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)

Close up of 2002 historical site marker

The copyrighted text on this sign can be clearly read. Do we have an exception that would cover something like this? Should we? -- But|seriously|folks  17:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess we don't. The US really needs a much more liberal freedom of panorama law... In any case, there shouldn't be a reason for us to display the full text of the sign, since it doesn't add any understanding. The picture can be reshot from further away just to show that a historical marker exists, and the text can be paraphrased and cited to the "Ohio Historical Society" or whoever wrote it. nadav (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC) It would also be more useful to have an image of the Tanks Memorial Stadium itself, no? nadav (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The US equivalent of panorama law is to say that the copying is incidental, insignificant, or de minimis. Courts and experts are inconsistent with their terminology and classification but the effect is the same. Sometimes they say it's not even considered infringement territory; other times they say that it's a special kind of fair use that doesn't require traditional four-factor balancing analysis. As with everything in copyright the boundaries are not clearly defined.

However, whatever the limits are, this sign is clearly copying the text. The photo wasn't taken to show what the sign looks like, it was taken to copy the text on the sign. From a copyright perspective I would say it's the exact same as transcribing the words...plus the flower design.

The photographer has a copyright he/she can give to GDFL. However, it is a derivative work so the underlying copyright to the text can't be granted. I doubt it would pass non-free use because it's more detail than needed to illustrate the existence of the marker or most any other purpose I can imagine.Wikidemo 20:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What about this close up photograph of a marker in England: image here Snowman 20:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

According to the commons page commons:Freedom of panorama#United_Kingdom, even in the UK freedom of panorama does not apply to signs. So I don't think it's ok. nadav (talk) 06:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What about the blue plaque pics? I've taken a few of those. I'd like to see them stay, if possible. The way I read the link you gave me, it says that the law doesn't apply to 2D stuff because they are not creative. ie. copyright doesn't apply, so no freedom of panorama needs to be invoked. Of course, if the text is copyrighted, that is a different matter. But in the case of heritage plaques, I doubt the text is copyrighted. In the case of museum description signs, yes, the text will be copyrighted. Carcharoth 00:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute, from my memory on U.S. state historical signs, copywriters sell the material to the federal states and the state owns all of the text. Now, we all know federal images are PD - how about textual material? Guroadrunner 18:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The 2D vs 3D issue doesn't relate to the copyright in the underlying work. It just means that a photographer of a 2D work does not have copyright in the photo. The original item is still protected by copyright.

As far as governmental works (both images and text), only works of the US federal government are excluded from copyright, because of a specific statute. Works of state governments are protected by copyright. -- But|seriously|folks  19:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

multimedia tecnology and application

why is copyright law so problematic for multimedia technology and application —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.231.2 (talk) 07:50, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

It isn't. Pretty trivial compared to say tax laws.Geni 14:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Tax law is much more deterministic and rule-based. Thousands of pages of code, regulations, and commentary to every possible circumstance. Copyright law has only a few pages of code; you get into the thicket and emerge from there to the reat unknown rather quickly. Wikidemo 02:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Mostly because people wish it wasn't there, so they try to twist it to make it not apply. But it does. If you just leave it alone and let it mean exactly what it says, it's fairly straightforward. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Crustacean barnstar.png

I have recently uploaded Image:Crustacean barnstar.png, created from two images, Image:Barnstar.png and Image:Crab-icon.png, both not covered by copyright. What copyright tag should I use for it? It would not likely be considered (entirely) my own work... Many thanks. --Crustaceanguy 13:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Up to you I would probably go for {{PD-user}}.Geni 14:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Your two source images are in the public domain and therefore are not protected by copyright. Your compilation of them is protected by copyright. I would personally use {{pd-self}} in this case, but you can also use and of the ones listed at WP:ICT#For image creators.. --Clubjuggle 15:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

increased hurricane intensity

how hurricane affects human society —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.171.90.25 (talk) 19:33, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

This page is for questions related to copyright on media uploaded to Wikipedia. The place to get this question answered is as the reference desk. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Image

The image on The VonFrederick Group site is the Crest of The VonFrederick Group. If you visit www.vonfrederick.com, you will also see the image of the crest. I hope this clarifies the conundrum, or please ask me any further question. Thanks.

