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)

User:By78

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

User:By78 has uploaded a lot of images and released them in the public domain, highly unlikely that any of the images were taken by the uploader. He/she has uploaded well over a hundred images, have we a way of dealing with them other than searching for the originals one-by-one and adding copyvio or pui tags to the them all one at a time? Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 09:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It certainly seems impossible for this uploader to have taken these two photos, File:PLAN-Shang-class.jpeg and File:PLAAF-J10-takeoff.jpg, with 19 minutes of each other according to the images' metadata which makes one suspicious of all the files uploaded. ww2censor (talk) 11:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are incorrectly reading the metadata. The data didn't come from a camera, but instead perhaps a scanner or photo editing software. So it is plausible that someone could scan or edit these two photos within 19 minutes of each other. That said, these look like professional, if not official photos, and it's likely they came from the web. I'd ask the uploader about it and see if there can't be OTRS permission (or if no permission, delete all the images). -Andrew c ^[talk] 11:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Note the watermark at the bottom of File:PLAAF-J10-takeoff.jpg. These photos are obviously not the work of a random Wikipedian (unless they happen to work for the PLA, in which case they could give us a copyright release ;) Physchim62 (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

OK I have left the user a note, he/she has said that My own work as a commissioned officer of the PLA. in one of their edits. Still concerned if we can we just delete the images if no permission is forthcoming without individually tagging the images or going through PUI. MilborneOne (talk) 05:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No response from uploader - all nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 28. MilborneOne (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Puzzle_Pirates_logo_art.PNG

Dont know the copywrite but I guess its {{non-free logo}} as it is found all over this games offical website here --Lcawte (talk) 12:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You cannot use non-free images in userboxes. See WP:NFCC #9. This image, as it isn't used in the main article namespace, will likely be deleted. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Doesnt awnser my question, what copywrite template does it need? --Lcawte (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

My point was that no tag is going to fix that image if you are going to use that image (or any non-free image) outside of the main article space. Strictly hypothetically speaking, that copyright tag is usually sufficient for most non-free logos, as long as they have an accompanying fair use rational and otherwise meet all of the WP:NFCC. -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This is bordering on {{PD-textlogo}}. Stifle (talk) 12:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting license statements

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

At the time of upload, Commons file File:Snow Hill NC Courthouse.jpg was tagged with a {{self|cc-by-3.0}} and given the words "full use for non-profit purposes" in the permission line. In the light of the permission template, are the words of any value? I guess my question is basically "which one trumps the other"? Nyttend (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, this image is on the commons, so questions should probably be directed there... That out of the way, the user likely just picked a license from the drop down menu without reading it. Since this was their first upload, I believe the text they added to the upload trumps the default license, meaning we should delete this image as having improper permission, and contact the uploader regarding why to see if they want to reconsider how they release the image. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I've emailed the uploader. By the way, I would have asked this at Commons, except I wasn't aware that Commons had something equivalent to MCQ. Link, please? Nyttend (talk) 14:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't bother coming up with a link; Andrew c just gave it to me, Commons:Commons talk:Licensing. Nyttend (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure which tag to use

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Ive posted a diagram from an expired US patent and am not sure which copyright tag to use - there's no copyright on the diagram since it's from a fully expired patent that is now 100% in the public domain, plus, there is no copyright notice on the image or in the patent disclosure which, according to the patent office, means there is no copyright protection. http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxr_1_71.htm#cfr37s1.71 It's the rumble generator in the topic "Sensurround" Ty Chamberlain (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean the image File:SensurroundRumbleGenerator.jpg which is currently tagged as having no copyright info, which is what you are asking about. However there is also no source info or link and you don't tell us anywhere what the date of this patent and the drawing is and there is no author info. Both of these should be provided. Please do that and maybe we can help you more. ww2censor (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It comes from the US Patent Office and I got my copy from http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3973839.html - the date the patent was issued is 08/10/1976 to MCA Systems, Inc. According to the patent law (USPTO.gov link provided above) a patent must have an explicit copyright notice otherwise it's drawings and contents are non-copyrighted. —Preceding Ty Chamberlain (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC) comment added by Disclord (talk • contribs) 12:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You need {{PD-US-patent}}. I have done it for you. HairyWombat (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

How do I flag these for deletion again?

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello.
I keep forgetting how this works... The current logo put up for Coffee Crisp (here: File:Coffee_Crisp_logo.jpg, with commons entry here: [1]) is listed as having been "created" by a wikipedia editor, and thus released under GFDL. The problem is that the work consists solely of a company's logo for a commercial product. Surely this can't be legal (At best, he just traced the logo. And I'm pretty sure that a tracing isn't an original creation. That said, I don't think it was even traced).
Could someone do me a big favour and tag it for immediate deletion? (It can't really be considered for fair use as the same article already has a picture of a coffee crisp bar that gets the idea across sufficiently) And, could someone (who knows how) also tag the commons version?
Thank you. 72.88.69.221 (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm starting to think it may be a problem with the editor. I took at look at his recent file contributions, and found this: File:SW_antenna_cost_2009_USD.png. I found it strange that some entries were underlined, almost like html links, so did a quick search. Sure enough, I found this page: [2].

The picture seems to just be a screenshot of the webpage. Surely taking a screenshot of someone's work doesn't qualify as your own creation, right? I know it's a lot to ask, but could someone take a look at his other past file contributions, and check for other... um... "mis-tagged" images? (I'd also love if someone could notify him of his conversation, because I don't personally know how to politely tell a person about something like this.) 72.88.69.221 (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, both of these are copyright violations. I'll look through the uploader's other contributions. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Can't locate copyright status and every US journal does not append a copyright tag

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to save this image: File:Liquefaction_at_Niigata.JPG, which I found to have this original source from several US websites that use it: “Niigata Earthquake, 1964,” Japan National Committee on Earthquake Engineering, Proceedings of the 3rd World Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Volume III, pp s.78-s.105.

So, it's a work of Japanese government. How does copyright work for the Japanese government? No US seismological organization that uses the image seems to append a copyright tag, so I am appending the tag mentioned. What to do here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meowist (talk • contribs) 20:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how works of the Japanese government work, but your tag is certainly wrong.

