User talk:Carnildo

Archives: The beginning through April 22, 2005 April 22, 2005 to August 3, 2005 August 3, 2005 to November 4, 2005 November 5, 2005 to January 24, 2006

Regarding Image: Tardis_bbc

Updated Copyright to British Crown Copyright.

P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC 21:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:IrvLionIrv.gif

Regarding this image, the Royal Burgh classification seems to be obsolete. I have emailed North Ayrshire Council to ask them to clarify any issues they may have Douglasnicol 13:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Humanleaguecover.jpg

That one can be deleted; I've just realised I uploaded the picture twice, one was with the "this is an album/single cover" status, and one without any copyright information. The correct picture with description is on the page. PiffPuffPickle 19:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)PiffPuffPickle

Copyright images

• Carnildo,

I know that you need to check the copyright of the pictures posted here but please understand that LP covers are of public domain, everyone can show the cover of an LP that is available everywhere in the net and on record stores online etc.

• Carnildo,

Unfortunatly all I know of the images are included in the summery. While I am familiar with Wikipedia's copyright policy, I did place the Don't know template so that someone more qualified then myself would be able to determine its copyright status. The book, a 1999 reprint of Herbert Asbury's "The Gangs of New York", was published in 1926 with the majority of the images from various publications of the period including newpapers, magazines, and police and court records (principaly from the NYPD archives taken well before 1920). Although I would hazard a guess at the publisher, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., the book itself states no specific copyright on the images themselves. If no one is able determine its copyright status, the other images from the same source are at Benny Fein (Image:Fein.jpg) and Owney Madden (Image:OMadden.jpg). User:MadMax 12:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Map of Europe during World War I

Hi Carnildo.

My compliments on your map of Europe during World War I. It is a really good image. But, as you have noted yourself, the borders on the Balkans are incorrect and show the 1911 situation. Have you seen this map? It is a 1923 version of Shepherd's map, and shows the situation following the Second Balkan War, so it has the correct 1914 borders. Please ignore its headline, it only shows the correct situation between 1912 and 1914. The relevant changes are:

• Greece has been vastly expanded on the mainland and now shares a border with Serbia, Bulgaria, and Albania. Greece has also acquired Crete and almost all of the Aegean Islands.
• Italy has acquired the Dodecanese islands (i.e. Rhodes and a few minor islands) from Turkey.
• Serbia and Montenegro have both expanded and now share a common border.
• Bulgaria has been expanded slightly (to the south west east) and has acquired access to the Aegean Sea.
• Albania has become independent. Albania was officially neutral in World War I.
• Romania has acquired a small strip of territory from north eastern Bulgaria.

Otherwise it is a very good map. Keep up the good work. Regards. --Valentinian 15:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that Cyprus was annexed by the UK as soon as war broke out. Since it had been under de facto British control since 1878, it is always shown as an Allied territory. Regards --Valentinian 15:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot

Hello Mark. I'd like to let you know that hiding unsourced images which are pending to be removed (e.g. [1]) doesn't help. Ordinary readers who're not editing the articles never know there're such images in the articles, and they've no way to help look for copyright information in order to put on the tags onto the image description pages. I've created {{speedy-image-c}} for your bot to apply to the captions. IMHO, it's gonna be a much better way than hiding the images. Thanks. — Instantnood 17:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Vikingshipkils.jpg

Hi. Thought I would let you know that OrphanBot removed an image that was relased by its artist under GFDL licence [here.] It appears the that artist, Kils, did not properly tag it in the first place, so OrphanBot was confused as a result.

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 07:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop now

Your robot are removing many of the images by one of Wikipedias best and most recognized photographers, Uwe Kils. Kils has clearly marked the images as gfdl self, although he does not use the tag. Please restore all of his images immediately! -- Egil 07:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't deleted a single image. OrphanBot removed exactly one of Uwe Kils' images from a few articles. --Carnildo 07:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Your robot (hopefully) acts by the exact instructions you gave it, it does not have a will of its own, it is doing what you want. You cannot blame your robot. -- Egil 07:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and the exact instructions were to "orphan all images in Category:Images with unknown copyright status and all subcategories that have been tagged for more than five days, or if tagged without a date, were uploaded more than five days ago. For all images, notify the uploader if there is no evidence of a notification already, and OrphanBot has not notified them about an image recently. For all images acted upon, save a local copy of the image in case deleting the image turns out to have been a mistake." OrphanBot is performing exactly as specified. If you feel that blame is needed, blame User:Admrboltz, who tagged the image as "no license". --Carnildo 08:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for getting ya dragged into this Carnido! I didnt notice that GFDL-self was in the upload summary, but not in the actual image page when i tagged it. Keep up the good work, and dont let OrphanBot die! --Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 06:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot and image reverts

Carnildo, OrphanBot notified me about Image:Riots.jpg, but I just reverted the image. Can you make the logic of finding the uploader handle this? Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll work on it. It's a bit tricky, as I'll need to tell a revert from a re-upload, while not picking a vandalized image to notify on. --Carnildo 05:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm seconding this request, see Image:Paudsrr.jpg -- Norvy (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment

You seem to have a better understanding of fair-use than I do (or at least you do a good job looking like you do, heh). So I thought I'd run this hypothetical by you and get your comment:

Bob wants to add an image of a character from a videogame to an article. Bob finds the image on a website (let's say it's one of those tripod.com user sites). Bob takes the image and uploads it to Wikipedia. The website has a copyright notice on it (though the absence of one doesn't change the permission issue, this much I know).

Is the image Bob uploaded usable on Wikipedia under fair-use? If not, what's the best way to take care of such images? The images would be fair-use if Bob created the images himself (at least, this is my understanding of how things work now), but the fact that Bob got the images from a third party (which asserts copyright on the page) muddies the issue a bit (to me anyways). Still fair-use; usable on Wikipedia?

Thanks for your time. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

Assuming this is a cropped screenshot and not promotional artwork, the situation is complicated. The maker of the video game certainly has a share in the copyright, as the creator of the game artwork. The person who created the screenshot may also have a copyright, for any creative effort involved in posing the scene for the screenshot. And if there are any mods applied to the game, the mod maker could also have a copyright claim.

