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)

Railroad drumheads

User:SchuminWeb has gone on a campaign of deleting images of named train drumhead logos (e.g. this edit) claiming that since there is no explicit discussion of the logo, fair use does not apply. As most articles which show a logo do not discuss it, this seems rather questionable. Mangoe (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not just drumheads. It's historic images and logos. He also did this to Empire Builder (train) a month ago, yet he left the contemporary logos there. ----DanTD (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

All non-free image must comply with all 10 non-free content policy guidelines and in the case of File:BO Cincinnatian combined.png a generic fair-use rationale claims that the purpose is that: the image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing Cincinnatian passenger train, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization which is not the use. In addition the removal was made due to failing WP:NFCC#8. That is 2 strikes against the image as it was used. Many articles use a contemporary logo in the infobox to identify the organisation and that use is regarded as acceptable under our fair-use policy. ww2censor (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not follow your argument at all. "Contemporary" to what? These trains haven't run in forty years, and the B&O passed out of existence back in the 1980s. Also, I'm not interested in a legalistic "you didn't say the right magic words" argument, since if one knew what the magic words word, they could be said. Give me a reason why you think that these images cannot be used. Mangoe (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Since these seem to be published without copyright notice so long ago, I suspect copyright does not apply template:PD-US-1977 may apply. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

If it can be demonstrated that copyright in these old logos has expired and they have lapsed into the public domain (and thus free), then great - let's change the license to reflect this and move them to Commons. Otherwise, however, if they are still non-free, then they must comply with all ten criteria, and they are strict by design. Don't blame me that non-free images are being used against policy. I didn't put them there. I'm just the one enforcing said policy, and no one likes someone who makes them follow the rules. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Your explanation of how you are enforcing that policy needs further explanation, as a reading of the clause you are invoking shows it does not contain the statement you have stuck on your changes. It appears to be merely your personal interpretation of policy. Mangoe (talk) 01:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's an idea: Rather than whining about how a policy doesn't fall your way, I have a project for you. In the same work that has landed all of these NFCC violations, I also have a number files that are actually public domain that need sourcing work. These are files that were previously tagged as non-free, but actually are public domain due to their being too simple to copyright (just text and simple shapes). We can use these freely, but I can't move them to Commons because the sourcing (where the image came from) is insufficient. They are currently tagged for deletion after a waiting period for sourcing, but if you can find sources for them, add that and remove the tag so that we can transfer them to Commons. Here are the files:

• File:IC Panama Limited combined.png
• File:IC City of New Orleans.jpg
• File:IC Green Diamond.jpg
• File:CBQ Pioneer Zephyr.jpg
• File:LN Pan American.jpg

Once again, these images are free and perfectly acceptable to use any way that we want. However, these free images need sourcing or else they will be deleted. Let's put all that energy to good use and fix that problem instead of complaining about decorative non-free images. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that any of these is not trademarked (and therefore possibly free), and both groups have the same function anyway, so I don't see the point of trying to save one group over the other. Mangoe (talk) 16:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Then don't waste my time. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Look, I didn't put any of these images in these articles in these articles, as you know perfectly well. I've mostly added content in areas where explicitly PD images are available and where fair use is largely impossible, so that's all I have experience working with. I asked for an explanation since your stated reason for removal was an interpretation of policy; so is your claim about these other heralds. Your officious and confrontational response is not an explanation. I also see that you appear to be plowing through the Otto Perry collection, and it seems to me that the whole group could be discussed—discussed—at once instead of sending thirty different people scurrying over a long piecemeal list of deletions. Mangoe (talk) 10:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Children, please! "Whining"? "Waste my time?" It is time for a beer summit. Sincerely, a friend to all, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyright status of a photo I took of a commerical product

I joined Wikipedia some years ago and am only now finding time to learn how to contribute.

This weekend I have been cleaning up the page Daisy (doll) and wanted to add a picture of what the doll looks like. Since I have a MIP Daisy Doll, I took a photo of it File:Dashing Daisy Ice Queen 65703 in original box.jpg and added it to the listing, chosing the copyright option that made most sense to me since I'd taken a photo of an item that included a logo.

Soon after I received notification that I "provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status."

Usually my images are licenced under a Creative Commons Attribution, No Derivative Works licence, but since this is a photo of a manufactured item, is the copyright for the item or of my photo of the item?