If it had been originally published within the US prior to 1978, then that might be different. However, just because some people choose to reuse it in the US without a proper tag does not, in and of itself, put it in the public domain. (Otherwise, by that logic, anyone would be able to put the works of others into the public domain by simply being sloppy with copyright tags)

(Incidentally, this is excluding the fact that you'd have to verify that those other US sources didn't have copyright tags anywhere. Those things tend to be kinda hidden sometimes) 72.88.69.221 (talk) 22:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Japan considers works of the Japanese government to be copyrighted for 50 years after publication. In the U.S., corporate works such as this that were first published outside the U.S. are considered copyrighted for 95 years after publication, so the U.S. will consider the image copyrighted until at least 2059. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

A Drawing from a photo

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I have drawn someone from a foto. Now I´d like to load it up for the side where it is needed here, but in one thing I`m not sure : I dont have the copyright of the foto. My drawing is black and white, instead of coloured as the foto is and its my "painting interpretation" of this foto, so not exakt the same foto. Now my question: Am I allowed to upload it? (Excuse me, my english should be better ;) Thanks for reading, Moidame —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moidame (talk • contribs) 00:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. A drawing that reproduces a photograph is a derivative work of the original photograph, so you would still have to get permission from the photo's copyright holder in order to use the drawing. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

commons:File:Limerick Nuclear Facility from 422W.jpg

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Pictures of this facility are not permitted as per their security team, Recently I was confronted by them while taking pictures of the facility and was made to delete them from my camera. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.80.174 (talk) 05:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a copyright question about this image? ww2censor (talk) 05:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That is a matter between the photographer and the nuclear facility and has no impact on copyright. I think you'll find that nobody can make you delete pictures from your camera. Stifle (talk) 12:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

How to dleted uploaded photos

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to delete the photo because I wanted to changed them. Please help. thanks. Lolshehe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC).

As the info tag at the top of the edit page says "This page is for questions about copyright on images and media on Wikipedia. If you have a question about how to use Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Help desk." Briefly, you don't have to delete photos if you want to change something in it. You can upload a new photo over an old version. Just make sure you use the same file name (or use the "Upload a new version of this file" link under the "File History" section on the image's page). -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

To answer your question, template:db-self may help as well.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No copyright

I uploaded an image (File:Hasyim_Muzadi.jpg) which i found from www.swaramuslim.net. At the bottom of the website it says in Indonesian that there is no copyright, and it is not prohibited to copy, reproduce, or distribute. I need help for the license. Thank You. Dre.comandante (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The bottom of the page says "NO COPYRIGHT©". Then it says "TIDAK DILARANG KERAS mengcopy, memperbanyak, mengedarkan untuk kemaslahatan bersama syukur Alhamdulillah sumber artikel dicantumkan", which (I think) specifies that only the article text is free of copyright. But then it says "Copyright © Sep 2002" and "All rights reserved", so it's very confused. Regardless, the website often reprints images that it does not hold the copyright to, such as [3] and [4]. So I wouldn't say that the images from here are free. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

movie wiki photos

I want to start heavily updating some movie wikipedia articles that are neglected. This includes adding production stills and the movie poster in the top right hand corner. How do I check if a picture is acceptable to be downloaded and then uploaded to wikipedia? Is it safe to assume they are in the public domain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jules90 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No, very few movie posters and production stills are in the public domain. Most are copyrighted, so they can only be used under our strict non-free content criteria. In general, it is usually acceptable for one non-free image (a poster or a still) to be used as the main infobox at the top of the article. Other images are only used if they are particularly important to the article, are discussed in text, and convey information that could not be conveyed by text alone. More than four or five non-free images are almost never acceptable. But these will all have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to partially dissent here. In years of using U.S. copyright registration and renewal records, I have yet to see the copyright renewed on any production still published before 1964 from a U.S. motion picture. And no, there is no case law establishing that stills are protected under the parent film's copyright. (Presumably an assemblage of stills that told the film's story would create a derivative work and be a violation of the film's copyright.) Likewise, I've yet to see the U.S. copyright renewed of any U.S. movie poster published before 1964. — Walloon (talk) 07:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Question from non-expert: Isn't a still just a frame from the movie? If so, doesn't the movie's copyright attach to such a still? – ukexpat (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

A frame from a film would be covered under the same copyright as the film itself, just as much as a page from a book is held under the copyright of the book itself. Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying, Walloon. I would suspect that a movie poster of a copyrighted movie is a derivative work of the film itself. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No, a still is not the same thing as frame enlargement. Stills are taken separately by a still photographer with a still camera (usually on a 4 x 5 negative), before or after the scene has been filmed by the motion picture camera. — Walloon (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting, thanks for the info. So what was usually done with these stills? Were they offered for sale to the general public? I ask because there are some intriguing possibilities here. It's possible that the stills were published before the film itself, which would mean that the stills cannot be derivative works of the film. Let me explain. There is some disagreement about when a film is "published" according to copyright law. Here I quote from "The Public Domain" by Stephen Fishman: "Like any work of authorship, a film is published for copyright purposes when the copyright owner or someone acting on his or her behalf makes copies available to the general public. In other words, any interested member of the public may obtain a copy. Burke v. National Broadcasting Co., 598 F.2d 688 (9th Cir. 1979). Publication only occurs when copies of a film are made available to the public for purchase, rental, or loan. Showing a film to the public in theaters or on television does not constitute publication for copyright purposes. This is true even if thousands or millions of people have seen the film." Fishman goes on to explain that when a studio allows its clients access to film reels, or sells the reels themselves only to select partners, the film is not "published" according to the courts. And of course before the advent of video tape, films were not generally available for sale. Before the 1976 copyright law, unpublished works were not protected by federal law (though they were still protected by common law copyright). All these film were immediately covered by the 1976 law when it took effect in 1978, but before then they had no federal copyright status. The stills and posters, if "published", would have been covered. If a piece of film paraphernalia was published before 1976, based on an "unpublished" film, the paraphernalia cannot be held to be a derivative work of the film. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

"Because films were rarely made available for public sale, determining an official publication date has been difficult for these older films. However, a consensus has developed among copyright experts, the film industry, and the courts that films were published for copyright purposes when copies were placed in exchanges for distribution to theater operators. American Vitagraph, Inc. v. Levy, 659 F.2d 1023 (9th Cir. 1981)." Fishman, 4th ed., p. 166. Stills and posters are published separately from the film, almost always before the film to generate advance publicity and audience interest. In the pre-1964 era I am talking about, stills were sent in press packets to newspapers and magazines, and stills and posters were transferred to companies (most commonly the National Screen Service from 1940 to the mid-1980s) that specialized in distributing publicity materials to theaters. (More here.) — Walloon (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

"Share and Enjoy"?

I uploaded a photo for the entry on yarnbombing. I've seen this image on several blogs and on several websites dedicated to the practice or to offbeat art. The image was posted on a blog by Oberholtzer Creative Staff at 3:24 pm, January 25, 2009, with the mark, "Share and enjoy." [5] However, the article in The Telegraph that was the main source for the wikipedia article cites the picture as belonging to BNPS. Is this image appropriate for Wikipedia? If so, which tag should it receive? Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, have you considered contacting the original creator? The link you posted referred to a yarnbomb blog who attributed it to Magda Sayeg of knittaplease.com. That website has a contact page (here). Perhaps you could ask if they'd be willing to release it into the public domain, or license it via GFDL or similar?

