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)

Image:Donboscotech_logo.PNG has a fair use rationale. Is it okay for it to be used?

Romainia Please help

I am doing a report a Romainia i was wondering if i should do it on like the culture Religon Eductaion. I have a Romainiain Fried that will help me but i need to pick something please he;p soon. i need to know now.thanks

You may get an answer if you ask the Reference desk

Adding time stamp so this section gets archived —teb728 t c 09:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

jhangir khan

<who mad the first documentry programme on jhangir khan who is a squash player of pakistan?>

Adding time stamp so this section gets archived —teb728 t c 09:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

delete wjmk logo

Can you please delete the wjmk logo I uploaded.

Adding time stamp so this section gets archived —teb728 t c 09:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Query re copyright of images illustrating data/findings from published reports papers

Hi I have a query regarding the use of images that illustrate the findings of published research etc. It strikes me that this is not something that is the same as a drawing or other illustration that could be released for anyone to use how they see fit. I had previously considered that the Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvided tag provided a means of protecting the image as regards acknowledging the sources of the information and preventing the misrepresentation of that information by third parties. However, others have taken the position that the conditions attached to the tag cannot be used to prohibit derivatives. This defeats the purpose in my view and would seem to create an obstacle to the reporting of published research via wikipedia --Sf (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not accept any license which excludes derivative works. Images with such restrictions may be used only under the highly restrictive non-free content criteria. Among the restrictions, the image may not be replaceable with a free image, and it must contribute substantially to the understandability of the article. Such non-free images require a non-free tag such as {{non-free fair use in}} and a non-free use rationale for each use. {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvided}} is free use tag not a non-free tag; so it cannot be used for a non-free image. —teb728 t c 02:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that however a statement of policy re non-free images does not necessarily answer the question. Are you saying so that all images portraying information content (such as census stats, research findings etc) rather than illustrations should be non-free? Also the non-free category states that the image must be published elsewhere not that the information portrayed must have been published. This would seem to preclude wikipedia contributors from developing visual illustrations of some aspect of the article they are working on. This to my mind defeats the purpose of having an encyclopedia. --Sf (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Quite the contrary: I’m saying that all images should be free except in special cases. Users are encouraged to create their own images, but they must license them as free content. (Wikipedia, however, does not publish WP:original research; I hope you not suggesting that.) —teb728 t c 22:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If I'm reading the above correctly, I think you may be talking past each other. As far as I can tell, when Sf says that the images he's talking about "should be non-free", he's referring to the categorization of those images on Wikipedia, i.e. whether they should be indicated as free or non-free, given their content. However, when teb728 says that "all images should be free except in special cases", I believe he's saying that all images that are uploaded to Wikipedia should be freely usable (except in special cases) in order to comply with Wiki policy. Do I have that right? (Note: if one or both of you are "she" and not "he", then I apologize!) -- Hux (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That is what I am saying. Let me try replying to Sf’s last post again in the light of your comment: All images on Wikipedia portraying information content (as opposed to illustrations) should be licensed such that they can be used in derivative works. Unlike illustrations there are probably no fair-use exceptions for such images, for they are inherently replaceable by a derivable image portraying the same information. This does not preclude Wikipedia contributors from developing visual illustrations of some aspect of the article they are working on, but it requires that they license those images under a license that permits derivative works. I have a concern, however, that he is thinking of images that would constitute WP:OR. —teb728 t c 02:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It would seem the issue is the definition of "derivative" this implies that the licence allows someone to amend the image such that the information it portrays is other then that indicated by the published source i.e. that someone may misrepresent the information. If the stipulation is that someone must be permitted to use the unamended and properly cited image in a derivative work then that is clearly a completely separate matter. If the latter is the case then that should be clearly stated in the copyright policy. Re the original research query, and at the risk of sounding tetchy, what part of the words findings of published research were unclear? --Sf (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A license to make a derivative work is not a license to commit fraud. Say the original image is a graph: A legitimate derivative might for example add (clearly indicated) data points, which for example point out a discrepency between theoretical predictions and actual measurments. Or the derivative might point out an error in the calculations or methodology of the published research. —teb728 t c 21:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is my view that the use of language like "Wikipedia does not accept any license which excludes derivative works" would seem to be an open invitation if not a "licence" to commit fraud. If the use of the term "derivative" is in fact qualified under Wikipedia policy then the nature of such qualifications should be clearly stated and the implications set out. --Sf (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

PS I accept that it might be perfectly legitimate to amend a, properly acknowledged, image for the purposes you set out. But that would be the case in any scientific or academic discussion outside of wikipedia. That is not what is driving the question. What is driving the question is "is wikipedia seeking to place the use of such images outside any bounds?". If wikipedia refuses to be bound by such conventions of academic discourse then this would seem to introduce obstacles to the development of articles --Sf (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy requires that, with some very specific exceptions, everything on Wikipedia should be free content. However, it is worth noting that the freedom in question mainly refers to freedom from copyright restrictions. There are many other laws and conventions that limits what one may or should do with material published on Wikipedia, but, as a rule, we are not concerned with such limitations since they do not generally interfere with our mission to create a collaborative, freely available and extensible encyclopedia.

For example, our article on Google includes numerous phrases and logos that are trademarks of Google Inc.; these are not considered problematic in any way, since the restrictions put on their use by trademark law would only come into play if one were to commercially use them in a manner that competed with Google or sought to misrepresent oneself as being affiliated with them. Similarly, the fact that Wikipedia consists of free content means that I am free to print it out, give the printed out copy to my friends or even to sell it for profit — but if I took the printed out copy of Wikipedia and hit someone with it, I'd still be charged with assault. The freedom to create derivative works, which Wikipedia's license grants me, allows me to take Wikipedia's article on George W. Bush, edit it to express my own views on his policies and publish the edited version on my own website without having to worry about being sued for copyright infingement by Wikipedia or the article's other authors (provided that I comply with the attribution and other requirements of the license) — yet, if my edited version of the article were to claim that he rapes kittens, I'd still be liable to get sued for libel.

The issue with academic misconduct is similar. Wikipedia's policy of accepting only freely license content implies that, if you upload a figure showing your research results to Wikipedia, I can take that figure and publish it in any medium (on my website, on Wikipedia itself, in an academic article or on the back of a T-shirt) with any modifications I might choose to make to it (including but not limited to adding data points, cutting it in half, scribbling on it with a crayon or using it as part of an art collage), and, provided that I comply with the specific license you've chosen (which will typically at least require that I attribute you as the author of the original work, and possibly more), you won't be able to sue me for infringing your copyright on the figure. Even so, if I were to use the figure in a fraudulent manner, such as by claiming it as my own research (even if the license didn't explicitly require me to attribute it to you) or by trying to pass off a version with fake data as accurately representing your original results, I'd still be facing academic sanctions. Moreover, that would be just as true even if I were to do the same with a figure I'd drawn completely from scratch myself, without using your work in any way.

So, to recap, freely licensing your work implies that you retain only a limited amount of copyright protection on it. It doesn't, and indeed cannot, mean that you somehow authorize anyone else to do anything otherwise illegal or formally sanctioned with (or without) it, if only because such permission is not usually yours to give. And, even where it technically could, a normal free content license will not in any way limit your right to sue people reusing your work for defamation, privacy violation, trademark infringement, fraud or any other non-copyright-related offense, nor to raise charges of academic misconduct against them, should you believe them to have committed such. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that we finally seem to be getting somewhere. I apologise in advance if this information is already available but is there anywhere on wikipedia outside of talk pages where the explanation you have just offered regarding fraudulent use is stated? I have been going around in circles trying to find an applicable copyright license. Also the issue is wider than me taking court action against others for percieved infringements. If I purport via wikipedia to have re-published someone else's work without 'apparently' doing anything to protect that work from misuse am I not also potentially open to sanction myself? Essentially I am seeking a formula/wording for the copyright license that will encapsulate what you have just stated.--Sf (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This is just my viewpoint and may not address all your concerns. First of all, facts cannot be copyrighted, only how they are expressed. Secondly, some free licenses, while they don't prohibit using the work in ways that you may consider misuse, prohibit claiming that the derivative work is endorsed by the original author. For instance, the Creative Commons Attribution license, popular with scientific work, states "You may not implicitly or explicitly assert or imply any connection with, sponsorship or endorsement by the Original Author, Licensor and/or Attribution Parties, as appropriate, of You or Your use of the Work, without the separate, express prior written permission of the Original Author, Licensor and/or Attribution Parties." [1] Third, it's not that most Wikipedia editors want to misrepresent this work, it's just that by using it on a wiki, it may be used in ways that the original author never thought of; for instance, it may be compared side by side with a competing theory, possibly unfavorably. Would the original author consider that misleading? Wiki editors don't know. Since the data or idea can't be copyrighted, only the expression, it's an easy choice for wiki editor to not take the chance and use the data or idea, but not the expression of it. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No. We now seem to be raising points that are not at issue eg facts not being copyright, the motives of wikipedia contributors, the use of published and properly attributed data in comparisons, none of these are at issue. Published scientific data is not copyright but the work of those who obtained the data must be properly acknowledged and attributed and the original researchers have a right to expect that the facts that they have published will not be altered or amended in a manner that misrepresents those facts, and by implication their published work, as representing something else. In my view at the moment the manner and language in which the Wikipedia "may not prevent derivatives" policy is asserted represents an invitiation to fraud. In my view this is not acceptable. --Sf (talk) 09:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Your illustration of the Creative Commons licence may be starting to get us somewhere but you yourself had to go outside Wikipedia to illustrate the relevant points - this is unacceptable - the relevant guidance should exist here on wikipedia. --Sf (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The GFDL license which the text, and many of the images, of Wikipedia is licensed under also has similar wording: "The author(s) and publisher(s) of the Document do not by this License give permission to use their names for publicity for or to assert or imply endorsement of any Modified Version." --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 10:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Again with respect, we seem to be getting partial answers. OK the GFDL explanation that you linked does appear to contain a type of protection that relates to the issues being raised here. However, it does not immediately leap out as also being applicable to images. More importantly, the protection appears to relate to the author of the released document. If I am re-publishing someone elses work from the Scientific Literature then is it likely that they originally released their work under the GFDL? If not then where is the protection for them in this? The essence of the situation is this. If I, as someone who wishes to preserve my good reputation, wish to publish the work of other researchers via Wikipedia then in my view I have a duty to ensure that the reasonable interests of those whose work I cite are upheld, otherwise I risk my own reputation. (To eliminate this in advance, the obvious tactic of "protecting" myself by using a pseudonym is in my view unacceptable.) --Sf (talk) 11:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean that you would be drawing a diagram or illustration based on data collected or theories formulated by someone else? In that case, the answer is simple: they have never given permission for their name to be used to endorse any modified version, so no such permission exists by default. The non-endorsement clause in the GFDL (and other similar licenses), as quoted by Rat at WikiFur above, is merely there to reaffirm that the license does not constitute such a permission, implicit or explicit, even on your part. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

