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)

Historical map

May I use this historical map on the History section of Benet Academy? My fair use rationale would be that the map illustrates land acquisitions made by the St. Procopius monks. Benny the mascot (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale does not apply. When was the map first published? Did the publication include a proper copyright notice? — Walloon (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I'll email the Benedictine University library for information. Why doesn't fair use apply? Benny the mascot (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

So would I be able to use the map in question under fair use? Benny the mascot (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Why would it be justified under fair use? Fair-use require the image fulfills all 10 non-free content criteria and because it is relatively easy to draw a similar map that essentially shows the same facts, it would fail WP:NFCC#1. ww2censor (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't even think about that! Thanks for your help. Benny the mascot (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

PDFs of letters, official documents & like images

I wish to upload PDF's of some official documents, they are to be uploaded to substanstiate claims made regarding a WWII honour. One is an extract of an Australian government gazette page and the other is from the original copy of an official letter from the Australian Department of the Army from 1948. I am unsure what copyright tags I need, can you please advise.Donaz01 (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Both of these cases are Australian crown copyright, expiring 50 years after publication, which would have been in 1998. So they are now free if the PDF is a faithful reproduction. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

But note that it is not necessary to upload these PDFs if you intend to use these documents as sources. Using the appropriate citation template with the details filled to refer to the documents in question will be sufficient. – ukexpat (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Image of 2009 Karachi bombing CCTV footage released by Government

I have recently uploaded the following file: File:2009 Karachi bombing.jpg. I need help trying to identify the copyright of the following image. Before that is done, I must clearly state that this image is a screenshot of a video that was released by the City Government of Karachi using its CCTV footages for use by media all over the world. Shouldn't this be regarded as something in the public domain if that is the case?

Unless they released copyright in writing, then public domain or even a free use does not legally apply. However it could be used under fair use as it is a unique event. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The government has not released any copyright statement or notice of any such kind. The complete CCTV video footage is freely available on the internet to be used for analysis. News and media agencies have used the footage without pertaining to any copyright legalities and have not paid any royalty towards the usage either. My guess is, the footage is free available for fair-use. - Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 11:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

USS Belknap DD 251

Hello; I'm looking to add a photo of the Belknap to its wiki article. I found a photo at the NavSource Naval History website (http://www.navsource.org/). Under their copyright link they state:

Feel free to download as many photos as you want, (*)

We do ask that if you are using these photos for your own web page, Please show some respect and credit those who have contributed photos to this archive(*). Their names are listed next to the photo lInk. Copyrighted images will appear as © Name.

All other photos should be credited to NavSource (the location they were obtained from) and a link back to this site is requested.

I thought the PD-US template would be the one to use for this, but I am unsure. I would like some advice on how to proceed. Thanks,Hollingsworth (talk) 04:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• Their policy seems to be pretty liberal. However, there's no explicit release under a free license. Without it, we have to presume they retain some rights (perhaps, for example, commercially exclusive rights). Now, that said, any images marked as "USN" on their site they are asserting are originally property of the United States Navy (for example this image from this list). Such images as that can be uploaded here and tagged with {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}. Looking at the list again, if you see the image tagged as coming from "Robert Hirst" we have no idea who he is or what rights he retains. So, that image is useless to us, and since free alternatives exist we'd never accept that image for upload here. Also, if the image is free (such as the first example I noted), you should consider uploading it to Commons, which is a repository for free license images, and makes them available for everyone on all language wikis, but just English (which would be the case if you uploaded it here). Also, if the images come from the USN, you are under no requirement to credit NavSource; they are not the owners of the image.

• Now, as it turns out, we already have the example I noted available on commons as File:USS Belknap official photo.jpg. In fact, we have quite a selection of images of her. See Commons:Category:USS_Belknap_(CG-26) --Hammersoft (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops you meant DD 251 not CG 26. Argh! I wish the USN wouldn't reuse names! :) Ok, if you look at Navsource's page on her, the second image is guaranteed to be in the public domain by way of age (dated to 1919, and anything prior to 1923 in this case would be in the public domain by way of age). You can use that image. Same recommendations for uploading to Commons apply. The first image we don't know the source or date, and it could still be under copyright. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Line drawing from pre 1970s science journal

Is this image old enough to be out of academic copyright, or if the journal is defunct, does the university maintain copyright?

File:Salviadivinorumlinedrawing.gif

Also, would it be fair use as an illustration for an article? I believe it is based on criteria I've researched. The info I could find is on the image. Apothecia (talk) 01:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Based on the date of first publication from the image description page, the copyright expires on January 1, 2058. In which article were you planning to use the image? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 15:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

If the copyright on that 1962 issue of Botanical Museum Leaflets was not renewed in 1989–1990, and the issue contains no separate copyright notice for the article or the illustration, then the work is in the U.S. public domain. — Walloon (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

And there is no sign of copyright renewal in the LOC records for this work in 1989 or 1990. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that the copyright has not been renewed. I was planning on using the image for the salvia divinorum page, it's woefully under-mediated, but free-use images aren't exactly easy to find.Apothecia (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright I'm going to go ahead and add the photo to the botany section, if anyone wants to check it out.Apothecia (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sound recordings

