Victoria and Albert Museum. It is our intention to contribute further content and images to existing Wikipedia articles. I would like to start adding images to relevant articles but I'm not sure what to put regarding copyright when adding an image. I have been given full permission and backing from the Mark Jones, Director of the Museum. Any advice? VAwebteam 10:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for considering doing this! I know from my work on Wikipedia's fashion articles that the V&A website has a lot of content that would be extremely useful here. For images to be placed on Wikipedia, they must be released under a free license. You can check here for a list of acceptable licenses. In short, any image used on Wikipedia must be able to be used and modified by anyone, in any way--even commercially. (There are certain exceptional cases where nonfree images are acceptable--see WP:NONFREE for more information--but if any photo you are uploading is a photo of something on display in your museum, it is not likely to meet the guidelines.) If you are willing to release your images under such a license, you can either have an email sent from an official V&A email address to permissions@wikimedia.org specifying images and the license, or you can place a notice on your own website saying the same thing. As you do this, you should place the image copyright tag you have chosen (again, from this list) on the image description page of the picture you have uploaded. If the museum is concerned about maintaining rights to sales of image reproductions, it is possible to release low-resolution images under a free license while maintaining full rights to high-resolution images. If you have any other questions, please let us know. Calliopejen1 15:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

how do I download the DLL onto my computer and save in my windows/system directory?

I keep getting an error when I start my computer that says "cannot find import; DLL may be missing, corrupt, or wrong version File "dbghelp.dll", error 1157

I read where this problem can be solved by downloading the DLL. So, how do I download the DLL onto my computer and save it in my windows/system directory?

Thanks,

Ken

This page is for copyright questions related to Wikipedia media content, not general computer help questions. There are numerous online forums that can help you with problems of this nature. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"Mr. Wonderful" Paul Orndorff

Hello,

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

The Image

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

Zlrussell 12:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to the image? --Boricuaeddie 14:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This kind of image is always going to be copyrighted, and since he's a living person it will be difficult to justify an image of him as fair use merely to show what he looks like. It can probably be used as fair use to illustrate a section on his "Mr. Wonderful" stage persona, though. In that case tag it {{non-free fair use in|Paul Orndorff}} and be sure to add a valid non-free media rationale showing how it conforms to the non-free media policy. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

My photo?

Hi, my nickname's neweco. I has just uploaded image Image:BepVietDaoHoaNu.jpg, but the computer said it has wrong copyright tag. I'm new member and I really don't understand what's the matter. Please explain it for me. Thank you very much. Neweco

You have to include a copyright tag in the image description page for it to be included in Wikipedia. --Boricuaeddie 14:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what it says is that there's no copyright tag at all. You need to select one with the correct licensing. Vietnam is party to the Berne Convention at this point, so creative works are automatically copyrighted as soon as they're created, I see no indication on the source page that any free license is granted. (Admittedly, I do not read Vietnamese.) So we can only use this as non-free media, and it can only be kept on Wikipedia if it meets the criteria.

If you took the photo yourself and the source website is just using it with your permission, then you can decide among a number of free licenses. See your options. In that case, a higher resolution version of the image would be greatly appreciated. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It's taken by photographer Đào Hoa Nữ and I search it from Internet. Does that mean I have to contact her for a permission? And then, what should I do?

Thanks. Neweco

How many fair use images are too many for a featured article?

I'm working on getting Fun Home up to FA standard. The section Fun Home#Artistic process describes how the author used photographs of herself for reference for each panel. There's an interview in The Comics Journal which I've used elsewhere in the article and which contains a sample of the photographs, along with the panels drawn from them. I'd like to get one of these samples scanned, to accompany the "artistic process" section. I think that would fulfill Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #8; that is, it would "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." However, I'm concerned that adding another fair use image to the article would be one too many (the article already has the cover of the book, one representative panel and the cover of the French edition). What are the standards for how many fair use images a featured article on a work like this should have?

