Wikipedia talk:File copyright tags

• /archive1 (before April 2005)
• /archive2 (April 2005–June 2005)
• /archive3 (June 2005–September 2005)
• /archive4 (September 2005–January 2006)

Country-specific CC license tags?

Hi, is there any policy or precedent regarding the creation of tags and categories for country-specific Creative Commons licenses? I thought I might create some tags for the England & Wales licenses. David Johnson [T|C] 12:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

New Jersey National Guard Medals

For the pictures of the medals on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_National_Guard can I claim http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-ineligible because I got them of an army medals site. I think that would work. If not it looks like the medals for all the other states are simply being put under the PD template. Please advise. —the preceding unsigned comment is by MAS117 (talk • contribs)

Content from army sites seems to be covered by {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}} - or perhaps one of the other tags under the US military section. Photos or scans of medals are eligible for copyright, as someone who scans/photographs a 3D object then owns the copyright to that digital image, irrespective of the copyright of the original work. David Johnson [T|C] 00:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually {{PD-USGov-Military-Award}} seems to be more specific to army medals. David Johnson [T|C] 00:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Note that whilst it's an "army site", it doesn't seem to be a site of the US military - armyawards.com isn't responding for me just now, but it's registered by a private individual and thus I'm guessing work on it is not federally produced... Shimgray | talk | 01:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, OK. {{PD-USGov-Military-Award}} may still apply though as according to the tag photographs of US military medals may not be copyrighted. David Johnson [T|C] 01:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm.

• The image so tagged is public domain because it was created by the DoD.
• Copies of DoD images are not copyrightable.
• It so happens that this DoD image is of X.

I don't think that this means "images of X may not be copyrighted", where X happens to be medals, but rather that images of public-domain materials (ie, DoD images) may not be copyrighted - it's a bit confusingly worded. As such, I don't think it still applies - it's not a product of the DoD, and we have no evidence it's a copy of a DoD image as opposed to one produced by the website owner. Shimgray | talk | 01:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if the {{PD-USGov-Military-Award}} would apply since these are state medals and probably weren't created by the DoD. - MAS117

Help

Can someone explain to me how to tag images which I create of musical excerpts which I have transcribed myself so that they do not get deleted for not featuring the appropriate tag?

As far as I understand since I created the image and released it it is GFDL but the content is fair use. Is this at all right? For example the deleted: Image talk:Hott Butter-Popcorn Melody.PNG.

Eventually someone will also notice Media:Iron Butterfly In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida Riff.PNG, so I would really like to know how to tag it. Someone has already questioned Media:Hot Butter Popcorn Melody.mp3, the existance of which was part of the reason for deleting its corresponding image, so I would also really like to know how to tag sound files in the same situation.

I also fear for the many images which I created from sources, and would really like to know how to tag those also.

I think it's bull that that image was deleted in the first place, and it seems that adding the exact correct tag with no assistance is a great burden for users who wish to contribute graphics. Unless someone helps me I will not be able to do it in the future. Thanks in advance. Hyacinth 12:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd say that you could not claim GFDL on such an image unless the musicial work it is representing is GFDL or compatible. The image is a derivative work of the music, and the right to create derivative works is controlled by the copyright holder. If the only way that a recording can be used is fair use, then the only way that a derivative of a recording, such as musical notation or lyrics, can be used is under fair use. IANAL -- AJR | Talk 23:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

{{web-software-screenshot}}

I would like to propose the creation of a {{web-software-screenshot}} tag as part of the {{screenshot}} hierarchy. If this is not the correct place to propose this, please direct me appropriately.

Currently the existing children of {{software-screenshot}} contain the linux-, mac- and windows- prefixes. Neither of these are suitable for screenshots of software that only have web-based interfaces such as ViewCVS.

The image associated with that particular article (Image:ViewCVS.png) was recently retagged from software-screenshot to both {{web-screenshot}} and {{mac-software-screenshot}}. Neither of these seem appropriate to me. The first because this is software and not a particular website. The second because there wasn't a mac involved at all. The user who tagged it as such said it was tagged in this way because the visible user interface elements were mac-like.

I think that a web-software-screenshot tag would certainly help in situation like the above. --TheParanoidOne 21:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It's been a week since I added the above and there have been no comments. The project page doesn't say anything about the creation of new copyright tags other than to "please propose the tag on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags first" which I have done. I'm wary of being bold in such an area, but I'll go ahead and create one if there are no objections. --TheParanoidOne 22:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I say go for it and use identical wording to the platform specific templates.  ALKIVAR™ 03:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I have added {{web-software-screenshot}} to the screenshots section. I would appreciate it if someone could have a quick look over the template and category to see if they conform to the existing template and category schemes. --TheParanoidOne 21:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey question

I have an image from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. I originally marked the image from the {{PD-USGov}} copyright tag, but now it is being questioned by another wikipedian. What copyright tag would be best for the following image? Image:HollandTunnelNYNJboarder.JPG. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 16:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• My concern about the image stems from the fact that the Port Authority is not a federal agency, and so is not bound by the federal public domain policy. It does maintain copyrights. The PA homepage, http://panynj.gov/ has this copyright: © 2001-2005 The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. All Rights Reserved. Since it is a 1927 photo, {{fairold}} may apply if a fairuse claim is made. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 02:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The port authority is part of an interstate compact between nj and ny. Interstate compacts are required to have congressional conscent for the creation of the agency. Our exact article on interstate compacts says "Frequently, these agreements create a new governmental agency which is responsible for administering or improving some shared resource such as a seaport or public transportation infrastructure." The port authority is therefore created with congressional approval and because the port authority operates in multiple states, that should make them subject to federal agency rules. Am I correct in my thinking, or is there something else that I am missing here? --ZeWrestler ^Talk 05:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Anyone know the answer to this, its been a few days since this has been posted. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 01:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• I think without any further information, we have to assume that the copyright statement on the Port Authority page applies. Fair use might still be an option, your call. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

ESA images

Images from the European Space Agency seem to be tagged with two conflicting tags. There is {{noncommercial-ESA}} which pretty much says that the images cannot be used. However, there is also {{ESA-multimedia}}, which says no such thing. There is a discussion at meta:ESA images, but it doesn't look like any conclusions were reached. Are both these tags valid, or is one redundant? Is the ESA-multimedia tag correct, that the ESA images can be used on the EN Wikipedia? The license doesn't seem to be compatible with the GFDL. Can anyone clarify? Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

User-created(?) image based on a copyrighted diagram adapted from a copyrighted source

