Wikipedia:Media copyright questions: Difference between revisions
→Image:London Midland Network ZP.svg: Doesn't look good. |
→Deleted Pictures: new section |
||
Line 480: | Line 480: | ||
How can I tell if something has a copyright? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.187.16.28|68.187.16.28]] ([[User talk:68.187.16.28|talk]]) 14:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
How can I tell if something has a copyright? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.187.16.28|68.187.16.28]] ([[User talk:68.187.16.28|talk]]) 14:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
:Pretty much everything is copyright. See [[Copyright]] for a full discussion which is beyond the scope of this page (A bit like asking a [[philosopher]] "what is truth?"). Images that have been released under a free license (GFDL, creative commons) by their creators are good for use here. If you have questions about a specific image, they would be easier to discuss. [[User:Megapixie|Megapixie]] ([[User talk:Megapixie|talk]]) 14:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC) |
:Pretty much everything is copyright. See [[Copyright]] for a full discussion which is beyond the scope of this page (A bit like asking a [[philosopher]] "what is truth?"). Images that have been released under a free license (GFDL, creative commons) by their creators are good for use here. If you have questions about a specific image, they would be easier to discuss. [[User:Megapixie|Megapixie]] ([[User talk:Megapixie|talk]]) 14:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC) |
||
== Deleted Pictures == |
|||
00:19, 27 December 2007 East718 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Carpathian Ancestor.JPG" (CSD I7: Bad justification given for fair use: violates point 10c of the non-free content criteria |
|||
16:51, 29 December 2007 Maxim (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Noche Crist Carousel.JPG" (Deleted because "CSD I7 - Invalid fair use rationale; per WP:NFCC#10c, the rationale must include the name of the article, and preferably a link to it. Please don't hesitate to contact me with queries.". using TW) |
|||
These are the messages that I received when my uploaded images were deleted. I do not understand why they were deleted. I used the same fair use rationale as other contemporary artist's images on other pages. Please let me know what I am doing wrong. The page on the artist Noche Crist does not seem appropriate without an example of her work. |
|||
Thank you. |
Revision as of 15:51, 4 January 2008
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.
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.
| ||
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) |
---|
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
![]() | This talk page is automatically archived. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive. Sections without timestamps are not archived. |
Adding tag to Image.
I have recently uploaded an Image: RC6 Cryptography Algorithm.jpg . This image is owned entirely by me, and I would like to add an appropriate tag for the image, but how could I add tag to the image? I would like to distribute the image under GNU license agreement.
Its easy click on the red words from the image then you open your pictures put the picture in you put in a summary then you select a license from the license bar then you can upload it - Trulystand700 (talk)
DECA.jpg
So i guess that i don't understand why the Image:DECA.jpgimage is impossible to use. I have tried to cite it so many times and now it is nominated for deletion, again, how about whoever keeps trying to get it deleted offers help instead of just getting rid of stuff, it's kind of discouraging to those who are new to wikipedia because it's already confusing to figure out how to use it.
I know that this image is useable on wikipedia and i figure it would probably follow the same rules as FBLA, Skills, FFA, and other clubs like that because they are all very similiar organizations.
Can anyone offer any kind of help with this? Omegablackbelt (talk) 03:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- You provided a use rationale for DECA instead of DECA (organization). Someone fixed it for you. --teb728 t c 06:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much Omegablackbelt (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Game screenshot/fair use rationale confusion - again
I posted a question about this here earlier, but I got it yet again. Now I've lost all my motive to contribute any screenshots here, even for games where none are in the article (and requested on the article's talk page), and I have some available that I could contribute. My talk page shows of the fair use of a game screenshot [[1]] being disputed and flagged on Dec 22, when I attempted to reupload the screenshot (just that one as the game its used for doesn't have any otherwise and I used the style/format of those that I have uploaded before and have survived (such as the one for Bubsy 3D, Jumping Flash, and probably some others)). The information I'm getting is contradicting and worse yet, I get no warning of this in any way outside of this website (and since I automatically get logged out after some some, I have no hints of it until I bother to log in again, usually months later when the images are all but gone). Either something is wrong with BetacommandBot, which is the one doing all this, or better clarification is needed. I'd like to contribute game screenshots, but if this is going to happen for almost every one where I get no warning, I have no motive to contribute anything in the way of screenshots. I get my screenshots by using GameBridge to record videos of my gameplay then taking one of the still frames, cropping it, and saving it as JPG. These are all non-free console games (except the Genesis since I can't get a usable picture). Ulillillia (talk) 10:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- All non-free images need both a copyright tag and non-free use rationale. On Image:Looney Tunes Back in Action Game Screenshot.jpg you provide a tag ({{non-free game screenshot}}) but no use rationale. There must be a use rationale for each use. See non-free use rationale guideline for how to create one.