Incidentally, the "share and enjoy" is entirely unrelated. That's just the description of the links for digg, stumbleupon, etc. Certainly not anything to do with licensing. 139.57.100.104 (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want to ask the copyright holder for GFDL permission, we have a helpfile at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The blog lists Oberholtzer Creative Staff as the image's posters, but Telegraph lists BNPS, Bournemouth News and Picture Service as the image's owners. Any clue what's going on? Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

They're probably just guessing, or attaching boilerplate text that isn't always accurate. The Telegraph is more likely to be correct, but I'd suggest contacting BNPS and asking them if they hold the copyright. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

File:KevinWuniformtemplate.PNG

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I uploaded File:KevinWuniformtemplate.PNG as a cleaned-up version of another user's template to allow the other user to replace his template with the cleaned version. I'm not sure which type of copyright tagging to use. Any help would be appreciated. --Kevin W. 05:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Since the original (by User:JohnnySeoul) is licensed under {{cc-by-3.0}}, your derivative can be released under any license that insists that JohnnySeoul be credited. It would be simplest to release it under {{cc-by-3.0}} as well. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

{{PD-PhilippinesPubDoc}} and the Philippines' law

There is a question at the copyright talk page concerning the accuracy of this template, which is transcribed to a number of images. Please weigh in if you have input. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

GasBuddy Image

Hi,

We have recentlt uploaded an image. The image is GasBuddyGasPriceMap.png. This image was removed from our sandbox page, saying that it does not have the proper copyright information. All ofthe images that we have uploaded are images that we the GasBuddy Organization have created entirely on our own. These images are avaiable on the internet on any of our 185 gas price websites. Please restore this image GasBuddyGasPriceMap.png. as we are not breaking any copyright laws by displaying ths image as it is our own.

Regards,

Trevor Dewildt GasBuddy.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gasbuddy (talk • contribs) 14:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

When you upload an image, you need to state how it is licensed. If you created the image yourself, then you are free to license it however you want. Here are some suggestions: WP:ICTIC. When you upload an image, there is a drop down menu on the upload page for licensing. You have to choose a license from that drop down menu, or else the image will be deleted. Alternatively, if you forgot to choose a license when you uploaded the file, you can add the tag after the fact (i.e. adding {{PD-self}} for a public domain image or {{GFDL-self}} for a GFDL image or {{cc-by-3.0}} for the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license, etc.) If this image was published outside of wikipedia, you'll need to send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. Good luck.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You may also want to read about wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest particularly if you make the contents of User:Gasbuddy/Sandbox into an article. Also note the your user name is related to a business it may be blocked from editing please also read WP:SPAMNAME. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Just saw File:GasBuddy-Logo.gif. I've tagged it as lacking permission, as this clearly is a company/webpage logo that was published outside of Wikipedia. If you created this, just follow the instructions and send an e-mail in to the OTRS team.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The gasbuddy.com website disclaimer says, “GasBuddy Inc. reserves all rights and copyrights the site text, site images, site code, content, and usage of the GasBuddy.com web site. Use of any information found on any web site of GasBuddy Organization is not permitted without express written consent from GasBuddy Organization Inc.” This contradicts the public domain tag. —teb728 t c 22:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct Copyright tag

I asked a user in Flickr if I could use a picture that's in is account in Wikipedia 2 days ago, and today he gave the the ok to do so but I don't know the correct copyright tag to use that will not result in speedy deletion. Please help. It's a picture of a college office building. Thanks Ceddy 06 21:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Did you ask the user to change the license on the flickr page? That is really the best and easiest way to go. There are 2 acceptable licensing options that flickr offers that are compatible with wikipedia. Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) and Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike (CC-BY-SA). If the flickr user hasn't done so already, ask them to pick the best license for them and change the image. From there, a bot can easily upload the image to the Commons for you. If the flickr user did not specify a license in your correspondences, then you cannot upload the image on Wikipedia yet. We have to know how the flickr user intends to distribute the image. Neither you or I can make that decision as we are not the image creator (copyright holder). Finally, permission to use an image on Wikipedia is not good enough. The way wikipedia is licensed, we allow reuse, modification, and commercial use of our work, the all images need to be compatible with that mission (and if someone wants an image just on Wikipedia, but no where else, that is too bad because Wikipedia is licensed in a manner which already allows reuse). Yeah, I know it's a bit complicated, but it's part of being a free encyclopedia. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Champions eague final 2009.jpg

Resolved

 – Image deleted.  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this photograph allowable on Wikipedia? It appears to be a photograph of the television broadcast of the 2009 UEFA Champions League Final, which leads me to believe that it is probably subject to the copyrights of either UEFA or the network broadcasting the match. Any insight? – PeeJay 00:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It does indeed seem to be a photo of the television broadcast. In which case the author may not claim it as his "own work". decltype (talk) 04:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedied; copyvio. Stifle (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It's back so I have tagged it again for G12. – ukexpat (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

2 v 3

Having received emailed permission from the photographer, I just uploaded a photo from Flickr and forwarded the permission email to OTRS. The photographer stated, "I'd like attribution, if you'd work that out. But other than that feel free to use as you see fit"; accordingly, I tagged it with 2.0. After doing that, I discovered 3.0. What's the difference between the two? And if there is a difference, which one is more applicable to such a statement? Nyttend (talk) 02:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

{{Attribution}} is probably the best tag to use for such a statement. – Quadell ^(talk) 03:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure his email permits anyone to use it for anything? Or did it just say that Wikipedia can use it? The part you quote sounds like the latter, which is not acceptable. —teb728 t c 03:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I specified in my original email (just a few lines long, so she can't have missed it) that Wikipedia didn't accept anything that was only permitted for Wikipedia, and that anyone else had to be allowed to use it. Accordingly, I'm interpreting the email as "do anything that you want as long as you credit me". By the way, would someone please explain the difference between 2 and 3? Nyttend (talk) 04:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read, if you have a chance, what I wrote under "Correct Copyright tag", two topics up. If the uploader doesn't state "I release my work under the license xxx", it isn't best to assume they meant one license or another. For flickr users, it is always best (and easiest) for them to simply choose a license that flickr offers. Sending flickr mail to OTRS is hard to verify for the OTRS volunteers because flickrmail hides the users e-mail addresses. Furthermore, Commons has an automated flickrreview process which is more reliable and faster than OTRS. Why waste the time of OTRS volunteers when there is flickrreview?

To answer your question, the summary text of the two licenses is identical. The full text is different. See for yourself. And here are pages that explain the difference. -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I have no Flickr account, so I have no way to contact her that way. Instead, I observed (after Dtbohrer pointed it out to me) that in her profile she links to her blog, where her personal email address is posted, so I emailed that with my own personal email. And as far as flickrreview: this is only the second time that I've uploaded a picture from Flickr (the first time being just a few days ago; you can see in the recent archives a question that I asked here then), so I'm not familiar with how to get it to work. Nyttend (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

AC Alles

Further to my query, and to your response that I seek permission from the publishers to reproduce Mr Alles's photograph in Wikipedia, I may state that all his books were published by him, and hence I believe the said photograph was a private one. Otherwise he would have given credit to the said photograph. Your advise please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qnyafs (talk • contribs) 16:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Permission to use on Wikipedia is insufficient. The image must be released under a free license. Otherwise, it must be used under terms of fair use. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Chinese copyright

While deleting orphaned nonfree images, I came across File:Slaves whose eyes cut off under Dalai regime 1.jpg and File:Music instrument made by thighbones of young girls under Dalai Lama's regime re.jpg, which were tagged both as orphaned nonfree and as public domain! I was unfamiliar with the situation, so I changed the date on the orphaned-since-date template to today to give them a little more time before deletion. Could someone examine the copyright status of these images, and then (1) delete them or undo my postponement, or (2) clarify their PD status? Nyttend (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• File:Music instrument made by thighbones of young girls under Dalai Lama's regime re.jpg "Therefor it is clear that the copyright holders make the picture publically available" and "implies the copy right owner (Chines authority) grant the picture to be redistributed as as Non-free promotional in term of WikiPedia." This is really quite clear. An implication that something is free does not make it free. We have to have verifiable evidence the image is free for all purposes, including commercial. That is not present with this image. Therefore, it must be used under fair use here.
• File:Slaves whose eyes cut off under Dalai regime 1.jpg "Therefor it is clear that the copyright holders make the picture publically available" Same case as above. Making something publicly available doesn't make it free of copyright or available under a free license. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Free Software Logo?

