Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

Media copyright questions
Welcome to the Media Copyright Questions page, a place for help with image copyrights, tagging, non-free content, and related questions. For all other questions please see Wikipedia:Questions. How to add a copyright tag to an existing image On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page. From the page Wikipedia:File copyright tags, choose the appropriate tag: For work you created yourself, use one of the ones listed under the heading "For image creators". For a work downloaded from the internet, please understand that the vast majority of images from the internet are not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. Exceptions include images from flickr that have an acceptable license, images that are in the public domain because of their age or because they were created by the United States federal government, or images used under a claim of fair use. If you do not know what you are doing, please post a link to the image here and ask BEFORE uploading it. For an image created by someone else who has licensed their image under an acceptable Creative Commons or other free license, or has released their image into the public domain, this permission must be documented. Please see Requesting copyright permission for more information. Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{Cc-by-4.0}}), not forgetting {{ before and }} after, in the edit box on the image's description page. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}}) Hit Publish changes. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below. How to ask a question To ask a new question hit the "Click here to start a new discussion" link below. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page. Don't include your email address, for your own privacy. We will respond here and cannot respond by email. Note for those replying to posted questions If a question clearly does not belong on this page, reply to it using the template {{mcq-wrong}} and, if possible, leave a note on the poster's talk page. For copyright issues relevant to Commons where questions arising cannot be answered locally, questions may be directed to Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright.
Click here to start a new discussion

(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

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)

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)

It is just another case of BetacommandBot being stupid and causing problems by tagging files that should not be tagged. I added a complaint to his talk page. Dbiel ^(Talk) 16:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

So that explains the contradicting information. Whether my uploaded screenshots had the rationale or not, they were deleted by that robot (due to it flagging the image as having an invalid rationale and the speedy deletion taking over as a result) and thus the cause to the contradicting information. Due to this confusion, I didn't know where to turn and without any warnings outside of Wikipedia (E-mail warnings), and due to the fact I come here in "bursts" where I go absent for several months (automatically getting logged out after some unknown amount of time, typically a few weeks as far as I can tell (annoying)), I was about to lose all motive for contributing any screenshots. If someone (human, not a robot) comes by and replaces one of them with something supposedly better, that's fine and not problematic (unless it was vandalism). However, a robot coming by and deleting nearly everything when otherwise valid does get on my nerves. Thanks for tidying up the rationale though. For a robot, it should only check to see if the rationale is present (checking to see if a certain string was present) and check to make sure the required fields have at least some content, nothing more. Ulillillia (talk) 23:32, 4 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)

Another user has removed the invalid tags. So this issue should be resolved, except for the misbehaving BetacommandBot issue. Dbiel ^(Talk) 16:42, 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)

• 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)

Tart as a double entendre

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)

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)

Anyone know how this could be handled? Do I have to lay out the rationale on the page or here?Montco (talk) 16:30, 5 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)

Looks good to me. Stifle (talk) 17:50, 4 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))

 DoneMegapixie (talk) 03:38, 3 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)

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)

Image:Los Elefantes.ogg

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)

Image:Xbox_logo.png

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)

Image:London Midland Network ZP.svg

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)

As for the London Midland image, it is no longer in my hands. As far as I am concerned, it is ok, but the image is now in with the graphics lab. They are the ones who can improve it. I originally uploaded the copyrighted map, which I had no intention to be kept for long. The graphics lab told me they had dealt with all copyright problems.

Please put it through the lab again. They will sort it. Do not delete it until improvements have been made. Articles' quality will go down without it! Dewarw (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that we can't wait for someone to fix it. It would appear to still have copyright issues (and has since Nov 2). It's better to delete the image now. I will list the image on images for deletion. Megapixie (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Caldorwards4

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)

Image:Natural Selection album cover.jpg

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 ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 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)

Trademarks aren't relevant to copyright status, see also Image:Coca-Cola_logo.svg —Random832 17:15, 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.