If I understand correctly, sound recordings before 1972 are not eligible for federal copyright in the US. Is any recording of a public domain composition recorded before 1972 free use? Wikipedia:Public domain is not clear about this, saying that four different copyrights need to be considered (those of the composer, lyricist, performer and producer). Does commons:Template:PD-US-record cover the copyrights of the performer and the producer of the record, making any pre-1972 recording of a PD composition fair use? Any thoughts? Jafeluv (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Whenever a user in New York views the page containing the recording, the recording is reproduced in New York. Because the server running Wikipedia currently has no way to block IP addresses in New York from accessing the recording, it would probably be safer to upload it directly to English Wikipedia (not Commons) and then use both PD-US-record to cover use outside of New York and a non-free use rationale to cover use inside New York. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 15:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't sound right. What about the several featured sounds that are tagged with PD-US-record on Commons, such as this, this and this? Transferring them to Wikipedia and adding fair use rationales would make them ineligible for featured sound status, not to mention that there are a lot of sound recordings on Commons this would affect (the PD-US-record tag itself is used on about 120 files, but I'm pretty sure there are more). Surely there are some cases where the sound recording can be considered free use? I used to assume that recordings before 1923 were public domain by virtue of expired copyright like other US works, but I was told that the 1923 cutoff date does not apply to sound recordings. Now I'm just confused. (By the way, is there even a PD-US-record tag on Wikipedia?) Jafeluv (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

For any sound recording, the copyrights of both the work recorded and the recording itself, must be considered individually. Even if the work is in the public domain, the recording probably is not. Very few sound recordings are in the public domain in the United States. Recordings made before Feb. 15, 1972 are covered by state copyrights, which typically have no duration limit. Sound recordings that are in the U.S. public domain fall into three categories: (1) Recordings made by the federal government; (2) Recordings whose owners have intentionally placed them into the public domain; and (3) Recordings published from Feb. 15, 1972 through 1977 without a proper copyright notice on the recording or its package. — Walloon (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

True, but do any states other than New York have a longer copyright term than federal? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 21:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

To repeat: State copyright laws typically have NO duration limit. This means that sound recordings going back to the 1870s are still under state copyright. Not until 2067 will federal copyright law for sound recordings made before Feb. 15, 1972 supersede state copyright laws. On Feb. 15, 2067, all sound recordings made before Feb. 15, 1972 will enter the U.S. public domain. — Walloon (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, in that case there's a fundamental error in the PD-US-record template, which assumes public domain status for the recordings. That also means that several of our featured sound files (such as the ones I pointed to above) aren't actually free use and should probably be delisted. I think that this should be brought up on Commons, which is where the template is used. Jafeluv (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Walloon: "...covered by state copyrights..." I've never heard of a state copyright law in the US. Could you point to me a resource that explains what I've been missing? The only relevant reference I could find is this statement: "The 1976 Act, through its terms, preempts all previous copyright law in the United States. The preempted law includes prior federal legislation, such as the Copyright Act of 1909, but also includes all relevant common law and state copyright laws insofar as they conflict with the Act." —Aladdin Sane (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

From 17 USC 301(c): "With respect to sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, any rights or remedies under the common law or statutes of any State shall not be annulled or limited by this title until February 15, 2067." --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 23:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

...sound of editor's forehead smashing in to the desk... —Aladdin Sane (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

And just a reminder that the above discussion only applies to U.S. sound recordings; sound recordings from other countries usually come into the public domain 50 years after they were made (but beware of copyright on words or music). Physchim62 (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

True, but U.S. copyright law does not apply the "rule of the shorter term" when its copyright laws differ from foreign copyright laws. So, within the U.S. almost all foreign sound recordings, going back to the earliest recordings in the 19th century, are still protected under state copyright laws (pre-1972) or federal copyright law (1972–present). — Walloon (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sound recording copyright statute (§ 653h) in California (where the Wikipedia Foundation is headquartered). Sound recording copyright statute (§ 540.11) in Florida (where Wikipedia servers are hosted). Yes, the commons:Template:PD-US-record template does need to be corrected. For more information, see pp. 115–121 of The Public Domain by Stephen Fishman (Nolo, 4th ed., 2008) — Walloon (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on Commons here. Jafeluv (talk) 08:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Dover Publications images

Are the images in this publication public domain? Woogee (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless you have some specific evidence to the contrary, it seems unlikely. Certainly, you would have to look at the images on a case-by-case basis. Hope that helps, - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 10:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It was my understanding that Dover Publications images were free use. Woogee (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

According to the book text, via Google Books, the images were originally taken by staff photographers at the movie studios, and circulated as publicity shots. They were collected (not taken) by John Kobal, and presented as an exhibition at the V&A museum in London in 1974. This is essentially the book of that exhibition. It would be interesting to know what rights-clearance Dover did. Dover do publish out-of-copyright material; and they also do publish some design sourcebooks that are specifically sold as "royalty free" (eg their Dover Design Library). But they also re-publish older but still in-copyright material too. There are all sorts of traps that could lead to material of this vintage to have fallen out of copyright -- eg failure to comply with the then formalities of U.S. copyright law; and/or failure to subsequently apply for renewal of copyright. As far as I can see from the limited preview, the book credits the relevant original photographer for each pic, but not a current copyright holder -- so Dover aren't going out of their way to help us, one way or the other.