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Can the logo for free software be used as free use, or as fair use? Like the logo for Google Chrome, which is free software. Would the logo be free use then?--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 19:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact that it's free software doesn't make the logo free. (Wikipedia's logo isn't free, for instance.) So {{Non-free logo}} would be best. – Quadell ^(talk) 3:59 pm, Today (UTC−4)

how to correctly document photos

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I have struggled with this page (I'm new at this) and thought I had it in good shape. I wasn't sure how to document the photos so asked for help in the Wiki Commons area. They told me the image of the book could be posted directly into the article without going through WIki Commons according to Fair Use policy. I did that. You can see my question and the answer there - it's # 2.23.

Then the author's picture they told me could be used IF the person owning the copyright would give their permission. I emailed the author and he told me the photographers name but that he totally owned the copyright to the photo and that he gave his permission to use it. So I used {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} as I was told to do.

The image files are these: File:Columbinebookcover.jpg and File:davecullen.jpg Columbine author Dave Cullen.

Now I've gotten messages in my talk area that both of these are wrong. (They also say a third file is wrong but I didn't upload a third one.) Any help or advice you can offer would be most welcome. I'm very frustrated.

Please reply to my talk area.

Thank you,

Wikiboss43 Wikiboss43 (talk) 01:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I repled on the user's talk page. —teb728 t c 03:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Disputed PD tags on Scanned Postcards

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

An editor recently scanned several postcards and placed the images in the Pittsfield, Massachusetts article - the majority are stated to be from the early 1900s, and so would seem to be in the public domain, but a few are from the 1950s and 60s, and I believe they might be copyvios. Could someone please take a look at them? Files in question include File:Downtown Pittsfield 1960s-1.JPG, File:The Maplewood 1930-1.JPG, File:North Street 1957-1.jpg, and File:Aerial Downtown Pittsfield looking East-1.jpg. The uploader, User:Aaronlife, tagged the postcards as {{PD-Pre1978}}, but I am not sure what his/her claim of "published without copyright" is based on if the publishing company and photographer are listed. Others such as File:New Pittsfield High.-1.JPG (and countless more on the Pittsfield page) don't have dates, so I'm not sure if {{PD-US}} is appropriate either. Thanks, Rai•me 01:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

If there is no © notice on the postcards anywhere, and the images on the postcards had not been previously published in a different place that had a © notice, (and if they were first published before 1978), then these postcards are in the public domain and are tagged correctly. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks - just wanted to check. Cheers, Rai•me 02:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding AICAR Business School Logo

I have a permission to upload AICAR Business school logo but some delete it. Please suggest what should I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pankajku2020 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Send the permission in to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, quoting the exact file name. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Please help with image upload

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. This is my first article, and I'm quite confused about how to upload a file image. I am writing a brief biography for the band, Koinonia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koinonia_(band)

They have given me permission to use one of their album covers for the photo, but I can't seem to get it to work.

Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MTStern (talk • contribs) 10:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I've chatted to the user via Talk pages. Helpers: fancy reviewing - or adding to - the advice I've given the user? Trafford09 (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Contradictory Copyright Message

I'm creating an article about a WWI Canadian soldier, and a picture of his headstone that I would like to use is on Veteran Affairs Canada.
Information on this site has been posted with the intent that it be readily available for personal and public non-commercial use and may be reproduced, in part or in whole and by any means, without charge or further permission from Veterans Affairs Canada.

Would that allow me to use the image? Please respond on my talk. MacMed^talk_stalk 16:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I explained on the user's talk page that a non-free photo of a headstone would be replaceable. —teb728 t c 23:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Please remove

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, i found a case of exessive "Flickrwashing". Thats uploading images to Flickr first under a cc-by or cc-by-sa license and then to Wikipedia or Commons. All images from this flickr account are unfree. I deleted all duplicates on Commons. Evidence is, that the same images where uploaded to Commons by various, now blocked users:

• commons:User:Lawless fan (User:Lawless fan)
• commons:User:XeniteBrazil (User:XeniteBrazil)
• commons:User:Lawless Lucy (User:Lawless Lucy)
• commons:User:Nightwish Fan (User:Nightwish Fan)
• commons:User:Rodrigo230394 (User:Rodrigo230394)

The relevant user on Wikipedia is User:LL290368. --Martin H. (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You should list the flickr username(s) at Commons:COM:QFI. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thats already done (now). Dealed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, so done here. --Martin H. (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Website

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to add additional pictures to my article Auburn Tigers swimming and diving.

Are the pictures on this page acceptable here: http://auburntigers.cstv.com/facilities/aub-facilities-swim.html
and the picture with George W. Bush in this one? http://auburn.scout.com/2/515418.html

AUburnTiger (talk) 05:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

No. Those are copyrighted photos, and do not appear to meet the non-free content criteria. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Edgelogos.png

image:EDGElogos.png is used to illustrate the EDGE Games article, yet the images used there are the masthead logo for Edge (magazine). Neither Edge Games nor Future Publishing would approve, I'm sure. I just wanted a concensus before nixing them. Sockatume (talk) 12:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The logo for the company is different comprising the word EDGE over the word GAMES, not this one. It must be removed because any rationale fails the WP:NFCC criteria. The proper logo could be used with an appropriate fair use rationale AND the {{Non-free logo}} template. ww2censor (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take it down and reference this discussion temporarily. How can I permanently reference this discussion when it's archived? 82.41.72.10 (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

After it has been archived it will likely appear in Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2009/May or maybe the June 2008 archive and you can then link directly to it there. This happens 7 days after it was last added to. ww2censor (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

State Government images in Public Domain

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

In Oregon, State Government agencies may release images into Public Domain. For example, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife images are Public Domain per ODFW web-site. What tag do I use when uploading one of these images? There are lots of tags for Federal Government images which are all Public Domain, but I can't find any tag that covers State Goverment images that are in Public Domain.--Orygun (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You could use {{PD-because|works of Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife employees, taken during the course of the person's official duties belong to the Public Domain per

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/news/photo_gallery/photo_gallery_wa.asp}}. —teb728 t c 04:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Most helpful--thanks!--Orygun (talk) 23:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

What licence to ask for / insist on for illustrating articles

Hi,

There seems to be a massive amount of material on this subject, but I cannot find simple answers. Companies and organisations often have lots of images for publicity and education, but then tag them "copyright, all rights reserved". One example is this: "Copyright can be granted to allow for reproduction as non-commercial or educational resources. Just ask, and we’ll send written approval" What should I ask for? I read that "for wikipedia" is not OK.