You didn't include the name of the article where you were alleging that the images were fair use. This is mandatory. Stifle (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Scanning from book by defunct publisher

I'm struggling to work out whether I can scan and include a photo from the publication 'Wonders of World Engineering'. This was originally published in the UK as a part work by Amalgamated Press in 1937-38. I notice that someone has scanned the entire publication in veja vu format and published it as a website [9] which appears to have been on line for several years without challenge. I have an original paper copy so I would be scanning this rather than copying the website. The photo in question is not credited, so the copyright was presumably owned by AP. Pterre (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

As the photo is not credited, the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 says that the image is public domain 50 years after its creation. Therefore you should be all right to upload the image and tag it as {{PD-UK}}. Stifle (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's 70 years (and I think Template:PD-UK may need to be revised) but if it was published in 1937 then you're still safe. Stifle (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about the matter I am slightly confused of the issue of the picture on Alpesh Vadher. I am sorry if I have done anything copyright. But could it possibly be explained to me just so I know for next time.--Thevardonrushes (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue seems to be that you used a non-free image. Non-free images (images that copyright holder has not released under a free license) are only usable on Wikipedia under specific criteria. One of those criteria is that the image must not be replaceable by a free alternative. Since Vadher is a living person, there's no reason that somebody couldn't take a picture of him and release it under a free license, so non-free images are no good. If you want to put an image on that page, you will need to find the owner of the image and convince them to release it under a free license (alternatively, you could take a picture yourself, if geography allows). I hope this clarifies things somewhat. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

What to do with a promotional photo?

I have several ORIGINAL photos for Oldsmobile concept cars pulled from an Oldsmobile fanclub website. These are offical. I just created an account with Wikipedia, so i am not exactily sure how this all works. This will be my first edit. I just want to get this right the first time. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.--Cdeboghorski (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You'll almost certainly need to get whoever owns the photos to release them under a free license (such as the GFDL). I think these images would be deemed replaceable, and therefore ineligible for fair use. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone fix that weird tagging problem please ?

I shot this photo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kalousdian_Armenian_School_Building_5Jan2008.JPG myself, using my personal digital camera, to add it to my article talking about my school here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalousdian_Armenian_School I added 2 other pics also, but the ImageTaggingBot sent me message telling i have to add tag to this image specifically ! Any advice for best option ? Xhackeranywhere (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks good to me. I see the images were initially missing this information; does anyone know if User:ImageTaggingBot runs on a lag of some sort. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Royal Geological Society of Cornwall logo.jpg

Please could someone cast their eye over the above linked image page, and let me know if I have got the copyright and fair-use tags right? It is the first such image that I have uploaded, thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, it's good to know this page exists - I expect I shall need to use it again sometime! DuncanHill (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Public Domain/Copyright Question

I assume this is the right place to post my question: Is this --->[[10]] image free to use? Specifically, a portion of it would be used on another image, which would be used to, I guess indirectly, make money for a website. I know it says public domain, but the copyright statement confused me enough that I wanted to make sure.

Thanks in advance,

Pepperonibread (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Assuming the information in the tag is correct, then it's completely free to use for any purpose. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks again.Pepperonibread (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Love the show!!!

I was just wondering if TAPS has ever got a request to visit Key West Fl? My husband, myself and freinds visited there and went on what they called a Ghost tour. There was some intresting stories. So i was just wondering if anyone has ever asked them to visit. I myself, have never had an incounter so i do not know weather to believe or not. Agian, I love the show. Dee-Dee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.25.189.214 (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

A diet composed entirely of liver and onions would be rich in many vitamins and minerals, including Vitamins A, B2, B3, B6, B9, B12, and Iron, but would be deficient in other areas, especially Vitamin C. Scurvy would be a real concern. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Is Lorenzo Longoria a jew?

is he? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Action302 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

SVG version of an existing image.

I recently uploaded a SVG version of the Square Enix logo that we already have. It didn't state the rationale in the PNG version, and I don't know what rationale there would be... GaeMFreeK (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added a rationale, but I'd appreciate it if someone else could have a look over it; I'm not really a derivative work expert, which I gather is what this would be considered. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Very fustrated and confused.