Bottom line, it would be a whole lot simpler if the screenshot were created specifically for Wikipedia. --Carnildo 05:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. And FWIW, the images in question are from Tekken and are cropped/transparent character shots. It sounds like, from the above, that simply taking these from a website would be inadvisable. Thanks again. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 06:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Reply

I do not have that image uploaded on my page anymore. Thet was ages ago I did that. If I'm mistaken, please correct me.--Calvinsupergenius 16:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC) your bot messaged me

--Calvinsupergenius 16:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)==Call off your bot!==

your bot gave me a message about putting a picture on my page that I deleted a month ago, and Gadfium told me that it was going to delete my page if I didn't do something soon. Yor bot is malfuntioning!--Calvinsupergenius 19:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot does not delete images or pages. The warning was that an administrator is likely to delete the image soon if adequate source and copyright information is not provided. --Carnildo 05:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't have that image to be deleted.--Calvinsupergenius 19:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

What is your bot going to do to my page?

Nothing.

Orphan Bot: Pictures

I won't get in trouble for posting a picture without knowing the copyright status, will I? They won't kick me off Wikipedia for it, Will they?

Bkissin 20:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Not if it's only a few pictures, and not if it's clearly a mistake. There have been people who've been banned for it, but they've uploaded hundreds of pictures, or have continued to upload problem images despite repeated warnings, or are uploading pictures for their personal use rather than for adding to the encyclopedia. You don't have anything to worry about. --Carnildo 21:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

To Orphan Bot from MBeychok

You left a message on my user talk to the effect that I had uploaded an image FlueGas2.gif without indicating the copyright. I very clearly stated that I had made that image myself using the Paint program supplied with WindowsXP. I have never copyrighted it and that is why I left the copyright information blank. As far as I am concerned, anyone may use it for any purpose they desire. Am I legally the copyright holder by default? If so, feel free to add that information to the image or wherever it should be so noted.

Thanks and please let me know what I should do about some other images that I uploaded which were all similarly made by myself and which I have never copyrighted ... all of which anyone is free to use as they desire. I am very new to Wiki, so please explain what I have to do (if anything) and how to do it in very detailed, simple terms. mbeychok 06:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

If you created the image, you're the copyright holder. If you don't care what people do with the image, I'd recommend a license of "No rights reserved". The option for that is near the top of the dropdown menu on the upload page, and for images that have already been uploaded, you can indicate it by placing the {{NoRightsReserved}} tag on the page. Make sure you remove any "no license" or "unknown license" tags from the page when you do so. You can see a list of images you've uploaded at [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&offset=0&limit=50&target=Mbeychok&namespace=6], and an example of the proper tagging is at Image:FlueGas2.gif. --Carnildo 07:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Speedy deletion is acted upon on 7 days. Adding that tag at image pages uploaded by students during holidays will most likely get the image deleted before they come back and finds the note. Please do NOT mark images for speedy deletion unless you check the user page!

Thank you.

— John Erling Blad (no) 08:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot does not mark images for deletion. All it does is remove them from any articles they're in, and notify the uploader. --Carnildo 04:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Choi Ji Woo image

No, my viewpoint of the image that you questioned of the copyright status has changed. I would be happy to have it deleted, rather. Mr Tan 13:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Tiger-II-La_Gleize.jpg

Hi Carnildo. I've just been left a message from your Bot on my UserPage about this image. It's not one of mine, I just lightened and adjusted it a little. The picture was uploaded by user User talk:Poldiri who doesn't appear to have used his/her Talk Page since 2004. Judging from the file metadata I would assume that they took the picture themselves, but I can't be sure. Regards, Ian Dunster 13:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You were notified because you were the most recent uploader listed for the image. OrphanBot can't tell the difference between image tweaking and a brand-new image, and currently can't tell the difference between a revert and a new image, so it just picks the most recent uploader and notifies them.

I've tagged the image as GFDL-presumed, since the metadata is consistent with the other two images User:Poldiri uploaded, which are explicitly stated as GFDL-self. --Carnildo 05:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Message Left By Orphan

The original message left on my user talk page by Orphan about the image that I had uploaded (FlueGas2.gif) said to contact Orphan if I had any questions ... but it didn't explain how to contact you. It took me quite a while to figure that out. May I suggest that such messages from Orphan explain just how to make contact? I am very new to Wiki and I like it very much. However, the one thing I have found to be annoying is that most of the help and the "tricks of the trade" seem to be written by computer science gurus for other computer science gurus. They badly need to be "dumbed down" for newcomers like myself.

I am a retired chemical engineer with over 50 years of experience and I believe I have much to contribute here. But I am finding that it takes days upon days upon days to learn all of the ins and outs of using Wiki markup and the etiquette of how to use Talk pages and Discussion pages. Perhaps, what is needed is a section called "Wiki for Dummies" which should be reviewed thoroughly by some relative newcomers before it is published.

One final question: am I allowed to archive the comments on my user talk page to avoid having it become too lengthy? If so, how do I do that?

Anyhow, thanks very much for helping me understand how to license my uploaded images.

mbeychok 18:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion of creating custom messages for OrphanBot to use. It's currently using the same boilerplate text that everyone else does. I should have thought of setting up custom templates when I was setting up OrphanBot, and I should have thought of it again when I created the custom message for one type of problem image.

On the subject of tips, tricks, and suchlike, I'm afraid I can't help. I'm a computer guru myself, and documentation isn't something I'm good at. You seem to be doing fairly well so far. If you've got any questions, feel free to ask me or anyone else.

As for archiving talk pages, there are three common ways people do it, depending on personal preference:

1. Some people simply blank the page periodically. This isn't considered good etiquette, though, as it gives the impression you've got something to hide.
2. Some people "archive to history": they blank all or part of the talk page, then create a link to the version just before the blanking. Finding the URL for the correct edit is done by clicking on the "history" tab at the top of the page, then looking for the edit just before you blanked it. This is the method I use to archive OrphanBot's talk page.
3. Some people create archive subpages: pages with names like User talk:Mbeychok/Archive 1. They then cut-and-paste some or all of the comments from their talk page to this new page, and put a link to it at the top of their talk page. This is the method I use to archive my talk page.