I don't have a scanner, so getting the image scanned would take some labor and (minimal) expense (that is, I'll have to go to Kinko's or somewhere to pay to get it scanned). If the image isn't going to be acceptable for use in the article, I'd rather not go to that trouble. But I do think that it would be a worthwhile addition to the article's educational content. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

From a quick read at the article it seems worthwhile. Besides, if the image you want to scan also has a panel, you can perhaps remove the other panel in the article and the french edition cover. (I don't think that image is really needed). Garion96 (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose not. (I had added it because the book had been so well received in France, but I suppose that the mere cover doesn't add much to the article.) I'll try to get to Kinko's in the next day or two, then. Thanks for replying. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I've scanned and uploaded the relevant image (Image:Fun Home photoreference.jpg) and included it in the article. Can someone go over the licensing, fair use rationale, etc. to make sure I've got everything right? (I wasn't sure whether I needed a separate licensing template for the photo part, and if so, what template would be most appropriate.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Could someone give this a glance, please? Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What to do about mis-licensed images?

I was told on the Village Pump to come and ask here. User:Mastercaster has been uploading a bunch of endcaps from ITV companies of the seventies, each of them with the edit summary "I made this file myself." and licensing them all as GFDL with "I, the copyright holder of this work..." Now, perhaps Mastercaster is somehow authorised by ITV plc, but if so zie hasn't given any indication, and I suspect that these are actually labelled with the wrong licence. There's an argument to be made that they're free use, and so I don't want to list them for deletion; what's the proper way to request a review of the licensing terms of an image? (Also note that Mastercaster uploaded Image:Border 1.JPG over the top of an existing image so that it incongruously appears here. Note that I know the correct licensing would be as a fair use screenshot, but is it okay just to go in there and change it myself? The Wednesday Island 23:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Three of the 4 images are tagged for deletion currently. You are correct screenshots cannot be re-licensed by the person who captured the image. I have also left a note on his/her talk page explaining about replacing already existing images. The image you mentioned as being replaced has been reverted. It was unfortunately a Microsoft/NAVTEQ map tagged as gfdl previously however and has also been marked as having an unacceptable license. If you feel that any of these images satisfy the non-free content criteria it is ok for you to re-tag them as you mentioned. - cohesion 00:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

keith.jpg

I thought I had tagged Image:keith.jpg as public domain. I guess I don't understand how to do it.Arel Lucas 03:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone came along afterward and tagged it for a dual license. If that's not what you want, you can change it. Edit the image page and substitute for {{Multilicensefromownerviewed}} one of the tags listed at WP:ICT#For image creators. Or just leave it as it is if you're happy with the dual license. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

how do i get a picture that i want on my user page?

when i go to insert a picture on my user page it comes up with an example picture. How do i make that one of my pictures? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digicam (talk • contribs)

First, please sign your posts by typing 4 tildes ~~~~ at the end so we know who we're talking to. Second, you need to use the name of the uploaded image instead of the example image from extended image syntax documentation. I can help you out with that if you like, so post to my talk page and let me know what image you want to put there, and I'll see what I can do. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:AdultSwim.svg

It's just the phrase "[adult swim]" in a non-decorative font. Is that actually eligible for copyright, or should it be moved to Commons and tagged with {{PD-ineligible}} and {{trademark}}? 17Drew 09:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The latter. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding Information

How do I add my trademark licence to my logo on wikipedia

50 Cent image

Is the image currently being used in the infobox of 50 Cent permitted to be used in that context or not? John Carter 14:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, unambiguously. It is freely licensed (in this case, under the CC-attribution 2.0 license). --Yamla 14:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

photo copyright

Hello:

Please notify me on my talk page of the answer.

I just tried to upload a photo from my own computer, that I had taken.

I was asked for the copyright info, but I've never copyrighted anything in my life.

I would like to add a copyright tag, but I can't figure out which one to use. Can you please help?

I don't really mind if it becomes part of the public domain, but I'd prefer to not allow anyone else to you it.

I truly just want to attest to the fact that it's mine, and that I have all rights to it.

What do you suggest? Thanks.

Rick Dronsky MosaicRick 15:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If you insist on retaining all rights, we cannot use the photo. It needs to be released under a free license. You do have a few choices though, and the photo need not enter the public domain. See the list of copyright tags available to image creators. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you the photographer? If you are not the creator -- for example, if this was shot by a professional photographer in a studio -- then the photographer owns the copyright, not you. --Clubjuggle 06:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use of historical image?