There's a simple 2-D diagram in a book that I recreated in Illustrator and would like to upload and use in an article but after hours of reading I'm still no closer to determining which tag I should use (or even if it's reproduction is permissible). The diagram is in a copyrighted book and the attribution states it is 'adapted' from another copyrighted work (which I don't have - probably a diagram?). I've made some very small changes to the diagram (it's basically only a sequence of filled rectangles) so I don't think it qualifies as my creation? Are there grounds for 'fair use' or 'fair dealing' (because the servers are located in America)? Could someone point me in the right direction, please? Al001 20:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

A derived work has the same copyright status as the original work. So that would mean your only option would be Wikipedia:Fair use. But depending on how simple this diagram is, it might not be relevant. Can you upload it somewhere else first so we can see? (eg photobucket, putfile) pfctdayelise 03:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay - here's what I was hoping to use: http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/2889/freudconceptionofthepersonalit.png Al001 22:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

What if similar diagrams are in 2 different books by two different unrelated aurthors. could a replica of both diagrams be made into one that wouldn't violate the law because it is from multiple sources? --ZeWrestler ^Talk 16:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it then may be a derivative work of both sources. More info in that article. If you can create a diagram representing the same information from a descriptive source other than those two images, I think it would then not be a derivative work of the images. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 22:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It depends on the diagram. What is it illustrating, exactly? Depending on how "basic" it is the aspects which you have recreated may or may not be a copyright problem. There is no simple answer to this question without knowing more about the subject matter. --Fastfission 22:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Mozilla

This has been a matter of some debate over at {{User browser:Firefox}}. It was created spesificaly to circumvent the "ban" on non-free images in templates and userpages. I originaly listed it on TFD, but it survided as "no consensus" with a 5 delete and 4 keep split. It seemed to fall into disuse afterwards though, but recently the issue have flared up again and a couple of users are trying every trick in the book, and writing new ones as they go along to get the "real" logo inserted into the template again, including resurecting this template (arguing that since it was kept on TFD it has support) with a rename and minor tweaks to make sure it no longer mention "fair use" (as to not violate WP:FUC). I think this should be nipped in the bud before others get simmilar ideas, and cause massive template creep, so some fresh input over at {{User browser:Firefox}} would be apreciated, I think they have pretty much written me off as a raving rule fetichist bent on "censoring" the firefox logo, and they treat it like a content dispute rather than a matter of policy. --Sherool (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Karsh images

Could I have some input on the images by Yousuf Karsh on Wikipedia, such as e.g. Image:Albert Einstein by Yousuf Karsh.jpg? I believe these are in fact not in the public domain in the U.S. and have been uploaded in error. So far, only one other editor has commented and apparently nobody at Wikipedia:Copyright problems dared take any action whatsoever. As I was the one who uploaded this particular image, I feel kind of responsible to get this situation resolved one way or another. See also Wikipedia:Public domain for an extended discussion on what is in the public domain where, and its talk page for some additional comments on these Karsh images. Note that many of these images are also at the commons. Lupo 09:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Images from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

There is a picture in this PDF file from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation which could illustrate the article about Clarence Ray Allen. On the website, there is no explicit copyright notice. Are such images public domain and/or can we use them ? -- Ze miguel 16:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The image seems to have been published before March 1, 1989, so it probably is. --Carnildo 20:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Agencies of the California state government have their images in the public domain, but the agencies do make use of copyrighted photos. See {{PD-CAGov}} and discussion on talk page. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for the help. -- Ze miguel 08:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

PA-KingCountyGOV

Template:PA-KingCountyGOV was created December 6, 2005 by Bdelisle (t c). The use tag gives the following conditions:

you are hereby permitted by King County to copy, distribute, and otherwise use the information with one exception: no one is permitted to sell this information except in accordance with a written agreement with King County

The lack of permission to sell the information is incompatible with the GFDL. I propose that this template be deleted. Before I list it on WP:TFD, I thought I would seek some comments here. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 22:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. NC = not free. Any images tagged under that may be usable as fair use, but that's it. pfctdayelise 00:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

What fun. I've never deleted something under CSD I3 before. --Carnildo 04:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for confirmation. Now listed at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:PA-KingCountyGOV. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfree-image section

Just FYI, I updated the section to reflect the current process at WP:PUI, mainly the process time was decreased from 30 days to 14 and they no longer handle images with no license info, those are now speedy deletion candidates. I also did some other tweaks while I was at it. Dunno if the "history" section is nessesary, so feel free to expand/cut as you see fit. --Sherool (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft clip art

I propose the following tag for clipart gotten from Microsoft's online clip art service:

This image is copyrighted by Microsoft Corporation. According to their website, "Provided you comply with all terms and conditions of this End Users' License Agreement...You may copy and modify the Media Elements, and license, display and distribute them, along with your modifications as part of your software products and services, including your web sites."

Category:Microsoft Clip Gallery images

Uh, no, please. Section 1.2 is has too many strings attached, and in any case, my reading of " You may not sell, license or distribute copies of the Media Elements by themselves or as part of any collection, product or service if the primary value of the product or service is in the Media Elements." is that it allows only noncommercial collections and thus is unsuitable for Wikipedia. Lupo 16:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Lupo, I suspect that you are quite correct in that reading. Jkelly 17:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that the correct tag for any such clipart is {{delete}}. There are too many restrictive clauses in the license: no commercial use, no re-distribution, restrictions on what sort of works can be created (one reading of a section would prohibit using Microsoft clipart on stub tags applied to pornography-related articles). --Carnildo 18:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Public domain, no notice

This is a suggested image PD tag. See http://www.copyright-laws.com/pgs/copyright-basics.html

This image is in the public domain in the United States and possibly other jurisdictions, because it was published before January 1, 1978 without a copyright notice and/or any claim to copyright. This image could also be in the public domain if it was published between January 1, 1978 and May 1, 1989 without a copyright notice, and the error was not corrected within five years.
See Copyright.

