Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Commented.
Des Dyer (talk | contribs)
Line 494: Line 494:


:Is the image your own work? --[[User:BritandBeyonce|βandβ]] <sup>([[User_talk:BritandBeyonce|talk]]•[[Special:Contributions/BritandBeyonce|contribs]])</sup> 10:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
:Is the image your own work? --[[User:BritandBeyonce|βandβ]] <sup>([[User_talk:BritandBeyonce|talk]]•[[Special:Contributions/BritandBeyonce|contribs]])</sup> 10:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The image was taken by my camera on my film - I didn't take the picture as I'm on stage playing drums. Subsequently this was used by Splash Records Ltd., with my permission. I am a director of the company.

Revision as of 11:08, 27 October 2007

    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
    1. On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}})
    5. Hit Publish changes.
    6. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below.
    How to ask a question
    1. To ask a new question hit the "Click here to start a new discussion" link below.
    2. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end.
    3. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page.
    4. 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 purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)


    Copyright Question photo's ATLANTA BOY BAND

    Friday 19th October 2007


    I can't understand why the copyright of the two photo's used on the page for ATLANTA BOY BAND are being called into question when they were first uploaded, I confirmed they where my own personal copyright and I completed all the necessary details required.

    They where used on the page ATLANTA LIVERPOOL BOY BAND then, but for some reason that page would not show in searches or if people entered the web address that is why the page ATLANTA BOY BAND was opened.

    Now two most serious "Libelous" points have been raised to delete the ATLANTA BOY BAND, this I take as a personal slur on my good character that I am not telling the truth. I worked for a Radio Station for 21 years here in the UK and I am not willing to accept serious accusations like this. If the page is deleted by Wikipedia it associates the site also with these libel statements that have been made.

    Atlanta Liverpool Boy Band 11:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC) JBS

    We have still had no response to this point about the copyright of the two pictures used on the Atlanta Boy Band page, we clearly stated and filled in the relevant pages to state these are Our Own Copyright. Our page has been deleted even though we produced evidence requested, we are current in appeal asking for the page entry to be fully restored, so we would like to clear this photos problems up as well. Thanks Atlanta Liverpool Boy Band 10:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlanta Liverpool Boy Band (talkcontribs)

    karela

    Any studies on the long term effects of taking karela (bitter melon)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salimbobat (talkcontribs) 10:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please ask at the reference desk. This page is for copyright questions. -- But|seriously|folks  17:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Olive Diefenbaker

    I have received permission by e-mail to use the current image I uploaded to the page at Olive Diefenbaker as indicated on the image page. I would like someone to check the code I added to make any necessary corrections to avoid its deletion. NorthernThunder 18:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)--NorthernThunder 18:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    What if I got the image from a foreign website?

    What if I got the image from a foreign website? For instance from a Japanese site, like http://www.bokumono.com/series/runefactory/chara_heroin.html? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperDragonUltra (talkcontribs) 23:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The images on that website are all copyright, and are unlikely to be usable on wikipedia except under fair use. However the way you are using these images Template:Http://www.bokumono.com/series/runefactory/chara_heroin.html is incompatible with that. Megapixie 01:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    USA law for Russian film copyrights?

    I used the PD rationale on this image because the film is in the public domain in Russia. However, another editor said that only Russian films made prior to January 1, 1946 are PD in the United States. I had never heard of this exact date before. Can anyone explain where it came from?

    I'm confident that I have a sufficient fair use rationale for keeping the image, but I'd like to understand the rules first. Esn 05:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That's due to the URAA (foreign works that were still copyrighted on 1 Jan 1996 receive copyright protection in the U.S. with the duration set by U.S. law). Also, thanks to a retroactive change in Russian copyright law, the film may be no longer public domain in Russia either, starting next January [1]. --Davepape 02:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Reusing Free Multi-license images

    I've found an image in another Wikimedia project with {{GFDL-with-disclaimers}}, {{cc-by-sa-1.0}}, {{cc-by-sa-2.0}}. If I want to use it here, should I tag all the licenses? Or I have to choose one of those to tag? Vinhtantran 16:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You should move the image to the Wikimedia Commons. If you upload it there under the same title, then you can tag it for deletion on that project, and the version at the Commons will be usable by any Wikimedia project. 17Drew 21:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Pictures of Florida Tech Buildings

    I'm trying to improve the Florida Institute of Technology article and take some pictures of some of the major buildings on campus. If I take the picture myself, may I upload it to Wikipedia so long as I sign it with a CC 3.0? Or do I need to have a Fair-Use Rationale stating that the building is part of private property...etc.? Thanks. Jameson L. Tai 20:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, you can release pictures of buildings under a free license. Buildings are copyrighted in the sense that you can't construct an identical one, but you can generally still take pictures. 17Drew 21:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The "generally" here has mainly do do with public art that may be displayed either in, around, or as part of a building. Something like a mural is copyrighted apart from the building, and if it is visible the photo cannot be freely licensed. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, there's all sorts of weirdness when it comes to that. And then apparently it's also possible to trademark a building. Who'd've thought? But cases like these most likely won't apply for the Florida Tech pictures. 17Drew 06:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    remove photo