1) What is the most restrictive licence (excluding fair use) that someone can put on an image for wikipedia to freely use to illustrate an article? Are "no commercial use" or "no derivitive works" compatible? Companies seem to fear commercial and derivative use. Am I right that "derivative use" mean creating new images from the original, or by modifying the original, by cropping, or by adding things.

2) What is the preferred licencing for images for wikipedia?

--Agesworth 02:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agesworth (talk • contribs)

Creative commons licenses like {{cc-by-3.0}} and {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} are the best licenses for images. The latter has the most restrictive conditions: attribution required, and derivatives must be compatibly licensed. Restrictions such as non-commercial, educational only, or no derivatives are not acceptable. You are right about the meaning of derivatives. —teb728 t c 03:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Questionable image

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

My questions relate to the following image about sea creatures: File:Seamonstersanimals.jpg

It seems to me that the copyright is questionable on this image. The licensing is displayed on its page, but the original source claimed on the page does not actually contain the image at all. I'm not quite sure what to do as it's a really good image, and would be a shame to flag it for deletion.

I am also wondering about the content of the image (I wasn't sure where to discuss this, the talk page seemed to redirect me to here) as it seems out of scale. The largest creature (Leedsychthys) according to its own article is 9-10m long (max of 16m) but the Megalodon (shown as much smaller in the same picture) has an article describing it as around 18m long - making this very out of scale (or the articles wrong.) The original author has since left Wikipedia however, so it will probably be difficult if not impossible to contact them.

As a Newbie here, I will leave it to more experienced users to decide what to do about all of this and hope I haven't broken too many rules trying to help!

Abridge (talk) 02:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, it has not use rationale for any article. I have tagged it for that. —teb728 t c 03:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Can someone do for me?

I do not have yet the tag for this image - File:Ship 2.jpg. It should be the tag for "requiring attribution." (I have the written permission from on duty naval photographer to use this navy released photo for Wikipedia). I have tried a number of times without success. Can someone do for me?Bert Schlossberg (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately a Wikipedia only permission is not good enough for us to use. We need a free license which includes possible commercial use and that is not what you have said is the permission you received. We need to get the photographer to directly provide us with a suitable license by following the instructions at WP:PERMISSION. ww2censor (talk) 04:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused...why isn't the currently-used {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}} correct? I thought all works by Naval employees were Public Domain. -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 17:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

That applies to the U.S Navy employees. If I understand correctly this photographer was with the Russian Navy. —teb728 t c 18:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I thought the photo was taken by the US Navy. The photo caption doesn't explicitly say, but "Logan Cleek" doesn't sound Russian to me (the stupid american :-D)-RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 18:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers = CC-BY or PD??

In an unrelated search, I stumbled upon the USACE flickr pool and I noticed that all the images are licensed under a CC-BY license. I had assumed that since the USACE is a US Government Agency, the images would be automatic PD. Clarification on what I just found?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Now i've somehow stumbled onto The National Guard's page as well. CC-BY licenses all around.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Answering only about the National Guard, the National Guards are state militias, not part of the US national government. —teb728 t c 00:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless federalized, right? As when serving overseas? Would that change the status? Reading from the opening paragraph at National Guard of the United States. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 16:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Good Point. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

USACE is part of the Federal government, so I don't see how CC-BY applies. I would think automatic PD, also. I would contact the photo originators. Maybe it was an unintended differentiation. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 16:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Tried it before on flickr, many image users don't reply back for some reason. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong photograph used for a Sitatunga

The photograph that has been used to discribe a Sitaunga is wrong. That photo is of a female Bushbuck.Please check it and change it. Iam a Nature photographer, I could send you the right photo, only that I have not learn how to go about it. Blas Byekwaso. Uganda.196.0.9.69 (talk) 10:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you be more specific which of the three images in Sitatunga you are referring to? ww2censor (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright in UK sound files

I remember reading somewhere that sound files in the UK fall into the Public Domain 50 years after the date of first release.

1. Is this true?
2. If so, does Wikipedia (or, even better, Commons) allow the uploading of files under this law?
3. If so, what template should I use?

Thank you for your time. Dendodge _T\^C 18:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, not exactly. You're probably thinking of Crown Copyrighted sound files, which fall into the Public Domain 50 years after they were created. So for anything made by the British Government, yes, you can upload them here or on Commons; just use {{PD-UKGov}}. For private recordings, it's more complex, but copyright usually lasts 70 years p.m.a. just like written works. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Virtually no foreign sound recordings published from 1923 onward are in the public domain in the U.S. — Walloon (talk) 05:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Even ones before 1923 are dodgy, since the state laws are still applicable, and some of those state laws were poorly written enough to potentially include anything ever mechanically recorded. And the URAA doesn't apply to these; it's a mess. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

CC-BY/SA images of copyrighted 3D art?

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I want to use some CC-BY and CC-BY-SA images from flickr, but the objects in the images are of copyrighted 3D art (dolls), and as such would be used in the article under fair use. I'm not sure how to tag these images correctly on wikipedia. Do I use the CC template and then also add the 3D art and non-free media rationale templates on the image page? Thank you. Siawase (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a very complex and grey area. If the dolls are unquestionably copyrighted works, then you would want to tag them with both cc-by (for the photo) and 3D art (for the underlying object). But be sure the dolls are copyrighted. If they were created before 1989, and they don't have a © sign on them somewhere, it's likely the doll design isn't copyrighted at all. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reply! Indeed, I've been trying to wrap my head around how to deal with this properly for a while now. I guess I'll go with the dual license tags then. The specific types of dolls I had in mind are definitely copyrighted as they are contemporary identifiable brands (like Pullip and Super Dollfie.) But do you have a link/more information on the 1989 cut-off date? I've also been trying to figure out what would be the free-est possible way to illustrate more general toy and doll articles, and that might be a good option. Siawase (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Anything "published" (reproduced or sold publicly) in the U.S. before 1976 is in the public domain if it was first published without a © notice. (Look close; the notice may be on a tag or hidden under Barbie's hair or something.) The same is true for anything published before March 1, 1989, but there's a catch; those can still be copyrighted if their copyright was registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. This can be determined by searching the U.S. Copyright Office Online Search though. A source is here. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again, that helps a lot! Siawase (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Grey's Anatomy

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Is Grey's loving little book under public domain? Renaissancee (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you can tag its images with {{Gray's Anatomy plate|caption}}. —teb728 t c 00:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Did I correctly tag my photo for copyright description?