There are also other methods that are occasionally used, such as archiving to subpages based on topic rather than date, but these methods tend to be very uncommon. --Carnildo 05:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Image:Blue Devils 1949.jpg

Hi, I've just been left a message on my talk page about Image:Blue Devils 1949.jpg and the fact that I haven't provided source data. This is, clearly, bullshit! I marked the image with {{CanadaCopyright}} which has subsequently been replaced with {{no licence}} for whatever reason by User:JYolkowski. I'm not sure whether this is a problem with you/OrphanBot or with JYolkowski, but I'm kind of ticked about it because I've always been exactingly careful in image tagging. I've left a note JYolkowski's page to look here, so let's keep the conversation here for now so it doesn't get too confusing. -User:Lommer | ^talk 09:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I've just re-read my above message and it sounds a little rantish. I apologize if this is the case, it's probably partly because of my feelings on this sort of copyright issue wrt wikipedia in general (see my user page for my stance). -User:Lommer | ^talk 09:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I see now why JYolkowski rm'd the CanadaCopyright tag (it's being deleted). This isn't a problem for you Carnildo or your bot so feel free to ignore all of the above. -User:Lommer | ^talk 09:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

There are really two non-philosophical problems with non-commercial images in Wikipedia:

1. Non-commercial images greatly limit what Wikipedia can do for fundraising. For example, the German Wikipedia, which allows neither fair use nor non-commercial images, gets a significant amount of funding from selling CDs of the encyclopedia.
2. Automated removal of images is anything but easy. OrphanBot is an attempt to automatically remove nosource and no-license images, and 10% of its code deals with the actual mechanics of removing images. Even so, it needs to flag about one image in 50 for human review, and about one image in 200 for human removal. There are several hundred thousand images on Wikipedia.

--Carnildo 09:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Re Image:LouisXIV_crown.jpg

Thanks for the message. There is however no problem with the image. It is simply a crop of an already existing WP GFDL image that was uploaded by the photographer. The original image is of a set of crown jewels. I cropped it to focus in on one crown, as allowed under the licence, because (a) the original image is alkward in size and shape, and (b) it enabled me to show the specific crown being talked about. Your bot seems not to recognise images where it is stated in the file that an image is a crop of an already existing image and wrongly thinks those images are orphans. At least however I was notified and I appreciate that. I have spent much of my time on Wikipedia of late undoing deletions of images that are perfectly valid but which were deleted by users who didn't actually read on the file that the image was valid, or where the image had been uploaded prior to current rules and where the problem could have been corrected in a five second fix to the categorisation, not whole scale deletion, but where no-one was informed that there was a apparent problem and the broken image was then left in tons of articles. Thank you for alerting me. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Patriots FA

Hey, thanks for taking the time to contribute to the Patriots FA nomination. The first image has been replaced, but do you feel that the Patskick image should be tagged with a different type of source or just removed completely? Deckiller 23:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I took care of those images you pointed out. Deckiller 23:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

---

I am a sockpuppet of user:batzarro. Regarding the kirpan image,i took it in punjab 3 weeks ago in a local shop,so i guess its self made.

I will be blocked,this is my last account,i cant be bothered making another one. I have run out of access to IPs ,this is my last message on wikipedia. Mohideene 07:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

kirpan

I am a sockpuppet of user:batzarro. Regarding the kirpan image,i took it in punjab 3 weeks ago in a local shop,so i guess its self made.

I will be blocked,this is my last account,i cant be bothered making another one. I have run out of access to IPs ,this is my last message on wikipedia. Mohideene 07:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Statue_of_Antonio_Bernabe.jpg

I just received your message and thanks. It seems as if I must have forgotten to place the proper copyright tag which is PD-Govt since the image is from the Government of Puerto Rico, a U.S. Territory. Thanks again! Tony the Marine 07:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Luis Vigoreaux image

Hey Car: Thanks for the note on my user page. I write articles every day and that has been going for three years so as you can imagine I can't even remember everything I've done lol.

I probably placed that image there because of this: I saw the image at a few websites by looking through Google and obviously believed it to be public domain. What should we do in this case?

You know more about that than I do :)

Thanks and God bless you! Sincerely yours, Antonio's lost in his world Martin

If you can't find any definite evidence that it's in the public domain or under some free license, it should be deleted. --Carnildo 08:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I'll try to investigate. If I can find no evidence, I agree with you; it must go.

Thanks and God bless you! Sincerely yours, Antonio Gomez from White Shadow Martin

renny22

The copyright is fine I assure you. It was a press released photo from a premiere.

JJstroker 08:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Orphanbot edit war

While I entirely agree with the removal, Orphanbot and Rick lay95 appearing to be engaging in an edit war on List of episodes of Power Rangers. May be worth stopping the bot in this sort of situation? Cheers --Pak21 10:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

There's no way I could detect such activity: each revert by User:Rick lay95 took place after OrphanBot stopped running for one reason or another, and after each run, OrphanBot starts with a blank slate of who needs to be notified and what images need removing. --Carnildo 22:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Strangelove

I'm sorry about not finding the copyright holder, but that was a great picture of Strangelove.- JustPhil 14:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Stabkirche_Lom_Norwegen_1.jpg

YOU WROTE (OR A MACHINE WROTE) Thanks for uploading Image:Stabkirche_Lom_Norwegen_1.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact Carnildo or ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Thank you.

Photo was originally uploaded from German site since I was unable to link it from the German site directly. The source of this photo is http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Stabkirche_Lom_Norwegen.JPG.

The source indicates, "Dieses Bild wurde unter der GNU-Lizenz für freie Dokumentation veröffentlicht.

Es ist erlaubt das Bild zu kopieren, verbreiten und/oder zu modifizieren, unter den Bedingungen der GNU-Lizenz für freie Dokumentation, Version 1.2 oder einer späteren Version, veröffentlicht von der Free Software Foundation. Es gibt keine unveränderlichen Abschnitte, keinen vorderen Umschlagtext und keinen hinteren Umschlagtext."

Translating a portion, "This picture was uploaded under the GNU Free Documentation License. The picture may be copied or modified under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 of a later version..."

The GNU Free Documentation License (GNU FDL or simply GFDL) is a copyleft license for free content, designed by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) for the GNU project. It is the open content counterpart to the GNU GPL. The current state of the license is version 1.2, the official text of which can be found here.