Dr. Lionel von Frederick Rawlins

--Charlema 21:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Uploading an Image

Greetings,

I've been using Wikipedia for about one year now, and have just recently thought about editing pages. I was navigating through Olympics pages one day, when I came upon the Mark Spitz page. I noticed that there was not a picture for the Mark Spitz page, so I thought that I might edit this page into having a depiction of the athlete. So after that, I went to the upload wizard to find out how to add an image to a page, and found that it was much more complicated than I had expected. What I was mostly confused about was how people were able to obtain such information like the, photographer, copyright, place the photo was taken etc., when you find the image from a site that does not give any information on the photograph.

Just wondering, is it mostly people who take their own photographs and put them on Wikipedia, that post the photos, and if not, can you advise me in how Wikipedians get hold of copyrights, photographer names and the other required information for uploading an image.

Thank you, --Í'ɱ Рřʘ 00:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

you should not be uploading pics of living people that you do not hold the copyright on (ie only upload ones you took yourself).Geni 12:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This is one of those cases where a fair use image is justifiable, if the point is to illustrate him in competition. Since he no longer competes, a free image cannot be made showing this. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If the point is to show him as a person, what he looks like, and who he is, a free use picture of an older Mark Spitz is good and a non-free use is unjustified. He is just as much of a human being now as before. If there is a need to show him in competition for purposes of illustrating the article, that adds substantially to the reader's understanding of the subject, and could not be served by words alone or a free use image, then a non-free image of him in competition may be justified. But ask yourself, do you really need a picture of him swimming to illustrate that he won a swim meet? A picture of a gymnast in the middle of a 10.0 olympic performance might be justified because their form, poise, etc., at the moment, could help the reader understand how they got a 10.0. Is there anything so iconic about Mark Spitz in performance? Something about his technique, etc? That's what puts this at the borderline. Wikidemo 02:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Actor photos

Hello,

Like the rest of the people on the page I'm a new contributor to Wikipedia and am learning things the hard way by ramming my head up against things.

I have illustrated a couple articles (ones I did, ones already written that I expanded) with stills of a still living actor but of ones that were from lobby cards or a studio photograph sent to fans around late 50's early 60's. I asked the website of the actor (not run by him, just by fans) for their permission to use some of their images to illustrate pieces. They enthusaistically gave their permission for it to be used in Wikipedia, but now I'm being attacked by a 'bot' (just learned what that word is!)

Now, number one, though the actor is still alive, the art work necessary is from the late 50's and 60's, so there's no way I could go back in a time machine to take my own photos. Number two, current photos of the actor would in no way do justice to the articles. In the case of stills from lobby cards and all, the artist at that time had no rights, they just worked for the studio. In time the studio that releases the films is taken over several times by different media conglomerates. Though an actual photo taken off the film availble on DVD would be an admitted violation of copyright, I don't see how late 50's early 60's artwork or fan photos would come under this.

To add some more information, when I contacted the organisation they say that star and about every other star attends various conventions where they sell old stills and artwork of them and they say stuff that old is in the public domain.

Could you provide some simple information on this please, to give the details this is concerning-

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:2peterbrown.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:2peterbrown.jpg has a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission,

The image has been granted permission, it is for educational and non-commercial use (I am not making any money or favours out of this). Is it possible 'another Wikipedia user' just might be a vandal or the internet equivilent of the pre-schooler drawing in books with his or her crayons? Thank youWaukegan 06:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

wikipedia does not accept permission for educational use or non-commercial use only. Wikipedia needs images to be released under a free licsense. In this case since you do not hold the copyright that would not appear to be posible.Geni 12:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Can't a fair use claim be made here, since a useful free alternative is not available, and cannot be made? --Clubjuggle 17:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

In nearly all cases a copyrighted image of a living person is considered replaceable (and therefore is inappropriate) because a new free image could be made. The times when that is not the case is an active subject of discussion for the guideline page WP:NONFREE. The current wording, which I added last night and is therefore too new to rely on completely, suggests that an old non-free image may be irreplaceable if it illustrates the career of a person whose notability rests on their appearance, and they no longer appear that way. Under this theory, in the scenario where RuPaul stops cross-dressing and we find that there's not a single free image of him/her appearing in costume as a woman (unlikely but this is a hypothetical), then a non-free image may be necessary to illustrate his/her career. By contrast, in an article about Mel Gibson the man, we can assume that if there were not a single free image to be found, it's still not okay to use a copyrighted image because someone could always go take a new photo. The fact that he may be un-posed, older, and not as strapping as in his max max days, is not pertinent. The new image isn't as pretty but it does the job we need. There's a line to draw there on replaceability, whether a new free image would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Note that Wikipedia has concerns to limit the number of non-free images that go beyond just what's allowable under fair use law. Using the copyrighted image is probably legal both under fair use and because it's okay with him. But we say thanks but no thanks to that, we would rather use a free image. To see how this plays out in your situation it might help to know the details rather than discuss in the abstract. Wikidemo 17:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Wikidemo, for your prompt and informative reply (are you with Wikipedia? I can't tell the colour of your uniform). I like your examples and they make sense, however let's use your example of Mel Gibson.