With regard to your first question and again as already stated what part of the words findings of published research were unclear? With respect your assertion that no permissions exist by default, again that is not good enough or this thread would not have been started in the first place. Is there some way to escalate this issue to some higher authority? --Sf (talk) 12:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason I asked is that there is a difference here between a figure drawn by someone else based on their research and one drawn by yourself based on someone else's research. I assume, from what you've written so far, that your questions specifically concern the latter, but I wished to clarify that nonetheless since, if this was not the case after all, I might otherwise end up giving you misleading and incorrect advice. As for your counterquestion, what's unclear is how you think those words are relevant to the matter at hand (that being licensing of free content images). As far as image licensing is concerned, it makes no difference if the data portrayed in the image is published, unpublished, made up, found in a dumpster or divinely inspired — the data itself, whatever its source, is not subject to copyright, and the sole purpose of a free content license is to disclaim certain parts of copyright which are considered unnecessary and counterproductive to the free sharing and collaborative development of creative works. Everything else is just legal mumbo-jumbo to achieve that end.

As for the fact that one has no permission to use a third party's name to endorse a work without their agreement, I'm not sure what more you might want. Certainly no license can explicitly list every conceivable thing that one is not allowed to do with the work in question. You do not, by law, have the authority to permit the use of a third party's name to endorse a work — only the person in question can do that. Certainly you could include in your license an explicit clause stating that one is not allowed to use Person X's name to endorse any derivative works, but such a clause would be completely unnecessary (and, should Person X disagree and in fact wish to permit such use, probably void). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The question is not about endorsing anybody's work this was a distraction that I did not introduce. Your assertion regarding no licence explicitly listing every concievable thing that one is not allowed to do with a work is also a distraction. I have a strong sense that my time is being wasted and I formally repeat my request regarding escalating this matter to some higher authority. --Sf (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Anyway, I'd like to take a moment to respond to some specific questions and remarks that have caught my eye among your comments:

1. "If I purport … to have re-published someone else's work without 'apparently' doing anything to protect that work from misuse am I not also potentially open to sanction myself?"
   • Probably not. You are not required to protect other people's work from misuse; the law already does that. If the law forbids doing something to Person X's published work without their permission, and Person Y goes and does it, that's a matter between Persons X and Y regardless of how Y got their hands on the work. The only way in which you, as a re-publisher of the work, might be liable is if you outright lied to Person Y, saying that the work wasn't Person X's to begin with or that they'd granted permission when they hadn't.
2. "Published scientific data is not copyright but …"
   • While scientific data indeed is not subject to copyright, any expression of that data, e.g. as an article or as a picture, is. If you tried to republish an article from a commercial scientific journal, there's a good chance you'd be sued. Indeed, that might happen even if you were the original author of the article, if you'd previously signed your copyright away to the journal. This is the crux of the matter, and probably the main reason why we keep talking past each other. Here at Wikipedia, we want our content to be free from such odious copyright restrictions, such that anyone may freely republish it, in whole or in part, and use it to create improved versions or even whole new works incorporating parts of the original. We do accept, and even encourage, some copyright restrictions as long as they do not interfere with legitimate reuse. Similarly, we do not generally have anything against restrictions outside copyright, since few of those (with the possible exception of some of the more questionable interpretations of patent law) affect the free use and distribution of creative works. Thus, issues such as misrepresenting academic research simply do not come up except in the most tangential manner. None of the commonly used free content licenses say anything to either forbid or permit such behavior — it is simply outside their scope.
3. "Your illustration of the Creative Commons licence may be starting to get us somewhere but … the relevant guidance should exist here on wikipedia."
   • The Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, which Rat at Wikifur linked to above, is one of the licenses explicitly permitted for images uploaded to Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Commons. I'd strongly recommend you take a closer look at it — the CC licenses include quite detailed and explicit terms to ensure that they cannot be interpreted as permitting misattribution or other violations of the moral rights or integrity of the author. Furthermore, as CC Attribution 3.0 license is explicitly considered acceptable for images on Wikipedia, you may rest assured that any other license incorporating similar restrictions should also be acceptable, provided it does not include any restrictions that step over the bounds.
4. "Essentially I am seeking a formula/wording for the copyright license that will encapsulate what you have just stated."
   • Do please take a look at the Creative Commons Attribution License, and its more restrictive ShareAlike variant, and see if those aren't acceptable to your needs. Note that, being well known licenses, there exists also a large body of explanatory material clarifying the intent of the CC licenses and explaining their use, including their application specifically to academic works as well as the various legal aspects underlying the way they are worded. If not, consider basing your own license terms (to be used e.g. in conjunction with {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}}) on the restrictions included in these licenses; this will make it more likely that such terms will indeed match the definition of a free license.
5. "Is there some way to escalate this issue to some higher authority?"
   • If you would like to see Wikipedia loosen the restrictions on what license terms are considered acceptable, you should propose this to the Wikimedia Foundation, which is ultimately responsible for setting the licensing policy for all Wikimedia projects. If you're more concerned with discussing where the line mandated by the Foundation policy should be drawn with regard to specific license terms, it may be more appropriate to discuss the matter here or on Wikimedia Commons, though of course the Foundation remains the final authority on the subject.

—Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I am out of time on this issue for the next few days. I will respond to your points in due course. Your user page states that you are an undergraduate student. I would suggest that you approach your Professor and ask them how he/she would like to have someone re-publishing their work on the apparent basis that anyone else could use it for any purpose they wished including derivatives. (And in a publishing environment where the issue of fraudulent misrepresentiation was only apparently addressed or even acknowledged on obscure and archived talk pages) Ask them how he/she would feel if a colleague did that - regardless of the fact that no formal legal sanctions were available against that colleague. --Sf (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Do feel free to resume the discussion whenever it is more convenient for you. In the mean time, I'd like to note that, these days, several academic journals do license their content under terms that are compatible with Wikipedia's licensing policy. For example, the PLoS journals are all licensed under the very same Creative Commons Attribution license as discussed above. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding CC-BY, there's a new Creative Commons blog entry relevant to CC-BY in educational institutions [2] --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This has kind of gone away from the original issue. To answer that, the conditions attached to an image must not prohibit commercial use or the making of derivative works. I would suggest Sf and Ilmari Karonen take up the matter on their talk pages once Sf is back. I would note that the "speak to your professor" line has got a number of users banned for off-wiki activities so please be extremely cautious in that line of discussion. Stifle (talk) 13:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's assume good faith here, please. I am aware that many Wikipedia users would prefer to maintain a separation between their job or studies and their participation on Wikipedia during their free time, and might understandably view the idea of someone on Wikipedia contacting their superiors at school or work as potential harassment. However, I sincerely do not believe Sf meant anything like that by his suggestion. As it happens, I also know that my professor is quite aware of my participation on Wikipedia. As I edit under my real name, that much is also rather evident to anyone who might, say, Google for it.