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sledje_in_February_2009_with_Hellstrum.jpg

Photo was taken by me and is not licensed or protected in anyway. I hope to have corrected the error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommiebish (talk • contribs) 22:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it with this edit. —teb728 t c 00:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sands_Bethlehem (ore bridge signage for the Sands Casino Resort Bethlehem)

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm raising a possible concern with File:Sands_Bethlehem.jpg . I suspect that this is an artist's conception, and that the publication rights to this particular graphic likely belongs to the Sands Casino Resort Bethlehem (or a related intellectual property holding firm). While there are several details that lead me to this conclusion, the most straight-forward point is that the depiction of the ore bridge lacks the level of detail of the actual structure, as shown in several pictures that I took for a recent post in my personal blog on the same topic. In fact, there's one (attributed) graphic on my page which appears to be from the exact same artist's conception series (created around February 2009) as the graphic in question.

I'm a brand new user here; this is literally my first contribution. Apologies in advance if I've done something wrong.

David Beroff (talk) 06:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Your right, it's a copyright violation. I found where it was swiped from. Someone has deleted the image. Thanks for bringing this to our attention! – Quadell ^(talk) 15:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

General Electric logo

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The General Electric logo is used currently as fair use in Wikipedia, but isn't the logo in the public domain, because it was published before 1923? Here is an pamphlet published in 1915, where the current logo is used as black-and-white. --Joku Janne (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Trademark rights are different from copyrights so it's still protected. WP:LOGO got some more info. Siawase (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so I can upload it to Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia Commons allows trademarked logos which are in the public domain. --Joku Janne (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

If the design of the trademark is public domain due to old age or for any other reason (see Coca Cola trademark, File:Coca-Cola logo.svg), it is ok to upload on Wikipedia, but in addition to the proper license tag you must add the {{Trademark}} tag. Trademar restrictions are independent of the copyright status. Sv1xv (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Larimer avenue bridge

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a question about this photoFile:Larimer_avenue_bridge.jpg. It's from an article I wrote. It was originally a painting by John Kane. I took the photo from the magazine article I wrote. I know the quality isn't good. Is it protected by copyright?? Jmz1902 (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the painting is protected by copyright. --Joku Janne (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Why? John Kane died in 1934. Was this painting published after his death? Sv1xv (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it wasn't published after his death. I guess I can't use it??? Thanks.Jmz1902 (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Since there's no evidence that the painting was published prior to 2003, I believe the copyright expired 70 years after the artist's death, which would have been at the end of 2004. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

National Research Council

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I stumbled upon a website with some great information on the Worcester tornado, and article I've been looking to improve. My question is this: are works by the National Research Council in Public Domain? The website I found uses a lot of pictures from this online report by the National Research Council, claiming the pictures are "not in copyright". Would uploading these to Wikipedia under {{PD-USGov}} be okay then? -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 17:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The National Research Council is part of the National Academies, a private, nonprofit institution. — Walloon (talk) 04:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Like the Smithsonian, the UPSP, and the Federal Reserve, these are federally-chartered but not federally-owned, and they can hold copyright on their works. :( – Quadell ^(talk) 17:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

File:MattJacobson.jpg

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The Uploader uploaded this image with the claim that the copyright holder has released it into the public domain. When I asked the uploader if he was the photographer, and therefore the person who has the right to release the image, he replied back to me the copyright belongs to Matt Jacobson, but as I noted in the file, he has released permission for it to be used on the wikipedia article (and basically anywhere else also).. When I asked him where this release was made, he replied, As it clearly states at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MattJacobson.jpg - the licensing section of image says: This work has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder. This applies worldwide.. Yes, that's what User:FreeRight claimed when he uploaded the image, but where is the proof that the original copyright holder actually made that release? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have tagged the image with a Template:di-no permission which requests the uploader to provide evidence of release through the OTRS system. MilborneOne (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Book cover

It seems to me that the use of File:'Around the World Submerged by Edward L Beach.jpg in a gallery in USS Triton (SSRN-586) is contrary to both WP:NFC#Images #1 and the {{Non-free book cover}} template on the file's page which states: "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question" which it is not doing. How should the file be tagged? ww2censor (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've removed the copyrighted bookcovers. Clear violation. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The uploading editor Marcd30319 has reinstated this book image, so I have nominated it for deletion. The same editor seems to have some other non-free images uploaded that are suspect or possibly being used improperly. ww2censor (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I've looked thru his other uploads, and the vast majority are either legitimately PD or are used correctly under our non-free content policy. Thankfully this isn't a case of a major recurring problem. (We have enough of those.) – Quadell ^(talk) 13:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Picture taken between 1910 and 1914 but date of first publication unclear

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a picture of Hastings Ismay as adjutant of his regiment, a position he held from 1910 to 1914 in Ronald Wingate's book Lord Ismay (first published in the UK in 1970). There is no indication that this picture was ever published before Wingate's book in 1970, but it may well have been. The book also does not make the origin of the picture or the original copyright holder clear (it was quite likely from Wingate's personal collection). So, is this picture in the public domain as it was taken prior to 1923 or is it most likely still under copyright? Thanks. Cool3 (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It's most likely in the public domain. If it was published before Wingate's book came out, the photo would almost certainly be PD, since the copyrights for individual photos were almost never renewed. If it was first published in Wingate's book, then it would have been published anonymously, and copyright would expire 95 years from creation (end of 2005 to end of 2009). The only way it could be copyrighted would be if Wingate's book was itself a copyright violation -- if Wingate didn't have the photographer's estate's permission to publish then the work would be an "unpublished work" still, and copyright would expire 70 years from the death of the creator (the photographer), or 120 from creation if the photographer cannot be determined. But that's unlikely. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I find it highly unlikely that Wingate's book, this book for reference, published by a major company (Hutchinson (publisher)) included copyright violations, so if I understand correctly we just have to wait until 95 years after it was created? The last possible date of creation would have been late July 1914, so I guess I'll wait until the first of August and upload then just to be safe. When I do upload, though, what would the proper template be? Cool3 (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

{{PD-US}} is fine. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Im not sure what the copyright problem is with this image?

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I have uploaded an image of Kevin R Stone twice now, having modified the copyright tags appropriately after the first time the image was deleted. It has now been deleted a second time, and Im not sure what exactly is missing or is necessary in order to keep this image up. It is simply a photo of said person, and I own the rights to this photo. What is needed at this point specifically? I would appreciate some clearly outlined direction here.

Below I have copied both messages received after uploading the image:

File copyright problem with File:Kevin R Stone MD.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Kevin R Stone MD.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Radiant chains (talk) 08:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:KevinStoneMD.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:KevinStoneMD.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

--Nicolejc (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

How did you come to own the rights to File:Kevin R Stone MD.jpg? And which free license did you grant to allow Wikipedia (and everyone else) to use it? —teb728 t c 21:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I own the rights to this photograph, as I hired someone to take it. It is not copy written, but in personal possession. I was trying to grant a free public domain license, for use. I'm not sure if these are compatible. To simply restate what a user above has said: there seems to be a lot of information on this, but no simple answers. Guidance appreciated. --Nicolejc (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason why the answers are not simple is that the situation is not simple. In particular, the photograph was copyrighted simply by being made. Ordinarily a commercial photographer holds the copyright on his work and sells only prints to his clients. It is possible that your photographer was doing work for hire, in which case he transferred the copyright to you. If that is the case, you can release the photograph into the public domain by putting a {{PD-self}} tag on the image description page and indicating that the source was work for hire. —teb728 t c 00:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

PD-self for website image?