For the reasons I've given above, it is entirely possible that much or all of this material may now be Public Domain. We do have users who have good experience in tracking down the copyright status of old U.S. material. Myself, I don't know much about the practicalities of doing such a search. But there are people here who could probably give you tips on how to go forward, and my gut feeling is that it is not entirely hopeless. Jheald (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

One of the commonly accepted premises about publicity photos is stated by film production expert Eve Light Honathaner in The Complete Film Production Handbook, (Focal Press, 2001 p. 211.): "Publicity photos (star headshots) have traditionally not been copyrighted. Since they are disseminated to the public, they are generally considered public domain, and therefore clearance by the studio that produced them is not necessary." A publicity photo could be assumed to be one that either helps publicize an actor or actress, or any film they're in. They were not taken and distributed to be artistic and sold as art, but to help promote people and movies. Therefore, protecting the photo with a copyright would have prevented their widest exposure and gone against its intended purpose.

As for being printed in a Dover book, there is the added assumption that it's probably public domain. Dover is, from my own experience, the leading publisher of public domain images. They started off with mostly old illustrations and their earlier books typically stated they were copyright free and all images reusable by graphic artists—it was their key selling point. Unless the book that you're questioning includes a source for any of their photos in question, it seems reasonable to assume it's public domain simply because Dover published it. Keep in mind that even though the Dover books themselves are copyrighted, that primarily protects their "compilation" of images, not the images themselves. The phone book (white pages), for instance, is copyrighted as a "compilation." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Need Help

Need help with this Promo Image of Klapa Fa Lindjo /Negative0-26-12A(1). Have I used the wrong tag? Also I do have permission from them to use the image. Sir Floyd (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You claimed this image to be non-free image by adding the {{Non-free promotional}} template but you have failed to provide a fair-use rationale, however this group still exists, so if will fail WP:NFCC#1 because it is replaceable with a freely licenced image. You also state that you have permission from the group in which case you need to follow the instructions in WP:PERMISSION. Getting evidence of permission is the only scenario under which this image will be acceptable. ww2censor (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ww2censor. I'm learning. First I'll tackle the WP:PERMISSION. Sir Floyd (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I've prepared a letter for Klapa Fa Lindjo. Can someone please check to see if I'm on the right track Copyright letter to Klapa Fa Lindjo Sir Floyd (talk) 07:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. ww2censor (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ww2censor! Sir Floyd (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No response so far. Might have to start from scratch, but their's still tomorrow. Sir Floyd (talk) 04:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

A free image with non-free components

I took the photograph at File:Rochester Midtown Plaza - Interior.jpg. One unavoidable element of the image is a presumably copyrighted moving sculpture. The photo, thus, can only be used here under our non-free content criteria, but I wanted to make explicit the licensing of my photograph. That is causing problems as the image appears to be both free and non-free in categorization and tagging. How can I explain the non-free elements while still asserting my own copyright over the other elements of the image? Powers ^T 01:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure that it is, but this seems like the exact same misunderstanding found in the section#Photos of toys and sculptures above (quick, it's nearing archive). Apparently, the file File:Tintin's dog.jpg contains an "underlying non-free work" from which a "free" image was made. I think these cases need to be clarified somehow on the File: description page, just not sure how. Maybe it is up to the reader of the File: description page to just "get it". Shrug; not sure. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know of any other precedents? Powers ^T 13:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I know we have outdoor panorama shots (with or without public statues/artwork per Freedom of Panorama) but include billboards or other adverts ( see File:Shibuya tokyo.jpg for example); because these photos are not aimed at capturing the copyrighted billboards and any image pulled from them would lack commercial value due to quality or the like, we're usually ok with that.

But in the above image, while in a public place (I would think a public mall qualifies), the photo clearly can be used to show just the artwork if it's trimmed down. It is, as noted above, a 2D representation of a 3D sculpture , and thus not qualified as free, despite all the other elements of it. You may want to review Commons:Freedom of panorama to see if there's anything else to consider (if the sculpture is old enough, it may qualify as PD itself). --MASEM (t) 15:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree the image as a whole is not free; that's why I tagged it for fair use and included a rationale. But I still want to include the CC-by-sa licensing so that someone can't just grab the photo and use it, or modify it to remove the Clock of Nations sculpture, without attributing it to me. Powers ^T 02:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC

The couple times this has come up in my work I have generally ended up subst-ing the tags, modifying them, and including a detailed explanation in the licensing section (and I still end up confusing the hell out of people sometimes). I don't think there is a really good solution. Non-free composite work (used under NFCC) but also containing free content elements just doesn't come up often enough to have a systematic solution. Dragons flight (talk) 03:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Photo of sculpture in Cultural References section

Is the image of the Haida jade orca fair use in this context: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_Whale#Conservation ? Given how new the sculpture looks, it was probably created within the past few years. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