As for the rest, I agree. Let's take it to our talk pages, or, if you'd prefer a wider audience, to one of the Wikimedia mailing lists. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I would also advise Stifle to be cautious, advice to seek input from a readily available academic advisor on a matter relating the publication of academic data is in my view entirely reasonable, attempts by third parties to construe other meanings might backfire very quickly. I have looked at the creative commons licence and sections 4.b and 4.c do appear to offer the kind of protection required for the creator of the image. The question which arises again in this instance is does this protection apply to the publishers of the data on which the image is based? If not then should this be explicitly stated in the copyright conditions and how should it be stated? This is a distinction between the primary authors releasing work under the creative commons and the makers of derivatives releasing work under the creative commons. --Sf (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

To pre-empt this, the reply that the primary authors already have the protection of the law is not good enough. It is already established that the Wikipedia licence conditions are an invitation to fraud. A typical example is Stifle's comment that "the conditions attached to an image must not prohibit commercial use or the making of derivative works". If in fact what is meant by this is "lawful derivatives" then why not say so? Why keep it a secret? The conclusion is invited that the reader should infer that any derivatives are permitted --Sf (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Re the legal issue you raise in point 1 above. In my view you need to take a broader view, if Wikipedia is to be taken seriously as an encyclopaedia then at the very least academic researchers should be entitled to expect that Wikipedia should show good manners in its treatment of their work. This goes beyond satisfying the letter of the law. --Sf (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Further to this I do genuinely think that you should approach your academic superviser and inquire how they would feel about having their work distributed under the terms specified by Stifle above. If your university has an internal staff e mail list I think it would be useful to broaden the discussion to that forum and seek the gut reactions of other researchers to the proposal.--Sf (talk) 09:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My question above re creative commons and primary authors is badly worded. What I meant was what other statements must be put into the copyright licence to ensure that the interests of the original authors are seen to be covered?--Sf (talk) 21:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, but, at least for the specific case of the Creative Commons Attribution license, something like the following ought to do it:

"Diagram drawn by [Person X] based on research published by [Researcher Y]. Licensed by [Person X] under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. For the purposes of section 4 of the license, [Researcher Y] shall be identified as one of the Original Authors of this work. This diagram has not been endorsed in any way by [Researcher Y]."

(Delete or modify the last sentence as appropriate if the work has in fact been endorsed by the original researcher.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes an elegant solution - this seems to be one way around the issue. However there remains the issue that there are individuals proclaiming the Wikipedia licence conditions in a manner that in my view offers a clear invitation to fraud. Likewise I think that the issue of only lawful derivatives of images being permitted needs to be stated explicitly on one of the guidlines pages. So how are we to resolve this? Is it time to file an RfA? --Sf (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It might be simpler to just take up the issue with the specific people and on the talk pages of the specific guidelines that you feel are giving incomplete or misleading advice. Also in case of guidelines or policies, if you can think of a good wording that make the guideline clearer you could just edit it and see if anyone disagrees. (Oh, and you probably mean something other than RfA.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No I'd say I probably meant RfA - I have a natural dislike of veiled threats of banning - I tend to react badly. I will look into modifying the guidelines as you suggest. However, I have question - does this particular page get archived in a readily accessible form? I have a sense that this question is going to come up again and I would like to be able to link to the previous discussion if it does. Also as you have pointed out you are not a lawyer - these image copyright/information issues are such that they are likely to require the input of someone with a legal background. I assume there must be someone who advises the foundation on such matters? If so where might they be found?--Sf (talk) 22:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I also think that Stifle's mention of banning was a remarkable (and regrettable) overreaction. This page does get archived, specifically to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive, as noted at the top of the page. Whether that counts as accessible may be a matter for debate, but it's the best we've come up with so far. As for the Foundation's legal counsel, that would be Mike Godwin. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification on how cultural property published before 1923, but still in use as a trademark, affects public domain both in "fact" and on WP:Public domain

In relation to these two images: Image:Uc seal black.png and Image:Notre dame coat of arms.png. Some discussion on this is occuring here, but I'd like more input. Amerique^dialectics 18:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The images appear to be correctly tagged: {{PD-US}} and {{Trademarked}}. They are no longer protected by copyright law, but they are still protected by trademark law, which is quite a different thing. See Wikipedia:Logos#U.S. trademark law for a discussion of how trademark law protects certain use of logos. Inasmuch as the images are not under copyright, their use is not restricted by WP:NFCC. —teb728 t c 00:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia generaly ignores things like trademark issues.Geni 00:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's where the question gets difficult: NFCC explicitly defines "non-free content" as "all copyrighted images and other media files that lack a free content license." From my quick reading of the relevant policy pages, Wikipedia's articles on intellectual property laws, and some outside sources linked from those articles, my impression is that trademarked intellectual property and the public domain are separate and mutually-exclusive domains. The fact that these images' copyrights have expired does not necessarily put them into the public domain; trademarks are a special case. Indeed, if something is just going to fall into the public domain anyway, there is very little point in getting it trademarked. Trademarks are inherently non-free -- they just happen to be "free'er" than copyrighted items. As a thought experiment, would you upload a trademark to Commons? --Dynaflow babble 01:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

trademarked images exist on commons.Geni 01:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

For example Commons:Image:Microsoft wordmark.svg. —teb728 t c 01:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Trademarks are restricted, but they are “free” within the meaning of NFCC. —teb728 t c 01:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"Public domain" just means that the work is no longer protected by copyright law. Trademark law is a separate issue, one that the NFCC doesn't concern itself with. It's really not that complicated. -- Hux (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you know when and how it was decided that trademarks were free-enough content to use in Commons, template-space, etc.? I'm curious to know the logic that was followed, because it seems to directly contradict NFCC's paramount purpose, which is "to support Wikipedia's mission to produce perpetually free content for unlimited distribution, modification and application by all users in all media [emphasis mine]." Even though the trademarks under discussion are no longer copyrighted, until they genericize or lapse through disuse, they are not in the de jure public domain. We stand more chance in our lifetimes of being trampled and maimed by herds of twelve-headed unicorns than we do of, say, seeing the UC Regents put a Creative Commons or GFDL license on their official seal, or even allowing anyone to print it on t-shirts or coffee mugs without requiring a prior petition for approval (which they could refuse at their discretion). It's not in the actual public domain, in the sense that it could be used in an entirely unrestricted manner, and it doesn't have a free license, yet it's still, somehow, free content.

I apologize if I'm coming across as a hard-ass, but I'm just very surprised, after watching a year's worth of strife over images being deleted for not having separate fair-use rationales for each and every article in which they appear, after seeing images brought over from Flickr with CC Noncommercial licences being refused the status of free content because their license allows for everything except for commercial use, etc., that trademarks would essentially be treated with a shrug. I thought I had a decent handle on policy, but now I've been thrown for a loop. I'm just trying to understand. --Dynaflow babble 02:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Broadly speaking because if you start considering stuff other than copyright pretty much anything can be argued to be non free.Geni 08:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Though there is the point that we should be looking more closely at images marked {{trademarked}}, and making sure people aren't misusing those images. There is no real reason for using them in templates or in userspace or anything like that. Carcharoth (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, all, for responding. I must admit I am as surprised at this as Dynaflow, but it makes sense from a purely legal perspective, that no category is all inclusive or exclusive either in itself or in relation to other categories, as these are respectively defined under different laws that cannot supersede or contradict “other property rights.” Still, not speaking of the public domain in "real life," I also would think WP's prohibitions against CC images tagged "non-commercial" would also naturally implicate the "free use" of trademarks. Regarding the use of these marks in their respective university templates, an argument against this, other than the apparent violation of WP:NFCC, (which, apparently, is only "apparent") would be that this could "confuse" or "mislead" the public that the trademark owners have produced or sponsored the articles the marks appear in, as per WP:LOGO? I would argue against this, as other identifying marks appear more prominently in the infobox templates, and no one, I think, believes that their display implies sponsorship or even sanction on the part of their owners. Their use in this context would seem to protected as "unauthorized use of a trademark in a noncommercial setting such as an editorial or artistic context," however this all hinges on how WP functions as a noncommercial space, which I admit I don't completely understand. I assume it's status as a non-profit has bearing on this? Amerique^dialectics 17:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Specifically, see here for transclusions of images marked with the "trademarked" template. Far less than I thought. Either lots of trademarked stuff is untagged, or there is more on Commons than I thought. Or most of the trademarks are non-free. Carcharoth (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

On a lark, I just went through the motions of uploading an organizational logo at Wikipedia:Upload, and I've discovered why that template is so under-used. When uploading a logo, the user finds him or herself confronted with only two choices in the licensing drop-down box: {{Non-free logo}} and, "I don't know." The obvious choice for those interested in not having their images summarily deleted will be {{logo}}, even if it doesn't quite seem right. That's the furthest most normal uploaders will get, because it would take a much higher-than-average level of intimacy with Wikipedia's back alleys to get a hunch that there might be a better-worded template somewhere and then head over to WP:MT in search of it. I'd bet that {{Non-free logo}} currently appears on a lot of image pages where {{Trademark}} should be used instead, for the simple reason that the system essentially forced uploaders who didn't know any better to choose the less incorrect of two imperfect options. --Dynaflow babble 19:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