If I did an article on Mel, and I then flew to Hollywood or where ever he lives, throw gravel at his window, and snap his photo when he looks out the window shouthing 'Hey you punks!' I think I've committted a violation of his rights by snapping a photo and using it (like the Paparazzi do I guess) without his permission. On the other hand if I write to him and say could you please send a current photo for an image for Wikipedia and he sends one, we might have the problem of Wikipedia accepting advertising for his image, in that our hypothetical Mr G knows he will be appearing in Wik and sends an image that will be designed to present him in a flattering light that may be seen by casting people.

Surely there must be some sort of date we can accept of photos and artwork that is not licensed or required to be licensed?

Thanks againWaukegan 22:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No, not with Wikipedia. I say "we" and you can too, we're all part of this noble project. Yes to throwing rocks. Even if it may be difficult, expensive, or dangerous for you, somebody could take a new snapshot. Neither Wikipedia nor the law has seen fit to ban phtogoraphs that are aggressively obtained. So you can use a picture you take at a concert or in a museum despite a sign saying that's not allowed, I don't think Wikipedia has banned that (yet). If you invade someone's privacy by sneaking into their house that's a different matter with the law at least. Not sure whether that's come up on Wikipedia. You would be surprised. Some professional portrait photographers have donated high quality pictures they own of celebrities from photo sessions. Also, many people appear at lectures, concerts, signings, on the street, etc. Wikipedia wants to encourage people to go out and take these pictures rather than just sitting on their computer and complaining that it would be too much bother. So if a paparazzo can do it you can too! The exception might be someone who is incarcerated with no visitors, in medical isolation, running from the law, hostile foreign head of state, or otherwise almost completely inaccessible (these are my silly examples...in fact, I'm just reasoning here, not stating anything official) Wikidemo 23:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No to throwing rocks. That would be trespassing, and possibly vandalism. Yes to getting a photo in public. The reason celebrities can't stop paparazzi is because it's not illegal to take pictures of people when they're somewhere publicly visible. Stepping onto someone else's private property is another matter entirely, and we do not condone illegal actions.

And if I catch you taking flash photos in a museum, I will hunt you down and give you the deepest wedgie of your life. They're banned for a reason: repeated exposure to bright lights like a flash is potentially damaging to artwork. Not even the Met banned non-flash photography last time I was there, but in that case you have to take what you can get.

Yes, there are cases where fair-use photos of living people are allowable, in cases where it's not reasonably possible for a free photo to be made. Mel isn't one of them. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Just pointing out that certain things are not Wikipedia's concern. If you throw rocks at a window that's between you, Mel Gibson, and the local police. Similar issue with museums and rock concerts. Many museums have historically banned all photography so they could control all the extant photos of works that would otherwise be public domain or fair uses. Courts have recently ruled otherwise but in the past they thought that by having the only good picture of an old painting they could use copyright to prevent others from reproducing the picture for books, posters, etc. The flash thing sounds like self-serving nonsense on the museum's part and is dubious in terms of the overall number of photons impacting a work of art over its expected life but science is a complicated thing and I'll keep an open mind. Nevertheless, it's not Wikipedia's concern how many torts, contract breaches, crimes, and social offenses you might have committed to get your picture. The fact that you would have to commit a tort or crime to get an image is a good argument that it's not replaceable; the fact that you would have to know someone, get lucky, be patient, or travel to a foreign country is not a good argument. Wikidemo 03:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That's true, but let's not say things like "yes to throwing rocks". If someone breaks the law on his own to get a photo that's one thing, but if he did it because you told him to, that's quite another. Waukegan probably takes your meaning correctly since its his example, but he's not the only one reading this.