Hence this version is valid if the original license for the German site is valid. Image has been so annotated. Williamborg 16:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Copyright Regarding Image:Sun Jian Art.jpg

Copyright Status Added for that image. I also removed the no copyright tag if that's okay with you. mouselmm 16:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Your bot deleted Adrienne Clarkson's official portrait

Hi,

Unfortunately, your bot deleted the official portrait of former Governor General of Canada Adrienne Clarkson. I assume that this was because it was tagged as Canadian Crown Copyright, which is no longer a valid tag, and should have been replaced with the Canadian Political Figure Tag. Unfortunately, since Clarkson's term came to an end last year I dont believe the image is availavle online anymoreat gg.ca. During her tenure as Vice-Regal representative the image (featuring Clarkson wearing the Order of Canada against a Green Background) was made available in high-quality download free of charge to anyone who wanted an image of the head-of-state, or as a glossy print for a minimal fee. It was most definately fair use since it was created for the purpose of being an official image of the queen's representative. Is there any way to undelete it ? Dowew 22:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot keeps a cache of all images it's dealt with, so I've re-uploaded the image. It's at Image:Aclarkson.jpg, and I've tagged it as a "promotional photo". --Carnildo 23:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ! - Clarkson's page is one of my long-standing works in progress. Having read a book about her I been trying to bring it up to FA since Christmas, but being sick over the holidays and now with Essay season it will have to wait for another 20 weeks or so. Dowew 23:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Call off your bot!

OrphanBot keeps tagging my user page with a message about an unlicensed image. The problem is that it was an image uploaded by someone else that got overwritten by yet some other person, so I reuploaded it for them so it wouldn't be completely lost. I have already tagged the image and notified the user, and I don't want to have to keep removing the message from OrphanBot from my user talk page. Is there any way to get it to stop? Elf | Talk 00:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Two options: First, I could add you to the list of people never to notify. This means that if you upload an image and forget to indicate the source or copyright, you won't be notified. Second, you could leave a link to the image somewhere on your talk page until the image is dealt with. OrphanBot checks for a link to the image when trying to figure out if someone's been notified or not, so by removing the notification, it no longer knows that you've been notified. --Carnildo 03:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, add me to the list. Thanks. Elf | Talk 03:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Handling of don'tknow mixed with other tags

Here is a corner case you might want to handle in a different manner. Cheers. --Gmaxwell 04:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Dhanraj Pillai

Please delete the image of Dhanjraj Pillai since it does not meet the copyright / fair use requirements of Wikipedia. -Uploader : Aravind Parvatikar Talk

--Aravind Parvatikar 06:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Rudeness

Well, if you write a program so badly that it stops whenever someone trys to send it a message, you deserve everything you get.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 13:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

TheDoctor10, that is a rude message. Carnildo works very hard to do the right thing, which is why his bot has the brilliant <!- :) -> feature that stops the bot on a talk page post, which trusts other users will not interrupt the bot unless something has actually gone wrong. It was wrong of you to abuse the feature, it is wrong of you to take out your disagreement with Wikipedia policy (and indeed, with copyright law in general) on Carnildo, and it was wrong of you to continue being rude here. In my view you owe Carnildo a retraction and an apology... If you would like to politely discuss the requirements on Wikipedia for image sourcing, I'm sure he'd be willing. --Gmaxwell 16:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring the above post, for one who talks about rudeness, your rudeness in failing to reply can hardly be written.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 13:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyright

Dear Carnildo,

I want to add the {Fairusein|Feng Yun}- Tag to the (now deleted) image. Several times I had contact with Feng Yun herself and she seems to agree with the content of it. How do I get this message across properly? How to restore the image - to which I do not have access at this moment? Mutatis mutandis with the AGA logo (AGA.jpg on American Go Association)), I spoke with one AGA official, Rob Laird, and he asked me by e-mail to help him writing, improving the stubb - which I did. How cann I CC e-mail to wikipedia in order to proof that there is no copyright infringement. Or should I boldly click on some of these Copyright tags (where I'm not sure which one the most correct would be?). Fair Use sounds good too, but is there a "Copyright granted in private conversation by (one) representant of that (group, orgamization, company etc. ) - tag, even if I wouldn't know whether this has person actually has the rights to do so?

Greetings, Tommie Tommie 17:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot posting on redirected User talk pages

Some users have redirected their User talk: pages because they have adopted a new user name. OrphanBot, however, goes ahead and posts its messages on the old User talk: page underneath the #REDIRECT command. This message is then invisible unless someone actively tries to edit the redirect page, which seems unlikely. I have come across this because pages edited by OrphanBot started showing up on Special:DoubleRedirects. See, for example, User talk:Serhiodudnic. --Russ Blau (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I spotted this and fixed it a couple days ago. Is it still happening? --Carnildo 18:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. It looks like all the instances currently listed are at least a week old. --Russ Blau (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sign!

I think you should teach the OrphanBot to sign comments on user talk pages! But the signature should probably link to here rather than the OrphanBot's talk page. -- RHaworth 21:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing. I find it kind of rude to post a comment without a signature. By the way, I don't really know anything about image copyrights, so sorry about posting that image. I can't grasp the concept. JHMM13 (T | C) 02:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Sigs have been off and on over time; right now they're on. I'm trying to minimize the number of people posting on the bot's talk page. --Carnildo 07:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

College_and_Palmerston_c1910.JPG

This image is of a 95 year old Postcard. What seems to be the problem with copyright?Palmerston 03:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The only thing wrong with the image is that it was tagged as "uploader unsure of copyright status". I've fixed that. --Carnildo 07:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Mirage 2000 image

I uploaded picture a while back and I cant remember what it qualifies for as I'm not sure, I got it from the company official site I think.. but I'm not 100% sure. Delete it if you wish I'm not sure.

Image:Fidel-Speech.jpg

I did not originally upload the image. I made a minor modification to the image uploaded by someone else. I assert no copyright (release to the public domain) on my modifications, but cannot speak to the copyright on the original image. That said, Cuban copyright law is... well, essentially they don't claim copyright on material produced in Cuba. So if it's a Cuban source, it's probably fine to use. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Since you're the most recent uploader, and your upload didn't look like a revert, OrphanBot picked you to notify. If there's evidence that the image was produced in Cuba by a Cuban (and not a Canadian reporter or something), then it should be tagged as "public domain" and the reason given. --Carnildo 07:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Strange selecitivity in removal of images lacking copyright info

Regarding the recent activity by the bot here on this article I am curious why it deleted one picture but not the other. The other picture similarly lacks copyright information, yet it goes untouched. Does the bot not source old pictures before a certain date? Anyway, regardless of the copyright of the image (which I shall enquire of the one who posted it, Junbee1977, though tye do not seem active), it is direct evidence of a phenomenon I had already commented on the impossibility of, so having it in the article is most valuable for proving the possibility. Compared to a conceptual drawing, date unverified (so it still may be copywritten) is just as much intellectual property not touched. --Tyciol 08:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