    I was trying to add a photo to a page but receive email that it has to be copyrighted. Its a rendom picture of a football player that has no photo on the page. He's a friend of mine and i was just trying to add a photo to update his page. I guess i was not clearly understanding how to go about doing this. So how do i just remove my entrance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klbless2 (talkcontribs) 21:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If you want someone to delete an image you've uploaded, you can add {{db-author}} to the image description page. 17Drew 21:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Picture problem

    All my picture say they will be deleted on Oct. 28. I don't know why. They are all my own and I released them into the public domain. I chose it as one of the options. Can somenone help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldenmarine120 (talkcontribs) 01:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Your images appear to all be Halo screenshots. As such, they're not yours to release into the public domain - the creators of the video game have rights to their creation. The images should be tagged {{Non-free game screenshot}} and each given a rationale as to why they are necessary. --Davepape 02:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Image problems

    Since sourcing is very relative to copyright status verification, I directed here. I recently tagged this image as no-source but when I viewed this again, the tag was removed and the sourcing says, The cover art can or could be obtained from the record label. Is that how wikipedians cite source? Watch out. --BritandBeyonce (talkcontribs) 03:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Covers to singles, albums, books, etc. are referenced to the singles, albums, books themselves. 17Drew 04:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? They don't need source from a certain concrete site? --BritandBeyonce (talkcontribs) 09:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's always possible to scan an album cover. It doesn't need to come from a website. In that sense there's really only one possible source for an album cover image. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it does. However, the way he/she put his/her source, the way it was written is not good and is not acceptable, i think. --BritandBeyonce (talkcontribs) 10:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Far more importantly, it had no fair use rationale. But "this is the cover art" is perfectly acceptable for source information. The source is necessarily the cover of the album. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. --BritandBeyonce (talkcontribs) 01:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    adding the appropriate image tag to a photo appearing on the "Taekwondo Hall of Fame" page

    There is a photo which was taken and uploaded by me with the assistance of a senior member of the Taekwondo Hall of Fame which appears on the "Taekwondo Hall of Fame" wikipedia page. What is the appropriate image tag and how do I add it

    see Taekwondo Hall of Fame —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.193.86.250 (talk) 11:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that's a logo. You can use the {{non-free logo}} template for proper licensing. For further infos, you can get assistance here. --BritandBeyonce (talkcontribs) 12:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, he's asking about Image:Grup.jpg.
    If you took the picture yourself, you need to license it with one of the free licenses whose tags are listed here. To tag it, navigate to the image page, and click on the edit link. This will edit the text around the image, not the image itself. Add the tag (including the double curly braces) for the license you select. Be sure to add a note explaining you made the photo yourself. At that point feel free to remove the {{untagged}} tag.
    If you did not take the picture yourself, the person who did needs to send an email to "permissions-en at wikimedia dot org" giving the name of the image and saying specifically which free license he's granting for it. See WP:COPYREQ for an example of what the email should look like. If he is not willing to grant one of those free licenses, then we cannot have the image at Wikipedia. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, i thought it's the logo. --BritandBeyonce (talkcontribs) 02:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Airport terminals of next decade

    I have been asked to do a project on "Airport terminals of next decade". Can anybody help me in doing this project. This project shall contain at least 50 pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.90.123.190 (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You want the reference desk for questions like this. But bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we tend not to accumulate many articles on speculative topics. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    DnD image

    I don't know how to classify a picture of a Dungeons and Dragons character.

    Kingdomkey01 21:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    What is it a picture of, where did it come from, and who made it? TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    stoessner bucha estate photo

    Dear Sirs - My family took the photo of our ancestral estate! ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoessner-stines (talkcontribs) 02:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Image:Southern Leyte Subang Daku River.png

    I recently uploaded this image but it seems that there are no proper licensing for this. Bot currently tag this image. For further info, please try to visit the image and view its summary. Thanks. --BritandBeyonce (talkcontribs) 03:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Could this be saved if i upload this to wikimedia commons? --BritandBeyonce (talkcontribs) 03:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you think it's public domain? I don't see any release. It appears to be protected by copyright, so it definitely can't be used at Commons. It can't be used here either, as non-free images of landscapes are almost always replaceable. Sorry! -- But|seriously|folks  04:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What tag is applicable? I'm nor familiar with this. BritandBeyonce 05:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No tag is applicable. We do not host replaceable fair use images. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. Kindly remove the image. --BritandBeyonce (talkcontribs) 06:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Question about my downloading of the Image:JemtalentsearchVHS.JPG file for the Jem (TV series) listing