<hand meets forehead> Doh! Thanks for spotting this. Anyone have any ideas who to shout at politely ask to fix this? Carcharoth (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The {{logo}} template starts out with "and/or" phrasing, as in "protected by copyright and/or trademark," but then encourages treating the item as if copyrighted, which it might not be, as opposed to trademarked (which it still might not be)... Personally, I can see how treating both ownership categories the same would be simpler at the level of uploading an image, as leaving users only "one choice," as opposed to several choices, would seem to reduce the potential for mass confusion at that point. Of course, the problem of how to treat trademarked but not copyrighted images becomes more confused afterwards, for the reasons mentioned above. Amerique^dialectics 00:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

En informaly tends to take the position that trademarks are messy enough that it simplest to just tag them {{logo}} and stop worrying.Geni 20:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Old paintings

I have read the various copyright, public domain, image use policies and so forth, and must confess I am still uncertain of the regulations regarding old paintings. As I understand it, even if the painting is in the public domain, the image might not be (say a scan or photo of the original). If, for example, the British Library holds an image, can they assert copyright on their reproductions? Specifically, I am working on James Graham (soldier) (1791-1845), the "bravest man at Waterloo", and would like to illustrate it. Can anyone advise me on the likely copyright status of the following images:

1. A watercolour portrait exists at the National Gallery of Ireland and is reproduced here.
2. Robert Gibb painted the scene at Hougoumont in 1903. This is held by the National Museums of Scotland but can be seen reproduced in forums, art sites, history sites and so forth. Various examples: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
3. 1915 Cigarette cards here

Many thanks for your help. Gwinva (talk) 00:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This has been the topic of a lot of debate. See Template_talk:PD-art if you haven't done so already. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link; I see it is even more complicated than I thought! Gwinva (talk) 09:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And I think the consensus is that there is no US copyright on photographs of images published before 1923, no matter where the photographs were taken. There may be illegal to upload them, depending on your location, but it's legal for Wikipedia to use them, and we do.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyright of a scanned image

What is the copyright status of an image which is uploaded after being scanned from a booklet. And the booklet holds no where any claim of copyright. I have added these images with a {{PD-self}} tag. Can anyone please guide me? --SMS ^Talk 03:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Simply scanning something in does not create a new copyright; the copyright, if there is any, is still fully held by the original author. Just because there is no copyright notice doesn't mean it's public domain; copyright is automatic and doesn't require a notice. Could you tag the images with their original creation date and original source? --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

How can I know who the author is or who holds it's copyright. Let me give some details, I am talking of these images: Image:Piffer Center.JPG and Image:Piffers War Memorial.JPG, which I took from an official booklet of Frontier Force Regiment. So can you please guide me what to tag to these images. Thanks! --SMS ^Talk 16:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Was there an image credit, copyright notice, or publication date on the booklet? --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Flickr licensing

I'd really like to include this image in an article but firstly, I don't know if the t-shirt image would count as derivative work (the image is a copyrighted piece of artwork by Trevor Brown) and secondly I don't know how to contact the user to change the licensing if the image is usable. Any help or direction to where I should ask this question will be greatly appreciated :) Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 11:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The T-shirt is one of the main focuses of the image, so the photo is a derivative work. Unless it somehow constitutes fair use, you would need to get a release from both the photographer and the copyright holder of the t-shirt. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help :). Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 17:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Image sources

Yes.. I posted a photo of an old Cream of Wheat box in the Cream of Wheat section, and i tried my best to give the sources, but all i really have to offer is the link to the picture on the website i found it on. I want to keep the image up, so i'm wondering who i need to contact from the site to find out who holds the copyright status and sources. Thank you, Terminator14 (talk) 03:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a possibility: If it was published before 1964 and the copyright was not renewed, then it's public domain now. The tag if that is the case, is {{PD-Pre1964}}. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 04:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

What do i do in that case? Terminator14 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Search the copyright office records.[8] If it hasn't been renewed, it is public domain and you can give that as the reason. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 06:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I just got back and didn't really find anything, it seems it wasn't renewed. Now what do i do? Terminator14 (talk) 08:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I added the tags for you. It was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, and Commons has different names for the copyright tags. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Artist Jeff Koons on Google.com home page, use of his banner ad

The artist Jeff Koons did a drawing that appeared as the Google Banner Ad or Google Home Page image on 2008-04-30. How do I properly mark the image so that it does not get deleted? Please let me know or feel free to mark it up if that would be easier for you. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkromedic (talk • contribs) 08:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the copyright owner is unlikely to release it under a free license, you would have to upload it as a fair use image. See Wikipedia:Non-free content --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Also note that our usual boilerplate fair use rationale templates for logos (such as {{logo fur}}) aren't likely to work very well here, since they're mostly geared towards uses of logos in articles about the company or organization owning the logo. What you'd need to do in this case is come up with a convincing justification for using that logo image in an article about its author. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point. The tag {{Non-free 2D art}} would probably be the closest to what you need in that case. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Logo of Aramco in Aramco article is wrong

Logo of Aramco in "Aramco" article is wrong and I want to replace it with the correct one. I have it as an SVG file.

Please help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huwaidi (talk • contribs) 09:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Uploading_images --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use of images with unknown copyright status

Apparently it is possible, under certain circumstances, to claim fair use for images that are subject to copyright, but for which no free alternative exists. Question: what about images for which no free alternative exists, but for which the copyright status cannot be ascertained? The tag placed on Image:Aziz nesin.jpg appears to indicate that in such cases an appeal to fair use is of no avail, but isn't that a bit paradoxical?  --Lambiam 10:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Images of unknown copyright status can be used under fair use. Images of people to show what they look like usually can't be used under WP:NFCC, which is stricter than fair use, because a freely licensed picture can usually be taken. However, since he's no longer living, obtaining a freely-licensed picture may not be possible, so claiming fair use may be the only option. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Then what should I do to avert the scheduled deletion of the image (the image will be deleted after Wednesday, 7 May 2008)?  --Lambiam 19:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't find a more specific tag; so you could use {{non-free fair use in|Aziz Nesin}}. —teb728 t c 20:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

So to keep an image whose copyright status is unknown from being deleted, it is necessary to assert (possibly falsely) that the work is copyrighted. I find that weird.  --Lambiam 08:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Strange, but that is one way to go about it(you can explain the situation in more detail on the image description page). The other option is to try to find another image with a known-free copyright status. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 09:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sar-el logo

I got this message and I'm not sure what to write in order to correct it. I added this: "Summary: Sar-El logo found here." Is this correct? Please help!

Fair use rationale for Image:Sarel logo.gif Thanks for uploading Image:Sarel logo.gif. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Telstar2 (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I added a fair use rationale. It should be okay now. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Telstar2 (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Statistics

I wanted to know how many images/graphics/illustrations does wikipedia currently index in its millions of articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.165.194 (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:AncientPhonecian.jpg

I found this posted pic Image:AncientPhonecian.jpg which is taken from a book cover entitled "Phoenicians , Lebanon's epic heritage", you can actually see how it was cropped from this page [9], the user who uploaded it has released it into public domain without a proper permission, is it actually acceptable to do so???

As long as it's a 2-dimensional art, with no added creative input, it's okay, according to Bridgeman v Corel --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Figuring out if these are copyrighted

I visited the M.D. Anderson Library, which is the University of Houston's main library recently. I went to the library's Special collection, and found some great images from the university archives that are a really great way to illustrate parts of the university's history. I told the library that I'd like to use these images on a Wikimedia project (namely Wikipedia), and asked if they were under public domain. The special collection librarian in charge of copyright assured me these images are free because they are owned by the University of Houston, a public, Texas institution. I also had to sign a form stating the intent of use for the images, and I stated that they would be used for Wikipedia. This is on file at the library.

I've been trying to find anything about this elsewhere, but I can't. The library has digitized the two images I'd like to use for me. One is from 1938, a preliminary drawing by the architect of the first building at the university. The second is from 1945, a view of the school's original library. Neither of the images have copyright notices attached to them, and I wasn't given any sort of copyright notice by the library when they were electronically delivered to me.

Here is the word for word statement that was in the e-mail (email addresses removed to combat spam):

From:

Justin Hughes Digitization Technician Special Collections 114 University Libraries University of Houston Houston, TX 77204-2000

April 30, 2008

Dear Mr. Reading,

Please find attached the third and final batch of requested images from Special Collections, University of Houston.

When publishing these images in print, electronically, or on a website, please use the following citation:

Drawing of Roy G. Cullen Memorial Building, 1938, UH Photographs Collection. Courtesy of Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries.

Library, Roy G. Cullen Memorial Building, 1945, UH Photographs Collection. Courtesy of Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries.

Thank you for your patronage!

-J. Hughes

If there are any further questions, please contact:

Julie Grob Digital Projects and Instruction Librarian Special Collections 114 University Libraries University of Houston Houston, TX 77204-2000 (713) 743-9744

Are these images in public domain? There are a few main issues I'd point at here. The images don't have a copyright notice on them, and were published prior to 1989. The library knew the purpose, and released them to me. They claimed they were free images. I just don't want to be posting things up that will be taken down.