To my untrained eye, it looks like it's in a museum, and the tags on Flickr would suggest a Canadian museum. If so, then it will fit with Canadian Freedom of Panorama, and thus be free. [Arguably, this contradicts the tagging as CC-BY since I believe this does not generate a new copyright of any sort.] - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 10:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd never heard of the term "Canadian Freedom of Panorama" before. This is useful to know. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Image Legality? (Reposted from Editor assistance/Requests)

I was just browsing some images and stumbled over some whose content surprised me. I am presently employed in developing an image library and one of the issues we face is determining whether we may use the images we possess. Almost any image that contains members of the public is problematic as we need permission statements/forms before we may use them despite the fact that we are not publishing to the internet, at least not at present. In contrast, the imagery I noted earlier on your site has been released live to the world with identifiable/near identifiable individuals and provides their location at a specific point in time. While no names are mentioned I very much doubt the original photographer asked the subjects permission before taking the image. I accept the likelihood of your being sued for invasion of privacy etc is remote (I'm not a lawyer so cannot give you the implications, details and lawyerspeak) but it seems an unwise risk. Is the image I encountered a rarity or have you no problem with these types of images? If you want a precise image try http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2b/Queens-Plaza.jpg and look at the faces with zoom set to 160% or greater. The quality is low but sufficient to be identifiable. Thanks. I look forward to hearing your response. 203.25.1.208 (talk) 05:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

"Appropriation Of Name Or Likeness", Restatement (Second) of Torts:

"The value of the plaintiff's name is not appropriated by mere mention of it, or by reference to it in connection with legitimate mention of his public activities; nor is the value of his likeness appropriated when it is published for purposes other than taking advantage of his reputation, prestige, or other value associated with him, for purposes of publicity. No one has the right to object merely because his name or his appearance is brought before the public, since neither is in any way a private matter and both are open to public observation. It is only when the publicity is given for the purpose of appropriating to the defendant's benefit the commercial or other values associated with the name or the likeness that the right of privacy is invaded. The fact that the defendant is engaged in the business of publication, for example of a newspaper, out of which he makes or seeks to make a profit, is not enough to make the incidental publication a commercial use of the name or likeness. Thus a newspaper, although it is not a philanthropic institution, does not become liable under the rule stated in this Section to every person whose name or likeness it publishes." (REST 2d TORTS § 652C)

— Walloon (talk) 07:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Second query then. In which country does that law apply? This is an Australian image published worldwide. My understanding, and I'd need to double check with our legal department, is that free access to our images is enough to make us liable if we fail to get public permissions. Where individuals are deceased it's safer, they are unlikely to sue, however we then have the issue of their ehtnicity. If indigenous we need some sort of warning statement. Cultural sensitivity is of course irrelevant to this question and may not be something Wikipedia needs to worry about. 203.25.1.208 (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

My reply concerned tort law in the United States. Sorry, I am not familiar with Australian tort law in the area of appropriation of likeness. — Walloon (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough but the question is if the image is taken in Australia and viewed in Australia would American law have any significance?

Okay done a little research http://www.artslaw.com.au/legalinformation/UnauthorisedUseImage.asp and http://www.artslaw.com.au/legalinformation/StreetPhotographersRights.asp suggest it should be fine. I'm rather surprised by the results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.25.1.208 (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't do legal advice here. Try a lawyer. Stifle (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This is also an issue in the UK (for images of minors) and in France (which has extremely restrictive privacy laws). From previous discussions, en.wikipedia tends to assume that if an image is legal in the state of Florida (where the servers are), it's legal regardless, but Wikimedia Commons tends to prefer that the image is legal in the place where it was taken as well as legal in florida. This is also an issue for countries (again like France) which does not have Freedom of Panorama, as technically those holiday snaps of the Eiffel Tower at night are copyright in France (I know, go figure!)Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Elen. That clarifies Wikipedia's position, and the other info is likewise interesting.

Stifle. I don't personally care whether Wikipedia is sued or not but I was curious about the legality/Wikipedia's position on this matter.203.25.1.208 (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Conflicted image licenses

Please join the discussion of the new 'conflicted license' template at Wikipedia_talk:Image_copyright_tags#.7B.7BConflicted-license.7D.7D -SCEhardT 18:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Can someone take a peek...

And see if the fair-use rationale i gave for File:Biereco verherbouwingen.jpg (used in Gerrit de Jager, the artist in question) is up to standards? Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• The image isn't mentioned in the prose at all. That almost always means it fails WP:NFCC #8 (significance). --Hammersoft (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Silly. It's a characteristic image of an artist's work, used to show what the work characteristically looks like. Of course that "adds significantly to readers' understanding of the topic". More discussion of his artistic style in the article wouldn't go amiss, however. Jheald (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks! I'll put some effort into it. But not today (it's late over here). Kleuske (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, am very silly Jheald. I just get all giggly and wipply thinking it appropriate that an image should have some meaningful connection to the prose other than just being displayed, in a case like this. Silly me. I thought WP:NFCC was policy. Thanks for setting me straight! I'll encourage people to liberally sprinkle fair use images of all a creator's works all over their biographical articles. I'm sure it'll be a welcome addition! --Hammersoft (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Ummmm... I'm not sure where that came from. FYI, the biereco's (the characters displayed) are mentioned in the text of the article the image appears in quite explicitly. They are two of the best known characters of the particular artist. Kleuske (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Furthermore i'm quite busy fightingvandals on the dutch wiki. Sorry if my response-time is not to your liking. Kleuske (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Tagging