Thanks in advance for your clarification --TheShoppingSherpa (talk) 03:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Product shots get a bit tricky. In general, functional products that don't have any artistic component are ok - for example, vehicles with a normal solid paint job or game consoles - but artistic works remain under copyright. In this case, especially with the addition of packaging artwork, I'd count it as a derivative work of a copyrighted product, and therefore the photos can't be released under a CC license. So I'd go with a fair-use claim, myself. - Bilby (talk) 08:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. What is a fair use claim (yes, I searched for it on Wikipedia already and it overwhelmed me with information)and how do I change the license on the photo to reflect fair use? Or would it be easier to take another photo without the packaging? (Which seems a shame)--TheShoppingSherpa (talk) 09:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The packaging makes things clearer, but taking it away won't help, as the doll is itself an artistic work. On the plus side, I can't see a problem with a fair use rationale - you already have one that covers the logo, so if you replace it with Template:Non-free use rationale and encompass it should be good. I can see why an image of the doll would be required to discuss the doll's design, so I wouldn't have thought that there would be a problem. - Bilby (talk) 10:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a really tricky area even for the most experienced editors. See one example here how I handle toy images like this: File:Billyblastoff.jpg. By the way, do contemporary toy images need some extra tagging or licensing notes if they also include the logo/packaging? ie File:My child.jpg? Siawase (talk) 11:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

help

Hi, i am trying to see if am or not copyrighting this specific image? its of a bernese mountain dog on google. i wanted to suggest it as an image to my friend~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.22.201 (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=dogs&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&rlz=1R2ADRA_enUS421&biw=1024&bih=484&tbm=isch&tbnid=A-z1HXmqKNymhM:&imgrefurl=http://www.flashcoo.com/animal/Guide_Dogs/html/wallpaper6.html&docid=hgj_AfoY6IZqlM&imgurl=http://www.flashcoo.com/animal/Guide_Dogs/images/11-tawny%2527s-guide-dogs-1999-cal-november.jpg&w=700&h=525&ei=skKWTo2SEsriiALkrPDcDQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=581&vpy=169&dur=125&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=136&ty=207&sig=104328549051817973796&page=8&tbnh=120&tbnw=150&start=71&ndsp=11&ved=1t:429,r:4,s:71 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.22.201 (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the image is copyrighted. I don't know who holds the copyright. But this has nothing to do with Wikipedia. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

At the bottom right of this webpage it clearly shows a copyright notice and states that commercial use is not permitted, only personal use, so it is copyright and we can't use it. ww2censor (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

copyright permission

Dear Sir,

I am sorry for consoling your valuable time. I am preparing a manuscript on Sidr, 2007 in Bangladesh. For the reason I want to use two photo entitled

1. Cyclone Sidr in the Bay of Bengal near peak intensity 2. Storm path

The URL is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone_Sidr

So, please help me by giving the copyright permission of two photos. I am waiting for your great reply.

Sincerely yours,

---

Md. Mahmudul Hasan PhD Candidate Department of Plant Nutrition College of Resources and Environmental Sciences China Agricultural University, Beijing

(Redacted)

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.202.187.164 (talk) 10:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Both of these images are in the public domain, and are not copyrighted. You can use them in any way you like, without obtaining permission from anyone. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Please don't put your email address / phone number on Wikipedia; users will reply to you on the wikipedia pages. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  19:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for review of a file

I want to include Datei:FernsehturmTaschkent.jpg, which is located on the German Wikipedia, in an article here at the English Wikipedia. The first template on the file page says the file requires an individual review before it can be moved to Commons. Can someone here at MCQ perform this review? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 11:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Although in theory it could be uploaded to Commons, the current practice at Commons is often to refuse images of architectural works situated in Uzbekistan. So, it is better not to upload it to Commons, because it would probably be deleted. Also, the description at de.wikipedia is not clear on the source and author. The uploader merely mentioned « Aus dem Fotoalbum », which really does not tell clearly if it is the work of the uploader or not. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyright status of Nelson Rockefeller portrait

I have questions about the copyright status of the Nelson Rockefeller portrait: File:Nelson Rockefeller.jpg. In the image, notice the Corbis watermark in the top right left. Now, I believe the image itself is public domain because it is a work of the US Government. However, the Corbis watermark not only undermines that statement, it looks tacky on the article. I have been unable to find a copy of this image with the same high resolution as the Corbis image (there are other images online that are just up-converts of the lower resolution image) without the watermark. Is there a proper course of action for Wikipedia? Should we use the lower resolution, non-watermarked image, or should we find a way to remove the watermark? --Nick2253 (talk) 22:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, first off, why do you think it's a work of the U.S. Government? That's certainly plausible, but I don't see any evidence. If it is, then there are ways of removing watermarks like this. Tag the image with {{watermark}}. – Quadell ^(talk) 11:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Promotional brochures as sources?