- The way to prevent surprises is to go back and provide use rationales for all your screenshots. The reason the bot hasn’t complained about some of your screenshots is that it hasn’t got around to them yet. --teb728 t c 19:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've added the rationale to that image, but I'm not too sure if I did it right. Could you please check? What about the "warning" that is displayed - should that be removed since I've taken action, or should I leave it? Thanks. If I do get this set up properly, I'll make the appropriate changes to all currently uploaded images (and likely reupload the old ones with the related changes). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulillillia (talk • contribs) 15:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- I added the non-free use rationale and very shortly after, that same robot is stating of the rationale being invalid. Previously, I didn't have one, but I've since added it, and the robot is still saying of something being wrong and I don't know what is wrong. Could you tell me what's wrong? I've provided both the copyright tag and the rationale (I tried to be as accurate as possible.) and that was all that was required. Yet, the robot is still stating of it being faulty. I've reuploaded most of the previously deleted screenshots (due to this problem, not those replaced by updated/better versions) and added the rationale where it's quite similar to the one I have for the image in question. What problems do I have? This is that image: [[2]]. Ulillillia (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I can't see what the problem is either. I have added another tag to the image, disputing the dispute - have a look and improve the wording if possible. And I have made a couple of small improvements (I hope) to the rationale. Once again, improve them if you can. Patche99z (talk) 12:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Need help with explanation for commericial use
I have been emailing a certain not for profit organization and they are quite hostile to giving a creative commons allowing commercial use. They are ok with giving a creative commons license but forbidding commercial use. Here is a recent email I got:
Dear (name withheld)
I think that perhaps Wikipedia should be more open about its commercial aspirations, as I suspect that most contributors do so on the basis that they are volunteering at a 'not for profit'; Wikimedia is registered as such: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About#The_Wikimedia_Foundation . I had a good search but couldn't find what the rationale was for insisting on commercial use, except for something about distributing Wikipedia on DVD. For me putting Wikipedia on the '$100 laptop' for free is non commercial but selling up to Pearson is be commercial, I think most people have the idea that Wikipedia "is a multilingual, web-based, free content encyclopedia project" ... "written collaboratively by volunteers from all around the world" (lifted from about Wikipedia) and that the insistence on commercial use is out of sync with this.
As I said use in Wikipedia would be fine, eg perhaps using this licence: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/
You might find this policy helpful with respect to finding images: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules
Best wishes,
(name withheld)
Please could some people give me some solid reasons that I can communicate back to this organization that will allay their fears about commercial use. I would really appreciate that.
thanks
Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 16:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- In a way the situation may be worse than your correspondent imagines. When Wikipedia describes itself as a “free content encyclopedia project,” free means not free of cost but free of restriction. Although Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization, Wikipedia content may be reused by anyone subject only to GFDL—by anyone including profit-making companies. The fact that any reuse is subject to GFDL, however, makes it unattractive to commercial companies. --teb728 t c 19:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, a common misconception with companies about Wikipedia. It is not "Wikipedia wants to sell your image on DVDs tomorrow", but rather "Freedom is a greater good than non-commercial". We are building information for the future, and whatever the use may be, the information we collect is to be Free forever. You could point out to them, that it is for instance possible for them to license a "small-resolution" digital version of the image while they keep full "closed" licenses that allow them to sell the original in any way they want. That tactic has been successful for me once. However, it would really be a shame to make such a trade-off, so that is a rather "last-resort" type of thing. Watermarks are not allowed (another favorite with companies, but they will receive attribution on the image page of course and if they want, they can include the attribution in the EXIF tag as well for instance. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- So what can I say to them to allay their fears? Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 21:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- There is good page explaining why Wikipedia doesn't allow non-commercial at User:Fastfission/Noncommercial. Garion96 (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reference. I hope though that wikipedia can emphasize that it does not have 'secret commercial aspirations'. This organization is suspicious of this and it is hard to allay their fear. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 18:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- With respect, I'm not sure you're following what people have said. You cannot allay this org's fears, as they are in fact right to be "suspicious", as you put it, of our aspirations. It's a basic tenet of Jimmy Wales's ideology that entrepreneurs should be able to profit from the sweat of the brows of Wikipedia contributors if they can find a way to do so. Hence this is scrupulously reflected in our policies. 86.42.66.94 (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- They are suspicious of Wikipedia itself not of what entrepreneurs might in the future do with Wikipedia's material. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 05:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- There is good page explaining why Wikipedia doesn't allow non-commercial at User:Fastfission/Noncommercial. Garion96 (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- So what can I say to them to allay their fears? Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 21:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- If anyone has any more ideas as to how I might persuade this organization that commercial use is not so bad please comment. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 18:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
taking a picture of something
Hi. On Image:Music tour edition.JPG's page, it is stated that the uploader took the image themself and that is why the public domain tag was used. I can understand this being the case if the person took a picture of a tree or something, but does this still apply if a person takes a picture of something liek a cd cover? I have a feeling the answer is no, but I just wanted to make sure. I was going to tag it with Wikipedia:CSD#I3, but it the way that section is worded, I wasn't sure if it applied. Any suggestions?--Rockfang (talk) 04:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- CSD#I3 would be the wrong tag. It has been changed to a non-free tag with a use rationale. --teb728 t c 09:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Parliament Photos?