--Fallout boy 22:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

First, it should read "published in the U.S." instead of just "published". Second, I think it should read "first published". Third, first publication may be difficult to ascertain; I would expect any image where such a tag was used to have precise sourcing and a rationale explaining why the uploader or tagger thinks a particular publication was the first. Fourth, with respect to the last sentence, it may be difficult to make sure that no copyright was indeed registered in the U.S. within five years of the original publication without copyright notice. one basically has to ask the U.S. Copyright Office. Fifth, why "possibly other jurisdictions"? The tag is about a highly specialized case in U.S. copyright law whose precise conditions are non-trivial to check. It is unlikely that it applies to foreign works; and whether a U.S. work might considered PD abroad because it was PD under these conditions in the U.S. depends on many other things that also are difficult to verify: the various trade treaties between some other country and the U.S., which may contain provisions on copyright, whether the other country operates under the "rule of the shorter term", whether the work was also published outside the U.S., the current copyright law of the other country, whether that country ever made any retroactive changes to its copyright law, possibly the copyright law of that country at the time the image was taken or published or as of 1978, and so on. I understand it says "possibly", but somehow that is based on a very faint hope, methinks. See also WP:PD. Lupo 08:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea; I think it would make sense to have image tags for each case in WP:PD. I agree with Lupo's suggestions, and I also think that the 1978-1989 stuff might make better sense as a separate tag. How about something like:

This image is in the public domain in the United States , because it was first published:

• In the United States
• Between 1923 and 1977
• Without a copyright notice and/or any claim to copyright

Please provide justification on the image description page that demonstrates that this image fulfills the three points above. See Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Public domain.

JYolkowski // talk 16:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

That's already better, but I still think we shouldn't use a tag for this. I fear that the case is so difficult to prove that such a tag would be used wrongly most of the time. Using a tag for this special case just encourages its use. At the very least I'd use much stronger wording: no "please provide", but a clear command "You must provide", and add "In the absence of such proof, the image becomes a candidate for immediate deletion unless it is rightfully tagged differently" or some such. Lupo 09:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

There are certainly that would need this tag, example: Image:Audrey Hepburn and Cary Grant 1.jpg. This is how I would format it:

This image is in the public domain in the United States, because it was first published in the United States between January 1, 1923 and December 31, 1977 without a copyright notice and/or any claim to copyright.
You must provide justification on the image description page that demonstrates that this image fulfills the three points above. See Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Public domain.

--Fallout boy 04:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course there are images to which it would apply. Charade appears to be one such case. However, my concern is that (a) such cases are rare, and (b) if we have a tag for this, I fear it will be mistakenly used by people who do not understand very well what would be involved in showing that indeed the conditions were met. Why not just give the rationale manually on the image description page? (BTW, on that particular image, I would expect to see a copy of the relevant paragraph from the article about the movie, not just an easily overlooked link at the very bottom. And I'd remove the "www.audrey1.com"!) Lupo 09:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Creative Commons button inconsistencies and licensing issues

The current set of Creative Commons tags are inconsistent. Some display Image:CreativeCommonsSomeRights2.png, while others substitute it with Image:CC SomeRightsReserved.png.

The former is an official Creative Commons button and makes use of a trademarked logo, although its use falls within the terms of the Creative Commons Trademark Policy. The second is GFDL licensed, presumably created by WebBoy as a GFDL alternative.

I'm assuming that the GFDL image (and the accompanying GFDL license buttons) were created because use of the CC trademark somehow conflicts with wikipedia policy. However, many of the templates still use Image:CreativeCommonsSomeRights2.png, and nearly all of the templates use the official Creative Commons license buttons.

It is unclear to me if the Creative Commons license buttons are licensed under CC-BY as is claimed on their wikipedia image pages. I would lean towards them not being licensed under CC-BY, because of Section 8(e) of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 license: "This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here." However, additional restrictions are imposed on the Creative Commons license buttons by the Creative Commons trademark policy. I don't think that the images could be licensed as CC-BY and also be regulated by such restrictions.

In addition, there are no explicit suggestions that the images are licensed under CC-BY, except for the blanket statement "Except where noted otherwise below in our Trademark Policy, all content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license." Even though it's not explicitly stated, the very fact that they are noted in the policy seems to imply that they are not licensed under CC-BY, and are instead goverened by vanilla copyright law with extensions granted by the Creative Commons trademark policy. An e-mail to the Creative Commons folks should clear this up.

However, none of this would matter except for the fact that wikipedia has strict and complicated policies about image use. I do not know if the use of these images is acceptable on wikipedia, either under fair use law or licensed to wikipedia under the terms of the CC trademark policy.

Basically, we should pick one set of images and stick to it. Using the official creative commons images is permissible under their policies, but if it is not permissible under wikipedia policy we should adopt all of WebBoy's icons and use them in all CC templates.

-Fadookie ^{Talk | contrib} 06:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The GFDL versions were created because the Creative Commons logos (might, apparently) conflict with Commons policy. The Commons doesn't allow fair use images. I think the Creative Commons logos can be kept here on Wikipedia as fair use logos; their use in Template:cc-by-sa-2.5, and other templates, would be fine. I suggest that someone should upload local copies of them, tag them as {{logo}}s, with a link to the CC policy page, and change all the CC templates to use the official logos. dbenbenn | talk 19:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but the Creative Commons Trademark Policy grants a license to reproduce the CC logo under their terms, so it doesn't have to be a fair use claim. As for the buttons, permission is granted to use them in accordance with the terms outlined in the Trademark Policy.

So, none of these images have to be claimed as fair use (which is what {{logo}} indicates) as long as their inclusion under the terms of the CC trademark policy does not conflict with wikipedia and/or wikimedia commons policy.

-Fadookie ^{Talk | contrib} 05:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

tagging Image:3DMAZE-line370-delay5-to-0.png

Can somebody go over and please help tagging the Image:3DMAZE-line370-delay5-to-0.png? I tagged it both as a game shot and as unsure --- see that image's history for details. Please respond at that image's talk page or by retagging as you feel the best. TIA! --BACbKA 22:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Advice on photograph of pages of old scientific journals

I have an image that is a photograph of two pages from The Journal of the Chemical Society of London, originally published in 1865. I don't know who took the photograph or when. The author of the intellectual property actually published in the journal died in 1922. Is there a suitable PD or other license available? All comments appreciated, thanks. --Cactus.man ✍ 15:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

{{PD-old-70}} will do, because the author died before 1936. Superm401 | Talk 20:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. --Cactus.man ✍ 08:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Which tag for Google Maps

I came accross Image:Ucf.JPG, a google map. What copyright tag should I use? If they are not allowed on Wikipedia, someone needs to search 'Google maps' in the image namespace to delete all of theos too. [1] --michael180 16:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

They do not allow commercial use, so it can't be on Wikipedia. It should be tagged {{NonCommercial}}. I went through the beginning (relevant portion) of the list (after that, they seem to be just links to Google Maps); I think I tagged most of infringing ones. Superm401 | Talk 20:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:FOTWpic

Template:FOTWpic says FOTW prohibits commercial use of its flags. FOTW, in fact, has no authority to allow or prohibit any kind of use of its images; they're all copies of preexisting works that are made to be as precise as possible, and therefore in the U.S. fall under the original work's copyright in all preexisting precedent (although the precedent isn't strictly binding). So every flag listed under that template is basically either public-domain or fair use, and should be tagged as such, with FOTW acknowledged as the source as a courtesy. Currently the template makes it seem as though FOTW's terms are relevant.