I uploaded an image and it seemed to work. I was asked to include the copyright information. I didn't quite understand how, so I just let the picture upload. Afterwards I was told to edit the page and include a reationale. For starters, just how are you supposed to edit it? It tried everything I could, I couldn't even edit the summary. I then procceeded to upload the same picture three times more, with no triumph. All I wanted to do was to put an image next to the text on the Yautja page. It isn't that easy to help people now, is it? I was also un-able to delete the pictures. Can somebody offer some help?LordJesseD (talk) 03:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help. Is at least one of the pictures still uploaded? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I only uploaded the images today, and they have dissapeared. A week hasn't past. At least I don't think it has... Just kidding. I did try that "

" thing, if that's how it's spelt. Maybe that deleted my pictures, but I only put it on one image. Should I upload it again? I have no clue how to do anything, though. I really just want to put a few pictures up to show what an article is explaining. In reality, this is probbably a simple task, but my mind is very thick. Also if I can get an image properly uploaded, will it stay there? I know that a free image might replace it, but that's unlikly.LordJesseD (talk) 04:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The good news is that you're not that thick, since it really isn't that simple a task. The bad news is that it isn't that simple a task. When you uploaded, were you able to select the appropriate option from the dropdown list? If so, once that's done click "edit this page" (at the top of the image page) and insert a fair use rationale (you can find a template for one here). Let me know if you have any additional problems. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:2004-07-31 Nena at the opening of the Berliner Olympiastadion.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:2004-07-31 Nena at the opening of the Berliner Olympiastadion.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

When I uploaded this image, I provided relevant copyright information, but not via the multiple-choice form I was presented, since none of the choices fit. All the information should be there. Is some further response needed to prevent the deletion threat from being carried out? Michael Hardy (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The tag you added after the fact should do the trick. But the file really should be transferred to the Commons, especially since it's already being used on multiple Wikipedias. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the file to the Commons. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Parental Consent Problem

It has been suggested that there may be legal problems with two of my uploaded photos because I have not declared that parental consent was obtained for public release of the photos. Obviously, I could quickly and simply resolve this issue by declaring that consent was obtained. I wondered, though, whether parental consent is required at all in this case. I have researched this issue and, based on my findings, concluded that there is no such requirement.

I captured both photos at dance competitions that expressly permitted unrestricted (except for the use of flash) photography by the audience. Audience admission was free and open to the general public. The performers--who were all minors--and their parents understood that the performances were taking place in a public venue and they would be photographed.

In one photo (Image:CompetitiveDanceGroup.jpg), all of the subjects are members of my studio and thus covered by a broad, previously executed agreement that permits their images to be used for any purpose. So, the question is reduced to this: does the other photo (Image:CompetitiveDanceAwards.jpg)--which includes minors from other, unknown dance schools--require parental consent in order to be legally posted to wikipedia?

Parental consent laws require that parents consent to or be notified before their minor child can legally engage in certain activities that might be harmful to them (e.g., obtaining abortions, undergoing body piercing). Such laws are concerned with protecting minors from potentially harmful, self-initiated actions, and thus do not in any way define the legality of online publishing by third parties. Absent a specific citation of law that addresses this case, I must conclude that parental consent is not required here.

I am not a lawyer, but I have made a good faith effort to determine whether there are other legal problems with these images and found no evidence of such problems. For example, coppa (children's online privacy protection act) does not apply here because no personal information is collected by wikipedia or exposed by the photographs. A model release is required when an image is sold and used for commercial purposes, but these images are not being sold, nor does publishing them to wikipedia constitute commercial use. From yet another perspective, case law supports the theory that the choreography copyright is not infringed by still photography.

Is there a lawyer out there who can validate my analysis? Lambtron (talk) 06:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

In general I would be very cautious posting identifiable pictures of other peoples children on the internet, especially those taken inside "private" venues. Be aware that you should only be posting images to wikipedia that you feel would be allowed to be used commercially. TBH - I wouldn't be comfortable posting either picture. Megapixie (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the concerns about possible legal issues here, but I have yet to hear a concrete explanation of exactly what the problem is. Please clarify: is this a parental consent issue or a commercial use issue, or some combination thereof, or something else entirely? Is there really a legal problem here, or just unfounded fears? If there truly is a legal problem, can someone please explain the legal theory that is believed to apply here?