How do I add the "This file is a Ukrainian or Soviet work and it is presently in the public domain in Ukraine" tag that most Soviet WW2 photographs are tagged with? I cannot find it. D2306 (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Try {{PD-Ukraine}}. The wording you quoted is from the Commons version. Jafeluv (talk) 07:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Very, very confused

Regarding File:JerryGumbert.jpg, I don't understand the problem. He owns all rights to the photograph and happily gave it to me with free permission to use it on Wikipedia or anywhere else I wanted, understanding it would go into the public domain forever. I looked at the list of copyright tags, and I don't understand which one it's supposed to have. Perhaps I'm stupid, but I didn't see "Releasing all rights" or "Public Domain" or some such?? This wasn't a problem the last time I got a photo from someone I admired and wrote a page for them?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollygirl78 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

With the amount of improperly copyrighted images uploaded these days we are perhaps being more diligent that heretofore. The image you uploaded was not created by you and being a professional photo may not even be copyright to Jerry Gumbert as such images are often copyright of the photographer and not the subject of the photo, who merely gets a hard copy of the photo. Either way it is best if you following the instructions found at WP:PERMISSION so that Jerry verifies the release of the image under a free licence. You should not have been confused as the link to WP:TAGS provides pretty good details about copyright tags. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I double checked on Jerry's photograph. He does in fact own all rights.

OK, I'm stupid. Please tell me which license means "All rights are hereby released forever; nobody gives a damn, they just want their nice picture, which they own, on their wikipedia page." I don't understand the acronyms, etc. Not being someone who spends their whole life on Wikipedia, I don't have the lingo memorized, and unlike, apparently, all the editors, I have to have a job and can't spend all my time here getting a PhD in Wikipedia-speak. This is astonishingly difficult, and is more reminiscent of dealing with a government bureaucracy than a project that is supposed to be about the free spreading of knowledge.  :-(

If I take a photograph and don't care how it's used on Wikipedia, which one do I pick? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollygirl78 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the problem is that Jerry has to be the one to release the photo not you. You didn't create it/the rights do not belong to you. Have him fill in this form and send it to Wikipedia at permissions-en‐at‐wikimedia.org. If he doesn't care how it will be used he could release it into the Public Domain with {{PD-self}} or he could release with a Creative Commmons license {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} where he has to be credited every time someone uses it. Hope this has helped; copyrights can be super confusing. Copana2002 (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Alternatively, if you have a an e-mail from the photographer in which he releases the copyright appropriately, you can forward that to permissions as described at WP:IOWN. – ukexpat (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Help

I would like to add a picture to Patrick French's page. The copyright for the picture is held by a Mr. Jerry Bauer, and I e-mailed him requesting to be allowed to use the picture. This is what he said, "Yes, of course Wikipedia may use the picture with no charge, They should put a copyright sign by it, so anyone who wishes to download may contact me to let me know how it may be used." Could you please advice me whether that complies with Wikipedia's laws, and if yes, what license should I select while uploading the picture? Mandakinigahlot1984 (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid that the terms of that release are too restrictive for Wikipedia purposes. The release must be for any purpose. Please take a look at the sample releases at WP:CONSENT. – ukexpat (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

EFF logo copyright status

This logo is taken from the eff Web site and includes a fair use rationale as a non free image. But [1] states that unless explicitly stated all material on that site is licensed under the creative commons attribution license, is it okay therefore to change the copyright status of our image? Ajbpearce (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

While strictly speaking a fair-use rationale is not necessary for the creative commons licence from the source, this image is so simple it could well use the {{PD-textlogo}} copyright tag because it only "consists of typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes". ww2censor (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

In that case which license is preferred? I have stuck the creative commons license on because creative commons licenses are more-or-less globally applicable wheras i guess the PD justification is more US copyright law?Ajbpearce (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

file:PerianPrefPane.png

Does this file really need a rational? Isn't {{Information}} more appropriate?--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC) or this file.

File:Webmin1420.png--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 08:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Correct, Those files don't need a fair use rationale, because they are free, and not used under fair use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Opensuse111beta4.png

I think the correct license is GPL being linux.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 07:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Chris Comer

Please help me putting the copyright info with a picture I have uploaded. The picture was taken by IAMX, the copyright is free, anyone can use the picture. You find the pic I am talking about on the article about Chris Corner.

