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)

copyright tag

Could you please explain what copyright tag means? What exactly should I do to ensure the photos are not deleted? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemmabond (talk • contribs) 17:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry that nobody has replied to your question until now. A "copyright tag" is a template used to show what right Wikipedia has to use media. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Most media must be licensed under a free license (see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#For image creators for content you create yourself or Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses for free content created by someone else) or be in the public domain (see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Public domain for a list). Non-free content tags are listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free; the use of non-free content is highly restricted on Wikipedia. —teb728 t c 23:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Minnesota Historical Society images

Mnhs (talk · contribs) has been uploading a number of images from the Minnesota Historical Society under a fair use rationale. Specifically, the images are portraits of Minnesota's governors, but the Minnesota Historical Society has been interested in uploading other content. Mnhs (talk · contribs) has been tagging these images with the fair use rationale at {{Non-free Minnesota Historical Society image}}, and citing their own copyright.

Meanwhile, the bot STBotI (talk · contribs) has been tagging all of these images as being potential copyright violations. I don't know if that's just because STBotI doesn't know that {{Non-free Minnesota Historical Society image}} is a new fair use rationale tag, or if there's some dispute about whether the Society really has the right to upload images in which they claim copyright. This response at User talk:Mnhs asserts that they do indeed intend to upload these images to Wikipedia under an education license and using the non-free use media rationale.

I specifically asked if Mnhs (talk · contribs) represents the Minnesota Historical Society, and they answered that they are indeed representatives of the Society.

Could someone help straighten this situation out? I'm not sure if this is a simple request that I should just make to ST47 (talk · contribs) regarding his bot, or if there's more work to be done to allow the Minnesota Historical Society publish their own work under a non-free content license. Any thoughts? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that that is not a fair use rationale, it is just a copyright tag. Please see WP:FURG. Each image needs an individualized explanation of why it is allowed under policy. The bot is correct in its tagging. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I have corrected that omission and added a fair use rationale to each that I hope will be acceptable. --Mnhs (talk) 07:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like admin PhilKnight (talk · contribs) made the final decision to delete the following Minnesota Governor images:

• File:AlQuieOfficialOil.jpg
• File:Gov Wendell-R-Anderson.jpg
• ArneCarlsonOilOfficial.jpg
• File:JesseVenturaOilOfficial.JPG

for the following reason: (F7: Violates non-free use policy: living subject, therefore replaceable)

I would understand if it was the subject in question is still in the Governors office such as Tim Pawlenty therefore is replaceable by a picture of him in his duties as governor. The previous picture of Jesse Ventura in the Governor's info box was [[File:Jesse Ventura.jpg]] - 6 years after his governorship thus a misleading representation of him as Governor of Minnesota. I can understand the use of this image outside the the Governors infobox in his page but since the Governors box is on his governorship use of that image seems inaccurate. If the only free picture was one of him in tights while in the WWF would that be accurate to place it in the Governors info box?

I still do hold that there were no non-free images for Jesse Ventura or the other governors in question while in office, and since there they are out of office none can be taken of them in their term of governorship at this point so the use non-free images should be acceptable.

What is Wikipedia's policy (and practice) on image use for info boxes?

--Mnhs (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The rules for non-free content are at WP:NFC, and are based on principles decided at the highest level in Wikimedia. I'm not aware of a blanket ban on non-free content on infoboxes as long as it otherwise meets the non-free content rules. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Clouded Leopard cubs

Since the Smithsonian Institution is a body of the US Federal government, can these images be used? The Smithsonian's flickr stream credits Mehgan Murphy as the photographer, a Smithsonian employee. But the Zoo's copyright info has left me a little confused because it's not clear on whether or not she took the photos for work/personal use. APK is ready for the tourists to leave 15:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• General rule; if you're not clear about something, ask the potential copyright holders. In specific, the Smithsonian Institution seems to think it can hold copyright. There's a pretty good chance they are correct. You can conctact RightsManager@si.edu to ask the question and get a direct-from-source answer. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, gracias. APK is ready for the tourists to leave 16:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Fishman, The Public Domain, 4th ed., Nolo, 2008, p. 49:

The Smithsonian Institution is not considered part of the federal government. However, the Smithsonian does receive some funding from the U.S. government and the U.S. government pays some of the people who work there. The Smithsonian regards works created by employees paid by the government to be in the public domain. But the Smithsonian does claim copyright in all works created by employees it pays itself (such workers are called trust fund employees).

— Walloon (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Fun GRB graph

Main page: Wikipedia:Help_desk § Free.2FFair_use.3F

Greetings. I originally posted this question at the above.