In other words, I'd suggest the text of the template be changed to something like

<!-- This comment forces linebreak, so that template displays properly-->
{| align=center border=0 bgcolor=00ccff cellpadding=4 cellspacing=4 style="border: 1px solid #CC9; background-color: #F1F1DE"
|- 
|[[Image:Flag of FOTW.svg|50px|center|]]
| style="font-size: 95%" |''This image is from the [http://flagspot.net/flags/ Flags of the World website]. The copyright is probably held by the government in question (see ''[[Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.]]''), and the image may thus probably be used only under the terms of [[Wikipedia:Fair use]].''
|}

[[Category:FOTW images|{{PAGENAME}}]]

=

This image is from the Flags of the World website. The copyright is probably held by the government in question (see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.), and the image may thus probably be used only under the terms of Wikipedia:Fair use.

—Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

That's certainly reasonable. Copyright can not be gained without creative effort, which FOTW is not inputing. However, the template should more definitively state that the image is being used under fair use, and provide a fair use rationale. Superm401 | Talk 07:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it is another "this may or not be suitable for Wikipedia, it may be PD or fair use, so give a rationale if fair use" (emphasis mine but based on the regular versions) template It is already formatted similarly. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point, Superm401. How about the following:

<!-- This comment forces linebreak, so that template displays properly-->
{| align=center border=0 bgcolor=00ccff cellpadding=4 cellspacing=4 style="border: 1px solid #CC9; background-color: #F1F1DE"
|- 
|[[Image:Flag of FOTW.svg|50px|center|]]
| style="font-size: 95%" |This image is from the [http://flagspot.net/flags/ Flags of the World website], and unless noted otherwise, it is the property of the body it represents. If the owner does not permit its free use, '''this may be used only under the terms of [[Wikipedia:Fair use]]'''.  Specifically, unless noted otherwise,
#'''This image must only be used in articles.'''
#'''This image must only be used when necessary to illustrate a point, and never just for decoration.'''
|}

[[Category:FOTW images|{{PAGENAME}}]]

=

This image is from the Flags of the World website, and unless noted otherwise, it is the property of the body it represents. Unless noted otherwise, this may be used only under the terms of Wikipedia:Fair use. Specifically, unless noted otherwise, This image must only be used in articles. This image must only be used when necessary to illustrate a point, and never just for decoration.

On the other hand, I must say that this seems slightly copyright-paranoid to me. Governments aren't going to sue anyone for using their flags as decoration; it's generally endorsed, in fact. Also, many flags are in the public domain anyway, since their copyright has expired. I'm not sure we need to be as extreme here as with most fair use. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

According to Template:Flagimage, "representations of national flags are subject to copyright as original works of art... because they are not representations of two-dimensional works of art." I think we need to straighten this point out first before going any further. Anyone remember any history about the flag template? JYolkowski // talk 01:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Looking through the history, User:David Newton added the bit about their not being subject to Bridgeman. Given that he says on his user page that he's a member of FOTW, I have to wonder about that. Given that it happens to be blatantly ridiculous to say that flags aren't covered by Bridgeman, I've edited the template (which I shouldn't be able to do, since it's supposed to be protected, but oh well).

Anyway, is anyone here a lawyer? For that matter, given that no country's going to give a damn if we use their flag in a non-demeaning way, should we maybe start up an attempt to form policy on the use of government symbols on Wikipedia at the Village Pump? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

IANAL, but AFAIK, national flags are ineligable for copyright in the United States. --Carnildo 07:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

{{CopyrightedFreeUse}}

IMHO this template needs a serious rework. It's way too vague, and a lot of people misuse it (in good faith) because it's not clear enough about what it entails. Just browsing over the category I see 4-5 likely copyvios just on the first page. It's just way to vague, and a lot of people asume that anyting that's "public" (especialy on the net) is allowed to be used for any purpose, without realising that "for any purpose" include making derevative work and commercial purposes and so forth. The template should spell this out more clearly to weed out the honest mistakes at least (some people also seem to pick this because people are less likely to "bother" you about it like they will if you put GFDL on some "non self made" stuff or make a dodgly "fair use" claim for the image. As for the images already tagged; by the look of things they could use a serious copyright "audit" anyway.

Any ideas on how to change it without making people feel we are are changing the rules in mid game as it where? I see from the discussion on it's talk page people have been reluctant to change the template because it "it has legal power", and we should be carefull about changing the terms without the uploaders and/or copyright holders knowledge. Personaly I don't see the problem in making the intent of the template more clear, so what if peple have misunderstood it in the past, either change tags or delete the mistaged ones IMHO. IANAL though... --Sherool (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I just re-tagged some album covers in there. It does need a thorough going-through. Jkelly 23:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:PD-AKGov

I removed this from the list of US public domain tags. Does anyone know if this is correct, and if so, which law states it? --Carnildo 07:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• {{PD-AKGov}} — for images created by the State of Alaska that are ineligible for copyright.

I'm pretty sure that we've gone through this several times and determined pretty conclusively that California and possibly North Carolina are the only states that regularly put stuff into the public domain. I've redirected {{PD-AKGov}} and another new one, {{PD-WAGov}}, and the other 46 possibilities to {{no license}}. Hopefully that will be the end of these incorrect templates. JYolkowski // talk 22:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

That's dedication. Good job. Superm401 - Talk 03:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

No, actually, it's not. Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#USA state public domain images specifically lists {{PD-WAGov}} as a public domain source of images, as confirmed in the example image listed. I've reverted the changes to this template. McNeight 07:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

OK. Maybe I jumped the gun on how definitive the source was, but if you look at my research on Template talk:PD-WAGov, you'll find that, at least for the State of Washington, it is public domain. McNeight 08:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

See my reply on Template talk:PD-WAGov. I'd appreciate anyone with better knowledge of state law than I do to comment either here or there. JYolkowski // talk 15:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This does look like the same problem we had with, IIRC, Delaware - someone interpreting a public-records (ie, freedom of information) law to mean public-domain. I'd be very leery without a statute explicitly stating it. Shimgray | talk | 15:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone care to explain the difference? According to public domain:

A creative work is said to be in the public domain if there are no laws which restrict its use by the public at large. There may be no laws which establish proprietary rights in relation to the work, or the work or its subject matter may be specifically excluded from existing laws.