-Brianreading (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

If the copyright wasn't renewed, {{PD-Pre1964}} may apply as well. For not publishing with a copyright notice, {{PD-Pre1978}} may apply. There are multiple possible Public Domain rationales, so my opinion is that it isn't a problem. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Brianreading (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Scanned banknote

I understand that the copyright for banknotes will generally lie with the issuing bank/country. In some cases, scans of banknotes are on websites. These websites may or may not have copyright information for their scan. Is there copyright in the actual scan, or is the currency fair-use rationale sufficient justification to take scans of currency off other sites? E.g., this site http://www.banknote.ws/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumbuddi (talk • contribs) 22:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

A faithful scan of a banknote does not create a new copyright(a digitization of a coin might, however). The copyright status of the note itself varies from country to country; see Category:Currency copyright tags or Commons:Currency for more details. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 00:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

copyright image

I posted an image that my advisor and professor gave me. It is an image that he created in a PowerPoint presentation. He has given me written (via email) and verbal permission to use it and also provided me with the following: ©2002 Michael Young

and the following quote from him "This image has been released for use in the Sit Cog definition on Wikipedia."

What am I supposed to do so that the image I placed on the page, Situated Cognition, will not be removed??? I don't know what tag I am supposed to use, nor do I quite know how to add that to my image.

Vanessa Joy 2008 (talk) 03:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Vanessa Joy 2008

Wikipedia does not accept images which are released for Wikipedia only. They have to allow anyone to use them. To get the correct permissions, see WP:COPYREQ --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 05:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

THE UNIVERSITY OF SPRINGFIED ACCREDITATION /ACCEPTABILITY STATUS

Dear Sir/ Madam,

Please, help verify the acceptability and accreditation of the university information provided below.

The University of Springfied, Hampton MA 01107, USA has announced the international scholarship programs for all students applying to study a degree program - Bachelor, Master or Postgraduate, Doctorate Degree Program. The scholarship covers full tuition and are available to on-campus and distance learning/online students. No application fee on enrollment. Contact: Sarah Robert, Admission Assistant, Admission Office, The University of Springfied, Pack Campus, Hampton MA 01107, USA. Telephone: <removed> Email: <removed> Website: www.springfied-edu.com

This was responses from the university representative to me.

Thank you very much for your mail.

The University of Springfied is a household name of the Springfield College. The University provides equal educational opportunity to all candidates without regard to color, race, sex, national origin, or qualified disability.

Springfield is a registered educational institution in the United States, recognized and listed in the directory of Post Secondary Institutions by the U.S. Department of Education, National Centre for Education Statistics, Washington DC (1998 Edition Page 291). The Institution is legally empowered to award degrees to all students who meet graduation requirements as set forth in its Article of Incorporation.

Graduates are allowed to do Masters in any of their favourite schools. All students both on campus full time and distance learning online receive the same award certificate according to the University’s Article of Incorporation.

For further information please write to <email removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solomon Akenyin (talk • contribs) 10:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This page is monitored by people who know about media copyright questions, but that does not appear to be a media copyright question. Perhaps you could get an answer at the Wikipedia:reference desk. But do not post contact information. —teb728 t c 20:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Movie posters

A while back I uploaded a movie poster of the film Jetsam to the article page about the film (Jetsam (film)). Eventually it got hit with a "Fair Use Rationale" complaint, despite the fact that practically every other movie article on wiki uses the film poster in the article itself. So I went and copied the same "Fair Use Rationale" explanation as was given for the inclusion of the poster in the article Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope and used it for the Jetsam movie poster. But that wasn't enough for someone and the Jetsam movie poster got deleted anyway. So I have to ask why? I've yet to get a response on the talk page of Jetsam so I am asking here. If the Fair Use Rationale explanation I used wasn't enough for Jetsam then can someone please go and delete the movie poster from Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope (and, I suspect, most of the movie articles on wikipedia). If not, why pick on Jetsam? --Stenun (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

permissions? copyright?

I asked the following question.... However, if this image was also used in an article that he published, do I still need the same type of permissions?

I posted an image that my advisor and professor gave me. It is an image that he created in a PowerPoint presentation. He has given me written (via email) and verbal permission to use it and also provided me with the following: ©2002 Michael Young and the following quote from him "This image has been released for use in the Sit Cog definition on Wikipedia." What am I supposed to do so that the image I placed on the page, Situated Cognition, will not be removed??? I don't know what tag I am supposed to use, nor do I quite know how to add that to my image. Vanessa Joy 2008 (talk) 03:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Vanessa Joy 2008 Wikipedia does not accept images which are released for Wikipedia only. They have to allow anyone to use them. To get the correct permissions, see WP:COPYREQ --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 05:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Vanessa Joy 2008 (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless the article was published under a license Wikipedia can use, you'll have to get a permission e-mail as described at WP:COPYREQ. And remember, it is not enough to just obtain permission to use on Wikipedia. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

copyright question?

Is it okay that a a web site out there is using copyrighted stuff from your site on their own website? The web address is "liberty dispatch.com" I tried to copy and paste but it wouldn't let me.

Just curious as this web site is the equivlent to the enquire.  
  

This is all I could paste from the website.  

Anonymous Tip line: 1-866-322-4747 Anonymous Fax: 1-888-273-II27 Email: USE CONTACT LINK

more . . . COMICS 

30.APR.08 Mr. Mike 'Hankey' Little, Liberty County DA 30.APR.08 Mr. Mike 'Hankey' Little, Liberty County DA- Song —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.44.231.39 (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You're saying that someone else is using content from Wikipedia? If they follow the terms the content is licensed under(usually the GFDL), they are allowed to do so. They may also be able to use a small amount under fair use. Only the copyright holder (the original creator of the content) can take action if it is infringing. See Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks for more information. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 08:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Picture question

I am looking to use another picture for Spiral of Theodorus. I have already uploaded one of my own work, but I would like to have an extended version of one. One that looks especially good is located here. It is on the very last page. Is there any kind of fair-use or anything like that I could use? Sorry, I am not big on uploading other people's works. --pbroks13^talk? 06:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the paper to indicate it's licensed freely enough for Wikipedia. Fair use wouldn't be claimable(unless you were commenting on something about the paper itself), because the diagram could be redrawn from scratch and placed under a free license. WP:COPYREQ may be worth a try. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 08:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

proper copyright tag

which would be the appropriate tag for the following:

1) I am credited as the author of the image 2) If image is allowed to be altered, I am credited as original author

what about if the same as above but no alteration allowed?

Yes I am here (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

If the only restriction you want to place is that you're credited as the author then the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license {{cc-by-3.0}} is what you'd use(yes it requires that altered versions credit you too). For no alterations allowed, you would use the Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 license(note, however, that media with a No Derivatives condition is not a free enough license for Wikipedia. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 08:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

image: down's_heart_group.png

I've just added my first ever page for our charity and included a logo. I understand that I need to add a rationale for using it but I'm going round in circles trying to find out what I need to say and where I include it in the image page.

Can someone help me with what I have to do please. The logo is copyright of the charity so I need to make sure I've done that bit correctly and obviously it's on the page which is about the organisation.

Thanks

Looks like someone helped with the image. Let us know if you need any more help. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

PD-old?

Are stock certificates copyrighted? Nyttend (talk) 14:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Presumably yes, as they're printed by the company that issues them, not by the government. They may be public domain in the US, if printed before 1923 in the US (or if printed without a copyright notice or copyright being renewed, depending on the year). {{Trademark}} issues may still apply, though. Kelly ^hi! 14:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Question of permission to use copyrighted inages...

If I were to place a copyrighted image on this site, and successfully received permission from the owner(s) to do so (some don't mind since this is a free site, but the ones who do, worry that it could be copied into the wrong hands), would it be okay to use those images? Also, would I need to provide that proof of permission (such as a letter or email, etc) in my rationale (or somewhere else)? Please let me know. Thanks a lot! PS, as far as pictures go, I try to use as many of my own as possible and release them to the public (if anyone would want to use them. I wouldn't mind, they're not copyrighted and I don't intend to copyright them in the future). jeff (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Jeff - see WP:COPYREQ, which has the procedure for making sure the copyright holder has given us a correct license, and for registering the permission in the OTRS system. Kelly ^hi! 17:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

US military photo PD?

http://www.army.mil/-news/2008/04/30/8882-sesame-street-releases-new-dvd-for-military-children/

Is this main image PD? It's credited to a lady, and to Sesame Workshop, yet it looks like it would have been photographed by a military photographer. -- Zanimum (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe so...the .mil sites sometimes include photos that they didn't take, but they are pretty good about marking those photos as "Courtesy of...". Military photographers are nearly always credited by name, rank, and branch of service. This appears to be one of the courtesy photos that someone else let them use. Kelly ^hi! 16:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep - Here is Linda Spillers' site. She's not military. Kelly ^hi! 16:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, that's what I assumed. I guess I didn't Google her name to preserve the false hope that it was a picture I could actually use.