I'm currently working on GRB 970228. I would like to use this graph in the article. Should I email the authors of the article? Should I just call it fair use? Or free use? Should I try to recreate the graph myself? Jayron32 suggested that I simply link to the image: I believe it is in a subscription database, so this doesn't work for users without a subscription. Arch dude suggested recreating the graph from the data. The data is not available in the article. Whaddya think? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'd say these graphs are ineligible for copyright (so {{PD-ineligible}}). Any other opinions? →Nagy 12:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say first try to contact the author. Scientists usually are open to licensing stuff like this freely. I cannot view the graph so I cannot comment on whether it is ineligible for copyright, but recreating it in SVG may be beneficial for two reasons. SVG is a superior format for this sort of information and an original graph may avoid copyright infringement. Good luck.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you would either have to get the author to liscence it under GFDL or you would have to recreate it from the source data. See WP:NFC, Unacceptable Use, Images section, Item 10. Graphs and Charts cannot be covered under fair use copying. If you do not have access to the source data, then that only leaves asking the author's permission. That sounds like a reasonable solution. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yarg, alright. I'll email him. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Image for use on Elizabeth Loftus

Under fair use, can I download and use this image on the Elizabeth Loftus page? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No, fair use cannot be claimed because she is still living so it is presumed that a freely licensed replaceable photo can be taken of her. This image is copyright of the university. ww2censor (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Image use fills me with hate. I would have to contact the university and ask them to release it under GFDL then? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Or some other free license, yes. The image use requirements are a derivative of the fact that we are a free content encyclopedia. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for help requesting permission. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Photograph of Mary Carpenter (1807-1877)

I have found this photograph {http://womensbios.lib.virginia.edu/browse?bibl_id=a034} which is from a book entitled Maids of Honour: Twelve Descriptive Sketches of Single Women Who Have Distinguished Themselves in Philanthropy, Nursing, Poetry, Travel, Science, Prose. With Portraits. London and Edinburgh: Blackwood, 1906. The photograph is entitled From a photograph, by C. Vass Bark and has to have been taken before 1877 when the subject died. Does this qualify as public domain? Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You should be able to use {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} at least. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 01:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Note that this is because of the pre-1923 publication, not because of when it was taken. In general, a photograph taken in 1877 may still be in copyright if the author died after 1939 (?). --NE2 03:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The author was actually C. Voss Bark (Cyrus Herbert Voss-Bark), a well-known Victorian era photographer who died in 1913. — Walloon (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Great find! Now it can be tagged {{PD-old-70}} as well. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Heavily modified video game screenshot

Hello everyone. I took a screenshot of the title screen of a video game, then modified it by removing the game's logo/title and copyright information. Then I replaced the game's logo with the word "Wikipedia" and added a pixelated version of the Wikipedia puzzle globe to the screenshot. So, what's the copyright status of the picture? Is the Wiki-globe copyrighted? I'm going to wait for a response before I upload it. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 10:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Your image is a derivative work of the original and assuming the original was copyrighted it cannot be uploaded onto Wikipedia - unless it meets all the criteria layed out in WP:NFCC. The Wikipedia globe logo is copyrighted - copyright held by the Wikimedia foundation - and its use is subject to restrictions and requires permission. Guest9999 (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to add a notable exception to this would be if the original copyright holder was Ubisoft, who allow derivative works to be created and distributed as long as attribution is given. There would still be a problem with the Wikipedia logo though. Guest9999 (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

License

How do i indicate the image was taken from a book that i have already referenced in my article? Noble Krypton (talk) 11:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noble Krypton (talk • contribs) 11:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Just say that in the image description page. Something like "Image scanned from the book 'Book Name', by Book Author, ISBN whatever." If you link to the image, I can help. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

what is the best copyright tag for this picture

the owner of the copyright to thispicture has sent it to me for free use and I have altered it (cropped it) and sent it back to her for approval and asked her for specific free use aproval and explained what that entails , she will give up all rights to the picture and she has replied, givng her permission. If the image is used anywhere I would like to see atribution to perhaps the person in the picture who is the one giving the work freely also to include no front or back covers. So which tag would best suit my purpose? (Off2riorob (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

The tag used should correspond to the permissions granted by the copyright holder. What exact permission did she give? Algebraist 13:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

free use. (Off2riorob (talk) 13:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

can I post the exact phrase here , without any personal details of course? (Off2riorob (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

I don't see why not. Algebraist 13:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I sent this to her:- Hello *****. Please have a look at the photo and

Thank you for sending the pictures for me . I enjoyed them .

I have been talking to wikipedia and they would like to insert a recent photo of you and I have made this one for you to agree to.

The picture would be free use though and free for anybody to use or to reprint or to do whatever to it , we would be giving it freely .

If you are ok with that I.ll present it to them......to which she replied :_ yes.