    Hello,

    I just provided the Image:JemtalentsearchVHS.JPG to Wikipedia. I scanned this cover from my copy of the videotape from my personal home video collection. Is there a way I can keep the image to stay on Wikipedia, since it is my image from scanning my video tape? I just don't know anything about the copyright status/legal issues that Wikipedia complains about regarding images downloaded to Wikipedia, and I just thought it would be nice to provide an illustration regarding the section about Jem video tapes in the listing for Jem (TV series) on Wikipedia.

    Thank you.

    Bill

    Hi, I removed the image in this page because they are not supposed to appear other than the article they are uploaded for; they are limited in use depending on the purpose. On your case, even though you scanned it by yourself, still, its protected by copyright. You may visit this page and choose what fits for the image. In addition, please supply the needed fair use rationale. Thank you. --BritandBeyonce (talkcontribs) 10:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Question: Own map diagram but map is taken from Google Earth

    Hello,

    I want to put an explosion map for the 2007 Glorietta explosion Wikipedia page, and I don't know what license it applies. I made the diagram of the explosion itself from Photoshop, and the Google Earth capture of the map is behind it. I showed the location of the places, and the explosion site itself. Chitetskoy 13:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Google Earth maps are copyrighted. You'll have to redraw the map yourself for this image to be acceptable. Copyrighted maps are practically never allowable under the non-free media policy because they're replaceable. Any sufficiently skilled Wikipedia editor can create a free map showing the same information. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Skew Bridge

    Hi again all, I have uploaded the image Skew_bridge.jpg and I got a bot warning me about it. I'm pretty sure that the image is free as it is very old and is posted on many webpages. What license should I use? Thanks DoyleyTalk 16:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    How old particularly? Remember that copyright protection takes a long period before it expires. In that case, though its being used by other sites, who knows if they have the permission? --BritandBeyonce (talkcontribs) 01:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Theme park map classification?

    I picked up a map of Epcot and uploaded it after scanning it (File:Epcot Map August 06.jpg) and it got deleted. Why did it get deleted, and how should I classify Theme park maps in the future? Cheers from Malpass93 18:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You were warned about a problem with this image more than 2 weeks ago. In the future you might be able to prevent problems like this by not ignoring the warnings when you receive them.
    Be aware that image names are case sensitive; the file you uploaded is Image:Epcot Map August 06.JPG. If you look at that location, you'll find the entry from the deletion log explaining that the image had no image copyright tag, which is exactly how the problem was described to you on your user talk page.
    If the image is appropriate for Wikipedia, since it's copyrighted by someone else it could only be used under the nonfree media policy. This almost never permits copyrighted maps to be uploaded since any sufficiently skilled Wikipedia editor could create a free version showing the same information. To justify using work owned by someone else, you'd have to show that it conveys information it is not otherwise possible to present, but that's very doubtful. If we could use it, you'd have to tag it {{non-free fair use in|articlename}} and provide a specific rationale justifying its use according to the policy. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Meta Knight Image license

    I need an image for the Meta Knight page. I want to upload this one from Kirby Air Ride but I don't know if it came from a screen shot, a promotional packet or what. Could someone identify the origin of this image? --Is this fact...? 19:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's copyrighted of course, so it could only be used as non-free media. The ultimate source appears to be here; if it was available at either the Nintendo or Kirby sites it isn't now. Tag it {{non-free character}} and be sure to add a fair use rationale. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    License tagging for image: Soraida Martinez.jpg

    Hello, Some time ago I uploaded a jpeg image of a photo of the artist, Soraida Martinez. The image was deleted because I did not indicate the source and copyright status. My questions are as follows: 1. this image was from the artist's own website and she gave me direct permission to use this image on wikipedia. 2. the artist is the direct copyright holder of this image, as well as images of her artwork; therefore, which tag do I use in this instance. In other words, I want to upload this image again, as well as a gallery of the artist's artwork, but I want to make sure that the copyrights to her photo and images of her artwork are legally protected. The artist has agreed to allow her own image and images of her artwork to be used for non-profit and educational purposes, but not for commercial purposes. I have read your copyright information, but I am still not certain which tag would apply for copyrighted two dimensional paintings; please advise, before I upload these images.


    Thank you.