I realize that it's no legal document, but I think I was fairly thorough in quoting Washington law chapter and verse as to why it is in the public domain. Certainly as much as {{PD-NCGov}} does, and it does not explicitly state the words "public domain". McNeight 21:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

OK. If you are really, really, really looking for a specific wa.gov website that specifically says the words "public domain", then the Washington State Department of Health website states:

Information presented by the government on this web site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied. Use of appropriate byline credits is requested. Information from this site may not be copyrighted and lists of individuals or directory information (including address, phone or E-mail) may not be used for commercial purposes.

Does this perhaps meet the burden of proof? McNeight 22:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It says that lists of individuals or directory information can't be used commercially, so it's clearly not public domain. "Public information" isn't the same as "public domain", and while it allows distribution and copying, it says nothing about editing or selling, both of which Wikipedia must be able to do for it to be usable (well, it would be usable if we couldn't edit it, just less useful). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Football cards

i have a question about the following image: Image:Brendon_Lade_Footysticker2000-2.jpg

what copyright would it fall under? The image is copyright Select Australia. Rogerthat 06:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Probably the tag to use for this is {{imagevio}}. If it were being used to discuss Select Australia's football card(s), a fair use claim could be made, but that doesn't appear to be the case right now. JYolkowski // talk 17:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Scanned images from books/magazines/etc

Specifically of pictures rather than text. I've looked through all the information on copyright here and I've skimmed through some of these archives and the archives of others, so forgive me if this question has already been asked and I missed it. Anyways, if you own a book, magazine, or manual...as in you purchased it, is it okay to upload an image scanned from paper media you own as long as you put down due credit (The publisher of the paper media, or the studio that made the material you bought and so fourth.) And if it is okay what copyright would it fall under exactly?

To whoever answer's this, thank you for your time.--Kiyosuki 09:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Even if you own a book or a magazine or whatever, you don't own the copyright to any of contents of the book/magazine/etc. and so cannot do anything that would violate copyright law (e.g. reproduce them on Wikipedia). JYolkowski // talk 16:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It should also be noted that this is even true of screenshots, photos, or the like. The creativity that goes into setting up the shot is sufficient to warrant its own copyright, although the resulting image might be a derivative work and the holder of the pictured program/work (if applicable) would have rights in it as well. So you couldn't, for instance, scan in a photo of a piece of art under fair use, because it's not fair use with respect to the journalist's copyright. (However, there's generally no copyright if the think you're taking a picture of is two-dimensional, since that involves no creativity in the angle or anything; see Bridgeman vs. Corel. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

If the image published in the book or magazine itself is in the public domain (for instance, as a U.S. government work, or as a reproductive photograph of an old two-dimensional artwork), then the copyright on the book or magazine cannot and doesn't cover the image. Lupo 15:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Moscowmetro-2005-2.png

What would this get again? Image:Moscowmetro-2005-2.png I forgot, sorry. I also can't read the website's policy (it's in russian) --michael180 18:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The web-site policy just says that if used, the attribution is required. Placed the "attribution" tag. Good enough to anyone? --Irpen 06:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

{{imagevio}}. The image has a very nice copyright statement in the bottom-right corner, and it's quite easy for a Wikipedian to make a replacement map. --Carnildo 06:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I have asked User:SPUI, the creator of many, many fine maps [2], to make a replacement in the public domain. --michael180 23:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Tags on Templates for deletion

Some tags have been listed on templates for deletion which may be of interest. The templates listed are Template:PD-AUGov, Template:Webimage, Template:PD-USGov-Congress-USBG, Template:QualificationsandCurriculumAuthorityCopyright, Template:LandRegistryCopyright, Template:TeacherTrainingAuthorityCopyright, Template:Ordnance Survey Copyright, Template:UNPhotoArchive, Template:PD-old-50. Template:CanadaCopyright is waiting to be orphaned. Does anyone involved in image tagging ever look at templates for deletion? Secretlondon 03:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This evening I've been doing a lot with the copyright templates because I am developing an image tagging tool... so I suspect that I will be keeping a closer eye on all of these. Thanks for point them out! ~MDD4696 04:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Software screenshot question.

Here's a quick question that came to mind when i was changing a copyright tag on a software screenshot. I know we have a specific fairuse deviation software tag. Now, if the software that the screenshot is of is under a GPL or some sort of other public domain licencing, like OpenOffice, would the screenshot be under a free licence as well? --ZeWrestler ^Talk 17:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in principle. However I'm not 100% sure what happens to programs that rely on the default Windows API for windows management. Microsoft just might claim copyright to the minimuse, maximise and close icons on the program window for example. Not sure of those would qualify for copyright though, they are fairly generic, so I'd wadger it's ok to license such screenshots under GPL or whatever suitable license (IANAL though). --Sherool (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Should a new copyright tag be created for that case?--ZeWrestler ^Talk 19:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

This has been discuseed before. I don't think we want to use images based on a free software license. That creates unexpected consequences, like providing "source code". Fair use is better in this circumstance, in my opinion. Superm401 - Talk 01:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

The proposed tag is shown below. If no one objects, I will create Template:NoICT.

This image is missing a copyright tag. You can help Wikipedia by adding one of the tags listed on Wikipedia:Image copyright tags.

The following is a talk page message called Template:ICT-notice, intended to be substed onto the talk pages of users who upload such images.

Thank you for uploading the image {{{1}}} onto Wikipedia. However, an copyright tag must be placed on it, or it may be deleted. Please tell what source the image came from, that is, whether it is your creation, a photo you took, a website screenshot, a public domain image, or a fair use image. Thank you!

-- King of Hearts | (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what advantages this would have over {{no license}}. Tagging something with {{no license}} means that (currently anyway) User:OrphanBot will automatically orphan the image and warn the user. Also, to me it seems double the work tagging something as {{NoICT}} to have someone tag it with another tag later, instead of the folks at WP:UI tagging it with the other tag in the first place. JYolkowski // talk 00:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I was just checking if there was such a copyright tag to avoid creating a similar one. How is my talk page notice? -- King of Hearts | (talk) 01:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

If someone was prepared to establish a wikiproject to deal with adding the correct copyright tag to recently uploaded images, it might be a useful tool, but without a base of editors interested in doing that work, I think we are better served with the current tag 'em and (if no information is added) delete 'em.--nixie 01:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Need Help

With the recent deletion of GermanGov, I'm left wondering how I should tag all the images of the Third Reich/Nazi Germany that are left now untagged and awaiting deletion. fairusein seems like a horribly cheap copout, and I'd prefer something that actually acknowleged their source. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 14:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with fairusein? IMHO it's a very good tag. Just acknowledge the sources on the image description page, if they all have the same source just copy & paste... --Sherool (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Is GFDL the default?