That sounds like a release into the public domain. Algebraist 13:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

ok . can I use public domain with attribution? (Off2riorob (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)) I personally think this would be usefull. fair! (Off2riorob (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

perhaps this {{PD-author|name}} (Off2riorob (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

and finally , how can I tidy up the file name to this :- Sheela Birnstiel, also known as Ma Anand Sheela.JPG (Off2riorob (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

My personal opinion is that you should go for a shorter name for the image, like "Sheela Birnstiel.jpg". You can write a thorough description on the description page. decltype (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

ok . I think that is ok. how can I change the image name though? (Off2riorob (talk) 14:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

and what is the source for the picture if the owner sent it to me? (Off2riorob (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

Normally you change the name by deleting it and reuploading it. It looks like you already had the old name deleted. Did you reupload it? You can say "Contributed by the copyright holder" as the source. If you link to it, I can help improve the description, if you'd like. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Raising the Flag outline.png

This image is tagged as licensed under the GFDL, is it not a derivative of this non-free image? Guest9999 (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that it's a derivative image of the non-free one. It should still be tagged GFDL (since the image itself is licensed under the GFDL), but it should also be stated that it's a derivative image, and it should only be used in compliance with our non-free criteria. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Ulas.jpg

File:Ulas.jpg is listed at Creative Commons 3.0 by User:Reverend Dr. Ulas Hayes, who is using the name of the deceased reverend Ulas Hayes. I want to crop it to remove the obviously inappropriate text but does anything think it would be better to rewrite the copyright as an non-free image being used to show what a deceased person looked like? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ordinarily, no, I'd say it's always better to use a free image as a free image. In this case, however, I'm suspicious whether it's really a free image or not. It looks an awful lot like a newspaper scan. Did the uploader "create" the image by scanning a paper and adding colorful text? If so, then it's not really a free image. A Google search doesn't return any hits for this image though. So I don't know. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

McCombs School Historical Photograph

I'm working revamping the History section of the McCombs School of Business article and curious if I can add this drawing (link) that's found here. Also, would it be possible to still be able to include the drawing with just the rendering of the building on the top half and crop the text below it? Thanks in advance NThomas76207 (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears that this drawing was first published before 1978 without a visible © notice. If that's the case, then the image is in the public domain, and you can upload it and do whatever you want with it. Cropping it should be fine. You'd want to tag it as {{PD-Pre1978}}. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 02:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Awesome!!!!!!!!! Thanks Quadell Your great!!!! NThomas76207 (talk) 02:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

– Quadell ^(talk) 13:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Rugby Club Logo

Hi,

I'd like to update a logo for Bolton Rugby Club, however I'm unsure as to the type of license it would be uploaded against. The logo is in use on various club websites now, and the club have consented to its use on wikipedia, however the different licenses etc are confusing and I would like some advice about which is most applicable.

The logo can be seen on both club websites here www.clubs.rfu.com/clubs/portals/bolton/ and here www.pitchero.com/clubs/bolton

Thanks for your help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zap48uk (talk • contribs) 08:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Consent to use on Wikipedia, is in fact, not a factor in whether something can be used on Wikipedia. It either has to be free content for anyone to use, or used under the restrictive non-free criteria. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Most of the time, non-free logos can be used under our non-free content policy, even if you don't get permission. You would use {{Logo fur}}. A good example is at File:UCD Crest.jpg. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

USA law etc

Why should we adjust to the copyright law in the USA if we live elsewhere? USA is not the centre of the Earth you know and not everybody has to obey its laws. Norum (talk) 08:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Could it be related to the fact Wikipedia is hosted in the USA? If that doesn't answer your question, maybe you need to be more specific. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 09:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia's servers are hosted in the U.S. Legally speaking, only U.S. copyright law applies. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

But how can it apply to topic not even related to the USA? Norum (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the above replies? Algebraist 14:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The U.S.A. is a signatory to international copyright agreements with almost every country on earth. The copyright violation of a foreign work in the U.S. can subject the violator to legal action in U.S. courts. — Walloon (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It's more complicated than that. The URAA (the primary treaty that the U.S. is involved in) doesn't necessarily mean that the U.S. considers a work copyrighted if another country does. There are plenty of works considered PD in the U.S. but considered copyrighted elsewhere, and vice versa. See Wikipedia:Public domain. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

But notice that I did not say that the U.S. necessarily considers a work copyrighted if another country does. Re-read what I wrote. — Walloon (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You were completely correct. I was just expanding on it, so as not to give readers the wrong idea. :) – Quadell ^(talk) 18:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Photo for musician biography

I have a photo that I would like to add to the page for musician Beverley Mahood. The picture is from her own entertainment company. I understand this is a biography of a living person and this image may not qualify as free content, but I'm a little confused by all the copyright information I'm looking at. To have this image be allowed, what copyright does it need?