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

File:5D Rubik's Cube.png was tagged for missing a copyright template, and today an IP user added {{PD-self}} to it. However, the image is clearly identified as being obtained from [6], and at the bottom of that website is a clear statement of copyright. It's unclear whether this image is really being used in conformance with the real author(s)'s wishes, since it looks like the uploader had merely assumed that it was public domain. It looks like perhaps a fair-use template is more appropriate. Or am I missing something here?—Tetracube (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right, this is a copyright violation, and I've tagged it as such. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Of Pandas and People 1987 manuscript copy.png

Is it acceptable to create an image that compares two brief quotations of copyrighted text, for the purpose of critical commentary on this text? I've been told that this would be acceptable if I did this as part of an article's text, but not in a self-made image. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It honestly seems to be poking fun at the publisher for being careless, rather than showing anything significant. --NE2 23:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

That this is referenced in a secondary source gives it enough basic significance for me. Whether the quotation is in a box at the side or in quotatation marks or block text while more incorporated in the article text should have no relevance on the copyright. Editable wikitext is just as copyrightable (and equally subject to fair use) as text trancluded as a png file.--BirgitteSB 00:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with copyright, but there's no reason at all to turn this into an image. Just quote the text and leave it at that. Making an image of it makes the flow of text around it problematic, makes it huge on the page way out of proportion to its usefulness at that size, interferes with text to voice software for the blind and so forth. That's just a really bad idea. DreamGuy (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Interpritation of Website Copyright Notice

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged File:TO-Team-Manager.jpg as having no evidence of permission (the press release noted in the boilerplate has no copyright info or guidelines on whether or not the image can be used a/or modified). However, upon further digging on the website, I found this page and the copyright notice is confusing me. Second opinion/Interpretation please?? --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 11:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

British Crown copyright, which lasts for 50 years from date of publication, covers this image, so it is not in the public domain. Press released photos are not public domain photos unless specifically so noted. This image should be fairly easily replaced by a freely licenced image, so it will be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Ww2censor is correct as usual. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Relicensing an image

I just came across File:Winstead Hill Franklin TN.jpg, which is tagged with {{PD}}. It was uploaded more than three years before the template was deprecated, so no problems. However, would it be right to retag it with PD-self? The photographer is given as being a "J. Williams", and the uploader was JW1805. I would ask JW1805, but s/he hasn't edited since January. Nyttend (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say that's safe. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

And I suggest adding a brief note about this change at his talk page (User_talk:JW1805). Sv1xv (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Rochester, NY

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a message "This file is a candidate for speedy deletion. It may be deleted after seven days from the date of nomination." on a picture I have loaded file:Rochester NY.jpg, in a thread image stitching why, and what should i do to fix it?

Thanks Noso1 (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I see you added {{attribution}}. So long as you created the image entirely by yourself, there are no problems, and the image won't be deleted. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 14:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Permission Given But...

Hey there. I have just gained permission for the use of a photo on an article of a band from the band itself, as long as I credit it to the photographer. Problem is I don't know how to go about explaining the copyright details within the photo's discussion page. Any help will be greatly appreciated. mÆniac ^Ask! 19:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

See WP:COPYREQ for how to handle permission. Besure the copyright owner understands that we require permission not only for use on Wikipedia, but for use by anyone for anything. —teb728 t c 00:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, but I still don't understand. I never was good at any of this copyight stuff. mÆniac ^Ask! 21:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, you have read COPYREQ, and contected the copyright owner about granting a specific free license, right? So which specific free license did the copyright owner grant. The answer to your question of what to put on the image description page depends on which license. —teb728 t c 22:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Adaptation from a scientific article together with the citation

I have modified and simplified some figures from scientific articles. Can I upload them with the citation and source or do i need permission from the authors?--Cmsnmz (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Generally your drawings are derivative works and you may released them under a free license only with a permission from the authors of the originals. However, in some particular cases the originals may be ineligible for copyright protection for various reasons. Sv1xv (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

card images

Two images File:Small-Red-Card.png and File:Small-Yellow-Card.png have been marked for deletion by a bot but the license is valid. Please help. Original version is from french wikipedia http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Petit_carton_rouge.png and http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Petit_carton_jaune.png

I added a blank template {{Information}} for each file. Would you please fill in the missing information (author, source, date of creation) ? Sv1xv (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I filled in the info from French Wikipedia. —teb728 t c 00:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

WWII Souvenir Map without copyright notice

I just wanted to verify I can post a map I have scanned. It is a WWII soldier souvenir map from the 71st Infantry Division. It was my grandfathers but it is not the original, it is a printing. Given the large size of roughly 3' x 4' it is likely that many were printed.

There isn't a copyright declaration that I can see on it but the names of the artists are listed; it simply says "Drawn by Emil Albrecht, Roland Wille" in the bottom corner. I am relatively certain from the family history of the item that is was printed around the time of the war. If I interpret the information you link to at Cornell University correctly the lack of copyright notice puts it in the public domain. Is just wanted to make sure I interpret this correctly before I post it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cygnus X1 Book 2 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's right: anything first published in the U.S. (or U.S. controlled territory in a war) before 1978 that does not have an explicit © notice is in the public domain. Also, anything a U.S. soldier creates as part of his duties is public domain. – Quadell ^(talk) 04:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

File:The Journal of Arthur Stirling.jpg

I have re-uploaded File:Untitled-2.png, a cover of Upton Sinclair's The Journal of Arthur Stirling, as File:The Journal of Arthur Stirling.jpg; due to the publication date (visible on the cover) the image is in public domain in the United States. Now a bot has marked the image for deletion because of missing source/author information - could you assist me to provide the information (or otherwise help to prevent its deletion)? - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I fixed all problems in the description File:The Journal of Arthur Stirling.jpg as far as I could. Please review them, make whatever corrections are needed and remove the bot tag. Sv1xv (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, while Upton Sinclair is the author of the book, the copyright of the book cover was probably held by the Heinemann publishing house. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Folk Gallery

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Here we have Georgian Folk photos, I dont know who, when and where they were taken. But I want to add these remarkable images at our encyclopedia. Please help if you can... or recommend smt. nikos (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC).

Unfortunately we don't know when the photos were first published, or in what country, or who the photographer was. Without that information we can't determine the photos' copyright statuses, so we can't use them on Wikipedia. Sorry. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

And what will be the (tag) of this Image? nikos (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC).