The literature seems divided on the subject of flash damage to art. On the one hand I find institutions like the Smithsonian prohibiting it on those grounds where old fabrics or pigments are involved, but not generally otherwise. Since they're a US government trust, all gift shop material produced by them is PD anyway, so marketability shouldn't be an issue. On the other, it seems that there's research claiming the opposite. So it's probably true in some cases but not others. If a museum prohibits flash but allows tripods, allowing a good photo to be taken with longer exposure times, it's a safe bet they're acting in the interests of conservation. In those cases ambient lighting will be carefully controlled in general, and indeed at the Met exhibits involving fabric always had much more subdued lighting than the painting and sculpture galleries. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I was peripherally involved in an issue involving one building in DC where the feds basically allowed direct sun from a skylight to fall on some murals that were a national treasure. The skylights leaked. Guess what? Then they painted them over, punched holes through for wiring, and totally forgot them for 50 years. You should see the conservation bills. So much for the public trust. But yse....of course I'm not advocating for breaking the law, and if anyone uses my comments as an excuse for stalking a celebrity heaven help them. The "yes" part is meant as a slightly humorous way of confirming the original poster's earnest question, whether Wikipedia requires people to go to great lengths to produce a free picture when a copyrighted one is readily available. Thanks for the great conversation, btw. Wikidemo 03:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, thank you for your comments all of you. I'm rather new to all this and home with the flu, so I see what I'm missing by working. I was interested in your photo by surprise comments. My second part of the question was the part about the celebrity only allowing a photo that he or she had endorsed (i.e. one taken by a professional or they and their agents inspecting your work and approving or disapproving it). From what limited knowledge I have of celebrities and other people as well is that when some people get on in years they don't want to be remembered with a photo taken in their nursing home. Some stars are only allowed to be photographed from certain angles or with certain lighting and if a picture of say, Sean Connery snapped sleeping outside, whilst being taken by a Wikipedia contributor may draw that celebrities ire and threats.

Would a caption such as "Maureen O'Hara (for example) in the film 'Mr Hobbs Takes A Vacation' 1962" be valid for an article on Ms O'Hara? You are stating the year and the artwork or still may not be the property of someone as opposed to a still from the film itself that would be. Someone like Ms O'Hara (just an example, I haven't been in touch with her though she's my favourite actress) may not want to have a photo of her at her age, especially when she's remembered for films from quite some time ago...

SO A QUESTION IS-Will we have to wait until some actor/actress dies until we can use an image of them in their famous films? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waukegan (talk • contribs) 01:07, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

I also enjoyed the information on flash bulbs in museums and hope everyone has been as illuminated on the issue as I have. Thanks again everyone, hope to hear from youWaukegan 07:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's backtrack

The original poster said that when he/she contacted the representatives for the actor, they said the material from the 1950s/60s are public domain? Does that mean things have fallen into public domain, or what's going on there? It sounds like that is the key to the whole thing because if we have readily accessible PD material, then... bingo! Guroadrunner 18:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding copyright

Hi

I got a message saying I needed to add a copyright tag to two images. Which I think I have done properly.

I was wondering if that means the images will not be deleted now?

How do you know?

--Beagleskin 16:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

do you hold the copyright on those images?Geni 16:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I do.

--Beagleskin 16:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

did you create them?Geni

Yes I did.--Beagleskin 16:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

the images should be fine then.Geni 16:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :)--Beagleskin 16:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

An image for my Userpage

I had uploaded an image I made, Image:ChrisDHDR.jpg, on which I specified that it was still in my copyright and I allowed it to only be used on my Userpage. It has since then been speedy deleted. Is there a tag I could use if I re-uploaded this image, or would I be forced to release it under a different licence? I do remember seeing an Image with a "Userpage only" tag, does it still exist? --ChrisDHDR ^{( • contrib's)} 06:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I would be extremely surprised if such a template existed (and would nominate it for deletion). The non-free content policy (#9) specifically bars copyright content with no free license from appearing on user pages. nadav (talk) 03:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible for me to give permission only for use on Wikipedia??? --ChrisDHDR ^{( • contrib's)} 10:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No, because Wikipedia itself is distributed under the GFDL. See WP:NONFREE#Downstream use for an explanation. --Clubjuggle 10:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, last question, could I licence it as Fair-use, and under that fair-use, use it on my userpage??? ChrisDHDR ( C @) 13:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Artwork vs. photography?

I would like to use the painting found here. It was painted in 1852 by famous Toronto painter William Armstrong. Does the normal Canadian copyright apply here? IE, anything older than 1935 is PD? Or is it different for paintings? Maury 13:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No different for paintings in this case. You might want to crop down to just the painting, though (i.e., crop out the drop shadow). You should be able to tag it with {{PD-art-life-70}} and {{PD-Canada}} --Clubjuggle 13:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Unholy three.png

Being published well before 1970, could this be {{PD-Pre1978}}? I see no copyright sign or notice anywhere on it. 68.39.174.238 18:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It depends whether the copyright was renewed. See WP:PD#Published works. --Clubjuggle 19:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Chinese Copyright Law