As I mentioned earlier, the venue was public in that it was open and free to the general public and there were no restrictions on photography. Furthermore, the locale where the photos were taken has no law that requires parental consent for capturing photos of minors, or adults for that matter, in situations (such as this) in which one lacks a reasonable expectation of privacy. In fact, to say that the subjects lack a reasonable expectation of privacy is an understatement: the subjects are performing before what they expect, and in fact, hope, will be a large, public audience. Also, with the exception of pornographic images, the locale has no statutes that differentiate between minors and adults with respect to image distribution and publishing. The photos do not contain any personal information that would enable someone to identify the subjects, so the term identifiable pictures used by Megapixie only applies in the context of viewers who are personally acquainted with the subjects. Unless I have overlooked some subtle aspect of this case, the fact that children are subjects in these images is irrelevant.

To summarize: the photos show unknown people in a public setting where they have no expectation of privacy. As far as I can tell, there is no difference between my photos and others posted to wikipedia that portray unnamed people in public.

I am reluctant to delete my posts simply because others have concerns about the mere possibility of legal problems; this would amount to self-censorship. On the other hand, I will immediately delete my posts if it becomes clear that they are illegal, or even if a subjects' parent asked me to, although I believe there would be no legal requirement to do so. Lambtron (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:12 Angry Men 1997 film poster.jpg

I had the image marked with {{imagewatermark}} but someone removed it saying the original image had the watermark but i do not believe the movie poster had that watermark. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 11:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That would appear to be a New Zealand film board rating mark and would have been on the original New Zealand poster. Megapixie (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about the White "e" in the right corner that appears to be a ezydvd watermark, eg: http://www.ezydvd.com.au/item.zml/786715 and http://www.ezydvd.com.au/item.zml/797962. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 04:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Albert Richter (German Track Cyclist, 1912-1940).jpg

Hi, immediately after uploading that pic, I got an "incompatibility" (or however you call it)-message from User:STBotI. Is there anything / WHAT-IS wrong with my claim for "Fair Use" in the Albert Richter article ??? -- WeHaWoe (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It needs an Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Try my experimental flow chart - it may guide you to the right one. Megapixie (talk) 14:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, we're talking about "Non.Free.Media.Rrationale", right? I am not interested in TRYin anything, but I asked a question about a very specific topic, i.e. "IS.FAIR.USE.still.applicable to WP content", YES-OR-NO, AND-IF-YES, why not in THIS case. Best, WeHaWoe (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Your rationale seems okay to me, but, as Megapixie said, you need an image copyright tag. I've added one. You might also give WP:CIVIL a read. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

@Sarcasticidealist: TX, but there still seems to be something wrong ( I personally believe, with the BOT-edit ;]] ) -- I tried to copy, as closely as possible, the rationale of Image:Caesar Cardini (Cesare Cardini) 1896-1956.jpg which I found by chance and which seems to be accepted in enWP, and which dates to same period (=1930s).

As, in the "Richter"-case. I had no WWW-source, but a direct contact with the owner of one print (althought not the owner of rights, which is unknown, as e.g. in the "Cardini"-case), I did not mention any wwww-link. There is one, to a lower-resolution-image, which I will add soon to the rationale. I however STILL want to know (=would appreciate to hear=read) WHAT IS/WAS "WRONG" with my upload, compared to that "Cardini"-portrait. Best, -- WeHaWoe (talk) 10:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Both your upload and the Cardini upload lacked copyright status. The bot just never seems to have stumbled across the Cardini one, but if it did the uploader of that one would have received the same message as you did. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

ACK. So,_MY_very_probaby_German Friend, what can I do to make this attribution "acceptable" to enWP (as "FAIR USE" is not to others)??? -- WeHaWoe (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Just add this tag: {{Non-free fair use in | Caesar Cardini}} to the Cardini image page. I've already fixed the Richter one. Alos, I'm not sure what gave you the idea that I was German; I've never lived outside of Canada (by coincidence, my girlfriend is German, but I've only visited the country a couple of times and don't speak the language). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

NB, on "copyright status": TX to "*.ca" cContributor. Thr reason of assuming such was the time.

I'll do my best. WeHaWoe (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

How would I?