    Victor

    P.S., I also see that this article has been labeled a stub...I have alot more information to submit, including magazine/newspaper articles and internet interviews...can you advise on the best way to proceed. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VictorEdgar (talkcontribs) 04:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That image is absolutely non-free since someone owned that. However, because of her permission to you, you feel that its already unbounded by copyright protection. Please note that its still "publicly" copyrighted, in the sense that you have had conversation privately. For you to upload that again, please tell the copyright holder to send her permission to this address "permissions-en at wikimedia dot org (permission-en@wikipedia.org)". If she will send a message stating for a public release, the image will then be a public domain, if not, the image is still copyrighted and there is a corresponding tag for non-free image. You can choose from this list. Thank you. --BandB (talkcontribs) 04:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify the above, permission for use on Wikipedia is insufficient. The copyright owner must be willing to allow commercial, non-educational use and derivative works. The release most certainly does not have to be to the public domain, but it does need to be one of these free licenses.
    Also contrary to the above, we cannot use a non-free image of a living person. In most cases this is replaceable fair use, since it's generally possible to take a picture of a living person, and is therefore disallowed by the very first category of the non-free media policy.
    Actually, the artist may or may not be the copyright holder of the image, depending on her agreement with the photographer. Generally speaking, without a specific agreement to the contrary, the photographer will own the copyright. So she may or may not be able to legally release it under a free license even if she can otherwise use it for publicity purposes such as on her website.
    The stub template simply describes the current state of the article and marks it as a work in progress, so that no one will be tempted to nominate it for deletion prematurely. Simply proceed with article development as you have currently planned. When it gets long enough -- how long is "long enough" is something of a judgment call -- feel free to remove the template yourself. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry Victor for such uncleared statement. I hope TCC made this clear. BandB (talkcontribs) 06:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    clarification

    I asked permission from the National Archive of Australia (a government body) to use two images displayed on their website which are part of their collection. I used the request for permission template I found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Boilerplate_request_for_permission and received this reply:

    "Thank-you for your copyright request and use of the images on the Wikipedia’s webs site. The National Archives of Australia gives you permission to use the following items on the web site: A6180, 17/9/75/15 A6180, 1/12/71/22

    There is no copyright charge for the use of the material whether commercially used or not and can be placed on the website. The copyright is still retained by the National Archives of Australia. We would appreciate the acknowledgement of the National Archives as the source of the image as the example shown below: National Archives of Australia: A6180, 17/9/75/15

    Yours sincerely, Gregory F Cope Copyright Officer National Archives of Australia"

    My question is, is this sufficient to use the two images on wikipedia, or is there a further process I have to follow? Phanto282 05:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    With that permission, we can still only use the images as non-free media. Permission for Wikipedia only, which is what this appears to be, is not sufficient. While they allow commercial use, it's not clear that they allow derivative works or will allow free distribution from Wikipedia to other users. We need a free license. For some help in requesting a release under a free license, see WP:COPYREQ, which also contains instructions on what to do once acceptable permission is received.
    If, on requesting clarification, you are told that derivative works are acceptable and that the image may be freely shared, {{attribution}} would be the appropriate tag. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just want to know

    What is the temp. in outterspace and is there a difference in deep space?

    Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexshazen (talkcontribs) 09:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If you want my opinion, cold is cold. But you should probably ask at the reference desk. This page is for copyright issues. -- But|seriously|folks  04:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    United Nations Resolutions

    What copyright applies to UN Security Council documents? Socrates2008 13:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Most UN documents are PD - see {{PD-UN}}. --Davepape 20:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Can I upload this image?

    Image is Image:UJATlogo.jpg. This is an image of the Coat of Arms (Logo) of the Universidad Juarez Autonoma de Tabasco, Villahermosa, Tabasco, Mexico. The image can be appreciated at the University's own website "www.ujat.mx" [Home > Conocenos > Escudo Universitario]. The image appears to have been intended for existence in the public domain. I could find no reference at all that the image is copyrighted. The website itself www.ujat.mx is not copyrighted either - at least I could not find any reference/copyright mark/claim that the site and/or the image where copyrighted. I believe the Coat-of-Arms logo was intended for the public domain. Fair use appeat to apply here. Is it OK to upload this image?