I have been notified by Orphanbot that my images (both can be found QCW-05 needs a copyright tag. I'm sort of new at this so any help would be great! I can assure you that the images are covered under Article 5 subsection 2 of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (中华人民共和国著作权法) as being from a public news piece and therefore not subject to copyright but the problem is that I can't find a template tag thng to use for this, all I can find is one for Chinese images that are over 50 years old. So if somebody can point me in the right direction then I'll make the changes as quickly as possible. Semi-Lobster 03:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons has a tag for this, commons:Template:PD-PRC-exempt. However, it does not appear to apply to these images, since they look to be just pictures of guns and not "mere facts or happenings reported by the mass media," which is how the Chinese government defines "news on current events." nadav (talk) 04:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure that it says "mere facts or happenings reported by the mass media"? The Chinese government website here (http:/www.ahga.gov.cn/government/fagui/mf4/low_view1.htm/) is translated by the PRC government is:

 (1) laws; regulations; resolutions, decisions and orders of state organs;
 other documents of legislative, administrative and  judicial  nature;  and
 their official translations;
 (2) news on current affairs; and
 (3) calendars, numerical tables, forms of general use and formulas.'

The articles on sina.com is about the introduction of a new Chinese firearm and this government translations does not mentions 'facts and happenings' and is linked from the Intellectual property in the People's Republic of China page. Semi-Lobster 10:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

hi, my homework is that i have to write an essey i dont know how or how to start one. the topic is about why girls in 7th grade have it easyer that boys? this is my first time doing this. i realy need your help please is due tomorrow —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaya24 (talk • contribs) 05:14, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Hello to all, i have been a member for a while, but only recently have i added anything to wikipedia. I was working on a page which uses a picture of a small village. The image is from the website listed in the links section of the actual article. I emailed the website editor and asked for permission to use the picture here, it was agreed and i have the persons email if verification is needed. I dont know anything about the tag systems that wikipedia has asked for, because i know that the owner has given permission then it is okay. Anyway i have uploaded the picture countless times and it keeps getting deleted. Any help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedary (talk • contribs) 08:57, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

PDF's of whole books from the EEBO collection

No response in 8 days at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use..., so I'm going to repost my question here in hopes that someone can answer it.

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

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

Wikimedia Commons has at least a few images from EEBO: Image:Londoners-Lamentation.gif, Image:Relapse_characters.png, Image:Love'sLastShift title.png. The question is, why hasn't anyone had the chutzpah to print out a whole book, scan an electronic facsimile, and make it available to the world. (There are plenty of books in EEBO, notable enough to have Wikipedia articles, whose texts are not freely available in any form on the internet, for example the Old Testament of the original 17th century Douay-Rheims Bible.) Wareh 19:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Maybe it will help if I pose a more specific form. Suppose that I complement Image:Relapse_characters.png by adding Image:Relapse_pg_01_of_57.png to Image:Relapse_pg_57_of_57.png. If the single image is public domain, as stated, then surely I haven't done anything wrong to complete the series with other public domain images? Wareh 19:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Google Earth Images

can google earth images be used, and if so, how should it be credited? !!Treezum!! 21:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Google earth images are copyrighted, so they cannot be used. Sorry! Calliopejen1 06:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:CCI.jpg

I need help determining which license should be used for Image:CCI.jpg. I got off of the school board's website, which can be located at [1] for the specific High School. There are currently no alternatives available. The image will be used on the Centennial Collegiate article.

Please notify me on my talk page.

Thanks,

Haseo9999 22:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You have a response on your talk page. Guroadrunner 18:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I will work on getting a fair use image immediately. For now, I nominated it for deletion on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 August 30#Image:CCI.jpg till I get a fair-use image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haseo9999 (talk • contribs) 20:33, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Need correct lisencing tags for Image:Georgi-Gladyshev.jpg?

I uploaded an image from the back cover of the 2003 book Supramolecular Thermodynamics is a Key to Understanding Phenomenon of Life – What is Life from a Physical Chemist’s Viewpoint (in Russian) published by the Russian Academy of Sciences, ISBN: 5-93972-198-2. I contacted the copyright holder: Georgi Gladyshev and he granted copyright permission, via email, for use of this photo in Wikipedia. Another user has put it up for speedy, because he says it fails criteria #1 of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, i.e. that it is replaceable. Isn’t there another license tag I can add, since it is a public image off the book written by the person in the article? Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 02:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I am now seriously confused about fair use rational