I love this photo of her's, so random. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Wright picture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Barack_Obama_and_Jeremiah_Wright.jpg so for a bit, this lacked a fair use rationale, I just added one, so when will it no longer be a candidate for speedy deletion?Tallicfan20 (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The template tells you how to dispute it, and it looks like you've figured it out. Let us know if you need any further help. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

So when will it no longer be a candidate for speedy deletion?Tallicfan20 (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The admin who does the deletions will look at it on May 4 or later (according to the tag) and make a decision then. If they delete it, and you feel it was in error, then you would take it up at deletion review. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to know why the picture keeps getting deleted, even tho it meets the guidelines of fair use, as the picture IS "the subject of sourced commentary" of the article Jeremiah Wright, and AP photos can be used if "unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article" and this is. The picture is everywhere whenever popular media, be it newspaper and TV mention the Wright controversy, this picture is not only ubiquitous, but the universal symbol of the controversy. I would like to know why the admin ThesIB keeps deleting it, even tho he knows damned well that the picture belongs on the page. The picture has meaning, as the guy was Obama's "moral compass" for 20 years, baptized his kids, and married him, which is FAR more significant than Bill Clinton meeting him once. this picture symbolizes their relationship and the "controversy" section under which I posted the image. Why does my pic keep getting deleted from the page by the admin, ThesIB?Tallicfan20 (talk) 05:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

msurj journal front page

Hi I added this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Msurjvol3iss1.png high-resolution image, but it was tagged. It's the front page of our most recent edition and I am one of the journal editors, I am wondering what procedure I have to go through in order to remove the tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M87 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I added the correct tag for you. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyrighted Architecture

According to UK Law, architectural design and architecture falls under copyrightable material. There are many images of it which have been declared "GFDL" compliant on Wikipedia.

One such item is this. However, according to the London Eye Wikipedia page, it was designed in 1999 and would fall under copyright. Any pictures taken would fall under a 2D image of a 3D copyrighted image, which is "fair use" not "free use".

This is the same approach taken to any model, figurine, statue, and other such designs. Shouldn't the same thus apply here in accordance with UK copyright law? Without express permission from the architectural firm that designed the "eye" or the other buildings that have not yet completed their copyright, how can we justify having such pictures described under "free use"? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a touchy situation, and depends on where the image of the work was published. See Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama. See also this section on freedom of panorama regarding public structures in the UK. It may be better for images of the London Eye under free license to be moved to the Commons. Kelly ^hi! 03:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... that is for buildings, not entertainment, which makes the Eye a complicated matter. The Eye is deemed as a piece of art by the website (which is extremely copyrighted, if you look at how they handle their content). Their is one paragraph that seems to be important:

"The courts have not established a consistent test for what is meant by a "work of artistic craftsmanship", but one of the standard reference works on copyright, Copinger and Skoane James (15th edn, 2005), suggests that for a work to be considered as such the creator must be both a craftsman and an artist. Evidence of the intentions of the maker are relevant, and according to the House of Lords case of Hensher -v- Restawhile [1976] AC 64, it is "relevant and important, although not a paramount or leading consideration" if the creator had the conscious purpose of creating a work of art. It is not necessary for the work to be describable as 'fine art'."

I only bring this up because this is not a "building" but a piece of architectural design in the way the Eifle Tower is. Remember, "fair use" isn't part of the law, but a rule of thumb. Fair use has changed over time (remember the Free Republic case?). I think we need to define what a "building" is verse what an piece of amusement/entertainment might be. A rollercoaster is definitely not a building according to the US law. I don't know if it would be in the UK law.

Now, I want to note that the "panorama" does not extend to pictures inside of buildings or taken on non-public areas (whatever that may mean). This picture is from inside of a building. So is this, this, and this. Also, this is a "mural"/"advertising", which does not fall under the freedom of panorama. This one isn't taken on public property.

None of the pictures I have seen have followed this: "If you take a picture of a copyrighted item in a country where freedom of panorama exists and wish to use your photo on Wikipedia, be sure to note where the photo was taken and what the panorama freedom law of that locale states."

I think the best place to bring this up would be Commons:Licensing. There are some very smart copyright experts that hang out there, and Commons hosts the majority of our Eye images, including the one you initially mentioned. Kelly ^hi! 04:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there anyway someone could copy this over to Wikicommons? I do not have an account, nor do I dabble with the other Wikimedia groups. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You defintion of public place is flawed. It is unlikely that stadium owners would be able to argue that they are not a public place. While buildings in the UK can be protected by copyright this has zero impact on Freedom of panorama. Only thing it impacts is if you want to build another building that looks that same. Thus regardless of wether the london eye is a building or work of artistic craftmanship Freedom of panorama still applies.Geni 10:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you read, even Wikipedia states that inside of a building cannot be considered a "public place". And if the work is a work of artistic craftsmanship, the law clearly states that you can't take pictures of it. I quoted that above. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia says no such thing. If you read your own links you would see "it is acceptable to upload to Commons not only photographs of public buildings and sculptures but also works of works of artistic craftsmanship" and "According to Copinger and Skoane James, "The expression "open to the public" presumably extends the section to premises to which the public are admitted only on licence or on payment"".Geni 16:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Copinger and Skoane are not the law nor do they adequately represent the law. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a parallel discussion on Commons here, that's probably the best place to centralize this discussion. Kelly ^hi! 16:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Antenna_biconic_dipole_active.png

The speedy deletion dead-line flew by while I was not logged in. Can I re upload this file, now with: Created by myself, public domain? Arnero (talk) 05:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely - let me know if you need any assistance. Alternatively, could an admin watching this page please undelete that image? Kelly ^hi! 16:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It's been undeleted and the license is fixed, though it would be greatly appreciated if a description was added. Cheers! Kelly ^hi! 16:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Arnero (talk) 06:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Release for use on wikipedia only

As I understand it, images can't just be released for use on wikipedia only. However several images such as Image:Pingat Pentadbiran Awam (Tentera) ribbon.png have been released by the uploader under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 with permission from the copyright holder for use on wikipedia. I am also not sure that the attributed copyright holder, who runs medals.org, is the actual copyright holder as she only claims to be the owner of the image collection and asks for contributions from elsewhere. Million_Moments (talk) 09:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen what the permission e-mails say so I can't comment on that. But I can make a couple comments on the case. The specific example you give may be simple enough to be ineligible for copyright {{PD-ineligible}} - I can't say for sure; it's kind of borderline. The second is that if it is copyrighted, it probably would belong to the Singapore government, not a website owner or its contributors. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 10:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I can see how the ribbons might qualify for {{PD-ineligible}} but there are also images of medals as well. Is it known if works of the Signapore military are in the public domain or could all these images need to be changed to fair use? Million_Moments (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the page on the Singapore government web page and they claim full "All Rights Reserved" --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I assume a case for fair use can be made? Million_Moments (talk) 08:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sound Recording?

I have a sound recording that was made at a public location, a public protest, in the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Israwebmaster (talk • contribs) 12:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The simple answer to your question is yes. The more complicated answer is: what's your question ? Megapixie (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

DVD thumbnail

Hello, I recently bought a DVD and when i put it in the computer to play it a thumbnail comes up. I was wondering what the copywright status of this is. Many thanks . Could you reply on my talk page please. Bit Lordy (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I asume the thumbnail is just a still frame from the movie itself, in wich case it's copyright status would be the same as the rest of the DVD, you generaly get a un-skippable text crawl when you start playing the DVD with lots of details about what you are not allowed to do with it if it's a commercial movie. If you intend to upload it tn Wikipedia it would be considered non-free unless the DVD has explictly been released under a free license. --Sherool (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Learned_Hand1940s.jpg

This image's copyright information is VERY doubtful, but it's possible that it's a work of the US government. Can we get a check? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

copyrights in Hungary

Is picture published in 1961 in Hungary copyrighted ?

Thanx

Wiktor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkobylinski (talk • contribs) 21:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It may be public domain now {{PD-Hungary}} --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

license from wikimedia commons derived source with modifications?

Howdy,

I have made small fixes to this image which is identical to the original except a tear and some scratches have been removed. I simply copied the license but the license says "I am the copyright owner" when, er, I am not. It is not an entirely original work, obviously, either.

orig

• Image:B.F. Skinner at Harvard circa 1950fix2.jpg

fix

• Image:546px-B.F._Skinner_at_Harvard_circa_1950fix2.jpg

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelrayw2 (talk • contribs)

I don't know of a standardized way to do it. It's probably good to just use the basic {{cc-by-3.0}} and then explain the situation. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually the {{self}} license template has an author option, so you could say {{self|author=[[Commons:User:Bob|Bob]] at [http://commons.wikimedia org Wikimedia Commons]|cc-by-3.0}} Kelly ^hi! 00:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

redrawn

Resolved

Would is be okay to, say, redraw an image (maybe a logo) in AutoCAD, so it is technically a new work? Just wondering. -Kanogul ^(talk) 00:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Redrawing would not make a new work: It would be a derivative work, subject to the same copyright as the original. —teb728 t c 03:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I had always wondered about that. It makes sense. -Kanogul ^(talk) 19:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Disputed" rationale for my image file.