    Robruiz 19:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The image is, of course, already uploaded so your question is really moot. The real question is what you should do to ensure it stays.
    You're confusing several different ideas. The first is that fair use has something to do with public domain. Actually, if we must invoke the fair use doctrine to use an image, that's because the image is copyrighted and not in the public domain. Fair use allows limited use of copyrighted material under certain circumstances.
    Another issue here is that you assume that just because an image is publicly available it's "intended for existence in the public domain". Public domain is a legal status of a work where either the copyright has expired or it's ineligible for copyright. An author releasing all rights isn't technically the same thing, but it amounts to the same degree of free use.
    Under Mexican law there is no registration requirement for an author to secure his rights to a work. Whether marked or not, whether publicly available on a website or not, copyright exists on all works. We cannot just take it for free use without an explicit license from the copyright owner. This will not "appear" to be anything; it will be stated outright.
    Since this logo was created by a university employee in the course of his duties, the university is its author as far as copyright is concerned. They own it. That means that if we can use it at all, we can only do so under a theory of fair use under Wikipedia's non-free media policy and guidelines.
    As it happens, {{non-free logo}} is already a fair use tag. You only lack a rationale. Logos broadly all have the same rationale, so there's a second template you need to add to the page: {{logo fur}}. You must fill in at least the name of the article in which the logo is being used and the "use" field with one of the listed permissible values.
    You should also follow the advice that's been added and scale the image down. There is no reason for fair use images to be any larger than the display size in the article. You can do this by re-downloading it in Wikipedia and using the scale feature in any image editing software. Paint.NET is free and reasonably full-featured if you don't have anything more sophisticated than the Paint that comes with Windows. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please help

    Please go to Image:Dejen misura da cima W.jpg. Although the author seems to be happy with the PD tag, he also appears to be stating that he would prefer to always be credited. Can you suggest the most appropriate copyright tag? Thanks! Viewfinder 20:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note how we make the image into a link: add a colon at the beginning.
    The appropriate tag here appears to be {{attribution}}. If the author always wants to be credited and is making that a condition of the image's use, then it's not PD. I note the permission granted is actually more expansive than the uploader has stated. He says "he agrees to the use of the image by Wikipedia," which is ordinarily a license we can't use and would result in the image's speedy deletion. The quoted email actually says "pubblicazione libera", which is much more what we need.
    The uploader needs to forward the email containing the permission to "permissions-en at wikimedia dot org". TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Invalid fair use?

    Hi, all, I hope someone can help me with my problem.

    Apparently the image that I have uploaded, Image:Rf cd cover.jpg , has an invalid fair use. However, I'm not quite sure what makes it "invalid." I thought I included a valid enough fair use rationale, but obviously a bot disagrees. I was hoping that someone could take a look at it and tell me what is wrong with it so that I can fix it, and fix the ones that I upload in the future.

    Thanks, Happyface162 22:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:NFCC#10c says that The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use. With this edit, the rationale was being claimed for Rascal Flatts where in fact, the image is being used for the article Rascal Flatts (album). Bot changed it already. No worries. --BandB (talkcontribs) 01:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ina what I presume is a similar case, I have been informed that the fair use rationale of Image:WakeInFrightAd1.jpg is invalid (and will therefore be removed in a few days. However, the rationale I used is non-free poster, which is used by a number of other poster images, none of which appear to have been marked for deletion. What is missing from the Wake In Fright image to make it a candidate for deletion? --Roisterer 04:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please link to images as instructed at the top of this page; don't insert them.
    {{non-free poster}} is the tag. The fair use rationale is something else you have to add. The purpose is to explain how the use of the image in the particular article where it's included (and the article must be linked to) conforms to the non-free media policy. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Can I get an example of what to write as a rationale?

    I have two images tagged for deletion. They are CD album covers. Can someone please give me an example of what I should include in my rationale? HOw should I word it, what should it include? I've referred to the guidelines but I would like a clear example, rather than just an instruction. --BrianFG 03:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Since it's a non-free image, protected by copyright, they must be well supplied with the required rationale. To further illustrate that, see Fair_use_rationale. By doing so, the given statement must pass the criteria for non-free image, see WP:NFCC. In addition, we have a list of tags that will yield a result of rationale. For albums, see this or to this . If you dont want a template, you can write it in this way, for instance. However, you must bear in mind that the rationale supplied is applicable and fits to the situation. --BandB (talkcontribs) 04:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that. I've come up with something as the template is confusing and doesn't seem to work properly. I hope I have covered everything; if not, I'll just stop uploading album covers.--BrianFG 04:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The template works properly. You need to prefix the template call with "subst:" as the documentation explains. But by all means, once you fix the templates don't forget to remove the {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} tag, otherwise it'll get automatically deleted anyway. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, a better template to use for the rationale is {{album cover fur}}. It does seem to be broken at the moment, but I'm working on it. In the meantime just use it, and it'll probably look OK tomorrow. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    NM. My bad. razzafrazzin non-standard names. See Image:Disembowelment-transendence.jpg for an example. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just let him use the other so that he could remove the tag anytime. --BandB (talkcontribs) 04:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, that's better. --BandB (talkcontribs) 04:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Motorcycles%40Indy.jpg needs to be reviewed by Flicker Reviewer bot, or somebody needs to check this image's free use capacities. Description says CC-BY-NC-ND -- which woudl make it incompatible. Guroadrunner 08:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, no I checked it (the url is in the description -- stupid me). So I have put prod and ifd on it. Guroadrunner 08:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    copy the logo of Nokia Corporation

    Hello! I want to know if it is possible to copy the logo of Nokia Corporation. I need it because in my coursework for Economics I decided to choose Nokia as a company to research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Band88 (talkcontribs) 15:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That logo is hosted here under the fair use doctrine. As long as you adhere to those legal requirements yourself -- and as you are using it for educational purposes that goes a long way toward qualifying it -- then you can use it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Highland Voice image

    Sorry I uploaded it three times. The one I would like to keep for the article Highland Voice is Highland Voice masthead.jpg.