I have personally scanned an image dating from ~1928 image: Fultograph print.jpg which is intended to show the quality of an image transmitted by the Fultograph process. The picture of the church man is irrelevant; the point is to show how images came through the system. The Fultograph system operated for about a year in the late 1920s so there are very, very few surviving images.

Can I upload this as a public domain image? I'm happy to release my copyright of the scan under the widest-possible free use licence.

G1MFG 16:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)G1MFG

Give it a "Fair use" tag for now to prevent it being deleted. Did someone take this picture and then transmit it? If so, and it was taken in Britain by a Britishman in 1928 I think it would be Public Domain, but for some strange reason we don't have a PD-UK tag! 68.39.174.238 22:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If the photo originated in the UK and is anonymous, then you can tag it {{PD-old-70}} since for anonymous works copyright subsists for 70 years after date of publication. If the photographer is known, then it's most likely fair use since duration is author's life+70 years. The photographer would have had to be dead by 1936 for this to be PD. If so then it's fair use, but due to its rarity it should be easily justifiable. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

School Building Photograph Image:school photo.gif

I took this photo for the school's website back in 2001, and I'm trying to use it for its wikipedia entry too. I don't care how this image is used, there is no copyright, the school hasn't copyrighted it, and I would love it if someone knew how to tag this image properly would just do it for me so we don't have to keep on going through these deletion warnings! It's absolutely fair use. Daseincog

You can't use fair use on Wikipedia for images of existing buildings. If you took the picture yourself, you should tag it with one of the user-created tags: Wp:Image_tags#For_image_creators. You should also explain that although it was used on the school website before it was uploaded here, you are the actual photographer so you have the right to it. I'm assuming you did not take the image in the course of any employment with the school, because that could make it a work for hire and the school could therefore hold the copyright. -- But|seriously|folks  22:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

A Peruvian stamp

WRT Image:Ancon estampa 2.jpg, from 1925, does anyone know what the copyright lay of Peru is? Would that still be copyright? Was it ever copyrighted? 68.39.174.238 21:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Under Peruvian copyright law there is provision that the texts of legislative, administrative, and judicial documents are ineligible for copyright, but since it says nothing about other kinds of works they must be eligible. However, for collective or anonymous works copyright lasts for 70 years after "disclosure". So assuming the stamp is from 1925 and not merely the event being commemorated, it entered PD on 1 January 1996. {{PD-old-70}} should work, unless someone wants to create {{PD-Peru}}. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Translation

I'd like to translate to Polish fragments from the Alfred Korzybski bio, ie. the anecdote (with biscuits). How should I proceed regarding copyrights?

Kinar 23:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, I think this place is for images, not article content, but I'll answer your question anyway. If it's from a Wikipedia in another language or any Wikipedia you may use it freely. If you're talking about translating material from another website, then you must do it in your own words, as translating it word by word is copyright infringement. --Boricuaeddie 00:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You mean this bit, I take it. The citations are Dutch sources, so assuming it isn't a close translation of the original (which would make it a possible copyright infringement) then it's licensed under the GFDL just like any other Wikipedia content and can be translated to another Wikipedia as long as they use the same license and attribute it properly. However, on the off-chance it might be a close translation, you might want to either make the Polish a bit loose, or base it on the same account from the Dutch Wikipedia which tells the story in a briefer fashion. (It's the paragraph beginning, "Naar een anekdote gaf Korzybski op een dag les aan een groep studenten die hij onderbrak....") TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, guys.

Logo for a video game

Does this logo, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ragnarok_Online_Official_Logo.PNG , include everything necessary? I received a message saying I needed a copyright tag for this image. -- chibioj

Image:Aggie Bonfire.jpg

I'd like to use this image to illustrate the size of the Aggie Bonfire. I have seen this picture at over a dozen websites. The Fair Use Rationale has been given and, I believe, satisfies the use of the photo. How do I annotate this? — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Northsquare.jpg

Uploaded this screenshot I took of the title sequence from the UK Drama North Square for use in the infobox of the article I have created today. I originally uploaded an image which was just under twice the size of the one now displayed and was left a note on my user page asking me for explanation of my rational behind my fair use claim. Not sure what to put beyond what I have already, but don't feel confident enough that that it is sufficient to remove the tags; I'm no expert on copyright but it seems to fit the fair use bill and I've seen similar images with this level of explination elsewhere.