If you're referring to Image:Autocunnilingus.jpg, there are many reasons why it's not removing the image: (1) The image is on Commons, and the bot only deals with images on the English Wikipedia. (2) The image is tagged as having been created and placed under the CeCILL free license by its uploader. (3) The image is not tagged as having an unknown source, unknown license, or an uploader unaware of what the license should be. OrphanBot relies on human judgement to decide what images are problematic. (4) Even if it was tagged, OrphanBot works one image at a time, not one article at a time. Given the size of the "uploader doesn't know" category, it'll take OrphanBot about three days to work through all the images. --Carnildo 09:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Image copyright problem with Image:HMAS_Brunei.jpg

Hey, thanks for the heads up on the possible deletion. I changed the copyright and added more info on the image. Could you take a look Image:HMAS_Brunei.jpg and let me know if its ok. Regards hossens27 12:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:George_Wein_300.jpg

I tagged this image as "Don't know" because it wasn't clear whether it could be used only on the article NEA Jazz Masters, or on the articles of individual Jazz Masters winners. I was led to believe that the "Don't know" tag would attract the attention of editors more experienced in copyright matters than I; since this seems to be not the case, I will interpret the image's copyright language myself and tag it as a press-release photo, which it certainly is. Thanks for your note. - squibix(talk) 13:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot

Your bot(OrphanBot) informed me that an image I uploaded(Image:F-15I.jpg) has copyright problems. However this isn't true, as it is on Hebrew Wikipidia. I am unsure of the copyright status, since I can't read Hebrew. If you believe it should be deleted, or can read Hebrew, please let me know, otherwise, I am placing the image back in the article F-15I.

Prodego ^talk 14:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Um, how can you say the image is not a copyright problem when you admit you have "no clue" what it's copyright status is? We are only supposed to use images we can verify the status of. Have you tried asking anyone from Category:User he to translate the image info? --Sherool (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

If the image had a copyright problem, it wouldn't be permitted on the Hebrew Wikipedia either, correct? Also, I didn't think to contact anyone from the category Category:User he, but that is a good idea, I will go ahead and do so. Probably User:MathKnight, an administrator on hebrew Wikipedia. Although (s)he is not listed on Category:User he, (s)he uploaded the image into hebrew Wikipedia, and has an account on English Wikipedia too(assumed from same name and mention of hebrew account on english user page). Prodego ^talk 19:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The web source of the image appears to be [2], which gives no indication of the copyright status of any of the images on the site. I can't read Hebrew, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we need to assume that the image is copyrighted. The fact that it's on the Hebrew Wikipedia isn't evidence that there are no copyright problems -- I don't know how strict they are about enforcing copyrights. --Carnildo 07:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree now, I asked Mathknight where the he got the copyright information for the Hebrew wikipedia article, but haven't gotten a reply. He did say "The license and usage conditions were not much detailed but they did asked credit for the usage", but hasn't yet answered where he got that info from. So I'm going to wait one more day(removing image from articles right now) and then get it speedy deleted(I am the uploader), unless MathKnight explains. Unless there is an explanation, his image will need to be deleted from Hebrew Wikipedia too. Prodego ^talk 14:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It's deleted. Prodego ^talk 19:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion to relieve OrphanBot

If OrphanBot automatically targets images tagged with "unknown copyright", then that option should be removed from image upload, as it is unclear what purpose it serves. I uploaded such an image (image:Golden Driller Sm.jpg), found via a Google search [3], choosing one that is reused on multiple Web site. Thus, the likelihood is that it's a fair-use image or promo photo, however, since I could not find such a statement as to its ownership on any Web site, I listed it with "found it on an unconfirmed website." I might have tagged it {{Fairusein}} or {{Promophoto}} but that would have been an assumption. Thus, if unknown/uncomfirmed=prohibited, then such images should not be uploadable.—LeFlyman 18:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

{{Don't know}} is supposed to be a placeholder tag while the uploader asks for assistance from a more experienced Wikipedian. Unfortunately, most of the uses have been "upload and forget", and the category's become overgrown with such forgotten images. --Carnildo 07:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Image copyright problem with Image:HenryBigg.jpg

I tagged it as a tv screenshot. Hope this helps. -- Eddie 19:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Image copyright problem with Image:Iczer_One.jpg

I have tagged the image in question as being of fair use in the article it was linked to. I have also posted the copyright owners for both the character and the specific image. Oh, and I have also listed the rationale for claiming the image is fair use and re-linked it in the original article. I believe such measures justify it's existance on the Wikipedia, but I would appreciate it if maybe it was also vetted by someone else. I'll be more vigiliant about my images posted in the future. Thank you. -- Reverend Raven 20:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

RE: Image copyright problem with Image:Image-Blackjesus05.jpg

I love you, man! Psyche, I just came here to say that you ought to delete the image, considering it does not link to any pages. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyright issue with Cute_GSD_puppy.jpg and Irina_Korsakova_II.jpg

Sorry for the foul-up. Please delete Thank you. |||MilesD.||| ^{01-31-2006 22:17 (UTC)}

Images

I'm not sure about both the images, but I got the picture of the feather in the hat (I can't remember the name off hand) from Unencyclopedia which is part of the /wiki/ comunity, and therefore is most likely released into the public domain.

The latter image I don't remember too much about, but it's been on wikipedia for quite a while and no one seems bothered about it :) Chooserr 22:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia's got very loose standards when it comes to copyright, and relies on being a small website and the "parody" protections in fair use. I'd consider any image from Uncyclopedia to be a likely copyvio if used anywhere else. --Carnildo 07:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

John Coffey

I read your comment and understand the problem. I have a question, though: if an image is posted on a webpage, does the copyright need to come from the site or from the person who took the picture? On the site where I found this picture (the only one I could find on the Internet), there is no mention about copyrights; however, the web master is an author who uses the image in his book. So you know, all the other images I've uploaded are ok copyright-wise. --Thebends 01:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Could be either. If the image was created as a work for hire, or if the copyright was purchased by the website owner, then the site owner owns the copyright. Otherwise, the copyright is owned by the creator of the image. --Carnildo 07:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

OK... well, since I have no idea where he got the image (or if it is his own), I'll just take it out of the article. Oh well. Guess I'll just have to put a link to the site. --Thebends 23:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Iris-ChaCHon-Flyer.jpg

Can you help me select the proper image licensing for Iris CHacon's article? I am not sure what to do?