    The Highland Voice was a student paper. It folded 18 years ago. The paper was located on the Highland Lakes campus of Oakland Community College, Waterford, MI. The campus remains.

    There is no copyright. The masthead has been used by another publication at least once (March or April 1987 by another student newspaper, the Orchard Ridge Recorder). It was designed for the paper by a student working for the paper.

    I don't know what more you need.

    Can I keep it?

    Troyvarsity 17:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    First, don't create a redirect just to link to an image. See the directions in bold type inside the box marked with the big orange exclamation point ball at the top of this page to find the right way to do that.
    Unless a work is ineligible for copyright by law, there is no such thing as "there is no copyright" for anything made since 1989. This is a borderline case in a couple of ways.
    First, it may well be ineligible for copyright, since details like variations in color and typography are normally not copyrightable; and the words themselves are not. In that case you could tag it {{PD-ineligible}}. But with the squares and other arrangements is just might rise to the level of creative work where copyright becomes possible, so it's safest to assume it's eligible and proceed otherwise.
    The important point here isn't when the paper ceased publication, but when it started, and when this masthead came into use. I assume this was sometime after 1963, and we know it was after 1989. It is public domain if The masthead came into use before 1 March 1989, and was published without a copyright notice. A copyright notice anywhere on the paper qualifies, so if you find one in the issue then it's not public domain.
    It would be copyrighted if it came into use after 1963 even if it was published without notice but was subsequently registered. But I just searched the copyright office database for registrations from 1978 on, and it wasn't in there. So if the masthead came into use after 1978, and there's no notice on the paper, we can safely assume it's PD.
    If it was first used before 1 January 1978, tag it {{PD-Pre1978}}. If it was first used between 1 January 1987 and 1 March 1989, tag it {{PD-US}} and add a note that it was first published before 1 March 1989 without a copyright notice and was not subsequently registered. (We don't have a specific tag for that case.)
    If the above conditions for the public domain do not hold, then it is under copyright and we can only use it as non-free media. In that case, you'd have to tag it {{non-free logo}}, and add {{logo fur}} to add a fair use rationale. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    lockbow

    I have a picture of a modern skane lockbow and I have e-mailed the contact on the website, who has e mailed back to give me permission to use it and I have forwrded it to wikimedia but I am still told that the image may be deleted. How do I copyright tag it to preserve it from deletion?

    Streona 22:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That depends on the permission that you received.
    If it wasn't clearly a free license, we still have to treat it as non-free media. In that case, it's clearly replaceable since it's a photo of a modern object that is hardly unique. If you did receive a free license, you need to tag the image accordingly and remove the warning template. If a free license was granted one of these tags will apply.
    In any event, it can take a while for the permission to work its way through the system, so don't worry about it yet. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion contested for specimen currency images. Question of copyright status.

    I am contesting the deletion of all specimen currency images set for deletion at Malaya and British Borneo dollar. All of the images were tagged for deletion for lack of Fair Use Rationale, but not all currencies need a F.U. Rationale.

    I want to know if Malaya and British Borneo dollars are in the public domain. I err on the belief they are, hence the contesting. Guroadrunner 00:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    They're tagged as {{non-free currency}}, which pretty much marks them for deletion if they lack rationale. It is assumed, absent any statement to the contrary, that images so tagged are fair use.
    Current copyright status has been very difficult to unravel. This requires a dedicated expert in UK copyright law, so take the following with a grain of salt.
    This currency was issued by Board of Commissioners of Currency, Malaya and British Borneo, which as a matter of course owned the copyrights to them under UK law. Presumably the copyrights reverted to either the Crown or Parliament on the dissolution of the Commission, but I don't believe that shortens the term in either case. Copyright on these banknotes therefore expires 70 year after publication. For a banknote issued in 1953, the copyright will therefore expire 31 December, 2023.
    So no, these are not in the public domain, and yes, you need a fair use rationale for all of them. Even if I'm wrong this is the safest course of action, and these are clearly examples of valid fair use. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the detailed response. If I have time to do so, I will try to add a fair use rationale for each. They aren't my uploads, but I'd rather not see them deleted because as you said they can be covered under fair use. Guroadrunner 08:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Update : I've put the following on each image. If this isn't good enough or solid, I would like help making a good Fair Use Rationale.
    Description