Any judgements from elder hands at this kind of thing would be appreciated. Earl CG 19:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done. I have added a fair use rationale and removed the template. For future reference, please see WP:NFC. --Boricuaeddie 22:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

CAN I GET SOME HELP ON THIS ONE?

Resolved

I responded to a question, which asked, " give your interpretation between two words" and the answer in which I gave was absolutely awesome. I would like to copyright this interpretation as quoted..... What must I do to make this happen?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Profgore (talk • contribs).

PLEASE HELP..........IT'S AWESOME!! I REFERENCED THIS QUOTE.......

All text in Wikipedia is released under the GFDL, so you cannot claim copyright ownership for any of your work. Sorry. --Boricuaeddie 01:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Has this image been used incorrectly

The image "Image:Royalshow2007.gif" has been uploaded by "User:Robfisher21". To me, it looks the same as a photo on the last listed reference on the "Royal Show" page. I worked on the page before I realised this. What is the copyright status of this image? Snowman 14:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Image has been tagged as possibly non-free, thanks for pointing this out. - cohesion 23:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

what's the license on this one?

There is a set of images such as Image:Rafbat.jpg that are apparently from a USGS website. The website has credits that don't make it clear to me who might own the lions share of the images. Any ideas?

You should probably contact the webmaster to find out. The credits may have been omitted inadvertently, or be taken from one of the sources listed in the bibliography on the Credits page. So we can't assume they're {{PD-USGov-Military-Army-USACE}}, but if they are it would be nice to know about it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks, I contacted said webmaster. Before when I asked what to do about USG servers with uncredited images (on this page) I was told to pui the image (in part because I'm going over a user's contributions who was a little less than through with the declarations of PD) do you want to revisit that advice? Pdbailey 02:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm not as deletionist as the last person you asked. Absent other information, it's not an unreasonable notion an uncredited image found on a US government web server is a work of the US government, so I see no need to rush off and delete it. But it's clearly preferable to find out for sure in cases such as this one where it's uncertain. If we had a USGS source we could be less so, but I don't know that the USACE is in the habit of photographing wildlife. Or maybe they are; they must do EIRs every so often. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what labels have to do with anything. The question to me is, is Wikipedia's policy to assume that you can put your hand in the cookie jar until someone slaps it out, or that you have to ask permission first. I don't know: where is the burden of proof? Pdbailey 22:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it depends on the specifics. Ideally we make sure of free licenses before we upload, but I think we both know how often that's done in practice. Given that reality, my opinion as someone who answers questions here fairly often is that where we encounter an existing image where the license is uncertain, but on balance is more likely to be free than not, then we need to make as certain of it as we can but there's no need to rush off and tag it for deletion in the meantime. (I feel the balance is more toward free than non-free here. We have a set of images on a US government site where some are credited and others are not. This suggests, but does not prove, that no credits are applicable in the latter cases.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

random other question

Hi. I just now see that the picture I uploaded for Dublin Gospel Choir page was deleted. I am the author of this picture and I would like it to come back on the page. How do I go about it? (i don't even know which picture that was, as it was long time ago, so if you could undelete this particular one I would be grateful). MagDee - boska@mensa.org.pl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magdee (talk • contribs)

The image was Image:DGC at Electric Picnic 2006.jpg. You can see why it was deleted at the log. It apparently was missing either a copyright tag, source information, or both. In other words, you needed to say that you took the picture yourself, and add a tag like {{GFDL-self}} to give Wikipedia license to use it. I'm not an admin, but you might try contacting one directly and see if he can undelete it to give you a chance to fix it. (Although I frankly don't know if deletions so old can be undone. You may just need to re-upload it.)