About your post on my talk page; I'm not sure who the image belongs to. It might be a fan work, I couldn't determine. Hence the {{don't know}} . --MasTer of Puppets ^{Picture Service} 04:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:GustafVISwedenLate.jpg

Hi. I've answered your comments on Image copyright problem with Image:GustafVISwedenLate.jpg; please reply to me there if you wish. — JonRoma 04:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hypogeum

The image was brought from an article in the german wiki on the same content Maltesedog 12:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't realise for which image you were referring to. The source is an old government pamphlet, 1960's. Photos are possibly excluded from copyright in Malta, http://docs.justice.gov.mt/lom/legislation/english/leg/vol_13/chapt415.pdf see.. and the legislation did not exist when the photo was taken. your advise is necessary.

The situation is complicated enough that I'd suggest not using the image. Sooner or later someone will provide a photo with a clearer copyright. --Carnildo 07:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Baguette.png and Image:Meir Vilner.jpg

Hi,

I got the image Image:Baguette.png from the French-language Wikipedia and the Image:Meir Vilner.jpg from the Hebrew-language Wikipedia--Carabinieri 14:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Kalbarri_natures_window.jpg

Hi,

There was a copywrite problem with the 'Image:Kalbarri_natures_window.jpg' image I uploaded. I don't know a lot about copywrite and stuff, but I took this picture myself with my own camera. I guess no copywrite exists, and I'm fine with it being public domain. I've updated the copywrite accordingly, hope it's ok. - Mark 16:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. --Carnildo 08:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

King Fahd Causeway image

Hello. I have added the source, Arabic Wikipedia, along with the unknown license tag. I was thinking perhaps someone could find its license status because I couldn't. - Eagle^amn 16:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:MrTreason-ayb.gif

Fixeded. (It explained in the upload summary "fair use via parody" - perhaps we need a template for this?) Cernen Xanthine Katrena 19:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Some Advice

Soon i am planning to take a photo to put on this site. What do i choose as the licence when i do this. I only ask as you have deleted one of my other photos. Many Thanks (Dtfcdev 19:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC))

If you're taking the photos yourself, then you should license it under an appropriate Creative Commons license, depending on what you want to require people who use the photo to do. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Creative Commons Licenses for a list of CC licenses that Wikipedia allows.

As for the deleted photo, if you can give me the name of the picture, I can probably get it back. It might still be on Wikipedia, or I might have a copy on my hard drive. --Carnildo 08:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Ftg-c.jpg

My apologies if the issue has already been raised, but it appears that this image (Image:Ftg-c.jpg) which was removed by OrphanBot, now has been correctly tagged. Is there a way to determine what pages it was removed from so it may be reinstated? Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 21:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot left a list of the pages it was removed from on the image description page, just like it does for every other image it removes. --Carnildo 01:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, this is the first time I've run across OrphanBot in action. I'll check the image description page and work backward from there. Thanks! Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 19:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

RE: Image copyright problem with Image:Msnuser.gif

Hey,

Yeah, It is OK for you to delete this image ans it is no longer being used. Should I delete it or will you do it?

Museo Rosenbach

Dear friend, I don't know what do you need as authorisation. Alberto Moreno, component of the band and curator of the site www.museo.it, gave me an explicit authorisation to use ALL the picture there through e-mail. I specified this in the image caption in its page. So, please, let me know what's the procedure to keep the image. Frankly speaking, before deletion I expected you first contact me to understand better the situation, as I specified that authorisation was given. Thanks. Attilios.

What sort of authorization was provided? Was it permission to use the image on Wikipedia, or was it permission to release the image under a free license (and if so, which one?)? The first is not acceptable for Wikipedia, while the second is. --Carnildo 08:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Qing Gong Image

Dear Carnildo, I picked up the image and information from a public forum, and I have not found it anywhere else, internet or otherwise. I doubt that it violates any copyright, and I try where possible in writing articles to e-mail sources to verify copyright information. Like I stated on the talk page, if you google the image name, you come across the original forum from which I got my information. Anyway, thanks for informing me. Does Wikipedia have a copyright template for an image from a forum, whose copyright is uncertain? Dessydes

Yes, but the copyright templates are all variations on "delete this image". Images on Wikipedia need to have clear copyright status. --Carnildo 08:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Sorry

Sorry for uploading that -- but you can delete it. I made a mistake in uploading it, and no pages link to it, so thanks for taking care of it.

Alexander VII 01:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Music.a.4ndt2.PNG

As I noted on the image description page, it was drawn by me. I thought that should take care of any copyright problem. U Go Boy 2 Feb UTC

NWCoast map (Skookum1)

Hi. Got your message. That image is a cut and add-text from a larger regional map on the Wikipedia Commons map area; or from one of the main Wikipedia map pages. Wasn't that in the attribution notes?Skookum1 01:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Image:PVModuleLabEffic.jpg deletion

Sob sob, it has been such a nice image. But you do good job. Thank you. Sillybilly 01:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Razorback.jpg

It clearly says on the image's page where I got it and not to bother asking me if it was wrong.--The_stuart 03:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

help

Hi!, Can you kelp me? I can tell you where i got the pic--T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 05:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Problematic images

Hi. You recently pointed out that the images I've uploaded are of ambiguous status. It seems like you get a lot of requests for aid in correctly IDing copyright stuff for pictures, but I was wondering if you could give me a pointer. All three of them are promotional art of some sort, yet I couldn't figure out which of the available types of copyright would fit this kind of image. Thanks for your time. Kidicarus222 07:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

If it's part of an official press kit or equivalent, then the proper tag is {{promophoto}}. Otherwise, you need to decide if it falls under the rules at Wikipedia:Fair use, and if so, tag the image with {{fairusein}} for each article that the image qualifies for fair use in. --Carnildo 08:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:pic3.jpg

Carnildo. Thanks for your note concerning the above. It is a picture of myself and my son, taken by my wife. It was on the occasion of my son's midnight return from his high school prom. As far as I can remember, I had considered inserting the image on my personal discussion page - but now have no plan to do so. So, please delete the image page concerned. Sorry for the trouble I may have caused you. Bob BScar23625 08:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Image:Plan_Draug_class_destroyer.jpg

I've replaced the image in question with a self made (and released to PD) image instead. Could you give me any pointers to how to remove the image of uncertain copyright status? I'm a bit of a n00b as far as images go here on Wikipedia... WegianWarrior 09:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Probably the best way is to tag it with {{db-unksource}}. --Carnildo 20:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll go do that then. Thanks! WegianWarrior 08:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Silver_dragon.jpg