So I've finally managed to upload an image and dispute the non-free stuff. The only thing is, how do I remove that template with the red border? My picture has good reasons, so I think it deserves to be on here. And not be deleted.LordJesseD (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to the image? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AVP_Chopper-Arm_Blades_Extended.pngLordJesseD (talk) 09:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the warning, since there is a fair use rationale present. For future reference, the template here is more likely than a free-form rationale to be recognized by bots. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't make sense of that one, it confuses me even more. But since this seems to have worked, shouldn't I just stick to this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LordJesseD (talk • contribs) 12:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You can if you like. I'm just concerned that the bots might not recognize the non-standard format, which could be why they gave you grief this time. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. Let's just hope the bots do recognize it. But if not there isn't a way for standard users like me to remove it, is there? I suppose I could come here and ask every time, but that'd make me a pain in the neck, and I don't want to give anyone too much trouble.LordJesseD (talk) 12:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There sure is (I'm just a "standard user" myself): just edit the image page and delete the bit at the top that's enclosed within {{}} and begins with "di-disputed fair use rationale". Here's an illustration of me doing so. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that you were of a higher power. Thank you so much for all your help, I would not have been able to do any of this myself. I haven't slept in all this time you've been helping me, so at least now I can rest easy. On the little box that says who uploaded it and what day, there's not a way to edit it, is there? If not,than that's no drama. Thanks again for all your help.LordJesseD (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I don't believe there is any way to edit the file history (why would you want to, out of curiosity?).

If I offer some advice, don't worry so much: media copyright is taken seriously at Wikipedia, but it's certainly nothing to (literally) lose sleep over. Finally, as for me being of a "higher power"...well, I guess we all have our religious views.

Happy editing, and please let me know if there's ever anything I can help you with. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

By higher power, I meant an administrator, or something along those lines. I just wasn't going to sleep until this got all sorted out, mainly for the sake of following something through. The only reason I'd want to edit the file history is that in the little "comment" part, I accidently put some copyright write up, and I'd just want the page to look nice and consistent. I'm strange, I know. Thanks for being there and helping me along.LordJesseD (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

saving a page

how to save wikipedia text page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.2.221.139 (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify your question? Are you seeking to create a new Wikipedia page? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Need Fair Use review of photo

Have uplaoded (Image:Sam Johnson.jpg) and need senior editors review for Fair Use tag. Rationale is included in upload notes. Prior to uploading photo I discussed rationale with Megapixie on this page and was referred to Peteforsyth who said: "...I don't think there would be any problem using the photo under fair use in the subject's article..." Senior editor review and tag would be appriciated.--Orygun (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the most senior editor in this area (as a rule of thumb, if User:Megapixie says one thing and I say another, I'm definitely wrong), but I would say that your fair use rationale is definitely okay. The only question is whether or not it's even needed, given that it may be in the public domain. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

How do I replace current "see senior editor" tag with approp tag--to be conservative, lets say Fair Use tag?--Orygun (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, think I fixed it. Would you check Image:Sam Johnson.jpg to see if I got it right?--Orygun (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As the license being used calls for a fair use rationale, I changed the information template to a fair use template Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!--Orygun (talk) 02:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

What else is needed?

I added a picture Image:Soseaua Kiseleff.jpg, taking it from ro:Imagine:Soseaua Kiseleff.jpg. I gave all the details about the pic that could be found on the other wiki. What else can I say, or do I need to say -- can't the copyright notice be checked from there? I've had that problem in the past, and I still don;t understand how can one get a picture which is one of the other wikis (but not on the commons) and use it on en.wiki, without a ton of fuss and muss, especially when the copyright clearly expired (see the problems I had with Image:Gavril Muzicescu.jpg-- a pic of someone who died in 1903!), or is explicitly waved by the author of the pic (as is the case with this one)? I would like to get more pics from the other wikis, but this process, where I get bots putting scary messages on my talk page, is too spooky. Can something be done to make it run more smoothly, and/or in a more user-friendly way? I thank you in advance for any feedback you could provide. Turgidson (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleting Image

Help! I hit upload button for Image:NCO Map.png before I was finished entering input info. Tried to fix it, but it just adds new entry and incomplete tag remains. Can someone tell me how to delete imgage so I can start again. Image is map I created myself using background from another map already in Wiki Commons.--Orygun (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