Thanks. SDawley (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• It needs no copyright. It needs to be available under a free license such as CC-BY-SA. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
• We can only use "free" images, meaning images that have been released under a "free" license allowing anyone to use them and modify them, even commercially. I you want to ask the copyright holder for permission, some helpful tips are at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Non-free use media rationale on free software screenshot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Editwar.png

Does this image really requires a Fair use rationale even though its a free software or its just because of the logos? I don't think the logos are relevant to the commentary in the article… What if the wikipedia/wikimedia logos are cropped out - would a fair use rationale still be required? —Zener 17:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

From what I can see, if the logos are cropped out then you could release it under a free license. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sri Vikrama Rajasinha

Dear Staff,

I uploaded a cropped photograph of Sri Vikrama Rajasinha in 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sri_Vikrama_Rajasinha.jpg), but was not aware that the default copyright setting unconditionally released the image to the general public. This was only brought to my attention a few days ago. nce I realised I attempted to upload an enhanced version of the image, but the "drop down" menu mentioned in the instructions never appeared and I was never able to specify the copyright conditions to the one displayed below (I faced this problem during my initial upload in 2007). The images (original & enhanced) should be sourced to "Vivek Rajan", I would greatly appreciate your assistance in clearing up this matter.

Thanks.

Licensing: {{self|cc-by-3.0}}

I have fixed this for you. Would you prefer the original version of the image here, or the crisper version here be used? – Quadell ^(talk) 13:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Quadell. I think the crisper one would be better, I accidently reverted to the old one without intending to and when I tried to change it to the crisper one I ended up making duplicate copies of the image (as you've guessed, modifying images isn't my forte). I would grealy apprecite it if you could also delete the duplicates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivecius (talk • contribs) 14:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It's all taken care of. If there's anything else you need, let me know. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

World Digital Library

In view of the news reports today on the BBC and elsewhere, I think it's worth pointing out that while access to the WDL and viewing its content may be free of charge, the content is still subject to the original contributor's licensing terms, per the WDL's Legal notices page: Content found on the WDL Web site is contributed by WDL partners. Copyright questions about partner content should be directed to that partner. When publishing or otherwise distributing materials found in a WDL partner's collections, the researcher has the obligation to determine and satisfy domestic and international copyright law or other use restrictions.

Is it worth adding this to any relevant FAQ on Wikipedia copyright issues, free use etc? – ukexpat (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what a fantastic resource! It looks to me like the vast majority of material there will be PD, but not all of it. We have to examine each image on its merits, just like we do for Library of Congress images or anything else. I don't think it deserves a separate mention on policy pages, unless the misperception becomes obviously widespread. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

AmerMcCain Classic

I created this image in my photoshop and it's protected under the law as humor... I'm a little confused as to how to do things since wiki does not outline that specific way of use and how to post it. please explain to me how to upload the image properly and please be detailed because I'm an idiot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberclops (talk • contribs) 17:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

What is this image? What encyclopedic purpose will it serve? Algebraist 17:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If it's humor, presumably that mean it's a copyrighted image modified for some purpose. As such the legal claim you'd be making -- if it were accurate, which I wouldn't know without seeing it -- would be fair use for parody. On the other hand, if it is created by you (as compared to some famous parody omewhere that got mainstream news coverage) then it's likely not encyclopedic and would have no reason to be uploaded here at all, parody or no parody. DreamGuy (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

uploading photos that I have taken

your wiki upload page for photos is as confusing as they come for those who are not attorneys. For images created by me and images taken by me from my camera. Please indicate why an image I took with my camera of a building can not be used and if it can be used please have someone design the upload form so a 7 yr old can use it (in this case maybe it's better to design it so a 70 yr old can understand) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberclops (talk • contribs) 17:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• I think it worth noting that how we upload and tag files is in large part a direct consequence of copyright law, over which we have no control. You can tag images you upload with the {{cc-by-sa}} template. See Template:cc-by-sa. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If it's entirely your own work, you may find it's easier and helps the project more if you upload it at Wikimedia Commons. Files at Commons can be used just like they were uploaded on Wikipedia. What you seem to be missing is an image license. If you want attribution(people required to credit you as the author), use the CreativeCommons-Attribution license, if you don't even want that, you can release it into the public domain. Then there are licenses like the CreativeCommons-Attribution-ShareAlike license, GNU Free Documentation license, or Free Art License, if you believe that people who reuse your work should have to release their derivative work under the same license. Any of these license can be selected from the licensing drop down box at Wikimedia Commons. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Clamp

I want to use this image located on this page to illustrate a group of artists named Clamp on the Clamp article. Although it is a picture of a living person, the group avoids making any sort of public appearances of any kind. I believe so far, as a group all together, they have made a total of two such appearances. The second was at Anime Explo 2006 in which they only allowed two posed photo-shoot sessions, and the picture I want to use is during that time. The first time was in a Japanese magazine which I have not been able to find an record of so far. So in this case, would I be able to use the picture, or would I have to write a formal request to the copyright holder if he or she would release the image under the GFDL liscence? AngelFire3423 (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That website does not have any statement or term of use that specifically releases copyright or licenses it under any terms acceptable to Wikipedia, so you will have to ask the copyright holder to release it either under the GFDL or by e-mail to OTRS as set out at WP:IOWN. – ukexpat (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid we cannot accept a non-free image of the artists, since they are alive and could be photographed, even if it would be extremely difficult to do so. I have written an e-mail to the creator of the website and the webmaster, to request permission to use the image under a free license. I based my letter on the recommendations found here.