    Denomination of money from Malaya and the UK Borneo

    Source

    printed currency

    Article

    Malaya and British Borneo dollar

    Portion used
    Low resolution?

    yes, and specimen

    Purpose of use

    to illustrate this denomination of money

    Replaceable?

    none

    Fair useFair use of copyrighted material in the context of Malaya and British Borneo dollar//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questionstrue

    Wikipedia's arbitary rules with regard to album art

    I was informed by BetacommandBot that the album cover art depicted in Image:Sidescover.jpg "does not qualify under fair use" with the following tag: {{Non-free album cover}} I do not see how this is a valid statement, considering that very many album articles use the same rationale and tag for their usage in Wikipedia. Why not this one?

    Rules not consistently applied discredit the very foundation of what Wikipedia stands for. Why should the rules apply to some articles but not to all?

    Bart 02:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Had you read the tag placed by BetacommandBot? Fair use is something that must be claimed for every article in which the cover is being used, and although you wrote a fair use rationale, you did not specify in which article you were going to use the image. This may be seen as "overkill", but I think it is the minimum we can require for images that do not help Wikipedia in its freedom goal. -- ReyBrujo 02:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I escaped the template so that this page is not included in the image category. -- ReyBrujo 02:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    An image I uploaded, Image:Ellroy My Dark Places cover.jpg, has been tagged for deletion as having a disputed fair-use claim per WP:NFCC#10c. My fair use claim includes 1) the source of the image (though no copyright information, since none is specified in or on the book, other than for the text and for the author photo on the back of the book; so my assumption was that the source--i.e. the publisher--is also the copyright holder), 2) the correct non-free book-cover license, and 3) the article (My Dark Places (book)) for which fair use is claimed. In what way is my claim deficient? Other than the unspecified copyright info, the only questionable thing I saw was that I erroneously used the ambiguous title My Dark Places in my rationale. I have disambiguated this on the image page to the correct My Dark Places (book). --ShelfSkewed Talk 02:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Have a look here. You're missing a statement about the purpose of the image. You can just say it's for identification of the subject of the article. You need a short explanation of why the image is not replaceable with free content; you can just say that all covers for this book are protected by copyright. You're missing a statement of the portion used; in this case it's the front cover only. Finally, this isn't a very low-res image. There's no reason for a fair use image to be any larger than the size it's scaled to in the article, say 200px wide or so. You're better off scaling it down.
    You also need to tag it {{non-free book cover}}. Once you take care of all this, feel free to remove the warning notice from the image page.
    {{book cover fur}} would help you here, but apparently someone put it into template space before it was finished. These things should really be developed in sandboxes. {{book rationale}} only anticipates that a book cover will be ripped off a website, not that an uploader will scan it himself, so it won't work for you here. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If used in a different language on wikipedia.

    I have uploaded Image:Alice N' Chainz.jpg, and I do not know what tag to use. I got the image from here which is another article of wikipedia in a different language. The fair use lisencing should already be there, shouldn't it. Skeeker [Talk] 05:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I fixed the link. You meant to link to the Lithuanian Wikipedia but you got the Portuguese instead. Note how we link to Wikipedia articles in other languages; we don't have to use external link syntax.
    At the source the tag is the equivalent of {{non-free promotional}}, but apparently the Lithuanian Wikipedia does not require a fair use rationale. We do, and in any event you need to tag this copy of it as well. (Different Wikipedias have different rules about these things. For an image hosted at the English Wikipedia, you have to follow English Wikipedia rules.)
    Incidentally, the only reason you can use this photo is because one of the people in it is dead, and as a photo of the original group it is therefore not replaceable. Fair use images that can be replaced cannot be uploaded according to policy. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Betacommandbot's message re logo on European Research Council

    Betacommandbot complained on Talk:European Research Council that the image used in the article (depicting the logo of the organization) does not have a fair use rationale. However, Image:ERC logo.png does include a rationale specific to the article. Could anybody please tell me what is missing, or did the bot make a mistake? Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that it was because the fair use rationale did not have the "Article" parameter with the name of the article. The code, for example, be:
    {{Non-free media rationale
    |Article=European Research Council
    |Description= ...
    |Source= ...
    |Portion= ...
    |Purpose= ...
    |Resolution= ...
    |Replaceability= ...
    |other_information= ...
    }}
    which it is now, after this diff.  :) Hope this helps. --Iamunknown 12:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is because you did not include the name of the article the image is being used. If you can see in this history, the template says NEEDS ARTICLE NAME and WP:NFCC#10c states that each fair-use rationale must include a link to the specific article in which fair use of the image is claimed. Don't worry, its fixed. --βandβ (talkcontribs) 12:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your answers. It looks like I didn't notice that the page was updated because I confused the file history with the revision history for the page itself. How embarrassing. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's fine. --βandβ (talkcontribs) 06:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ann & Eddie jpg

    The photo was taken by me

    tag, and is fine to use on the Ann Forster page if there is one. Forster is a known publicist and writer within the PR & Media industry having spearheaded campaigns including the motion pictures Gandhi and The War Room as well as advocacy campaigns for the UN and numerous NGO's and corporations.