&^%$#*! Did it again! Was uploading postcard Image:Reno NCO Station.jpg printed sometime between 1880-1918--which is clearly Pubic Domain image, but didn't select "Prior to 1923" tag from pull-down screen before I hit upload button. Would be really helpful if keeper of Upload software could add warning notice that reminds people input is incomplete before accepting upload.--Orygun (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If you add {{db-author}} to the images in question, they'll be deleted fairly quickly by administrators. In the alternative, you can simply edit the input info in the pages by clicking "edit this page" at the top, just like for an article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!--Orygun (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

copyright

how can i prove that the material i have posted on line is my copyright and how can it be hacker - free? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.208.74 (talk) 09:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the second part of your question ("hacker free"). As to the first part, all we ask is that you assert on the image page that you hold the copyright (and, of course, that you be telling the truth). There's no particular burden on you to prove this. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleting image

Greetings, I have uploaded the logo of our company, but the first time I didn't add the copyright information, so I uploaded the file again with the correct info (LDWlogo.jpg). Now, though, I don't know how to delete the first one.

Thanks for any help you can provide.

Carla —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carla72 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Carla - if you add {{db-author}} to the image in question, it will be deleted fairly quickly by administrators. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyright notices

I've added two photo's that I took myself to the Barrow AFC article, but I keep encountering a copyright notice. I hold the copyright to both picss, but I'm happy to share them. How do I go about making sure they're not deleted please?

ChubbD —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChubbD (talk • contribs) 21:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You'll need to release them under a free license, which will grant non-revocable permission for anyone to copy and use them for any purpose. If you're comfortable doing that, add {{GFDL-self}} to the image pages (if you want to release them under the GFDL - other free licenses have different tags). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Freedom of Information image, taken by the Pueblo County Coroner

I need a picture for the article American mutilation of Japanese war dead. I would have preferred to use this "picture of the week" from May 1944 but somehow I think Life Magazine would not agree to it.

This image would also be ok, but I suppose the copyright can be owned by an individual.

Therefore my hope lies with the image in this article:

• The Pueblo Chieftain Online, MACABRE MYSTERY

The photos are "COURTESY PHOTOS/ OFFICE OF PUEBLO COUNTY CORONER". the relevant quote is "The signatures on the skull are quite legible in photographs released to The Chieftain by Pueblo County Coroner James Kramer after the newspaper submitted a formal Freedom of Information Act request." Does this mean they are free for anyone to use? Or do you need to ask permission from the Pueblo Chieftain, and/or the Pueblo County Coroner? --Stor stark7 ^Talk 22:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

My suspicion - and hopefully User:Megapixie will stop by to spread a little of his/her mega pixie dust of knowing the answer to everything - is that those images are still the intellectual property of the Pueblo County Coroner, and that the newspaper was making fair use of them. My further suspicion is that a fair use rationale for use of the photo the Wikipedia article you mentioned wouldn't pass muster, but I don't pretend to be certain about any of this. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

All three images are not free enough to be free (for one reason or another), however because you discuss the image and its impact, you actually have an excellent case for using the Time Life image as fair-use. Find a low resolution unwatermarked version if possible (no larger than 300 pixels in any one dimension). Make sure you credit the source fully - i.e. Time Life, photographer, etc. Tag with {{Non-free historic image}} and add a WP:FURG. Same principle as Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, in that the image itself is famous, and we are commenting on the impact of the image. The other images would fail fair use, as they are not directly discussed. Megapixie (talk) 06:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:101_JPG.jpg

I was told to provide a source for this image, which I did. I I believe the rest of the information provided along with the image is sufficient, please correct me if i'm wrong. Pk-user (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The information is sufficient, except that I think it may be inaccurate. I can't imagine that the Pakistani armed forces released this photo for use by anyone for any purpose. What's your basis for saying so? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It is published by the Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR). Therefore, I assumed it is for public use and the current tag seems appropriate. Which tag in your opinion is suitable for this image? Pk-user (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this one would likely be more appropriate: {{Non-free promotional}}, but I can't be sure about that. If that was the right one, there would need to be a fair use rationale for every article on which the photo appears. Perhaps somebody better-informed than I am will be able to offer some comments, though. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:MikeWilks.jpg