Text of the e-mail

To: John (Phoenix) Brown, or webmaster Subject: Clamp (manga artists) article on Wikipedia I am an editor for the free encyclopedia Wikipedia. I am presently working on improving an article related to Clamp, the group of manga artists, which currently contains no freely-licensed photo. I think your photo at http://www.phoenixanime.com/ax06/P7012860_edited-1.jpg would look great in the article. Your credit will be attached to the photo, along with a link back to phoenixanime.com or other website of your choice. The Wikipedia article in question can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clamp_(manga_artists). Wikipedia accepts only freely-licensed pictures; if you would like to contribute one under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (found below), please reply to this message with the following statement: "I own the copyright to the image found at http://www.phoenixanime.com/ax06/P7012860_edited-1.jpg. I grant permission to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License v.2.0: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" Thank you for your time. Wikipedia is currently the 9th most-visited website in the world - by contributing this photo, you'll both be helping us and giving a wider audience exposure to your work. With respect, (my real name) (my e-mail address) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Quadell +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Wikipedia's image use policy +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/) is a free encyclopedia that is collaboratively edited by volunteers from around the world. Our goal is to create a comprehensive knowledge base that may be freely distributed and available at no charge. I ask permission for material to be used under the terms of the Creative Commons License. This means that although you retain the copyright and authorship of your own work, you are granting permission for all others (not just Wikipedia) to share, copy, distribute, remix, and adapt the work -- and even potentially use them commercially -- so long as they attribute the work in the manner specified by you (but not in any way that suggests that you endorse the use of the work). You can read this license in full at: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ This license expressly protects creators from being considered responsible for modifications made by others, while ensuring that creators are credited for their work. There is more information on our copyright policy at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights I choose the Creative Commons license because I consider it the best available tool for ensuring your work can remain free for all to use, while providing you credit. This may or may not be compatible with your goals in creating the materials available on your website. Please be assured that if permission is not granted, your materials will not be used at Wikipedia -- we have a very strict policy against copyright violations. We also accept licensing under other free-content licenses. With your permission, we will credit you for your work in the image's permanent description page, noting that it is your work and is used with your permission, and we will provide a link back to your website. We invite your collaboration in writing and editing articles on this subject and any others that might interest you. Please see the following article for more information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Welcome,_newcomers +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ End Wikipedia's image use policy ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If he replies, I will let you know. Best of luck, – Quadell ^(talk) 18:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah... I also emailed him because of the prompt reply from Ukexpat. Should I email him to tell him not to reply to my email?

EDIT: Especially since my does not include Wikipedia's image policy.

AngelFire3423 (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Nah, let's just wait and see what happens. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, Quadell, that email is terribly confused between GFDL and CC.... Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It refers to the cc-by-2.0 license. I believe it says GFDL in a single instance when it meant CC. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done The copyright holder e-mailed back with permission to license the image under cc-by-2.0. Yay! I have included File:Clamp at Anime Expo 2006.jpg in Clamp (manga artists). – Quadell ^(talk) 13:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Historic society website and university website pics

I have been trying to understand the copyright criteria for some time and it seems a lot is debated. I have several historic photos I'd like to use on wikipedia primarily from two websites. Here are examples from each:

Historical Society Website
City & Public University Partnership Website

I have tried emailing both websites for permission to no avail (maybe no reply was my answer). Are these old enough that I don't need permission? Does the second website being from a public university give me any room for fair use? Beantwo (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any more information? I couldn't even find a publication date or creation date. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Not really sorry. I just tried email again for them a second time. It's been about a year or so since I last asked. The historical society (first above) email address was a .gov email and the boisestate one (second above) is an .edu address for what it might be worth. I doubt if the people even know whether they're fair use or not because the photographers are hard to track down after so many years. Beantwo (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

For the first site I found this on another page but it seems to say it is fair use AND they need to be contacted? Or is that if you need a physical copy I am supposed to contact them? Beantwo (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I found some information, you still need to do some digging. For the first one, the credited photographer, Bob Lorimer, died in 1975, it's possible {{PD-Pre1978}} applies. You still need to do some research because that has pretty specific conditions.