    Updated Logos

    While working on a project about Railroads in Chicago, I've used some of the images from Wikipedia articles on Railroads. I've made a few edits, and would like to upload these. The edits are:

    Added Transparency to the BNSF Logo Cleared up unwanted white on the CSX Logo Cleared up unwanted white on the CSS&SB Logo Converted EJE Logo to .png and added transparency

    What licence would these fall under, and how would I reference to the original images on Wikipedia? Would I need to add anything to the old logos to say that I'd uploaded a newer version?

    --Danny252 14:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    May i know the link of the image? --βandβ (talkcontribs) 06:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Copyright, but use permitted.

    I would like to use some photographs in a Wikipedia article from a web-site which specifies that it is copyright, but which also states "Copyright Information - You can copy/print pages from this site and photos from this site as long as the information copied/printed is not used for commercial or monetary gain." Can I use the photographs, and if so, what is the appropriate tag? Tim Ross 18:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    What type of image is that? May I know the source? --βandβ (talkcontribs) 08:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    TV Commercial ScreenGrab

    Following the addition of this tag

    to the image Image:Corona Drink Flavours.jpg, I have updated fair use rational for the image- hope this is better? If not, how can I improve it (and future uploads) further? (I've read the instuctions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline) D666D 18:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    First and foremost, the image the time it was tagged has no Article name. WP:NFCC#10c states each fair-use rationale must include a link to the specific article in which fair use of the image is claimed. The image was retagged with {{di-replaceable fair use}} because Wikipedia do not host replaceable images. For non-free images, it doesn't pass the first criterion for non-free media. It's better to upload another image you own that serves the same information. Thank you. --βandβ (talkcontribs) 06:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Central Missouri Athletics Logo Squabble

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Central_missouri_logo.gif

    I uploaded that logo from our university's athletics site, and now it is taken down with the message.............

    This image or media has a fair use rationale that is disputed because of the following concern: invalid rationale per WP:NFCC#10c. Unless concern is addressed by adding an appropriate fair-use rationale, or in some other way, the image will be deleted or removed from some uses after Friday, 2 November 2007. Please remove this template if you have successfully addressed the concern. Note that, per WP:NFCC#10c, each fair-use rationale must include a link to the specific article in which fair use of the image is claimed. If you think the image should not be deleted, please discuss the matter with the editor who placed this template on the image. You can also place comments on the image talk page.

    Administrators: check the image talk page for comments before deleting the image.

    Usage:
       Notify the uploader with: ==Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Central missouri logo.gif==
    

    Thanks for uploading Image:Central missouri logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

    If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NeelyCrenshaw 02:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Add following to the image captions:

    This file may be deleted at any time.



    So, are we not allowed to have an image on our athletics page like every other university. This is our athletics mark, and now we are being told we cannot use it.

    I need help ASAP on why this happened, and how it gets retified, because thi IS THE MARK WE USE!

    NeelyCrenshaw 02:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The image is under copyright protection so it must be fairly used. To do that, supply the page with rationale as to why the image is permitted to be used in Wikipedia. Also, indicate the name of the article it is being used for per WP:NFCC#10c which states that each fair-use rationale must include a link to the specific article in which fair use of the image is claimed. Thank you. --βandβ (talkcontribs) 06:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, it's fine to upload image as long it is supplied with required informations accordingly. --βandβ (talkcontribs) 06:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jigsaw in Japan.jpg

    Hi Wikipedia - Can you tell me in simple terms how to get a copyright tag attached to the image Jigsaw in Japan.jpg - My name is Des Dyer and I was the drummer and lead singer in the band and am also a director of Splash Records to which the copyright belongs. I would like to give permission for the a.m. image to be used on a GFDL level. Help me out here. I have already amended a quite a lot of the Jigsaw (band) page as some of the comments were inaccurate. I'm sure you would like your encyclopedia to be as accurate as possible so any contribution to this page from an actual member of the band and a director of the record company on which the band had its most successful hit, would surely be beneficial!! Cheers...........Des Dyer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Des Dyer (talkcontribs) 10:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Is the image your own work? --βandβ (talkcontribs) 10:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The image was taken by my camera on my film - I didn't take the picture as I'm on stage playing drums. Subsequently this was used by Splash Records Ltd., with my permission. I am a director of the company.