You can also see the Photo credit on the website of Chros Corner's press agent: http://www.reybee.com/new/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=117&Itemid=58

Let me know if you need more information. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IAMXofficial (talk • contribs) 13:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for uploading a picture. Firstly, don't panic. Secondly, read the instructions at WP:IOWN, which you will to follow since the image has previously been published elsewhere. LEt us know if you have any problems. Thirdly, consider changing you username in line with our policies on usernames and conflicts of interest. Thanks. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 14:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Historical picture

Could i ask what the copyright of this is? Can it be used under fair use? Or is it public? Simply south (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Author: John Hill (1770 - 1850). So you use {{PD-Art|PD-old-100}}. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 18:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Well it's not in the US, it's from the British Library. Simply south (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, PD-art holds for UK works as well, per the foundation's position, despite recent controversy (the second sentence of en.wp's PD-art tag; commons' is more obviously international). - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 21:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks. So it should be okay if I upload it? Simply south (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine, even better to Commons if you weren't going to already. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 21:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Is it okay? File:View of the Highgate Archway.jpg Simply south (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking good. I put the dates in, just so everyone knows when he died. And bumped to 100 years, for the benefit of those living in 80 or 100 year countries. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 17:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Using a picture from an official website

Hi. I used this picture in this website http://saffar.org/?act=gal&action=view&sid=26 after contacting the webmaster of the website. He sent me an email saying that I can use any image I see appropriate for using. But I keep receiving messages from the users saying that there is a problem with the copyrights of my picture. Here is the file: File:Sheikh_Hassan_Alsaffar.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliss2007 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You claim this image is public domain but have not provided any evidence for this statement. Follow the instructions in WP:PERMISSION and get the copyright holder email us their consent directly. When the OTRS volunteers receive the permission an OTRS ticket will be added to the image and it will not be tagged for deletion again. ww2censor (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

copyright laws

What are the copyright laws in the USA and how do I find out if an item is copyrighted?

L Planer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lplaner (talk • contribs) 18:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't provide legal information but you could read United States copyright law and commons:COM:L#United States and links found on those pages. Generally all images are copyright to someone unless they are specifically noted to be in the public domain. ww2censor (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not exactly right. Until the revised copyright law in 1976, everything, text and images, had to have a printed copyright notice to be protected by copyright. But the originator also had to file for an official copyright. After 28 years, they had to file a renewal. Otherwise, the item automatically became public domain. (A revised U.S. law for "renewals" excludes certain years, however.) Rarely is it ever "specifically noted" that anything is in the public domain. A good place to start a search is with the online search for things going back to 1978. Otherwise, you may need to use one of the numerous copyright depositories at large city libraries, if they carry it. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

But the originator also had to file for an official copyright. That's not quite correct. Under the pre-1978 law (i.e., the 1909 Copyright Act), copyright was obtained in one of two ways, under either section 10 or section 12. Under section 10, one obtained a copyright in a work by publishing the work with a copyright notice. No registration was necessary. Under section 12, applicable to works that were not made available for sale (i.e., unpublished works in which the rightsholder still wished to obtain federal copyright), by making a registration. In either case, the initial term was for 28 years, with renewal being possible for another 28 years at the end of the initial term. In the case of a section 10 copyright, however, that renewal was the first filing that was actually required to effect copyright (although there were benefits to registration). TJRC (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Images from eBay?

Hello
What is the policy about uploading images from someone else's eBay auction? I am asking specifically about stuff that would be considered someone's "own work" for example a picture of an engine that was for sale. This must have come up before. From their user agreement it appears that eBay owns the rights but elsewhere I found vague comments that the user owns their work. Is there a Wikipedia policy that specifically addresses this? I couldn't immediately find one - perhaps it is under a more general category? Thanks in advance. Toneron2 (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Either that user or eBay owns the rights - you don't, so it wouldn't be acceptable either way. –xeno^talk 19:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a book, actually, for photoartists from a few years ago that suggests the photographs are in the public domain. But obviously, that wasn't the focus of the book. So maybe not as clear as it looks. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that seems logical, but like I have heard also that they are in the public domain - that eBay didn't want the responsibility for them. Toneron2 (talk) 02:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If anyone can find a specific line in a user agreement or licensing contract that if you upload images on eBay, you relinquish all rights, we HAVE to assume that the images are still copyrighted (by eBay, by the uploader, it doesn't matter who for our purposes, unless we are trying to contact the copyright holder to request a release...) So what we may have heard, or read in a book, or what may seem logical doesn't matter unless we have specific evidence of a free license. -Andrew c ^[talk] 02:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I was just hoping there was a known solution.Toneron2 (talk) 04:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here we go:

When you give us content, you grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, sublicensable (through multiple tiers) right to exercise any and all copyright, publicity, trade marks, database rights and intellectual property rights you have in the content, in any media known now or in the future

— eBay User Agreement

Now, to my mind, that means public domain, or de facto the same (i.e. we can create a custom licence if desired). What does everyone else think? - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 18:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think that's an accurate read of that at all. It gives eBay a right to exercise the rights that the copyright holder has. It doesn't release the media into the public domain.And non-exclusive =/= all-inclusive. –xeno^talk 19:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, dear me. The ability to read has somehow deserted me. Mind while I edit my previous comment slightly so I can and come to a more balanced conclusion. Hmm, you're right, it doesn't look as good as I thought it did. Back to the drawing board. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't beat yourself up, it took me a few read-throughs to understand what they were getting at. –xeno^talk 19:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Jeff Lemire photo for use in Jeff Lemire article