For the second one, it's linked from http://www.idahohistory.net/sigler12.html which says published in 1933. It's possible that either {{PD-Pre1964}} or {{PD-Pre1978}} apply. Again, you need to do the research to check if either applies. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 03:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice. I'll keep diggin. Thanks for looking! Beantwo (talk) 03:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that site's copyright policy is basically just a disclaimer. It doesn't tell you anything useful; you have to look at each image on its own. Your best bet, as Rat says, is to show that (a) it was first published before 1978 without a ©, or (b) it was first published before 1963 and the photographer never filed a copyright renewal with the U.S. copyright office. For (b) you can use this U.S. copyright office search to look for renewals for works first published between 1950 and 1963. To search for photos first published earlier, you'll have to plow through this text-dump of copyright records. – Quadell ^(talk) 03:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Rat at WikiFur found both photos on one of the sites apparently taken by the same Lorimer person. The historical society places a stamp on their photos as seen in the differences of this and this. Does their stamp change the photo enough that they can claim it? Would a yearbook be copyrighted during that time period? Also, Lorimer, Bob or Robert returned nothing on either of the copyright sites you gave so I hope that's a good sign! Thanks for your help as well! Beantwo (talk) 03:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., adding a stamp to a public domain image doesn't give copyright control over the image itself. Of course the affected area should be removed (cropped or Photoshopped out). DreamGuy (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Quadell, I think you mean "first published before 1964", not 1963. If it's any help, I just examined the 1931 edition of the Boise High School Yearbook. It did carry a copyright notice ("Copyright 1930"), which suggests that the 1933 edition probably did too (Copyright 1932?). However, it was copyrighted to the two editors of the yearbook, which may make a renewal notice hard to find: renewal registrations are listed in alphabetical order by the author's name, not the title of the book. Contact the high school and ask if they could relay to you what the copyright notice says in the 1933 edition. — Walloon (talk) 06:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I did mean before 1964, good catch. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

E-mail
Wednesday, April 22, 2009 9:22 am This is a photo from the Sigler collection at the Idaho State Historical Society. I am always reluctant to comment on what is "fair use." It depends on so many factors, and especially on whether or not the reprint is used for commerce. But, having said that, I believe the photo is in the public domain. I assume it is from the 1920s. T

I got an email but it tells me about as much as that site's copyright policy. "Sigler" nor "Lorimer" return photographic copyrights in either of the databases given above but I think they only go back to the mid 70s requiring a fee for searches before that. Would a copyright in 1933 have lasted a specific amount of years (e.g. 50) that if renewed should show in that database? Beantwo (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, 28 years specifically. If it was registered in 1933, it would have had to have been renewed sometime during the calendar year 1961. (See User:Quadell/copyright.) Of course we don't know exactly when it was registered, so you'll need to look for renewals from 1960 through 1962. You can search this for free at this page; I did, and found no entries for Bob Lorimer or Sigler. I think we can confirm that these are {{PD-Pre1964}}, and leave a detailed note at the image about how you determined the copyright (if ever registered at all) was not renewed. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll use the {{PD-Pre1964}} template using the non-stamped photo from the second site and this from Sigler as well. This shouldn't need anything b/c of the date. I'll be sure to detail in the Wikipedia photo upload that no renewal was found. The parade photo from Lorimer although neat probably wouldn't show much. Thanks to Quadell, Walloon, Rat at WikiFur & DreamGuy! Beantwo (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

File:SeaMonkey-1.0.2-screenshot.png

SeaMonkey is free but Windows XP interface isn't. Should I add a fair use rationale or the rules are lax enough to accept this screenshot as free? The article already has two seamonkey images running on Linux though..—Zener 08:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This actually got discussed on Wikimedia Commons and in wikipedia without a clear resolution. The other problem is that the Wikimedia logo is non-free. So just my opinion: a free image without the questionable parts would be just as informative, so just leave out the questionable image. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 09:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Issues

I am trying to edit the history information on the entry for Ingram Barge Company. However, I am being told that "The recent edit you made has been reverted, as it appears to have added copyrighted material from the copyright holder."

I work for Ingram Barge Company and I have been asked to use the same information from our website to update our Wikipedia entry. So my question is this - is there some way to use the same text, but maybe add a disclaimer saying that the information is from our website or that it can also be found on our website? Would that work? 72.237.175.66 (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest; not saying there's anything wrong with your edits, just that you should be aware of our guidelines. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Also note that permission to use on Wikipedia does not matter. The text added must be released under a free license, else we can't use it. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

File Upload

I have a file for reference for a wiki and i have no idea how to make it work within the rules of wikipedia. The file I uploaded was auto-deleted and I can't figure out what category it should fall under or how to correctly document. Here are the main points:

• It's a pdf of a hospital newsletter released by their public relations department
• There is no copyright but I called their public relations contact (contact info for the individual is right in the document) and asked permission anyway and it was of course given.
• I supplied all the contact info and the scenario in the description of the upload. It was not good enough.

This newsletter is not private by any means to begin with, so how do I make this work? Thanks in advance for any advice. Wace96 (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for coming here and asking. There are a couple problems here. Normally, there's no use for PDFs on Wikipedia. Images should be in .png or .jpg format, so that articles can use them. Then there's the issue of copyright. All new works are copyrighted, whether the author knows it or not. Is the PDF available online? Could you link to it, so I can see what you're referring to? Also, what article are you hoping to use the image in? Thanks, – Quadell ^(talk) 22:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If the PDF is available online and you want to use it as a reference (as opposed to including an image of the document in the article), it's probably better just to link to the PDF in a reference. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Images on websites

On some websites, it's impossible to copy images. Meaning, if you right-click on it, a message saying that you can't copy that picture without their permission shows on screen. Sometimes, nothing happens at all when you right click.