I would like to know if Wikipedia can use photos of Malaysian Members of Parliament? They are on the official website of the Malaysian parliament (http://www.parlimen.gov.my/eng-DewRakyat_AhliDewan.php click on the name). Thanks. KMChin (talk) 13:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- They could be used if and only if they are available under free licenses. I can’t tell from that site what their licensing status is. --teb728 t c 08:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Image:Superchunk LP.jpg not needed
I uploaded Image:Superchunk LP.jpg but decided to not use it. I do not know how to delete the imageMac622 (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- I deleted the image for you. Garion96 (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Uploading an ablum cover image
Just wondering if this image was under copyright, how can you tell? Here is the link: http://www.sanctuaryrecords.co.uk/index.php?action=showproduct&productid=35087&l1=3&l2=0&l3=0&rt=CA&lastpage=
It's the album cover for the Photek album "Form and Function Vol. 2"
Thanks,
--Tnias13 (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it is certainly under copyright. --teb728 t c 00:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC) Oh, you asked how you can tell. Well every new work is inherently under copyright when it is created unless copyright is explicitly renounced. There is no reason to think copyright was renounced for this album. --teb728 t c 07:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Image
I have tried to place the copyright sign on my images when i've uploaded but i have problem to do it. I'd like to remove my images. how do i do that? thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doyoufro? (talk • contribs) 02:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- You could tag them with {{db-author}}. Or you could do nothing, in which case they will be deleted in a few days for having no source specified. --teb728 t c 08:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
g'day the wiki people
hey, i dont know whats happening there, the image u guys have deleted is logo i dont need permission to use my own logo - ourfootyteam logo 300
also, i have added links to a few rugby league related pages & u guys have deleted the links as well
whats wrong with a link about junior & schoolboys rugby league on these pages
for example one of your brilliant (not) editors deleted a link i made on the manly seagulls page
the seagulls send me info & media releases to tell the world
please get back to me to let me know whats going on there
thanks
steve - (e) ourfooty@ourfootyteam.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ourfootyteam (talk • contribs) 03:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- According to the deletion log and the message on your talk page, the logo was deleted because you neglected to identify the source and creator. --teb728 t c 04:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Nevada State Route 157
Image:CCF12162007 00014.jpg I've taken this picture myself but forgot to add a copyright tag when I originally uploadded it. I tried adding the GDFL tag to the description, but instead of being displayed in the summary, it showed up as part of the description under the picture. I've never worked with these codes so help is appreciated. Bzargarian (talk) 04:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Add the copyright tag to Image:CCF12162007 00014.jpg not Nevada State Route 157. --teb728 t c 07:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Quik Question
How do you tell who an image is copyrighted to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JSK4T3R (talk • contribs) 08:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- The copyright generally belongs to the person who created the image. But if the image was made as work for hire, the copyright belongs to the person who hired the work. Or if the image is a copy or scan of a work, the copyright belongs to the copyright owner of the original.
- Did you have a particular image in mind? --teb728 t c 08:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Image removal
Hi, This image (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jaws_Renovation.jpg) needs to be removed, it's breaching copyright laws for the website amityisland.net "Pages, code or other content from JAWS Amity Island may not be redistributed or reproduced in any way, shape, or form without the written permission of Scott Weller."
60.234.215.101 (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I can’t find the source of Image:Jaws Renovation.jpg at amityisland.net. If you give the source, I will tag the image with {{imagevio}}. (Omit the http:// part of the URL because of the spam filter.) --teb728 t c 08:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
www.amityisland.net/florida/12.jpg found on www.amityisland.net/JAWSridesflorida.php 60.234.215.101 (talk) 08:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have reported the suspected copyright violation. --teb728 t c 09:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
DIA images
Can someone clarify the status of images from the DIA? I believe that the same copyright that applies to images from the other branches of the military would also apply in this case, but I can't find any specific notes to this effect. Maury (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- You mean the United States Defense Intelligence Agency, right? All works created by an agency of the United States government are public domain. --teb728 t c 07:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
deleting
I want to delete the picture I put up because I can't get the copyright information, but I don't want for my account to be deleted. How do I do this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hombi93 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- You could tag it with {{db-author}}. Or you could do nothing, in which case it will be deleted in a few days for having no source specified. Don't worry about your account being deleted; that won't happen. --teb728 t c 07:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
adding a copyright tag
how do you add a copyright tag —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezui23 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- See the directions “How to add a copyright tag to an existing image” at the top of this page. --teb728 t c 18:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Image:Kane.JPG
Hello. About a month ago I uploaded the image for Project 86's The Kane Mutiny EP. This EP is only digital (there is no physical copy, it is only available on iTunes) and that makes getting a Fair use image about impossible. Since I can't get a snapshot of a physical cover, why can't we just get the cover from www.project86.com... --TheYellowDart—(T/C) 18:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- According to the deletion log, the reason that Image:Kane.JPG was deleted is because TehY3llowDart (you?) neglected to provide a non-free use rationale for its use on The Kane Mutiny EP as described in the non-free use rationale guideline. --teb728 t c 18:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. it is me. I actually hadn't logged in in almost a month... so I didn't read the message a bot sent me on my talk page until earlier today. --TheYellowDart—(T/C) 02:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
IndustrialnatioN
I'm trying to make sure I'm uploading this correctly, and for the life of me I don't know what I'm not doing. Here are the fast, I've uploaded a Magazine cover for a magazine that I published. What am I missing here? I've gone to look at other magazines and my entry looks just like the others so I don't know what I'm doing wrong. I keep getting the following warning:
Fair use rationale for Image:IndustrialnatioN17.jpg Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:IndustrialnatioN17.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. Additionally, if you continue uploading bad images, you may be blocked from uploading. STBotI (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vigvigler (talk • contribs) 19:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- You need to add a non-free use rational to each image for its use on IndustrialnatioN as described in non-free use rationale guideline You could use {{Magazine rationale}} for this purpose. --teb728 t c 22:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, so checking in here I think I edited the image "IndustrialnatioN20.jpg" correctly. Let me know if i'm on the right track, in understanding how this all works.. Thanks in Advance.
- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vigvigler (talk • contribs) 00:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- I made a few changes. Most notably the article name.
- Oh, and please sign your posts with four tildes, ~~~~. That adds a signature like this: teb728 t c 02:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ok that's a big help.. Thanks much for helping out a wiki-nebie. Vigvigler (talk) 06:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Benigno Aquino,Jr.
Would it be possible to know, what contribution did Senator Aquino gave to the Philippines? Was there a specific legislation he has written that help uplift the daily living of the Filipinos? Since Senator Aquino is so popular among the Philippine Masses, would it be possible to list the laws that he had authored or co-authored?
Thank You so much.
Nonilo B. Abella nonilobabella@bellsouth.net Salisbury, NC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.183.193.201 (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- If you want to know something which is not in the article Benigno Aquino, Jr., please ask at the Reference desk. The forum is monitored by people who know only about media copyright questions. --teb728 t c 23:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Using a picture from another Wiki Language site
I uploaded [image:Rinat Akhmetov.jpg] based on its use and appearance on the Ukrainian Wiki site. Not certain of the rules here, but if it is of fair use there, wouldn't it be fair use here, and is it possible to merely insert the image from The UK/Wiki site without uploading it on En/Wiki?
Thanks Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 04:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don’t know about fair use on Ukrainian Wikipedia, but on English Wikipedia one of the non-free content criteria is “Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.” In most cases this excludes a fair use image of a living person because it should be possible make a free image of him. --teb728 t c 07:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you; And the second half of my question: "is it possible to merely insert the image from The UK/Wiki site without uploading it on En/Wiki?"
- Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, there is no way to do that. If it were in Wikimedia Commons, it could be used on any Wikimedia project, but Commons doesn't accept any non-free media. --teb728 t c 17:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your time. Happy New Year!.. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Photo of Painting
I have a painting that was commissioned and paid for by me. who is the owner of the image the painter or myself.--Jim friend (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- If you paid to have created (i.e. commissioned) rather than simply bought then it would be a Work for hire, under US and UK copyright law you would control the copyright of the piece. However there are many factors that could alter this. Megapixie (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
DVD covers on film pages
Ok so I thought I would make an info box for a film (Ladybugs (film)) and got a low res picture of the DVD cover, uploaded it and put a fair use rational in too. I copied the fair use rational from a film poster for Jurassic Park and that hasn't got a warning note on it. I'm a bit annoyed that some people think it necessary to just go around slapping deletion notes on everything they see. What am I doing wrong? The image is Image:Ladybugsfilm.jpg Thanks, Cls14 (talk) 13:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, this was handled correctly. You need a statement of rationale for each article the image is used on. See the change I made to the image page to see the issue. Why the person tagging the image for deletion couldn't have done this I don't know. Never been a big fan of that 10c rule since it would be just as easy for the tagging editor to fix himself.↔NMajdan•talk 14:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Not exactly a copyright question but legal issue to do with the image Image:Tart as a double entendre.gif. In the article, Penny Arcade (webcomic) it says that the persons who created and distributed the image were threatened with legal action by the copyright holder of characters reproduced within the image (American Greetings) which lead to the removal of the image from the website, is it therefore sensible to host and display the image on the site? Also does using an exact copy of a webcomic that has the financial purpose of attracting viewers to a website to boost advertising income qualify under fair use. Although in this case as the image has been removed from the website I guess it isn't so much of an issue. Regards, [[Guest9999 (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)]]
- I've flagged it as needing reducing in size (should be more thumbnail sized). Nothing wrong with us hosting the image as fair use - it never came to court. Megapixie (talk) 07:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- It never went to court because the creators of the image took it down from their website to avoid a legal battle. I would assume that Wikipedia would also want to avoid such a legal battle. [[Guest9999 (talk) 11:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)]]
- I would say wait and see given the availability of the image. Running at the first hint of lawyers is dangerously close to self-censorship. If they don't like it they can send a letter or e-mail. Megapixie (talk) 12:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- It never went to court because the creators of the image took it down from their website to avoid a legal battle. I would assume that Wikipedia would also want to avoid such a legal battle. [[Guest9999 (talk) 11:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)]]
John Adams (composer) image
I am wondering if I can use the images on John Adams' official site at the address http://earbox.com/press.html The image in question is [[3]] Macror (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia policy usually considers fair use images of living people that merely show what they look like to be replaceable by free-licensed images and unsuitable for the project. Although these are obviously publicity photos, the page doesn’t say they is licensed under a free license; indeed it says “all rights reserved.” So to use this image we need to request copyright permission as described at WP:COPYREQ. The copyright apparently belongs to photographer Deborah O'Grady. --teb728 t c 06:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Added fair use rational
Regarding [[4]], is the fair use rational I added sufficient and can I remove the disputed tag? - Xedaf (talk) 11:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Replacable fair use process: constructive or disruptive?
Regarding removal of NF images for free replacements, as per this removal [5], all that seems to happen is a tag is placed on the uploaders talk page [6] and the image categorised as such.