Fixed copyright tag. I uploaded that and then set out to find the correct tag; got sidetracked and forgot until now. Thanks. Rogue 9 10:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright tags

Thank you for informing me about the problem with File:Sculptyre 08. I'll get on it.Bjones 13:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Screaming_Trees_and_Donna_Dresch.gif

Have corrected its status - now how can I put it back on Donna Dresch without it being still up for deletion? Thanks. - 16:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC) THE GREAT GAVINI ^{LOBSTER TELEPHONE}

You really need to track down the original source. Right now, there's no way of knowing if it's a press kit photo (generally ok), a stock media photo (generally not ok), or a fan-made photo (who knows?). --Carnildo 07:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Mmmm it's a press kit photo, according to the image being under the "Promo" section, I reckon. Is that OK? - 17:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC) THE GREAT GAVINI ^{LOBSTER TELEPHONE}

Re:Image copyright problem with Image:Shaft.gif

Quote: Thanks for uploading Image:Shaft.gif. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 09:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright. I have tried deleting it,but in vain. Could you help me to delete it? (I'm busy for something but cannot delete it again.) Thank you.--HydrogenSu 17:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It'll be deleted soon enough. --Carnildo 07:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Re:Image copyright problem with Image:older2.jpg

Im not completely sure but isnt there laws re: how long a image is in copyright, possibly as this image is over 40 years old it is no longer in copyright? Thanks for your time Luke C 18:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there's a time limit. Unfortunately, it's a very long one: in the United States, only images published before 1923 are certain to be in the public domain. I don't know of any country that respects international copyrights that also has a limit of less than 50 years. --Carnildo 07:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Copyright Problems

• image:red_kangaroo.jpg is a copyright problem as I discovered that the source of the image is selling it as a wallpaper so if you can delete again. Sorry about the mess.
• image:happy cat 2.jpg and image:happy_cat.jpg are likely the same problem so if you want to delete, go ahead.
• image:SimpleKangaroo.jpg came from a picture posted by another Wikipedian from Brazil (maybe). I took the picture and cropped it and renamed it SimpleKangaroo. Do as you will with it.
• image:may_18.jpg was a picture from an old press release found on the internet. It made its way into Paul Bremer's book "My Year In Iraq:...." photograph by Roberto Schmidt for Reuters was the credits.

There may have been more out there.,,,,thanks.,,,,Ariele 18:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Image copyright problem with Image:Omar-2.jpg

The picture you quote (just like Image:Omar.jpg) very likely is public domain. I posted the second one (Omar-2.jpg) for comparison to #1, to confirm it is indeed the same person. Omar did not want to have his pictures taken, and these are two of three I know about (the third being a very old, very low quality picture). As far as I know these pictures are rare, but public domain. How would you suggest I handle this? -- Beck 19:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Look for evidence that they are indeed in the public domain. --Carnildo 07:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Genesis_1-1_in_Afar.gif

OK, I'm not good at legalese on this subject.

I think the relevant quotation is this one (from here):

Access to the Rosetta Project is provided at no cost to you and is intended for use in scholarship, research and educational purposes only. By entering, you certify that your use of the Archive will be noncommercial in nature and limited to purposes not infringing on Fair Use provisions under copyright law and other intellectual property statutes. No part of the material found in Archive maybe reproduced for commercial purposes or mirrored from another server without the express written permission of the Long Now Foundation. Content available in the Archive may be governed by local, national, and/or international laws and regulations, and your use of such content is solely at your own risk.

If you believe that this makes the Afar image violate copyright laws, feel free to delete it and possibly link the image from the Afar language page to the rosettaproject.org server.

Image copyright problem with Image:Superfanroundtabl88.jpg

Thanks, it is a promo pic. I might have forgot to mark it that.

Redd Dragon 23:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with KR2010

I found that pic in a very old personal website..... However I think that now the problem is solved since the photo is in external links, right? See you soon, Arroww 23:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Soviet_Battlecruiser_Kirov.jpg

I am well aware of the points raised, however I am not sure of the copyright status because the pages are not written in english. Two web sites have been included on the page, and as I noted the image likely falls under the protection of fair use. TomStar81 23:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

RE: Copyrights issues with Images

Hi, ALL the images I have uploaded are specified as 'LOGOS', they have a copyright attached to them. I am not sure where you are finding these images that don't have a copyright license, most likely someone is changing them. Just change the copyright licence to 'logo', you don't need to post a message everytime you find one. HeMan5 23:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Problem is that I'm working through a list of approximately 7000 of these images. It's a lot faster to have an automated process notify uploaders than it is to try to deal with each image individually. If you want the license tags fixed, you'll have to do it yourself. --Carnildo 07:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Copyright problem: the_Man.jpg

Hey, this is Sandro67. I'm not signed in right now, but I saw your post on my talk page about the Bill Gates photo. That photo was uploaded by a family member in my home, using my account, as a joke. Therefor, I don't know the copyright info., and it may be deleted. Sorry. 71.33.140.76 02:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Ike: RE

Looks like your a big image guy around here. Anyways, the thing is that I have no idea of the liscenseing of the image and was hoping that someone who might have known (like the guy who did the FE7 page) would stumble upon it and correct me. Alas, it was not to be so. I understand the strict copyright policy that the Wikipedia uses and I commend for taking notice of the fact that this image wasn't listed as an acceptable type.

Image:Userbox_pot.png

I was under the impression that Image:Userbox pot.png was a public domain image. After the last image was removed from Template:User cook, I located the www.freedigitalphotos.net site on Public_domain_image_resources#General_collections (it is the third link). Their terms of use state that images may be used for commercial or non-comercial purposes, and may be used on websites [4]. Have I misinterpreted this? If this image is not acceptable, should I remove the link to the site from Public_domain_image_resources? Where can I find an image that can be used in a userbox if public domain and fair use images cannot be used? Please get back to me on this (feel free to answer here) so that I may find a suitable image. Thanks a lot. -- Chris 06:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

There are three things that freedigitalphotos.net explicitly disallows:

1. Claiming the image as your own
2. Redistributing them for public download (either free or paid for)
3. Offering them for sale

(1) is acceptable for Wikipedia, but (2) isn't (Wikipedia redistributes images to mirror sites such as answers.com, and has the entire set of images available for download), and (3) isn't (commercial use needs to include permission to sell the images). --Carnildo 07:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

As for finding images, Wikimedia Commons is always a good starting point for images of common things and readily-accessible locations, and images on there should be under a suitable free license. Best of all, you can use them on Wikipedia simply by linking to them like you would any other image -- no need to upload. --Carnildo 08:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Re:Image copyright problem with Image:Ula_class.png

Hey, just delete it, no pages are using it anyway. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. kallemax 07:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

re Image:Whisper_history.jpg

(also Image:Barossa dam engineers plaque.jpg) I responded on my talk page that I do not know if I can release a photo of a sign to the public domain, but if I can, I would. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright stthomasbelfastinside.jpg

Hi Carnildo, thanks very much for the message. The image was taken by the Rector or St Thomas' but is free to use by anyone for the purposes of promoting the church, etc. I'm not particularly sure how to go about changing the photo to indicate that!