I got a notice just now about Image:Hohenheim of Light (FMA).JPG, which bothers me immensely; I went through the trouble of checking each of my fair use images, adding additional liscenses where apropriete, and updating the fair use rational for all of them with that new large line by line template we gat a few monthes back. Why am getting a message telling me this isn't enough? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the "bad rationale" tag by BetacommandBot. The image only appears for that character and seems to be within the fair use. As it is an animated character, it is not like you can get a "free image" of this "living human" (Honenheim is animated) unless one of the episodes falls into the public domain. Guroadrunner 18:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank You. I was fairly certain that the bot was in the wrong here, but to be safe I wanted a neutral party to check it just to be sure. I would have removed the bad rational tag myself, but people get suspicous when the one who uploaded an image removes detramental tags from the image. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Jack White - mug shot.jpg

If a celebrity gets arrested and this becomes the subject of media attention, would a nonfree mugshot (such as the above image) be acceptable under our fair use standards? Unless there's critical commentary of the image itself, surely mugshots don't really warrant a place in an article? I asked a similar question about mugshots earlier this year, but there wasn't really a solid answer. Spellcast 14:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Why are mugshots considered under copyright?

Forgive me, but why are they considered copyrighted? I've always seen American mugshots used freely as if no restrictions exist? Guroadrunner 18:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Received a request to use my Flickr photo

A guy wants to use a photo I have posted on Flickr in his Wikipedia article (or more precisely, he wants to edit the photo and use the edited version in his article). I currently have the photo's licence set to "All Rights Reserved". He has asked me to change the licence, but I'm not satisfied with his explanation of Wikipedia's licensing requirements. I don't want to change the licence until I've seen his edit. Assuming his edit is OK, I'm happy to allow him to use the edited photo in his Wikipedia article, with me being acknowledged as the photographer, but not for any other purpose. Aside from that, I want to retain the maximum rights I can over the photo, including his edit. What do I need to do? Brettm8 14:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Brettm8, Wikimedia content is ideally supposed to be completely free for anyone to use. Images should only appear on Wikipedia if the creator agrees to release them under a free license. It's fine to require attribution for your images, but you can't be selective about who uses them or for what purpose. If you want to prevent people from doing things such as incorporating your image in company logos (without paying you), it's safer for you to politely refuse the editor's request. Let me know if you'd like more information. Thanks, Papa November 17:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello - pretty much because it's Wikipedia, the mission (or beliefs) of Wikipedia state that what can be put onto Wikipedia needs to be licensed as free content, meaning it will be out of your control - including for other purposes outside of Wikipedia. (It's sort of like a donation of material that can be shared mostly everywhere.) We can accomodate allowing you to be credited, but not for you to maintain ownership. Overall it sounds like this conflicts with your wishes for the image. I can empathize as I have material of my own that I am hesitant to release as "free" myself. -- Guroadrunner (a Wikipedia user)

How to tag an image created by myself

How do add a copyright tag to the image Image:Nairobi_(8).JPG Inagatt 18:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)inagatt

Looks like you got it figured out with the GDFL tag. Nice photo! Guroadrunner 18:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Wish to use a picture where permission for use on wikipedia was granted.

I've requested permission from the UK National Archives (UK) to include a diagram (picture) on the effects of strategic bombing into the Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II article and other such articles on Wikipedia.

The Diagram is located here

The response from the National Archives was as follows:

---

You may place this item on a Wikipedia page without charge, provided that it is at low resolution, and accompanied by a disclaimer which states that no commercial use may be made of the image without the permission of The National Archives Image Library, at

image-library@nationalarchives.gov.uk

You can use the website image, credited to:

The National Archives of the UK, ref. AIR48/70

---

How do I proceed in order to upload it? Trying to use the, "permission to use on wikipedia" license brings up the speedy deletion box, so that does not seem as a good plan.--Stor stark7 ^Talk 18:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well..., here's the tricky wicket. Even though someone says it can be used for Wikipedia, if they say "no commercial use", then it can't be put on the Wikipedia. The reason why is because Wikipedia wants material that can be freely spread around to both commercial and non-commercial sites -- basically free and open material -- and that "no commercial use without permission" sinks it. Items uploaded with the "permission to use on wikipedia" format are automatically tagged as not "free enough" and therefore need to go. If you have any questions, feel free. Guroadrunner 20:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Work done by a state agency

I have public hearing maps of a proposed interstate highway connector created by the North Carolina Department of Transportation. Are these in the public domain?--Cowboy wilhelm 19:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This image does not have a copyright tag

Is it O.K. if I remove that tag from the image: Yarlang_tsango_river_tibet.jpg since it is a NASA image and I have placed a {{PD-USGov}} tag on it? Mattisse 23:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. In fact I went ahead and did that and also moved Image:Yarlang_tsango_river_tibet.jpg to Commons. (I'd never moved anything to Commons before, I hope it worked). Guroadrunner 11:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Is different licensing of high and low resolution versions feasible?