The question is, does there not exist any other more positive group / process / project for this kind of work? If the uploader never returns, who else knows which article this image was deleted from? The image page loses the link to the articles it was used in, so even for people who routinely view the image replace categories and are not possibly involved directly in the subject matter, how are they supposed to know where it came from, even if they are able to find a free use version in the just 7 days allowed before it disappears completely?
Anyway, I was able to find a free use version already on WP in a matter of seconds, something the remover was seemingly unable or uninterested in doing. It seems to me from this, and past experience, that the whole image deletion policy is generally disruptive, rather than constructive, as there is no onus on the people who love to remove these images and just place tags to actually try and fix the situation, or more importantly inform other interested parties of the situation so they can fix it, or help the constructive but not necessary involved people to fix it either. I only found out as the article is on my watchlist, but it may well not have been, it is already too large as it is. Apologies if there are other processes or groups, or a more appropriate place for this question, but I am not aware of them, not for want of looking. MickMacNee (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Try raising it at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content Megapixie (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- done, many thanks MickMacNee (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
What type of copyright thingy do I use for this image?
I photographed it myself, but it's of the Eiffel Tower - do I therefore own the copyright?
Red Alert (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes --teb728 t c 22:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually - it's fairly complicated see Eiffel_Tower#Image_copyright_claims Megapixie (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
deleting uploaded images
Hi, how can I delete the images that I uploaded? thank you! (Habeascorpus01 (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC))
- tag with {{db-author}}. Megapixie (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Copyright tag
I'm sorry but I don't understand how to tag the image appropriately. Harold Daniels was the photographer and owns the copyright but Karen Marie Moning has paid for web usage of it. I credited Harold in the images section. What do I need to to to prevent the image from being taken down?
Thank you,
Leiha —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolaha (talk • contribs) 01:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- If you have copyright of the image (the photographer released the image to you for unlimited modification, redistribution, commercial use, then you may release the image under a free-license. Try using my prototype copyright flowchart here: User:Megapixie/CopyrightFlowChart it may be helpful. Megapixie (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Official photo of state legislator
Found photo of former Oregon state legislator on Oregon Congressman Earl Blumenauer's web-site Earl Blumenauer for Oregon. Legislator I'm interested in served in Oregon House of Reps from 1965-1977 and dead in 1984. Photo appears to be official photo probably from Oregon Blue Book (e.g. Members of Oregon House of Representatives) before Blue Books were published on-line. Blue Book is published by Oregon Secretary of State as part of the Oregon State Archives. What is status of state archive photos? Are they Public Domain like US Government photos? If not, can such photos be used in Wikipedia under Fair Use rule? It looks like they probably meet Fair Use criterion.--Orygun (talk) 02:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Complicated see User:Peteforsyth/leg Megapixie (talk) 03:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleting Uploaded Images - part 2
Sorry, I don't understand where to put the tag -- I don't know where to access the images I uploaded (I only uploaded them but I never made a Picture Gallery on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Kurtz, so they apparently don't exist on that page, unless I'm just missing where to find them?. Can you tell me WHERE I can access them to add the tag, OR - could you possibly just delete them for me?
Thank you!!
(Habeascorpus01 (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC))
- Image:GenTerra01.jpg, Image:GenTerra02.jpg, and Image:GenTerra03.jpg. (You can get a list of all your contributions by clicking on my contributions at the top of the page.) --teb728 t c 06:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:Indian uprising.jpg
The image above has been tagged with a disputed fair use rationale. Its a Sports Illustratd magazine cover. It currently links to Cleveland Indians and 1987 Cleveland Indians season. I did not upload the file, and I am not an expert with image copyright. Both articles reference the Sports Illustrated cover jinx and its application to the Indians in 1987. So while I believe if the image of two Indian players on the Cleveland Indians oage would be a violation, I think that the reference to the jinx would allow the cover to be used as there would be no free image available to illustrate the point. Montco (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Dakshlogo.jpg
Betacommand Bot tagged my upload Image:Dakshlogo.JPG with a disputed fair-use rationale tag. I had a bit of difficulty finding the right rationale because the image in question is the logo of a non-profit EVENT and hence not corporate, governmental, or in any way related to any of the criteria set down at Category:Non-free use rationale templates.