I revised the description for Image:Egg-man+q-mark.jpg. Is that OK? Please respond in my talk page. Thanks. --Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 01:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Restricting use of the image to Wikipedia only makes it absolutely unacceptable to Wikipedia. —teb728 t c 03:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's patch the gap.

As to this image, I'm going to lift the copyright claim.

For uses in user pages (including user talk pages), an image should be uploaded only as a free content, is that right?

If I lift two restrictions, 'only in my user pages' and 'only by myself' is it still OK to upload an image as a copyrighted work for uses in articles?

Which copyright tag is most appropriate, if I'd like to permit other editors to use an image in articles as long as the copyright and the originality are fairly regarded?

If I can upload an image under this condition, where could the image be used? Only in the English-language Wikipedia, or in Wikipedia of plural languages, or in plural Wiki projects including Wikipedia?

My understandings are:

it's OK to claim copyright on an image work unless the work is released into the public domain.

images uploaed to Wikipedia are to be materials for pages including articles.

a Wikipedia server doesn't work as a briefcase for image files for limited users.

If a misunderstanding still remains, point it out concretely. Thanks. --Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 07:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

User-created works have to be usable by anyone, both on and off the wiki, including for commercial purposes and modifications. However, it is acceptable to require that you are credited as the copyright holder for any reuse. The page WP:ICTIC gives licenses that user-created works can be uploaded under. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto 4

Resolved

On the new video game Grand Theft Auto 4 the company rockstar made it only for Play Station 3 and Xbox why wont they make it for Play Station 2? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.81.158 (talk) 02:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What is your media copyright question. —teb728 t c 03:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there was no PS2 verson of GTA IV due to the sheer size and detail of the game being too demanding for the PS2 hardware and memory. I haven't played it yet, but one of my girlfriend's apartmentmates has it and from what I've seen it's so big that it only could run on a Seventh Generation system. Hope that answers your question, for future reference though, this page is for questions about media copyright issues. Next time, it would be more appropriate to ask this type of question at the reference desk. Cheers Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Tags

can someone help me with the copyright tags, I own the photos on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Moody but don't know what to do to stop them being removed.

I am new to the photo side of this and have no idea.

HOW DO I UPLOAD A IMAGE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baidyanath ghosh (talk • contribs) 15:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Read the instructions at WP:IMAGE. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Image deletion

Resolved

What licence do I need to add to an image I got from a magazine I bought in my country? Afterall, I bought it and it wasnt stated it belonged to anyone, as the actress(stella damasus aboderin) had allowed the pictures to be taken also. I own the pictures, why is it always deleted?

Answer: Purchasing a magazine does not endow you with 100% rights to images contained in it. You must contact the production company of the magazine to find out who is the copyright holder (who owns the rights to the image) and purchase a license from them. Hmsfrench (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

-Question resolved

LOST image

Would the image found at [10] be acceptable for a title image for the LOST page? Is this image copyrighted? Where can this information be looked up? Hmsfrench (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's almost certianally copyrighted. However, it would probabally qualify as fair use if its the only LOST logo image on the article. You'll need to tag the image appropriately and write a fair use rationale in order to use it though. See WP:FAIRUSE for more information. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 18:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

User's Copyright question

User: Political dweeb here has a question on the suitable use of copyright. I may have said this question previously but how do I put a copyright tag on an image description page so that there is nothing practically wrong with the image. Political Dweeb (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no simple answer to that, unfortunately, because it depends on the image and on how that image is being used. If you can let us know what image you want to use and on which article you want to use it then we can help, otherwise there are just too many variables to give you a useful answer. -- Hux (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Political Dweeb says the images needing copyright tags are Image:PUP Logo.gif for the Progressive Unionist Party article,Image:40078028 sinnfein 203.jpg for the Sinn Fein article and finally Image:Shimpu.JPG and Image:JN.JPG for the article on the political party Ishin Seito Shimpu. What types of copyright tags are needed for these images I've listed? Do there need to be particular copyright tags for political party logos? Political Dweeb (|talk)

All those images already have the correct copyright tag, which in this case is {{Non-free logo}}. That template can be used for all non-free (i.e. copyrighted) logos, not just political party logos. -- Hux (talk) 06:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Pictures from Uncyclopedia and SAS Wiki

Can I put pictures from Uncyclopedia and SAS Wiki on Wikipedia? At the bottom left of of main pages of both sites there is logo and link of creativecommons 2.0, 2.5 so I suppose that it can be used here but I'm not sure. GM Red Wing (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Both of those wikis contain the noncommercial restriction in their Creative Commons licenses, so unless the image explicitly doesn't have that restriction, or it falls under the Non-free Content Criteria, they're not usable on Wikipedia. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

For example I want to put this image on Wikipedia - and how I can know that this (or other) image from those sites do not have noncommercial restriction or they fall under the Non-free Content Criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GM Red Wing (talk • contribs) 20:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, on Wikipedia, the assumption is that images are copyrighted and not licensed freely enough until shown otherwise. For images that don't fall under Wikipedia's definition of free images, the NFCC lists exactly what conditions need to be met to use such an image on Wikipeida. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ref: DSA10_Front_0207.jpg (copyright and source warning)

Hello,

I have just seen a warning box added to DSA10_Front_0207.jpg - I recently uploaded this.

Unfortunately I am unable to understand the jargon that the warning box says - can you please advise me what information you require, in simple terms!

Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rplyons (talk • contribs) 22:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Assuming you mean this image, the notice in the orange box is asking you to provide information about where you found it. However, there is another, more pressing issue: you released the image into the public domain but unfortunately you don't have the authority to do that since it's a copyrighted work (see the "Crown Copyright" notice at the bottom). Because it's copyrighted, it can only be used under Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. The correct copyright tag for the "Licensing" section would be {{Non-free fair use in|article name}}. Then in the "Summary" section you would add a Fair Use rationale using this template. Left as is, the image will have to be deleted, unfortunately. -- Hux (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Cult Icons Imitations: Are they breaking copyright laws?

Hi there. If one was to use Marilyn's or any other cult icon's memory in some posters in the following way, would they require to pay rights to someone? or would they be infringing on any copyright laws?

e.g. The classic "white dress pushed upwards by wind blast" poze: Assuming someone emulates that photo, using NONE of the original elements (including marilyn herself) BUT has instead a marilyn lookalike, a similar white dress, a similar background but all this being new & originally produced artwork/photos etc, would it be necessary to get any rights clearance from anyone? Or the fact that none of the original material is used makes it fair public domain use? Been thinking about is ever since I saw an advert for Silk Cut that had an upright pair of Scissors in a similar background, wearing a white silk dress (thus making the scissors look like a person) that is pushed upwards by a wind blast from below, bringing it closer to the sharp edges of the blades (hence the play with silk cut brand name). Did Silk Cut have to pay someone to produce and use that imagery? I also saw an advertising poster for a Canadian (I think) short film festival, with a female-midget, in a similar background, with the similar white dress, hence advertising the "Short" film festival.

If anyone was to do something similar with cult icons like Marilyn or Elvis or James Dean, to create that is, ORIGINAL artwork that is however similar to cult icon classics, would they break any copyright law?

<email removed>

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.132.154.43 (talk) 10:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like you are asking for legal advice. Wikipedia does not give legal advice; consult a lawyer for that. In any case your question is off-topic for this page. This page is for questions about how to tag media uploaded to Wikipedia (or by extension reusing media on Wikipedia). It is not a general forum. —teb728 t c 08:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"The P files" copyright/trademark problems?

The WP:WikiProject Paranormal logo shown seems very similar to the X-files logo to me, which is trademarked and possibly copyrighted (I'm not sure if it's complex enough). There was already one stupid lawsuit over this involving The Why Files a while back; though that as I recall favored the punster this might be a little worse of a position. The image is linked from anywhere but good spots for "fair use", so that won't help either. Last but not least I just don't like the thing - it smells like an ad to me. Should it be nixificated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wnt (talk • contribs) 20:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The X-Files logo would likely be considered complex enough to receive copyright protection, imo, and this logo is clearly a derivative of it, so I don't think we should be using it on Wikipedia. Nixificate away... -- Hux (talk) 06:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Creative Commons "Work"

Lets make this short, in CC, it said, the "Work" is going to be release as , let say Attribution and sharealike. My questions is, when i upload it on wikipedia, does "WORK" means, the file itself, or someday some company can send me a legal letter and tell me to surrender the full resolution. I think "WORK" in CC is poorly defined. I need some legal expert to answer me on this one.