I was wondering if I could use this photo [2] which is licensed BY-NC-ND. I know that it's not completely free, but it appears to be the next closest thing. Could I upload a lower resolution version (with attribution) and use it in the Jeff Lemire article? My thought is that since there appear to be no free images, and has no real commercial value (especially at lower res) and its use is to demonstrate the subject of the article, it might fit under the non-free usage policy. Thanks for the advice. - Chromatikoma (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really, since it is replaceable (a free image could exist, just not at the moment). You'd have a better bet trying to convince the flickrer to re-release it under a compatible licence. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 20:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia does not accept images under a non-commercial use license. If this person were dead (he's not of course) we might accept the image, but given that he is alive, we would only accept free licensed imagery of him. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! - Chromatikoma (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

{{mtc}}

Will somebody please help me merging these 3 images to Wikimedia Commons? I can not do it myself.

• File:Rotunda interior steinway hall nyc mia laberge art case piano.jpg
• File:Artist mia laberge at kennedy center unveil of art case steinway.jpg
• File:Artist mia laberge with henzy z steinway.jpg

At Commons there is a category named Steinway & Sons. The 3 images can be added to this category.

Thank you. Fanoftheworld (talk) 09:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done, though all image are missing source and author details, which they should have. ww2censor (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I am not the uploader of the images, so I am not able to add source and author details. Fanoftheworld (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

a historically important picture of the concentration camp at Dachau, Germany

In the biographical article "Alfred de Grazia" I want to reinsert a section on Alfred de Grazia's activity in WWII and add a staggering picture of high historical value showing Capt. Alfred de Grazia in front of a pile of dead bodies after the liberation of the camp. The picture was taken about May 1st, 1945. Alfred de Grazia, a political scientist and writer, has published this picture in his autobiographical book about WWII: "The Taste of War," published by Metron Publications. Metron Publications is wholly owned by Alfred de Grazia. I have scanned the picture from the book "The Taste of War." The original is not accessible to me. Alfred de Grazia agrees to have this picture published in the wikipedia article and considers that it should be made available for general use to the general public. Please, tell me how to list this picture when uploading it so as to make sure that it will appear at the intended place in the article and that it will not be not be removed. Amideg Amideg (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• If you're in contact with him, please strongly consider asking him to release it under a free license. See WP:COPYREQ for specific instructions on how to do that. Beyond that "permission to use on Wikipedia" is worthless to us. We'd have to use it under terms of fair use, which makes its inclusion more dicey (but not impossible). --Hammersoft (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Screenshots

Am I allowed to use [3] on the article Disney Renaissance. The page is in need of much needed improvement and could use a picture or two? (talk) 4:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You would need to talk about the actual image in the article to make a fair use case.©Geni 14:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Want A Profile On WikiPedia

Sadat Want To Profile With Pic On Wikipedia ( sadatpedia ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadatpedia (talk • contribs) 03:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a social networking site. One doesn't need a "profile"; heck, one does not usually need to sign in to edit! —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 06:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Free images of non-free objects

Previous threads here suggested such images be tagged with dual licenses: [4][5]. However, one such image I uploaded (File:Unoabjd.jpg) was tagged {{conflicted-license}} and User:J Milburn left me a message which, if I am reading it correctly, says the the free license should only be mentioned but not tagged: [6]. So is this more appropriate than what the previous threads suggested? I'm just trying to tag this image in the appropriate way. Siawase (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The image is non-free. That should be what is made clear from a quick glance at the page. J Milburn (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

After hunting around, I found this thread [7] where J Milburn linked to this image File:Notre dame de la paix yamoussoukro by felix krohn retouched.jpg as an appropriate example on how to handle this. Following that example, I crammed the cc license tag info and everything in the flickr template into the source field of the Non-free use rationale template of the image. That appeared to be a satisfactory solution to the editor who tagged the image and he removed the {{conflicted-license}} tag. So I guess that is one appropriate way to handle the issue (for now?) Siawase (talk) 16:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

"Copyright" and antiquities

Is there any guideline or are discussions (articles?) here concerning laws making heritage pictures in some way "unfree"? See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Mexico_vs._Starbucks --Historiograf (talk) 16:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

We follow commons policy and ignore such non copyright issues.©Geni 16:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't my question --Historiograf (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Image uploading without copyright information

Yesterday (9th Jan) I attempted, for the first time, to upload a series of images with a view to using them to illustrate my articles. I obtained all these images from [8] where it clearly states that all the images have been freely provided by (a list of names is supplied), for any use on this 'hobby' website. I immediately found myself in trouble.

Having read all of your available 'help' files, on the subject of adding copyright information I still have no idea how to begin. Where it says 'on the image descriptor page, click edit, for instance, just where is this image descriptor page? How do I access it? And what do I do with it when I get there? I have tried to contact the webmaster of this particular site, for permissions, but fear that there is little chance of a reply.

Now, I'm no numpty, I've been around I.T. for over 40 years, but neither am I a lawyer or an accountant. And it seems to me that I'd have to be, to get my head around the basket of worms which exists, even were I to attempt to download my own photographic content, let alone that from other sources.