But I think I've put in a suitable tag now; can an admin please check it out and drop a line at my talk page as to whether it's okay now? Thanks.Raghuvansh r (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Audio Clip from Talk Radio
I have an 2-minute OGG clip from a talk radio show. It contains no music or copyrighted media, but rather a conversation between several people about a psychological topic. One of the speakers in a California licensed and practicing physician who is making a important point not often heard by the general public, and it is for the scientific merit of his statement that I want to upload this file. The show is broadcast all over the United States on FM Radio and by internet streaming, AND is made available free for download on their official website in MP3 format. The original file can be found here [7] but I fear that this link will be gone soon and it is much too long anyway (90 minutes long). The broadcast company is Westwood One. What license, if any, applies? And can this file be uploaded under fair use? Thank you Legitimus (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- There are two parts to fair use. Fair and use. 2 minutes may be too long for fair (by wikipedia standards) - it may be easier to summarise in text the point he is making i.e. "Dr.Phil stated in a January 2007 program that the problems of global warming were caused by Mexican food, and that the real solution was to stop eating Mexican food.". The use part - what article are you talking about? Megapixie (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleting accidentally uploaded image - Part 3
Hi, thank you, I understand how to add the tag { {db-author} } ...but WHERE? I found the images under My Contributions n THIS PAGE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GenTerra02.jpg (Correct?) ...and I do not see where I can EDIT anything to add the tag. --Thanks!! (Habeascorpus01 (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC))
SORRY - Re: Deleting accidentally uploaded image - Part 3
SORRY! I typed out the tag, and it added the delete notice to your page! -- I'm so sorry, I did not mean to do that! I hope it does not cause problems! I'm just trying to figure out WHERE I can edit this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GenTerra02.jpg to add the tag tot he image text asking it to be deleted. Thank you, (Habeascorpus01 (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC))
- Hi there. Just go to the image page, click the "edit this page" tab above the image, and write {{db-author}}. Then save the page. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Roy Wood Correct Information
Dear Wikipedia. .... My name is Roy Wood. You have a section in Wikipedia describing myself .... formerly of The Move E.L.O and Wizzard. Some of this information is WRONG. Including my real name and date of birth etc. This has in the past caused me some embarrassment when it comes to radio and press coverage, as they usually consult your Wikipedia page. Now I have just reached the age of sixty. I feel it's about time to have this information corrected. Please advise how I can possibly have this sorted out. ... Thank you. .... ROY WOOD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Real roy wood (talk • contribs) 22:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've left a note on your talk page giving you some advice. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Given permission, but being chased by a Bot
BetacommandBot sent me a message regarding Image:EdBrown JimCopp.jpg possibly not qualifying for "fair use." The story is this: I was gvien permission by the people who own the rights to the photo to use it in a Wikipedia article. The photo should be allowed to stay where it is. Under what stricture do I have to do this? Morganfitzp (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Unless the rightsholders licensed it under a free license, their permission is (from the perspective of Wikipedia policy) meaningless. The rationale that you've provided for fair use is therefore invalid - a valid fair use rationale would need to explain why it was critical to the article in which it was being used, why it couldn't be replaced by a free image, etc. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- I see you've also tagged the image as having been released into the public domain. If this is indeed the case, you should simply remove all reference to fair use (there's currently a contradiction on the page, in that it's both stated to be copyrighted and in the public domain). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the speedy replies. The image is of the two men that the corresponding article is about. Images and recordings of these men are licensed to Playhouse Records. I therefore contacted Playhouse Records about writing a Wikipedia article about these men and the label sent me the photo in question, along with permission to use it. What do I need to do to have the image be allowed to stay where it is? Morganfitzp (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- It needs to be released under a free license, which means anyone (not just wikipedia) must be able to use it for any purpose. See WP:COPYREQ for the process of getting the correct permission and mailing it to the wikimedia foundation. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- I actually think that there is a fair use rationale for this one - I'll try to put one together if you give me a few minutes. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've included a fair use rationale. I think it will pass muster (though I can't guarantee it), once somebody shrinks the image down to something lower resolution. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- I reduced the image size. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've included a fair use rationale. I think it will pass muster (though I can't guarantee it), once somebody shrinks the image down to something lower resolution. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- I actually think that there is a fair use rationale for this one - I'll try to put one together if you give me a few minutes. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- It needs to be released under a free license, which means anyone (not just wikipedia) must be able to use it for any purpose. See WP:COPYREQ for the process of getting the correct permission and mailing it to the wikimedia foundation. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the speedy replies. The image is of the two men that the corresponding article is about. Images and recordings of these men are licensed to Playhouse Records. I therefore contacted Playhouse Records about writing a Wikipedia article about these men and the label sent me the photo in question, along with permission to use it. What do I need to do to have the image be allowed to stay where it is? Morganfitzp (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- I see you've also tagged the image as having been released into the public domain. If this is indeed the case, you should simply remove all reference to fair use (there's currently a contradiction on the page, in that it's both stated to be copyrighted and in the public domain). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Egypt Pyramids
Image:All Gizah Pyramids.jpg Hi, I heard rumours that Egypt is supposed to copyright the pyramids. What does that mean in regards to photo's of the Egyptian pyrimids here on Wikipedia? --CyclePat (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Under American copyright law, they can't copyright the pyramids. So it shouldn't mean anything. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Is that the same thing for regular buildings? (architechture?) --CyclePat (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Most "regular" buildings aren't thousands of years old. Anything newer than about 140 years may be protected by copyright, excepting freedom of panorama. Megapixie (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the reply. --CyclePat (talk) 07:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The piece is indeed free as I have sent an e-mail to the owner of the website. I have since deleted the e-mail and no longer have it as there wasn't a problem. It adds to the article tremendously and I believe it should stay there. I also believe my rationale for it being free is legitimate. schyler (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- You need a WP:FURG template. You may be confusing libre with gratis - unless the form of there email was close toWikipedia:COPYREQ#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries then it's probably not enough to change it to {{GFDL}}. The fact you are using the entire song, not just a clip is problematic from a fair use point of view (i.e. it's not fair use). You'll need to get explicit consent and follow the procedure at the COPYREQ page to be able to use the entire song. Megapixie (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know, I did give an adequate fair use rational for this image. However, I still got a bot notice about it. Could someone confirm whether I did provide a valid fair use rational? Thingg (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Look at WP:FURG (you didn't provide a rationale). Additionally fair use images should not be used in userspace per policy at Wikipedia:FU#Policy_2. I have removed the image from the userbox for now. If it's not being used in an article (i.e. Xbox which appears to be using Image:Microsoft XBOX.svg) then it will be deleted as an orphan. Megapixie (talk) 03:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- I was not aware that that image existed (and I wasn't thinking about the policy you mentioned). Thanks for the help. Thingg (talk) 03:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
What is a copyright?