For that one, we know it was taken in 1929 by a photographer who died in 1994. It will be copyrighted until 2064. Again, we can't use it here. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. But what about this ? taken by Vittorio Sella (1859–1943)nikos (talk)

Since that photo was created in 1889, it would be PD in the U.S. no matter when or where it was first published. You can tag it {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

peterbaillie question

I have images to upload which are photographs of original paintings. I have permission from the artist, gallery and the gallery photographer who photographed the paintings. Which tag do I use? In uploading these images, do I in any way diminnish (or appear to diminish) the rights of either the artist or the photographer in relation to others' possible use of the images? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.42.183 (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

See WP:COPYREQ for how to handle permission. It tells what permission is needed and where to send the permission confirmation. The tag you use is the tag corresponding to the specific license that th artist grants. As for your last question, we cannot give legal advice. But be sure the artist understands that that he needs to license the photo not just for use on Wikipedia but for reuse by anyone anywhere for anything. —teb728 t c 22:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

File:DKT_International_logo.png

Is Template:PD-textlogo appropriate for this logo? Just wanted to double-check. I can provide a FUR if necessary. Klubbit (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe so, although it gets close to the threshold of creativity. Sv1xv (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Jeremiah Ani

Please we do want to know more about Jeremiah Ani a Nigerian footballer we heared he is a new sensation packed with talents in the game,so please tells more about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingpenny (talk • contribs) 07:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 2.8 million articles, and thought that we were directly affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the online free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is a help desk for asking questions related to using the encyclopedia. Thus, we have no inside track on the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the left hand side of your screen. If that is not fruitful, we have a reference desk, divided into various subjects areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. Stifle (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

How to tag a Photo

How do you tag a photo to stop it being removed? Unsure how to use wikiapedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.77.159 (talk) 09:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Which image is it? Stifle (talk) 16:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Presumably you are talking about File:JoshCrutchley.jpg? This image has no image copyright/licensing tag at all. See WP:TAG. Since this image is from myspace, it is plausibly not OK to use this image because there is no evidence this image was released under a compatible free license. If you are the creator of this image or own the copyright to this image, you can do two things. 1) you can log into your myspace account and add a note to the image stating what free license you are releasing the image under (i.e. releasing it into the public domain, or CC-BY-SA or GFDL or whatever you choose). or 2) you can send an e-mail with a declaration into the OTRS system, see WP:CONSENT. As of right now, there is nothing you can reasonably tag the image with that would prevent it from being deleted, because you uploaded an already published image from the web with no evidence it was released under a free license. If you own the copyright to this image, you are free to choose whatever license you want, and once that is verified, the image can be tagged according to the license you chose. Hope this makes sense, it can be a bit confusing. Good luck.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sadashivgad Fort & Kali Bridge as seen from Nandangadda Village.jpg

How to add/change copyright information for images. The Wikipedia user interface doesnt show any option to update Image info/ This picture is taken from my camera. Kindly suggest ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivo78 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

On the top of the image page, you will see the "edit" button. Click this to access the contents of the image page, such as the description and licensing information. Unfortunately, the drop down menus from the upload page will be gone and you will be editing the raw code, but fortunately, the wikicode is pretty intuitive and not hard to get a grasp of. WP:TAG has more information on licensing tags, and WP:ICTIC may be helpful for your situation. Good luck.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair use question

Alright, so I found this photograph of damage from the 1941 Florida hurricane, and I'm wondering if I could justify a fair use rationale. IMO it satisfies all of the WP:NFCC criterion, but I'd like to hear what the regulars have to say. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that 1941 Florida hurricane does not have any photos of the damage. If it is not possible to find some PD photographs (government or military), I believe you may use it, and add a text comment about it. Sv1xv (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, after extensive searching (with help from Dank (talk · contribs) and Cool3 (talk · contribs)), I've been unable to find any free-use damage pictures. Thanks for the help. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

CC Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic

I've found several images that I'd like to use which have this licence, and which seems to be approved for use by WP. However on the image upload pages, this licence is not one of the options in the dropdown licence box, and if you don't select one of the drop down options you get a warning that the image is likely to be deleted. So how do I correctly upload such images (indeed can I)? Is it the same as CC Attribution-Share Alike 3.0? Thanks Danno uk (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You probably want {{cc-by-sa-2.0}}, but I have no idea if the "generic" is something special (which would be oxymoronic, but who knows). --NE2 21:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've been to that page, copied the code and don't know how to apply it. Do I paste it into the summary box and then select "unspecified" or similar in the dropdown box on the upload page and ignore the "this may be deleted" warning? Or do I select 3.0 from the dropdown box and hope for the best? Danno uk (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably the easiest way to handle it is to select CC Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 from the dropdown on the upload and then after uploading edit the file description page, changing the 3.0 to 2.0. —teb728 t c 00:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

a simple and elegant solution. Thanks. Danno uk (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Acceptable Fair Use?

The Palm Pre is a newly-released mobile phone. Prior to its release, the article for this device was illustrated using this image. This was understandable, as the device was not yet released to public. However, this has now changed since it was released on June 6th. The fair-use for this image seems to be invalid now, because the phone could easily be replaceable with a free image now. It is still in use in the article. Should this image be deleted? Brianreading (talk) 04:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, it is no longer acceptable (if it ever was). I have tagged it as non-free and replaceable. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Good to know. Thank you. Brianreading (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Images - Queensland State Archives

Hi,

The files File:Queensland State Archives.jpg and File:Queensland State Archives Expansion.jpg were deleted from the Queensland State Archives wikipedia page on 6 May because I had failed to adequately include copyright information. I am now able to include this information, but wasn't sure how to go about it. Do I need to upload the files again or do I need to recreate the pages? Is there a way to reverse the deletion so that the Image pages are editable again? Your advice would be appreciated as to the most appropriate way to go about it.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhowardqsa (talk • contribs) 04:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It depends. Did you take these photos yourself? – Quadell ^(talk) 14:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Dubious images uploaded by now-inactive editor

International Committee of Military Medicine includes two images (File:JulesVoncken.jpg and File:Premiereassembleeinternationaleducimm.jpg) which both appear to have been lifted from the committee's website at http://www.cimm-icmm.org/page/anglais/summary.html (see under "historic") which has a copyright statement reserving all rights. They are claimed to be the copyright of the editor who created most of that article, and I've left him a note querying this, but he doesn't appear to have edited since the flurry of edits in Feb 2009 when he created the article. Much of the text in the article is marginal copyvio as very lightly edited from the website or the specific page at http://www.cimm-icmm.org/page/anglais/official_text/PracticalGuideforICMMsDelegate.pdf , so the editor may have a relaxed approach to copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PamD (talk • contribs)

Each of these images is PD in the U.S. if it was first published before 1923... or if it was first published in the U.S. (assuming U.S. copyright formalities weren't followed, which they never were for photos)... or if it was first published before 1939 and was copyrighted by an organization. But if the copyright was held by a person, and that person died in 1939 or later, and it was first published outside the U.S., then it's still under copyright. With the limited information given, we can't tell, for either of these. The images are on Commons, though, so they would have to be deleted there I've nominated them for deletion there. For the text, if you think it's too close a paraphrase, you should tag it with {{copyvio}}. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 23:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

license tag for an uploaded file

I recently uploaded a picture file for an article I`m currently editing. I received direct permission from the government office to copy and paste the image provided on their (Japanese) website to use for the English Wikipedia article regarding their town.

How should I label these kinds of images?? Shakai jin (talk) 08:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)