Thanks in advance

Derek —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dehk (talk • contribs) 21:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Work is whatever you're releasing under the license, as you release it. The CC license gives no one the right to demand you release anything; it just gives them rights to do things with the copy they have of what you released.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason why CC and other licenses don't go into detail about what "work" means is because the term already has a specific meaning in US copyright law: a work is the creative expression itself, as distinct from the medium that contains it. For example, the movie Gladiator is a "work", but the physical DVD on which it is contained is a "copy" of the work. Similarly, a novel is a work, but a book is a copy of the work; an album is a work, but a CD is a copy of the work, etc. etc. So from your perspective, the work is your creative expression itself and that expression becomes copyrighted the moment you store it in some tangible medium. As long as that work represents original authorship and is not a derivative version of an existing work for which someone else owns the copyright then nobody can demand that you surrender any rights to it. Of course, in order for your work to be usable on Wikipedia you have to voluntarily give up almost all your rights to it (other than the right to be recognized as its author) because Wikipedia's purpose is to provide freely usable content to its readers. If you're happy to do this then great, but if not then you should not upload your work. -- Hux (talk) 06:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

this is a math problem i need help ansewring.

Lake Superior is the deepest of the Great Lakes. The deepest point is 1,333 feet. Write the depth in miles rounded to the nerst hundred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.19.23 (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

1333 ft = 0.254 mi even though you are asking that at the wrong place i believe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dehk (talk • contribs) 21:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not provide one-on-one assistance with homework. Lara❤Love 22:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know which is more sad: the fact that the poster totally failed to understand what this page is for, despite its title and, more obviously, the large explanatory box at the top of the page, or the fact that it took far longer to type the question than it would've done to simply type "1333 feet in miles" into Google. ;) -- Hux (talk) 05:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

COPYRIGHTED PHOTO ON YOUR SITE

This photo on your site is My photo please delete

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LancasterPA.PNG

I'm the photographer who took this photo and it is being used without my permission Here is my photo that was stolen http://www.pbase.com/tornadoalleyhoops/image/37629229 —Preceding unsigned comment added by TornadoAlleyHoops (talk • contribs) 21:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have flagged the photo for deletion, thanks for getting in touch with us. Kelly ^hi! 22:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

All apologies. The image has been deleted and the uploader warned. I'm watching his page. Any further inappropriate uploads and the user will be blocked. I also removed your personal information from this post. Lara❤Love 22:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Silver Snoopy award picture

I am writting an article on the Silver Snoopy award, and I've found an image depicting the award pin, but I'm not sure if the image is eligible to be copyrighted or if it's eligible for uploading to Wikipedia (as a free or fair-use image). This is the picture in question, and this is the context where the image was found. I understand that images found on the internet are generally copyrighted, but since this is a photograph of an award pin given by NASA, I'm not sure what (if any) copyright applies. I'm fairly sure the original "work of art" is copyrighted by United Features Syndicate, but it was given to NASA (I doubt the NASA/US-governament-public-domain rule applies here). I totally don't understand the two-dimensional depictions of 3D art stuff and what could apply here.

In short, can I upload that picture, and if so, what license would apply?216.167.134.179 (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I would expect it is almost certainly subject to copyright, however when writing about the Silver Snoopy Award it seems like a natural case for fair use. Please see WP:FURG for how to justify fair use uploads on Wikipedia. Dragons flight (talk) 08:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. (the IP user was me thinking I was logged in) – jaksmata 13:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Images for sandbox experimentation

I've been experimenting with Wikipedia's tools on a sandbox page (sub-page of my user page). I wanted to use images that I created in the experiment. The images belong to my company, and I have permission from my boss to use them, either in the sandbox or publicly, as long as the company retains rights to the images.

So, I added the images with this in mind, listing them as non-free, to be used only on Wikipedia, but I received automated warnings, and then the images were removed.

So, my question is this: assuming an article is Wikipedia-worthy, what sort of hoops do I need to jump through to use images that I created on behalf of my company in said article? And why am I not allowed to experiment with the images (they get listed as orphaned and are deleted)?

Thanks in advance for advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rettstatt (talk • contribs) 15:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia only accepts images that can be reused or modified by anyone.Geni 16:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but Wikipedia does not accept any permission except a free license—one which allows reuse by anyone for anything. Images which are not free in that sense are severely restricted. See WP:NFCC. Permission of the copyright owner does not mitigate these restrictions. By WP:NFCC#9 a non-free image may be used only in an article. By WP:NFCC#7 a non-free image may not be hosted on Wikipedia unless it is used in an article. By WP:NFCC#8 a non-free image may be used in an article only if it is essential to the article; I looked at your use of the images in your sandbox, and I doubt it would fulfill this restriction. If your company is willing to give a free license, see WP:COPYREQ. If not, sorry but there are no other “hoops you can jump through.” —teb728 t c 20:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

College logo

On almost ever university or college page, their logo is used as the primary image. I would like to upload a college's official logo to their wiki page like all the others; currently, an amateur photograph of their front lawn is the default. I scanned their logo onto my computer via a letter sent to me, cropped it and saved it as a .png to my desktop. What do I do now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pellsk (talk • contribs) 21:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

See WP:UPI for how to upload it and use it. Be sure to tag the image with {{non-free logo}} and provide a non-free use rationale. —teb728 t c 21:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Tree photo

I am doing an article about Old Tjikko, which is the world's oldest tree. I have found one photo on several news websites, which are all sourced to the researcher who found and dated the tree. I have e-mailed the researcher asking for permission to use the photo, but for now my question is... since there is no explicit copyright claim on the photos, is it copyrighted? Also, the image is used in several news articles which all feature the same photo, so I'm wondering if I can claim fair use even tho it is just a tree and the image is certainly replaceable (by anyone who happens to live or travel to Sweden). Sorry to be long winded but I normally stick to free photos so I don't know much about fair use rationales. The photo is here. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 05:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, all photos are automatically copyrighted as soon as they are taken. Just because it's used in multiple news articles doesn't mean it's free to use; for all we know, the photographer could be receiving royalties each time a news organization uses it. And since it's still standing, it's replaceable with a freely-licensed image. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 05:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought so, thank you for the quick reply! --ErgoSum88 (talk) 06:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I want to place a picture of my deceased grandfather -- the picture is his selfportrait - can I?

I want to place a picture of my deceased grandfather -- the picture is his selfportrait - can I? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inettom (talk • contribs) 07:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If the copyright was passed down to you through, for example a will or legal ruling, then yes. Usually the copyright is passed down along with the physical property unless stated otherwise. (Note: This is a complex area of law, and could vary depending on the jurisdiction. I am not a lawyer.) --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 07:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I should clarify one thing; ownership of the physical copy is not always ownership of the copyright, but in the case of passing down property, it doesn't make sense to pass on the physical copy to one descendant and the copyright to a different descendant. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 08:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

UNRIC logo

How do I avoid that the image is removed from wikipedia?

I have received authorisation from UNRIC to use the logo.

Is it something with a fair use rationale - In that case where can I see an example of such one? Dinadk (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The one there right now looks like it meets the requirements. If you need any help with it still, reply back. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

LICENSE on old commercial brochure photo -HELP

I wish to include in an article images from commercial brochures publicly distributed about 20 years ago. The company no longer exists as it was bought by another company which has been bought by another one. The original source is shown on the images but no other information is provided in relation to wikipedia type licensing requirements. What sort of license is required to upload the images to wikipedia. If not sure, please refer this question to an appropriate administrator. Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esem0 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC) 124.170.178.219 (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

About 20 years ago is to recent to be expired from copyright, so it can't be used on Wikipedia. If you are using the brochure in an article about the company that made it, then usage may be fair use and you can use it with a fair use rationale. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

School Logo at St. Bernard's School

The above article has recieved a notice that the image of the school shield is pending deletion. If there is a proceedural step that needs to be taken, or some sort of permission that needs to be granted, please spell it out so the editors of the article know exactly what to do. It seems logical that an image of the school shield should be OK to use in an article about the school. The various guidelines that have been pointed to in the notice are confusing for those of us who do not understand copyright law... and they do not help us to understand what is required in our specific case. Please pop over to the page in question and let us know exactly what we need to do. Blueboar (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone else took care of it. Let us know if you need any other help. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Collage of fair use images

Image:CGproducts2.jpg
This image is a collage of copyrighted images compiled by the uploader and uploaded under the fair use criteria. Is this sort of creating an image by compiling copyrighted images considered original, or is it a violation of copyright? It is used in an article called Che Guevara in popular culture. –Mattisse (Talk) 22:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The creator of the collage could claim copyright to the collage, but as a derivative work, the copyright of the original work still exists. I believe the usage of the collage fails the criteria "3. Minimal usage" Is the use of all the items necessary to convey the information? Maybe the fair use rationale could explain it. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 23:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I do not know the answer to your question, as I have never had any luck with fair use unless it specifically applied to the article, e.g. an album cover for article on album. –Mattisse (Talk) 23:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair Use Rationale????

OK so I uploaded two images but it said that there needs to be a "fair use rationale" or else it would be deleted. What the heck it a fair use rationale??? Greekpimp (talk) 01:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I added the right rationales and templates. Feel free to fill in any additional information that is necessary. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 02:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Battlestar Galactica Season Four Ad

I'm wondering if I might be able to use the Last Supper picture from the Battlestar Galactica season 4 marketing campaign in the Last Supper - Drama and Film section. I downloaded it from the website upon its release and haven't been able to find it since.

Myndaen (talk) 05:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)