I have emailed Mike Wilks to request permission to use Image:MikeWilks.jpg on Wikipedia, but as it is listed for deletion by tomorrow, I put a note on the image description page requesting an extension of a week. Is there anything else I should do? --Slashme (talk) 07:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not actually a huge deal if the image is deleted, since it's easy to re-add. But please note that you must get more than just the subject's permission to use it on Wikipedia; you must get his (assuming he's the photo's copyright holder) permission to release it under a free license of some kind, which would allow anybody to use it for any purpose. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

My image used, but not credited

I have just noticed the following Image, which is used on the Grange, County Sligo article and on the Ben Bulben article. This is licensed as a public domain image, but I wish to dispute that, as it is in fact, a copy of an image I took and placed on flickr with a cc-by-sa 2.0 licence. I don't think there's any point asking the user who uploaded it to change the licence, if you look at their talk page, you'll see there are many problems with images they've uploaded, and it may be a sockpuppet.

The image I uploaded to flickr is here, at [11] or snow on Benbulben. I have no problem having this image used on wikipedia, but the correct licence should be used (as it was on another of my images Image:Benbulben3.jpg which someone else posted with the correct licence.

Where should I go or what can I do to sort this out? Thanks. --The.Q^(t)(c) 16:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that your story appears to be true, I've simply switched the tags. In any event, in the event of dispute over an image's copyright, we should use the more restrictive of the alleged copyrights - in this case, the creative commons license. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added a link to the Flickr source. (very important!) Pagrashtak 17:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose attribution would be tough without that. Duh. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Aircrafts images from websites

Realy there is a lot to read about copyrights help, but as a direct question, may I upload images of aircrafts from websites like globalsecurity.org & fas.org and if yes under which copyright tag it should be? --AZER QIBLAWI (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Those would be non-free images, which means that they can only be used if they're not replacable by free images. Unless these are pictures of aircraft which no longer exist anywhere in the world, it should always be possible (at least in theory) to get a free image instead. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

image: Double-wing2

I inadvertently uploaded the file Double-wing2 without selecting "self-made." After correcting the copyright info and linking to the image from Single-wing formation, I notice that the image is still being quaratined.--Bill Spencer (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to the image in question? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:KevinRoberts.jpg

I have read the message "Thanks for uploading Image:KevinRoberts.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. ..."

This is a press release/publicity photo and I have done everything as per the website request, "Downloaded content can be used for print and web publications, in each case the photographer and www.saatchikevin.com must be credited. Left click on links to open each image then right click to download."

Can someone help me remove that copyright violation message generated by that #$%@! bot. sorry for being not pleased because I am busy with other work and I noticed the bot was going to delete a perfectly ok publicity photo. And I have provided the credit!

Thanks for your help and attention. – Kempton "Ideas are the currency of the future." - a quote by Kevin Roberts 00:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You may have done what the source website requires, but you have not done what Wikipedia requires. Wikipedia requires a use rationale for each use of a non-free image. See WP:NFURG. --teb728 t c 00:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict - some additional information) :The problem is that the image is a non-free image that doesn't have a fair use rationale for each article in which it's used. I think it may also be too high-res for a fair use image, although I'm not very good at that technical shiznat. Anyway, to create a fair use rationale, see WP:FURG#Template. Let me know if you have any other questions. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

What tag applies?

Found image I want to use in wiki article. Copyright holder has following use policy: "Images may be used free of charge without permission provided photo credit shown below is given. Use of the photos implies agreement to following terms and conditions: copyright holder retains custody of photos and sets conditions of use; photos may be used in web-sites and other personal or commercial activities; however, user may not sell or transfer rights to use photos to other parties." What tag would apply?--Orygun (talk) 04:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Retiring fair use images before uploader's retirement

I have intentions to retire as a contributor to video game articles, but having uploaded a large collection of fair use images for two years, I do not want to be burdened by the prospect of bot messages inundating my talk page whenever mass deletions of the images are imminent. I have thoughts about removing all fair use images before leaving, but given limitations of the meta:right to vanish, where removal of certain works may be disruptive, it's not clear what I should do now. Large portions of images uploaded are now violating fair use policies, and I have witnessed one user vanishing along with fair use images uploaded by the user. Any ideas? ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} ╫ 04:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)