I guess you hadn't looked in on your account for a while? There was a message posted to your user talk page about it at the time. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Question re: image source

I need to know how to tag Image:Mukherji.jpg. I haven't heard back from the Savitri Devi archivist so I do not know the copyright status.

thanks

curtsurly 17:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't have enough information to determine that it's PD at this point. We'd need to know if it was previously published, when, and when the photographer died. (The photo being >70 years old has nothing to to with fair use.) The current tag is OK, but you need to add a valid fair use rationale. This is generally not difficult in the case of a deceased person. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

uploading a picture of Tom Lodge

I have uploaded a picture of Tom Lodge for his web site, which I own and have full copyright of and wish to make it totally available to the public domain. But the program is still asking for a tag even though I gave all this information on the tag. And it still has not appeared on the section for Tom Lodge. So what should I do now? Tom7919 19:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You have it appropriately tagged, as we can see on the image page: Image:Tom Lodge 1966 - 2004.jpg. What you're seeing in the article is a placeholder that an editor inserted to prompt someone to submit an image, as you did. The markup to display the image still needs to be inserted into the article. We do this using Wikipedia's extended image syntax. I'll take care of it for you. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Satellite Images from Google Maps

Free use? SJS1971 20:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Garion96 (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Any fed govt source of satellite images? SJS1971 21:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Had to look it up. Yes, there is NASA World Wind, similar to google earth. But not all images created are free content I think, see Commons:World Wind and the Wikipedia article NASA World Wind. Garion96 (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for going to the trouble to find those links. I may very well make use of it when I have the time to download WorldWind. Much obliged. SJS1971 00:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There's also the images from http://terraserver.microsoft.com which are all {{PD-USGov-USGS}}. They're high-resolution only for certain urban areas though, and only cover the Lower 48. (There are a few locations in Alaska with photo coverage, and a few places elsewhere without. Everyplace in the US with no photos at least has a topo map. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:NedSublette.jpg Fair use

Doesn't the image illustrate the topic in question? What free image could replace it? What image could illustrate the topic in question? Hyacinth 22:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As long as someone is alive, a free image of that person can be obtained. Also, a nonfree image of a composer cannot be used to illustrate an article on a composition, as it does not enhance the reader's understanding of the composition, so it is merely decoration. I have removed the image from the article. -- But|seriously|folks  23:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:ouse1.jpg. Could someone kindly explain (or do it for me!) how to indicate that the above image is my own. It comes from my web site www.horstedkeynes.com/ousevalley.html which is also mine (and which is registered in my name if that helps).

Sorry, following lists that are simple to you throws me!

I should also like to put the words about the image on the page Ouse Valley Railway into one of those blue frames but can't see how to do it. perhaps the image is too large to do this?

Rob.

I would like to add a Latin phrase which is not listed on Wikipedia's page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_%28full%29

Latin phrase is Luceat Lux Vestra "Let Your Light Shine" Motto of Saint Patricks College , Strathfield NSW, Australia

How do add to a Stub on above page?

My own photo.

I recently uploaded a photo, by the name of BigBen.jpg. I TOOK THIS PICTURE WITH MY OWN CAMERA, but it asks my to add a Copywrite tag. Any information on this?

Airbus A350 15:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

When you create a photograph, you own copyright to it automatically. If you wish to release the image into the public domain, you can tag the image with {{Template:pd-user}}. If you wish to retain copyright but allow use under a free license, you can assign it a tag for a free license, such as {{Template:GFDL-self}}. --Clubjuggle 16:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

why is this being set to be deleted ive put up all the information Image:Sanglyph.jpg.

the picture i uploaded set as a screenshot for a video game(Tomb raider Angel of darkness still has his at the bottom of its page This image or media is claimed to be used under Wikipedia's policy for non-free content but has no explanation as to why it is permitted under the policy. Image:Sanglyph.jpg. --Shane 'Joxer' Nolan 22:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Joxernolan

 Done. I've added a fair use rationale and removed the deletion template. In the future, please remember that all fair use images must include a non-free media rationale showing how it conforms to the non-free media policy. --Boricuaeddie 22:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Uploading Images

Hi, I'm updating an entry named "DongA Ilbo" for the company itself.( I am an intern there) For the purpose of this project I have been given permission to use any images in the company's database. I have logos and other photographs that would suit the entry but I don't know how to license these properly, as I have tried and been immediately deleted.

--> I summarized basically the same points as I have here and put it under "permission for Wiki only"

To recap:

• I am working for DongA Ilbo
  
• The company thus has given me permission to use any and all images available on its database
  (not online: more like intranet)
  
• How should I license these images?
  
  

Your swift reply will be greatly appreciated.