sorry this may seem foolish but what is the copyright and how can i get it ? i realy want to help wikipedia and i got alot of helpful things but i don't realy know how to get its license or its copyrights......................... sorry for bothering you but all what i need is help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gameel 50 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- The copyright is basically who owns a particular work. In the case of images, it's usually whoever took them or drew them. For example, if you take a photograph of something, people can't just take that photograph and publish it without your permission (of course, if the website hired you to take the picture, then it would probably own the copyright). Wikipedia tries as much as possible to use only works that the copyright holder has released under a free license, meaning anybody can use them for any purpose. Does that answer your question? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Humanist Party Logo
I have received an entry on the Humanist Movement talk page questioning the use of the image: Image:humanist_party_moebius_logo_-_white_on_orange.gif
I have filled in a template on the image screen that I think is what you are after. Please can you confirm if this is all ok now so that I can remove the query from the page. Thanks in advance tonyr68uk tonyr68uk (talk) 15:03 GMT 03 Jan 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 15:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've modified some of the info slightly - hope this is ok. Addhoc (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that the image is copyrighted at all actually, but if what you've written is enough to chase off the image police then it's ok. tonyr68uk (talk) 23:02 GMT 03 Jan 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 23:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The file history shows the original version of this file was created from an image taken from somewhere on [8]. The image is tagged as PD but also contains an NFC rationale. The only information I can gather from the discussion on the talk page boils down to "we fixed it", with no further explanation. When I queried this, I was told the same thing - "we fixed it, it's OK now", with a rider of "who do you think you are!?".
My initial assumption is that the image has simply had the LM branding elements removed and the colour changed, which would still make this a derivative work, and unusable on WP, even under fair-use provisions. Could someone clarify this both for my sake and that of User:Dewarw, please? 90.203.45.168 (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- There are enough similarities to http://www.londonmidland.com/app/webroot/files/cache/FINAL%20LM%20MAP%20FOR%20TIMETABLE.pdf (and presumably an earlier version of the same map) that it is my opinion that it was probably traced (a lot of the curves are very similar, elements from both maps align vertically in ways that are unlikely if it wasn't traced). This is not a good thing. I will ask the user to comment here on how it was created. It's okay to use a map as the basis of another map, as long as it's not traced. Megapixie (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to point out this user has contributed a very very large number of our good corporate logos. There are literally dozens tagged for the next couple of days and I dont know where to find sources, etc. Any help? MBisanz talk 19:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- I glanced at a few of his warnings, and it looks like all he needs to do is provide a non-free use rationale for each use as described in non-free use rationale guideline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TEB728 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the problem is. I used the same rationale as the Something Like Human cover, which has a higher resolution, mind you, and no one's said anything about it. Low resolution images of album covers are acceptable as per WP:NONFREE. What's going on with that? -- §HurricaneERICarchive 20:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- You need to include a more detailed rationale than "This is an album cover". Even the template tag says as much. There is a guidance page somewhere, which may or may not be at WP:FUR. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- You need a non-free use rationale for each use as described in non-free use rationale guideline. --teb728 t c 21:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Kippi Brannon
The image of Kippi Brannon that has been submitted to Wikipedia is a photograph that is currently owned and licensed by her former record label, Curb Records. Curb used this photo for all public promotional purposes when she was actively with the record label. If this was an illegal procedure on my part, then I am sorry that I made the attempt at submitting it. Thank you Gotfemail (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- In general, Wikipedia only allows free images of living people, since non-free ones are considered replaceable. Although it doesn't appear that there has ever been a photograph of any kind in Kippi Brannon. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
My photo
How do I post a photo from our website? I don't understand what else I have to do —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.43.145.246 (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- What's the photo of, and who owns the copyright for it? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Reaction to notification bots
Yesterday I received [a bot message on my talk page] about the book cover image for Chris Moore's novel The Lust Lizard of Melancholy Cove. As far as I can tell, the image is low-res; it is the very same image from the author's website. I added this as an illustration to the article more than a year ago, and included the book-cover template with the image as justification. The bot message refers to several lengthy, complicated, policy-ensconced web pages, but does not really make a resolution of the matter even reasonably worth my time to figure out. If low-res images of book-covers like this are not allowed, then one would expect that all of them should be removed. However, this matter does not seem to be enforced equitably on Wikipedia. The use of bots posting indirect notices (after an extraordinary delay in time) on my "talk" page, rather than e-mail from administrators or other human authorities, constitutes another annoying aspect of the way policy-notifications are handled. It is extremely alienating. Mademoiselle Fifi (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- A few points in response:
- The issue isn't the resolution of the image, it's the lack of fair use rationale. Whenever you upload an image that has not been released under a free license, you must include an explanation for why it may be used under Wikipedia's fair use criteria, which you didn't do for this image. Give me a few minutes and I'll add one.