My wife and I have taken a number of photographs that we hope to sell, but commercial value depends on resolution - that of a 4+ Mpx version is (we hope) significant, while that of a 0.1Mpx one is trivial.

The immediate case in point is that we have pictures of the bridges at Wycoller, East Lancs, UK to which reference is made in the relevant Wikipedia article - and which could be used to illustrate that article.

We'd be glad to release, say, 400x300px versions (adequate for the web page) under the Creative Commons: Attribution + ShareAlike license, but want to retain all rights over the original, ~8Mpx versions.

Is this feasible and is it useful/desireable?

Roger.beaumont 01:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Work that appears to be out of copyright

I uploaded Image:Stipple.png in the days before we were so careful about image copyrights. I provided two rationales. The primary one was that it appears to be out of copyright.

The secondary one, which has been challenged, is that I believe it to be fair use. I don't agree with the challenge, but it doesn't matter, as that was only a "backup" rationale, so I've removed it and changed the tag to PD-US.

The main point is that an online search does not show this one as having had its copyright renewed.

If people don't think that's good enough, then go ahead and delete the image. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Chika with high commissioner kolade-1- (2).jpg

i have updated the page ihope

"This image is a candidate for speedy deletion. It will be deleted after Tuesday, 4 September 2007" does not hold.--Motegole 09:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Could someone check that the image I moved to commons was done right?

As part of Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#This_image_does_not_have_a_copyright_tag earlier on this page, I moved an image to commons. I have never done this before, so could someone check that everything is good? The image is Image:Yarlang_tsango_river_tibet.jpg. -- Guroadrunner 11:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If a TV show episode has fallen into public domain...

I think I know the answer already, but if a TV show episode has fallen into public domain, then everything in it is fair game, right? Even if the most episodes are not in the PD, an episode in PD is separate and things can be stripped from it, right?

I'm thinking about Dick Van Dyke, Beverly Hillbillies and The Lucy Show -- all with episodes that fell into the public domain. A wealth of stuff to take video screenshots from, I betcha. Let me know. Guroadrunner 17:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably yes.... but you would need to cite specific reasoning as to why the episode is in the public domain (i.e. you just saying it's in the public domain isn't going to cut it). Also trademark and personality rights may still apply, even if copyright doesn't. If you have a specific example it would be easier to answer questions about it. It's basically impossible to make blanket statements about this kind of copyright issue. Megapixie 13:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that having backing information is useful. See www.pdcomedy.com/ for a database of filmed material, and also archive.org. That's what I'd be sourcing from. I will get some examples of what I want to put up but things I'm thinking of are

• • Images of vehicles and things
  • Images of people/characters from the PD episodes even as there are copyrighted episodes too
  • Show title/opening title card images from the PD episodes even as there are copyrighted episodes too
  • and anything else that fits.

I'm trying to see if "it fell into public domain" means "everything in it can be stripped for putting online"

The reason I'm bringing this up is because the TV shows had a production run that have both PD and non-PD episodes. A movie, if not copyrighted, is a single entity that can be stripped (see "Reefer Madness", or for example, Image:ReeferMadness_13.jpg and it's PD rationale).

Does this help? -- Guroadrunner 16:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

A little. I'll go through the examples.

• Vehicles / things - yes. However if they happen to show a copyright thing (a sculpture/painting) inside the image, then that may not be Public Domain.
• People - yes - although there may be personality rights involved with images of people. But they would certainly be okay to use on wikipedia.
• Title card - problematic - there may be trademark issues associated with the title cards - i.e. the Disney logo is never going to be free enough for us to slap a PD image tag on it.

Landscapes / cityscapes / animals are okay. Again - a specific example is easy to explain, blanket answers are almost impossible (that's why an introductory copyright textbook is two inches thick). Megapixie 02:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Reverse Copyright

Here's a copyright question the other way round...

What's the law when a contributor to Wikipedia subsequently uses her own contribution in a print publication? Must she or must she not refer to WP? Should she (legally or ethically) use her username and/or real name?

Help please!!!--Naime Tulum 14:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The user can use her contributions however she wants, with or without attribution and under any license or none at all. The only thing is that she can only use her contributions that way; for example, I could not use an entire article that way if I've worked on it but other people have too. 17Drew 17:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Main image for Ariana Richards article

Hello!