Images with restrictions such as "for promotional use only" are not acceptable for Wikipedia. They can't be re-used by anyone else, and if Wikipedia's coverage of the subject is negative, it's hard to claim it's "promotional". --Carnildo 08:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Sunbus_Logo.gif

I since verified the "sunbus" image as a company logo and since placed it under the "Logo" category of Copyright regulations. Arnzy 11:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:Warof1812-stub

Hello Carnildo, what is your reasoning for modifying Template:Warof1812-stub  ?? SirIsaacBrock 11:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Because the part I removed was advertising for WikiProject Military History and an implied claim of article ownership. --Carnildo 20:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I've asked for some more opinions on this general issue here. —Kirill Lokshin 22:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Ursvik_runsten.jpg

Thank you for your help. I have contacted the photographer, and Stockholms Läns Museum; in order to determine the copyright status. -- Jobjörn 13:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

image verification and copyright status

You seem to have some experience dealing with image copyright issues. Maybe you can help me with an image I recently came accross on Wikipedia. The image "Image:AnimaltestingMonkeyCovance2.jpg" was uploaded to Wikipedia and

1. the image was probably obtained illegally
2. the person who took the picture is not identified
3. there is no simple way to verify the image and its copyright status
4. The Wikipedian who uploaded the image suggests that Wikipedia can use the image without any further verification the source of the image
   

What do you think? --JWSchmidt 13:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No idea. I'm not a copyright lawyer, and I don't think even a copyright lawyer would touch this with a ten-foot pole. --Carnildo 08:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

image verification and copyright status

What tag can I put on pictures of buses? I need to know for several imagis I have recently uploaded.

Thanks, sonicKAI 15:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Depends. Where did the pictures come from? Who took them? --Carnildo 08:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Upski.gif

Hello, thanks for letting me know about Image:Upski.gif. It was taken from a promotional flyer for a lecture he did at a college campus, so I've tagged the licensing information appropriately. Thanks again for checking up on my work. Take care. --Howrealisreal 14:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Mk 48 Mod 0.GIF

Hi, thanks for the heads up. That image (Image:Mk 48 Mod 0.GIF) was the first one I uploaded as soon as I joined Wikipedia, and therefore I was not sure how to handle copyright issues and determine the correct tag for each image. Since then, I uploaded a newer, bigger version of the image under a different name (Image:Mk 48 Mod 0.jpg), which I believe to have the correct copyright tag on it — let me know otherwise. As for the older image, if you have the power to delete it or ask for deletion, feel free to do so. Thanks. --Squalla 15:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Image copyright problem with Image:Ston.jpg

I'm sorry for that bit. I don't normally do that. The copyright holder is User:Mir_Harven and he has released all... ; if a proof is needed to prove that the image is copyrighted, feel free to scan the user's talk page and his approvement. He is an administrator of a site that I got it from known as HERCEGBOSNA. Could you help a bit and show me how to put a copyright (all released) template, please? Thanks in advance! --HolyRomanEmperor 15:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Image problem Image: Glassy_water.jpg

I just got your new message about the image that has been removed titled "glassy water" and the original image was found in an article of the journals of the Royal Society of Chemistry 1 When finding an appropriate picture to fit the article in order to help what glassy water actually looks like. I would like to know what license would this fit into?

XendrianMaranmore 15:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC) aka SignalMan

image copyright problem Masonsigns.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Masonsigns.gif appears to be from a late 20th century publication, either The Brotherhood by Stephen Knight or Darkness Visible by Walton Hannah --Vidkun 16:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Image:TheContest.jpg

Thanks for the heads up. I updated the image page to include the proper tags, as well as the description to include copyright information as well. I'll try to be more carefull about this in the future. Artemisboy 16:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Vengdp.gif

Please go ahead and delete that image. I uploaded it from a business site (the copyright holder) only to quickly illustrate a point made on a talk page. It is copyvio. Apologies, and thanks. Saravask 17:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Mi-Jung_Lee.jpg

I've added a promo tag to the Mi-Jung_Lee.jpg image (after looking at the station's website & looking at tags for other personalites' images from that station on Wiki), please revert if appropriate. Thanks. Southsloper 17:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Image copyright problem with Image:Tego_Calderón.jpg

The image Image:Tego_Calderón.jpg is actually a rename of the image Image:DSCF0134.jpg. The image has the same copyright status as the image there, and from the filename I assume that it was submitted by a contributor who personally took it. As I only performed a rename I cannot vouch for any copyright to this. - Master Of Ninja 22:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Franjo_Tudjman.jpg

I haven't been able to track down the copyright status unfortunately and the photo I wanted to replace has been changed anyway, so please go ahead and remove Image:Franjo_Tudjman.jpg. Thanks! -- AHrvojic 03:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Qing Gong

Ok fair enough. Thanks for your help anyway. Dessydes

---

Stthomasbelfastinside.jpg

Hi Carnildo, I think perhaps my lack of copyright technical jargon has led to my not explaining myself properly on this issue! You said... Images with restrictions such as "for promotional use only" are not acceptable for Wikipedia. They can't be re-used by anyone else, and if Wikipedia's coverage of the subject is negative, it's hard to claim it's "promotional". --Carnildo 08:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC) ...however, when I say it's for the purposes of promoting the church, I simply mean that the photo was taken to give anyone interested in the church a chance to see what it looks like inside, whether that be on its internal publicity or wherever, including wikipedia! The person who took the photo claims no legal authority over it whatsoever, it's just out there to be used by whomever, whenever! However, I can see how confusion would arise through my choice of wording!

Image Tagging Image:Guldbergaunetb.jpg

Hi, what's the code for deleting this image? Thanks. Rosenborg 10:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)