If the uploader of an image declares that they have taken an image, and they fail to tag at appropriately as {{PD-self}} or {{GFDL-self}}; is that image subject to deletion, or is it automatically licensed as GFDL the way user-contributed text is? I'm interested in an answer in general, although Image:ScottK2.jpg is what made me think of it (the uploader indicated they took the photo in one of the upload edit summaries, but left the image description blank). Obviously, the ideal situation is that after being notified the uploader self-tags the image as appropriate, but I'm sure in some cases that never happens. Now, if I saw a professional image of Britney Spears I would doubt the the photographer would have uploaded, but in the case of regular politician (like this), it seems reasonable to beleive the image was taken by the uploader, as claimed, and that they therefore own the copyright. Regardless of this image, I'm more curious of general principal/policy of whether images uploaded by their copyright owner are automatically licensed under GFDL. --Rob 18:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, uploaders are required to release images under a free license and GFDL is preferred (Creative Commons licenses are acceptable and the images can also be released into the public domain); if they do not tag the image, {{GFDL}} can be added. The policy of demanding GFDL (or another free license) is noted on the upload page as well as in Wikipedia:Image use policy. Superm401 - Talk 23:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This is what {{GFDL-presumed}} is for. --Carnildo 08:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

However, if you know they uploaded it, {{GFDL}} is legitimate. Superm401 - Talk 03:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Help! (do you read Hebrew?)

I need help determining the copyright status of an image which I found on the Hebrew version of Wikipedia. I assume it has a copyright tag there, but I can't read it! The image (and a link to the corresponding image page on Hebrew Wikipedia) is at Image:Canossa.jpg. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 18:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that since the source of the image is an Italian website, that is the more useful language in this case. It is not clear to me that we would have a strong fair use claim for this image, or that the website mentions authorship or copyright status of that image. The latter of my two statements should be checked by someone with a better command of Italian. Jkelly 18:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

My Hebrew isn't great, but here's a rough translation of he:Image:Canossa.jpg: "The image is taken from the site of a sausage (??) project that can be found near Qenusah (?). There is also לינק (?) from among the statement for the associated site, and there are additional images there from here (?). (Start box) This image is protected by copyright. With this, the user who uploaded it must give a reason that its use is justifiable. The location of the image is: http://www.chianinadicanossa.it/Dove.htm. This image should be edited to add the name (?) of its importance such that it's protected (?)."

Not entirely helpful, but I think the uploader believed it to be fair use or the Israeli equivalent (the template used is called "protected use"). The Babelfish translation of the page mentions nothing about copyright, though, and I'm guessing that this is in fact a copyvio. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest trying to ask someone in Category:User he-N, this is what the babel categories are for ;) --Sherool (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

older pictures

How are you supposed to find out the copyright status of pics of say, a ship from 1880, something like that? if it's from the net and there is no notice saying what the status is, and the person who created the page is unlikely to have taken the pic himself, are you supposed to email that person? what if he doesn't know either? can you assume that all pics like this are non copyrighted unless otherwise notified? because this applies to a large number of pictures. I could just provide a link on the page to the person's pic. that would solve any copyright problem. however it would:

a) allow them to delete/change the picture to something other than what the link says it is.
b) take their bandwidth (which is worse? copyright infringement or bandwidth taking?) at least CI doesn't cost them money!
thanks! SpookyMulder 13:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

According to US Copyright law, anything published before 1923 is in the public domain. Use the {{PD-US}} tag. Note that accurate reproductions that don't have original authorship are equivalent to the originial work. So, the act of digitizing an existing image is not sufficient to create a new copyright on an otherwise public domain image. (see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.) --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if the 1880 image was published before 1923, there's no problem. For unpublished images, see WP:PD#Published_vs._unpublished_works. The problem in such cases is to find out whether they were indeed published pre-1923, if you want to be absolutely certain. Lupo 13:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Album and single covers

• I have a few questions about album and single covers.
  • Can we upload images that are cropped from album or single covers?
  • Can we use images that appear in an album's inlay or booklet?

Thanks Street walker 10:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

If you provide some sort of encyclopedic analysis or discussion, you can claim copyrighted images as fair use. If you want to crop a cover to focus on just a portion of the cover that would probably be fine... I can't think of any other instances where you'd want to crop them. Just be sure to leave a rationale on the image page justifying its use. ~MDD4696 03:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I was wanting to use an album or single cover as the top image for Michael Jackson, as the current one is most likely to be deleted or atleast removed from the page. I was wanting to then crop the album or single cover to just show an image of him, and not the title of that single and/or cover. Is this OK or not? Street walker 10:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well our albumcover tag says they should be used only to ilustrate the album itself. That includes cropping out parts of them. Why do you say the current one is likely to get deleted? Doesn't it have a source? In wich case just find a photo that does have a source (a good one, not like "found on Goole", or "taken from photobucket" or "found on this Geocities site" and what not) and use that istead. Surely there is no shortage of official promotional Michael Jackson photos or other such images who's copyright holder is known. --Sherool (talk) 11:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You cannot claim a cropped album cover as fair use unless you are illustrating the album cover. Since Michael Jackson is not an album cover, this would not be fair use :). ~MDD4696 23:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Wait, really? It seems to me that an album of Michael Jackson is very relevant to Michael Jackson. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I made a mistake. However, I think it would be wise to make it clear that it's a cropped album cover. ~MDD4696 21:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No, you didn't make a mistake. Album covers should be used to illustrate the album itself, not the artist. Cropping the album cover would tend to make the image unable to do so, so I wouldn't recommend that. However, an uncropped image of an album cover would be very relevant at Michael Jackson to illustrate discussion about the album in question. JYolkowski // talk 22:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Screenshots of public-domain programs

Hi, I noticed this on User talk:Seahen, and I don't know an answer (IANAL), so I figured I'd ask here: suppose you have a program that has been released into the public domain by its authors (in this case, Castle of the Winds, a computer game). Further suppose that someone takes a screenshot of that program. The question is then: is the screenshot then copyrighted to the person who took it, or is it automatically in the public domain as well? Any clarification from the licensing gurus would be nice... :) -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 00:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Depends. If there's no creativity involved (say, a shot of the title screen), then the image is probably in the public domain. If it's a gameplay shot, then the person making the screenshot can claim copyright based on the creativity in composing the screenshot. --Carnildo 07:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If the program is public domain, the screenshots are public domain. See Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. I think that a person would have a very difficult time claiming a personal copyright on videogame screenshots. Textures, models and level designs can all be copyrighted because they are original works. There's really not much you can do with "composition" that would make a screenshot original; it's simply an arrangement of original works. The arrangement would have to be sufficiently original or creative to be copyrightable, and even then, it's a weak case. ~MDD4696 23:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Bridgeman v Corel only covers exact reproductions of public domain 2D artwork. And Red vs Blue seems to indicate that you can be creative enough in composing a screenshot to get copyright on it. --Carnildo 05:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