- Accordingly, there isn't an issue of unequitable enforcement; likely any book cover you've seen that's stayed on Wikipedia for any length of time had a fair use rationale, which is why they weren't tagged like this one was.
- The reason bots handle the notification is that bots are the ones that find the images withou said rationales. It would be very arduous for humans to check every single image that's uploaded, especially when there are so many things that can be checked for automatically, by bots.
- I can see why you'd find the message slightly confusing. Unfortunately, this is because the entire area of intellectual property is very complicated (I don't come close to understanding it). I think the bot's message is as simple as it can be, really.
- As you're probably aware, talk pages is how communication of all kinds is handled on Wikipedia. It would be very unusual for something like this to be dealt with via e-mail, even if it was being dealth with by human administrators (and for that matter, it's not just administrators who deal with improperly used images - it's any editor).
- I hope this addresses many of your concerns. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've added a fair use rationale and deleted the disputed notice. It should be okay now. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick response. In the future, if you are going to move a user's response to a new section, please do not attempt to read people's feelings as part of the new title. Did I write that I was irritated? No. Therefore, I have changed the title of this section from "irritation" to "reaction."
- The "Non-free use rationale", I gather, is a new kind of required template -- how long has it been required (the policy page was started in Dec. 2006)? From what I can tell, I included the book-cover template, and I did explain in my upload that the image came from the author's website. (In any case, your addition to the image page gives only a general link as a source; the current link is http://www.chrismoore.com/images/lustlizard_lg.jpg.)
- Nevertheless, I'm not convinced that the enforcement is equitable. See, for instance, the book cover at Image:Vampire Lestat Original.jpg, which appears in the article The Vampire Lestat. (I'm not picking on a user or an author, but simply looked for an example which readily appeared). According to the user talk pages in the history of that image page, neither of the two users (one is apparently a bot) for that image (originally posted earlier than my Lizard one) have been sent a bot notice about this image, and yet the image file lacks the "Non-free use rationale" template that you added to my upload. (If I have misread the information cited here, I apologize in advance.) I recall that I might have uploaded one or two more images for Chris Moore's books under the same circumstances as Lizard -- shall I expect bot messages about those?
- As far as notifications are concerned, I participate very little on Wikipedia any more, and therefore I do not keep up with my talk page (mainly because of the ease with which vandals can participate -- still), let alone with the new rules of Wikipedia. I understand what intellectual property is, as I have a stake in it myself. However, it should not have taken all these years now for Wikipedia administrators and editors and gurus and whoever else to settle on how visual images should be handled.
- I do not agree that the bot's message is simple. Rather than simply including the non-free use template to cut and paste, the message leads me to another web page, through which I would have had to search for what the bot wanted me to find. It's just not worth my effort to keep up with the endless policy-tinkering that apparently is still going on in this regard. This experience leaves little encouragement for me to make any more substantial contributions to Wikipedia than I already have, at least on the English-language site. Mademoiselle Fifi (talk) 01:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
After reviewing this file, it appears to me that BetacommandBot is adding to the confusion by using the incorrect warning tag. This image did not have any FUR yet the tag used by the bot states "This image or media has a non-free use rationale that is disputed because of the following concern: invalid rationale per WP:NFCC#10c" It is the use of the incorrect tag that adds to the confusion factor. see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Lustlizard_lg.jpg&oldid=181911984 Dbiel (Talk) 01:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Remove BetacommandBot warnings after Fair Use Rationale added?
After adding a rationale, is it acceptable to remove the big spammy BetacommandBot warning from the article's Talk page? Torc2 (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- More than acceptable, it is encouraged. Thanks ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
English Heritage icon/flag
Image:EH icon.png has a tag asking for a non-free use rationale, but the same symbol at Image:Standard of the English Heritage.svg is described as a user-generated public domain image based on a World Flag Database image. Cannot this apply to both images? (BTW, I am amused that the tag says "please discuss the matter with the editor who placed this template on the image" when it was placed by a bot - can you have a discussion with a bot?) JonH (talk) 10:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- According to http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.1685 the mark is a trademark, we shouldn't be using it under a PD tag, should be {{Non-free logo}} Megapixie (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Copyright
How can I tell if something has a copyright? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.16.28 (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Pretty much everything is copyright. See Copyright for a full discussion which is beyond the scope of this page (A bit like asking a philosopher "what is truth?"). Images that have been released under a free license (GFDL, creative commons) by their creators are good for use here. If you have questions about a specific image, they would be easier to discuss. Megapixie (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted Pictures
00:19, 27 December 2007 East718 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Carpathian Ancestor.JPG" (CSD I7: Bad justification given for fair use: violates point 10c of the non-free content criteria
16:51, 29 December 2007 Maxim (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Noche Crist Carousel.JPG" (Deleted because "CSD I7 - Invalid fair use rationale; per WP:NFCC#10c, the rationale must include the name of the article, and preferably a link to it. Please don't hesitate to contact me with queries.". using TW)
These are the messages that I received when my uploaded images were deleted. I do not understand why they were deleted. I used the same fair use rationale as other contemporary artist's images on other pages. Please let me know what I am doing wrong. The page on the artist Noche Crist does not seem appropriate without an example of her work. Thank you.