If such pictures on certain sites are really copyrighted, then why don't they apply this function? Why do they leave their images enabled to be copied by net surfers? 210.4.121.180 (talk) 03:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

One reason might be that this function does not work. It is impossible to have an image visible on a website and not downloadable. All that can be done is to make it slightly more difficult and annoying. Algebraist 03:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Disabling JavaScript will trivially prevent the message and all of these copy-prevention tricks. Like most other copy-prevention tools, it inconveniences casual users but does nothing whatsoever to stop serious pirates. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• It's important to understand that all creative works are copyrighted now, regardless of how much the rights holder chooses to protect those rights or not. Just because you CAN steal something doesn't mean the owner wants to have it stolen. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. The original argument seems to be along the lines of "If the bike is really owned by someone they should have locked it up, and if it's not locked up I should be able to take it," which is just nonsense. Every bike has an owner. Every image on a website has an owner too (except in rare situations where the underlying image is public domain, but you have to know what you're doing to figure that out). DreamGuy (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Kind of. Since images aren't rivalrous goods, the comparison with a bike is a bit out. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That's got nothing to do with the conversation. Is that just pedantry for its own sake, or do you honestly think images being nonrivalrous somehow makes a difference in how we should respond to the original question? DreamGuy (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Chill. He's just saying copyright law isn't the same as property law. (For instance, I can't borrow your bike without permission under a "fair use" argument.) Your point about breaking the law whenever you can is well taken. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if I had said someone could take a bike under fair use then his comment might have made sense. DreamGuy (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Re File:EdwardLabkovsky.jpg

Re File:EdwardLabkovsky.jpg. I have received notice that this image and its usage in the article Alexandrov Ensemble soloists are not sufficiently tagged for copyright. I have attempted to do this on the image page File:EdwardLabkovsky.jpg but since the category link still appears red, clearly I am not coding it correctly.

I have not yet started tagging the article Alexandrov Ensemble soloists as required, but will attempt to do so. This is the first time I have had to go through this process, and I feel that it is so complicated that I am afraid of making errors. Please would you kindly check what I have done, and either correct it for me if it's an administrative matter, or let me know of any further actions that I should make.

I am well intentioned here, and would like to learn to do this properly for future reference. The article has taken an enormous amount of work and research, and I would rather remove the image than cover the article itself with huge templates (which is what I fear Wiki is asking for?) However I would like to try to solve the problem in an acceptable way without removing the image if possible. Thanks. --Storye book (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for coming here and asking. I believe you are well-intentioned, but there are several difficulties with using this image here. Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, and as such we can only use non-free image under a strict set of criteria. Most non-free images can't be used at all here. I don't believe this image passes our criteria, so I don't think we can use it, no matter how you tag it. Below is my analysis.

First of all, we need to determine whether the image is copyrighted or not. The image description page says "Photograph taken before 1954", but that can't be true, since Labkovsky was born in 1948 and would have been only six at the time. Since the photo was taken (and presumably first published) in the former Soviet Union, the image would still be copyrighted unless the author (photographer) died before 1941, which would be impossible. So the image is copyrighted and non-free, and would have to be used in compliance with our non-free content criteria. The first criterion is that in order to use a non-free image, it must be impossible to create a free image of subject. But since Labkovsy is still alive, it should be possible to photograph him and release that photo under a free license.

In short, it would be best to remove the image from the article and wait for it to be deleted. Sorry to bring bad news, – Quadell ^(talk) 14:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: the above question:

Please notify me of your answer on my talk page. Thank you.--Storye book (talk) 10:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

(Oops -- copying my answer there.) – Quadell ^(talk) 14:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The image on Anunnaki page

Transferring comments on the talk page to here:

is there any way to prove the image on this page is authentic? Where is this artifact on display. I used tineye (reverse image search)on the image and it shows up on 12 conspiracy theory type web sites, but nowhere like an anthropology dept of a university or a museum. prove it or lose it I say.72.195.136.189 (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

A very good question. Looking at the file, it says the image was uploaded to Wikipedia Commons as a free image due to expired copyright. No other information given. I'd like to ask an image expert on this one. Now I must go find one. Aunt Entropy (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The file is here. Doesn't some sort of origin data need to be included? I find it unlikely that one can just say "copyright expired" without a reason and the image is therefore acceptable. Thoughts? Aunt Entropy (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

In Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. the court ruled that mechanical duplications of 2-D works of art do not create additional copyrights. So if I find a scan of an 18th century painting, I can use it as public domain without having to credit the person who scanned it. However, a photo of a statue is different, Bridgeman also ruled that creative decisions such as lighting, posing, or angle selection can create a new copyright for the photograph. So if I find a photo of a sculpture, I still have to get permission from the photographer to use it. This case seems inbetween. It's not quite a 2-D work, and not quite a 3-D work either. You could argue that it's a mechanical reproduction of a public domain work of art... or you could argue that it's a creative photograph with shadows and angles chosen by the photographer. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd personally go on the side of caution and rule it 3-D... but there are photos of images of this topic that would be public domain by now, so knowing a source would be helpful. DreamGuy (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, I agree. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Anunnaki are just a term for Sumerian deities in general. The image in question is famous, but primarily depicts a worshipper in a costume. The image was used in pseudoscientific works to try to argue that the Sumerian gods were aliens, because a set of figures in that symbol in the sky could be aliens "cuz that sort of looks like a flying saucer, dunnit? Woooo." Use of the photo in such a way is kind of POVvy for that reason. Most of the image is non-Anunnaki, and it's not representative on the Anunnaki as well as other images could be. My guess is that the scan came from a pseudoscience book originally. I'm working on fixing the screwed up articles and seeing if I can find a better image. DreamGuy (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Turkish banknotes

An image of a Turkish banknote was added to our article on Rumi (link). The Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey guidance for banknote reproduction is a link to the Announcement on the Reproduction and Publication of Illustrations and Images of Banknotes (Announced in Official Gazette dated 24/2/2004 no: 25383, pages: 86-89; Amended and announced in Official Gazette dated 13/10/2004, no: 25612, page 48). Note the 5th criterion mentioned ("In reproductions in electronic form...").

Considering Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images, can we use images of Turkish banknotes in articles other than "Turkish lira" ? Moreover, can we use at all images without the “ÖRNEKTİR GEÇMEZ” or “SPECIMEN” expression printed on them ? - Thank you already. Ev (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm no expert in Turkish copyright law, but from what I can see, all works (including government works) are copyrighted for 70 years after the death of the creator. There may be some law that makes Turkish banknotes ineligible for copyright, but I don't know about it, and it isn't mentioned on any of the relevant en.wiki or Commons copyright pages. It's tagged as free, so it looks like a copyvio to me. However, if it's a copyvio, it's a copyvio on Commons, not here. And Commons does seem to have a lot of Turkish banknote images. I'm not sure how our policy deals with images tagged as free on Commons, but which may or may not be actually free. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Software program

I am creating a software program that will, as one aspect of the program, have a wikipedia link to a topic. I will be selling this program for a low price. Are there any copyright issues? I will be mentioning the this is a link to a wikipedia article.

Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.49.7.137 (talk • contribs)

I don't think there is any issue linking to Wikipedia from a commercial product. Reusing Wikipedia content is a different matter. – ukexpat (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There's no problem with this. Good luck with your product. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for File:Falcon9 verticalonpad1 highres.jpg

... Reason for uploading this file was raised by problem with another file. I don's need this file in fact. But if you take a look at Falcon 9 article you'll find the file File:20080111 nightbacklit.jpg in the upper right corner. It's shown there properly. As there is not corresponding article in russian i've decided to write it but this image doesn't show itself. I don't see work around. Please describe me this way. TIA.--Beaber (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Since this is a non-free image, we can't share that image between the two languages, because Wikimedia Commons does not allow non-free image. The Russia Wikipedia does allow non-free images, so long as they are used according to the guideline at ru:Википедия:Добросовестное использование. You'll have to download the image to your hard-drive, and the upload it to the Russian Wikipedia. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 23:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

With the same name? Correct me if i'm wrong. Thanks.--Beaber (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Either with the same name or a different name. Either is fine. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

What's the tag?

I know that by statutory law and by case law all laws, resolutions, etc. passed by state legislatures in the USA are public domain. What's a proper copyright tag for such an image? File:2009HawaiiShenYunProclamation.jpg is currently marked as fair use, but it needs such a tag. Nyttend (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure this image actually belongs on Wikipedia. What article were you thinking of using it in? – Quadell ^(talk) 16:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

confused about fair use for magazines and books

i recently uploaded covers of books and magazines to illustrate the articles on those books. i got warnings that i didnt document them fully. i understand adding copyright tag, fair use tag, templates for fair use, etc. but i dont understand what im missing? CAN i simply scan a book cover and upload it? do i need to say its a scan of a privately owned copy? or do i need to get the image from an online source? heres the files (some i attempted to fix): File:Aquarianconspiracy.jpg File:Waysofseeingcvr.jpg File:Animalfamilycvr.jpg File:Coneyislandmind.jpg File:Sleepingflamecvr.jpgMercurywoodrose (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you got it right in File:Aquarianconspiracy.jpg and File:Waysofseeingcvr.jpg --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Joel Reece Hopkins

Test

Joel Reece Hopkins

Test