There can be a great deal of creativity in setting up a clever screenshot. That would be equivalent to a photographer arranging his subject matter; only the most minimal creativity is required. Probably only shots of menu screens, splash screens, and the like (two-dimensional artwork with exclusively static elements) would fall under Bridgeman—even a screenshot of a 2-D game can be creative, insofar as the screenshotter picks the exact setup of when to take the shot. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 06:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I still feel that the argument would be rather weak, but not altogether out of the question. And just for clarity, Red vs. Blue is not a screenshot, it is a video. There are scripts and action that enhance its originality. ~MDD4696 21:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Copyright

Hello. I uploaded the image Image:Depeche_Mode_-_Suffer_Well_cover.jpg, and I need to put the copyright status. I get the image in a Spanish site, and I am licensed to use it. Wich copyright template must I use?--Daniel bg 18:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

{{Albumcover}} - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 19:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Cartoon image

A user wants to upload a larger version of the Muhammad cartoon controversy image which is under the fair use licence. The image was initally tagged for a copyright violation because of its size by KimvdLinde and later I deleted it. But is this resize allowed or not under this licence? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

(the user, me would like to add) that Anonym deleted the image even though I had tagged it as fair use. I'd like to point out the following:

This is a PNG, enhanced verison of Image-Jyllands-Posten Muhammad drawings.jpg It has been:

• Converted to a lossless format
• Cropped to a better quality
• Resized to 1000 pixels (eg the image is visible in a computer monitor)
• Text is still unreadable at this resolution
• Contrast has been enhanced.

List of Newspaper cover images 1000+ pixels:

• Image:Wilsonvillespokesmanlecarticle.jpg
• Image:Boar01.jpg
• Image:The_Tech.jpg

The image in question is Image:Image-Jyllands-Posten Muhammad drawings.png

I am claiming fair use under a (modified) T:HistoricPhotoRationale and T:newspapercover. I need an admin to protect it . Thank you GraphicArtist 23:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You can't have an admin protect it without a reason. I know that much. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The main question in fair use, where we have a legitimate purpose for the image in an encyclopedia, is generally whether our use of it impinges unnecessarily on the authors' market. Shrinking the image is one way to reduce its infringement of the authors' market, but only insofar as it loses details; the viewer would thus still have some reason to go out and buy the image from the author, so that he could see the extra details. If GraphicArtist's version isn't more easily readable or otherwise closer to the original in utility, its actual size is immaterial. I can't see the image, of course, so I can't say anything for sure, but is there anything wrong with the current image anyway?

By the way, given that Anonymous editor is a sysop, there's really not much point in getting the image protected. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

USPS post-1978 stamp images

Looking through Category:USPS stamps, the vast majority of stamp images are used in articles to illustrate the subject of the stamp. This is not recognized as a fair use by {{USPSstamp}}, which says:

"It is believed that the use of postage stamps to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design) [...] qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law."

Examples of uses that go against this: Image:ReaganStamp37.jpg in Ronald Reagan, Image:Solympics4321.jpg in Special Olympics. There are many more. Can these images be safely used in articles that are not about the stamps? Thanks for any input. --ChrisRuvolo (t)

The two cases you mentioned don't appear to be fair use right now, but could be with some changes to the article. The stamps need to be used to illustrate the stamp in question. If the pictures of the stamps were used to illustrate a paragraph discussing the issue of the stamps and had an appropriate image caption, they would be fair use, but that doesn't seem to currently be the case. JYolkowski // talk 17:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Construction image in {{UnderCon}}

I have a notice here that an image I uploaded was unclear in the copyright status, but (having looked thru this page and the WP page) I can't figure out what to do with it. Could someone look on the web site listed on the Image page and tell me what to do with it? CliffHarris 03:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

You can contact the author of the page you got the image from. However, if you cannot get through to him, then the image will likely be deleted because we cannot confirm it's copyright status (beyond that the website owner holds it). This is a simple graphic, and a free one could easily be produced. Then again, it's not used anywhere (other than a template which is not used anywhere), so there's not much reason to... ~MDD4696 23:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Usage tags

Hi there. I just have a quick question that needs answering. Is there any tag I can use that would make this image keepable? User:Denniss has tagged a tonne of images related to the Canadian Forces for deletion, and I was wondering if any of them were salvagable. Thanks, Ouuplas 05:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

You may be able to tag them as fair use. The image is copyrighted by "Her Majesty" (the Canadian government, as far as I can tell, See 12) and fair use is the only way we can include non-freely licensed copyrighted images. Be sure to provide a rationale if you do. ~MDD4696 21:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Do you think I'd be able to use some sort of "promotional image" tag? I'm not too familiar with fair use tags. Ouuplas 00:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Unless there's something special about that particular image, I don't think it's usable in Wikipedia under fair use. --Carnildo 04:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Images don't need to be special; they just need to be very relevant to a particular article, of low resolution, and there needs to be almost no freely available alternative. This is a picture of the CF-18 Hornet, right? So as an illustration of the plane it's perfectly relevant. None of the images at that article are freely licensed either... although, under fair use, there should really only be one fair use image there since they are all depicting the plane in general. And to respond to Ouuplas: no, there's not a promotional tag you can use, because it really doesn't fit into promotional images as we've defined them. It is a copyrighted government work as far as Wikipedia is concerned. ~MDD4696 04:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't fair use require that commentary or research be carried out on the work in question? There's no real commentary on the image itself, only on the thing it depicts. (That said, I doubt the Canadian government makes a practice of charging fees for the use of its photographs, does it?) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

How to tag: "intended for media use and may be freely reproduced."

I was looking to use an image from Michigan Senate Photowire web site. It says "Photos on the Senate PhotoWire are intended for media use and may be freely reproduced.". What would the appropriate tag for this be? And would an image from here be deemed sufficiently "free" that an fairuse rational isn't needed? --Rob 05:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Verbatim reproduction is not sufficiently free. {{promophoto}} is fair use with this kind of publication in mind. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Could someone talk to this guy?

User:BorisTM is very aggressively not understanding the concept of copyright: User talk:Carnildo#Image:GPCR_signaling.png_and_Image:OXTR_structure.png. Could someone with a little more tact than me explain things to him? --Carnildo 08:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

If I'm the Copyright Holder?