I wonder if you can help me. There is an image on the homepage of the Ariana.org website that I have asked permission to use that I would like to use legally as the main image on her wikipedia page.

I understand that my recent attempts to post the image have been deleted. I think I still have the jpg I have uploaded (but not submitted yet) but I'm confused on whether I should be the one to actually display it. I do respect and fully understand the Wikipedia policy on using images, but I'm not quite sure about what is the best way for me to actually display the image.

I would also like some advice on posting a few pictures of scenes from her films and what legality I have on presenting them onto the page.

Another picture I would like to include is a picture of one of her paintings (the Lady of the Dahlias as mentioned on the page) which I have got and can take the actual picture myself, would the use of this image be legal?

Kind regards.

--Andyroojackson 15:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It depends entirely on what permission you asked for and what permission is granted. Wikipedia must have a free license in order to host it here, except for certain special circumstances. Any image submitted with permission for Wikipedia only, or for non-commercial or educational use only, will be speedily deleted. Under certain circumstances Wikipedia will accept images as fair use, but almost always never applies to living persons even when it's permissible under the law. The goal of this project is to create a free encyclopedia, and non-free images are not consistent with that goal. So where it's possible (even theoretically) for a free image conveying the same information to be made, we do not allow non-free ones.

To be certain that you ask for and get the right kind of permission, and what to do afterward to confirm it, please see the guideline. The wrong kind of permission is as good as no permission at all, so this is important.

As for photos of her paintings and film screenshots, since these are always going to be covered under copyright, a limited number of them can be used since no free equivalent will be available. (This is the case even if you take the photo yourself. The painting itself is covered under copyright, so we must consider that.) But they must be used in the context of criticism or other commentary on her work. Please be sure to add the appropriate tag to the image page -- {{fair use in|Ariana Richards}} -- and add a rationale describing specifically how use of the image conforms to policy. Then make sure you actually insert them into the article, since orphaned non-free media will also be speedily deleted. TCC (talk) (contribs) 17:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

copyright

Well the image I posted was taken by me of me owm uniform so what are the copyright procedures for that. Image:Arid Woodland.JPG

You already own the copyright on it -- that happens automatically as soon as you take the picture -- but Wikipedia needs it under a free license. There are a number of them you can choose from. Pick one and then either add the tag to the image page manually, or select it from the dropdown menu on the image upload page. TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Russian Air Marshal

Is the image on the right useable on wikipedia for the article Alexander Novikov? Soviet Air Force image from 1945. SGGH ^speak! 21:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

i need help adding tagss

hi i need help adding tags to these images

File:AshellyReese 042.jpg

Famous-Partcher's first shoot with Ashely Reese April 27, 2007

File:3 Partcher Logos.gif

Partcher logo

File:MashMellow Attackl.jpg

2nd photoshoot with J-G(MarshMellow Attack) August 28 , 2007

File:Famous-Partcher Logo.jpg

Famous-Partcher Logo

Image:Liam Tobin in 1922.jpg

I have scanned this picture [Image:Liam Tobin in 1922.jpg]] from a 10 year old book published in UK. The book states the photo was taken in 1922. It gives no further detail (presumably because the Photographers's copyright has expired. I want a hint of the next step I should Take. (Even if he needs to be deleted..Tell me how so I can try and do this myself) Aatomic1 08:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

How do I update an image tag? I'm very confused. PeskyAtheist 21:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:LH-Patch577w.png

I uploaded Image:LH-Patch577w.png. I have received a message saying "there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use."

The image was sent to me by the Kansas City Chiefs, who own it, and whose representative Pete Moris tod me that I could use the image wherever I wanted, as long as the Chiefs are credited. I have done so. What more can I say? SugnuSicilianu 23:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:ShawTheOtherLeague.png

I uploaded Image:ShawTheOtherLeague.png. I received a message saying "Image is being used for decorative purposes only, and does not add encyclopedic value to article." I would like to know the Wikipedia definition of "decorative" as opposed to "illustrative".

Encyclopedias for centuries have elaborated on text explanations with illustrations of the subject involved. How can it be argued that A PHOTO OF THE SUBJECT "does not add encyclopedic value to article."??? The photo displays a VISUAL aspect of the subject that no amount of text can express. In other words "A picture is worth a thousand words." SugnuSicilianu 23:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You deleted an image that I uploaded (with a lot of bother from my end!). This is a studio photo taken over 10 years ago. I own it. Can you please put it back?