Please, is there any kind of idiot proof, follow the bouncing ball, lead by the nose, tick the box procedure, for those like me who are techie rich but legalistics poor? Sadly, if there is not, then I'm just going to have to allow you to delete those images which I've already uploaded and never, ever try to do it again. UKmender (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The situation is that if we cannot verify the copyright status of an image we cannot accept it. The site you took the images from makes not claim that the images are freely licenced so we have to assume they are copyright and therefore not free unless you can show that permission to use them has been given. That site also accepts images from other contributors and in turn they may not have given permission for further use of their images under a free licence either. Perhaps you should ask the website for permission by following the instructions found at WP:CONSENT but as you indicate you may not get a reply and in that case you are out of luck. If you are uploading your own work you can use the {{PD-self}} tag and yes there is a nearly idiot proof way of uploading images by filling in all the requested information when you are in the upload window and not ticking the "ignore warnings" checkbox. BTW, I seem to recall that most of these telephone images were rather small and of low resolution and poor quality, so I doubt they would be really useful anyway. We are very happy to accept freely licenced images from editors. If you can get access to some phones, make some good quality photos, then you can release under a free licence? Good luck and please don't give up just because you had a problem with these particular images. ww2censor (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfree images on Bahasa Melayu Wikipedia

I'm sure this is not the correct place for this, but maybe someone can help.

Recently, I've been tagging for deletion a lot of unfree images of Malaysian politicians on the English Wikipedia. The images have been generally been uploaded with erroneous claims of irreplaceability. The images have been deleted.

The problem is that on the Malay language wikipieda - [ms.wikipedia.org] - the use of unfree images for Malaysian politicians is more flagrant. Pictures are being directly lifted from the website of the Malaysian Parliament (which holds copyright in the images) with what appear to be erroenous claims of replaceability or sometimes no licensing information at all. See this and this for two examples among hundreds.

My problem is I'm not proficient enough in Bahasa Melayu to confidently report the problem on ms.wikipedia.org. I imagine that copyright violations are just as problematic for wikipedia whatever the language-wikipeda the problems are on. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC) PS:I'm posting this on WP:Wikiproject Malaysia as well but that's fairly inactive so I'm not hopeful. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Not much that can be done about this from outside ms-wiki, I'm afraid. Certainly not from here. I guess your best bet is to get hold of an English-speaking administrator over there and hope they are willing to listen. Unfortunately, my own experience is that some of the smaller wikis tend to be quite openly unwilling or claim to be structurally unable to enforce foundation-conformant image policies, and there is nothing that could force them from outside. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Apparently there are only about four active admins over there but I'll give it a try. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Linking to a copyrighted image through the external links section

Recently, on Bat-eared Fox, User:Androstachys attempted to insert this external link, which is a hard-link to a copyrighted picture. I reverted the edit, saying that pictures should not be linked to in that manner, but rather uploaded to the commons. Given that the picture in question is very likely copyrighted, I suggested that might not be likely to happen. Androstachys pursued the issue on my talk page, asking me to clarify which policy disallowed inclusion. After looking over WP:ELNO and WP:ELNEVER, there did not appear to be any particular policy disallowing addition. Still, I feel somewhat confident that it is not allowed. The conversation between Andro and myself can be read here. I would appreciate the community's input into the matter. Thank you. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Deep-linking like that is probably not a copyright violation, but it is considered exceptionally bad manners. --Carnildo (talk) 11:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You know, I specifically went to your talk page to ask you the question, saw your banner and came here. Oh well. Is this a yay or a nay then in terms of putting it in the article? Andro has, quite rightly, asked what policy precludes him from doing so, and I'd like to give him a satisfactory answer. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Maharishi Effect Israel Study Image

Re File:Orme-Johnson Israel Study 1988.png

I uploaded this image on the basis of permission of the author, but was advised that this would not be sufficient. So I obtained the following permission from the copyright holder (Sage publishing) which I emailed to permissions-enwikimedia.org. However, I have not gotten any response to my email. Thank you for looking into this. (It really would be helpful to have this image, because it will help clarify what the issues are relating to the Maharishi Effect research.) Here are the relevant parts of my email:

Dear Wikipedia Permissions Deptartment,

I requested permission to use the graphic file Orme-Johnson Israel Study 1988.png from the copyright holder (Sage publishing). I am forwarding the email they sent back to me. Is this sufficient?

If not, there are a couple of public domain versions of “Maharishi Effect charts” on Google Images. Perhaps we should use one of those? What do you advise?

Best regards, Editor hickorybark

---

Forwarded message ----------

From: permissions (US) <permissions@sagepub.com> Date: Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 6:12 PM Subject: RE: Request pemission to upload figure to Wikipedia

  Thank you for your request.  Please consider this written permission to use the figure detailed below on the Wikipedia page regarding the Maharishi Effect.  The material can only be used on this page and the permission does not cover any further use.  SAGE holds the copyright to the material and permission must be requested for any further use.  Please include proper attribution to the original source.  Please note that this permission does not include any 3rd party material found within the work.  

Best, Adele