Thanks for any help you can provide. I am the copyright holder and creator of three images that I'd like to use on my UserPage User:StaceyCochran. Two have already been deleted and it looks like the third will be deleted soon. How do I prevent this from happening if I'm the creator and copyright holder of the images? StaceyCochran 17:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't able to take a look at the images, since they were deleted already, but first: Are you sure you're the copyright holder? If you are, check out Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#For image creators. ~MDD4696 23:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:PD-Armenia

I was wondering, could I create an Armenia copyright tag, similar to that of {{PD-UA-exempt}} and {{PD-CzechGov}}? -- Clevelander 13:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there a section of Armenian law that explicitly puts its national symbols and/or whatever else in the public domain? If so, I'm okay with that. JYolkowski // talk 18:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Images created by the state government

There are two images I uploaded, Image:MarquetteInterchangeAfter.jpg and Image:MarquetteInterchangeBefore.jpg that were both created by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation. It is my understanding that these images can be used for non-commercial use, or are in the public domain, but I'm not sure how to tag them. Can someone help me out? Karlshea 23:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Works of the Wisconsin government are not in the public domain. If they can only be used for non-commercial use, unfortunately that isn't sufficient for Wikipedia, so they should likely be tagged as {{imagevio}}. JYolkowski // talk 01:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Russian copyrights

I have placed both {{PD-USSR}} and {{Sovietpd}} on TfD. Please see there for pointers to the relevant discussions. Lupo 10:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

scan of image of 2D-art

PD-art - for images of works of art where the artist died more than 100 years ago. But if the person or organization who digitized it has released it under another license, list that other license as well as this one. So even if the work itself fulfills this condition, the image might be protected. So I cannot scan an image of a 15th century painting from an art book and publish it here. Could someone confirm this? Piet 16:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The painting, even if scanned from an art book, is not copyrighted. In most countries there's a provision in the copyright law that says that only original works get copyright. This of course excludes all kinds of exact copying, photographing, scanning or digitalization.

The art book publisher would get a new copyright only if they make some creative restauration or modfications to the painting, but they almost always try to have a copy as exact as possible.

This is true only for images of 2D objects -- for sculptures and other 3D objects, choosing the angle and perspective is considered something creative, and photos of scuptures are therefore copyrighted. bogdan 18:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. So PD-art is always enough as a tag for paintings where the artist died more than a century ago? That's quite good news. Piet 08:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Photo of a coin?

What about a photograph of an ancient coin, like this one? The coin itself is clearly public domain, but is the photograph therefore public domain, or could the photograph of the coin be a copyrighted creative work? Note that in this case the image is not being used to illustrate the coin but rather is being used at Silphium to comment on the thing pictured on the coin, a seed or seed pod of a silphium plant. This means it doesn't qualify for the {{money}} tag's "fair use" argument. In this case, the uploader of the image used it with permission in a magazine article he wrote, but it may take some effort to find the owner of the copyright and get permission to use it here.--Srleffler 07:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

David Alpay, from northerstars

I've been warned about copyright infringement, but I wonder whether something like nothernstars.com can actually lay claim to an image. Te site is copyrighted, true, but it's a publicity still that exists in other places as well. Here's where i got it: Northern Stars

In order to determine whether a photograph is a publicity photograph or not, we need to know the original source of the image. If we know that, and can then determine with certainty that the photograph is a publicity photo, then it can be tagged as such. However, if not, then it may need to be deleted. Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 00:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek rank images

I have created a proposed image tag at Template:PD-StarTrekRank. Star Trek rank insignia mostly consists of pips, circles, and stripes in some form of layout. Such basic graphics can't be copyrighted (I think) but there have been a few cases where someone has drawn two circles next to each other, called it the insignia for a Starfleet Lieutenant and the images will be targeted as unfree or a copyvio against Paramount Pictures. This tag should take care of this. How can we make it offical? -Husnock 00:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that Paramount Pictures has released that stuff into the public domain. JYolkowski // talk 00:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

How can Paramount Pictures copyright a circle or a square? That is the whole point. -Husnock 00:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Paramount Pictures did not release any material into the public domain, so the template is misleading in that regard. While a circle or a square itself cannot be copyrighted, there appears to be sufficient creativity in all images at Comparative ranks and insignia of Star Trek that I would think that they would enjoy copyright protection. Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 00:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The comparative article has a lot of problems with it (its actually up for deletion). The images at Starfleet ranks and insignia are (in my opinion) better researched and sourced. As stated above, I'm mainly concerned with the simple stuff like two or three circles next to each other or three stripes in a row. This tag would solve the problem of calling it a copyright vio. How can this tag get officaly approved? I would like to start using it (I kind of already have!) -Husnock 00:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess my main concern is that I wouldn't want people to think that images of all Star Trek insigniae are in the public domain, since I don't believe they are. I'd welcome other opinions on this, but looking at Starfleet ranks and insignia, I would think that there are only about eight images that don't have enough creativity to be eligible for copyright protection (in the "Enlisted ranks" section, for the motion pictures). While a circle or a square itself cannot be copyrighted, I believe that there can be creativity inherent in arranging them in a certain order, positioning them in a certain manner, shading them in a certain manner, etc. I might, however, be amenable to a {{PD-ineligible-symbol}} template that said something along the lines of "This is a simple geometrical symbol. This symbol doesn't have enough creative effort..." or something like that. Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 02:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The bar for creativity set by judicial precedent is very, very low. Simple positioning is sufficient to grant copyright; consider a typical photograph, where all the creativity in the work consists of arranging preexisting uncopyrighted objects. Every one of the template-linked images is clearly eligible for copyright by reason of arrangement, coloring, and texture.

The images could maybe be used under fair use, but that's unlikely. You aren't providing critical commentary or research, just reprinting the images with explanations. That's something the owners of Star Trek make money off of, you know.

I recommend that the images be replaced with textual descriptions. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Six Wired Bird Of Paradise

I uploaded the pic for Image:Sixwiredbop.jpg including the copyright holder notice and the site I got it from, but the site did not indicate the status of the copyright, whether its intended for free use online or as part of a press release. CyclopsScott 05:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

File:Cheerz.gif

Almost every third message board on this planet uses this and many other similar images File:Loud talk.gif, File:Confused.gif, File:Nono.gif, File:Ask beg.gif, File:Hmmm.gif, , File:Biggrin.gif, File:Banghead.gif, , File:Motz.gif, and the funiest File:TheFinger.gif (which i think would not be very appropriate if mass-used here), etc. There are images that show shotting, hitting someone with a hammer, etc but that's way off. So what do you people say? -- Boris 08:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)