A question has come up regarding the use of promotional brochures for vehicles, published by the automaker, as reliable sources for assertions (or, more frequently, statements of specification) in automobile articles. At least one editor feels such brochures are not acceptable as sources per WP:ELNEVER; he considers them to be automatically copyrighted by dint of publication in the USA after 1978. I disagree for a couple of reasons: the actual content of the brochure is not being presented (images or whole pages are not being scanned in and used in articles, for example), the brochures are being used as sources and not as external links (which would seem to make WP:ELNO and WP:ELNEVER inapplicable), and the copyright status of such a brochure is—at least to my mind—questionable because we aren't talking about a book, magazine, or other work that could reasonably be assumed to have reserved rights; rather we are discussing promotional literature designed, intended, and published for free and wide distribution. Please see examples of removal of such sources here, here, and here. Comment and clarification will be appreciated from those better versed than I in Wikipedia policy on such matters. Please and thank you. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C01:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The manuals themselves are almost certainly copyrighted. To the extent that the site is hosting the manuals without permission of the copyright holder, WP:ELNEVER applies. Perhaps someone else can offer insight on how you would determine if the site lacks permission. Assuming ELNEVER applies, that only means you may not link to the manual in your reference. You can certainly use individual facts contained in the manual, referencing to the manual but not providing an external link. Monty₈₄₅ 02:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Point of clarification: Not manuals, but promotional brochures. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I focused to heavily on the website name, but the analysis is the same, the promotional brochure is almost certainly copyrighted, but the individual facts contained therein may be used. It doesn't take much to reach the threshold for being copyrighted. Monty₈₄₅ 02:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Brochures published after 1978 did not get an automatic copyright, it is after March 1989. See this 1985 Microsoft Windows 1.0 Brochure. [1] Microsoft did not use a copyright notice or file a registration, so it is public domain. A brochure can be a reliable source for things like specifications, features or model names. The brochure still exists even if the web site it does not have permission to host it. There is no requirement that sources need a web link. Make your reference a cite book instead of a site web and don't include a link. You could mention the web site on the article talk page. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I went to the Old Car Brochure web site and searched for "1981 Lincoln" then followed the "1981 Lincoln Continental Mark VI Brochure" link. Inspection of the first two and last two pages does not show a copyright notice. I did not check for a copyright registration. The back page shows the "Continental Mark VI 1981" brochure was published in 1980 by the Lincoln-Mercury division of Ford Motor Company. The date is hard to read but appears to be 8-1980. The brochure may be public domain. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It appears that most if not all of the brochures on the Old Car Brochure web site are pre 1989. A copyright notice should be on the front cover, back cover or title page (either side). It was a common practice for advertisement to be published without a copyright. Note that some companies always had a notice (Texas Instruments) and some companies were hit or miss. I don't have any old car brochures but I know that many of the electronics and computer brochures and advertisements did not have a copyright notice. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 01:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

sorry I am disabled — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.28.87.186 (talk) 02:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Uploading of image on Wikipedia

I uploaded an image on the 13th of October. I received a message saying I hadn't provided enough information. I've added some details, but I am not sure whether it's enough to prevent deletion. Could someone please have a look and inform me about the other details that need to go in there ? Thank you. Srinathkr3 (talk) 08:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

We need you to give a license such as CC-BY-SA-3.0. Also it is good to know the date you created it and how you made it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I just added the required tags and gave a brief summary of the image. Is that enough ? Srinathkr3 (talk) 11:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

looks OK. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Facebook Photos

Hi,

I am wondering if someone is legally allowed to take a photo that they have found on facebook and sell that photo to a newspaper?

Thanks,

Matt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.144.66 (talk) 11:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

No. If you didn't create the photo yourself, you don't hold the copyright, and you can't sell it. – Quadell ^(talk) 11:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not give legal advice. Consult with an attorney.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Threshold of originality

Does File:BBC_logo_(pre97).svg meet the threshold of originality to be considered copyrightable? My opinion is that being entirely consisted of text and simple rhomboid shapes in solid colours would make it PD-ineligible, and a candidate to be moved to the commons. Techtri (talk) 11:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe you are correct. Commons has many logos with this same (negligible) level of artistic creativity. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

using an image

Hello, I would like to use the image (

File information

Description	EMS-89615 Egyptian wooden model of beer making in ancient Egypt.
Source	self-made
Date	12May2007
Author	E. Michael Smith User:Chiefio
Permission (Reusing this file)	See below.

)

It is published under the following licences: GNU Free Documentation License. & the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license

I am unsure as to how to give attribution for this image. It is to be used in a power point presentation that will be published online. Could you please give me a hand? Thanks very much, 142.103.231.3 (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, You probably refer to the image EMS-89615-Rosecrucian-Egyptian-BeerMaking.jpg. If the author was still active on Commons, the best thing would be to ask your question directly to him, but apparently he has not been active since 2007. In a case like this, it may not be entirely clear if the author really wanted to be attributed under a combination of what looks like a real name and a username. To be safe, the best solution is probably to give attribution to the author under the identity he used in the "author" field on the description page : E. Michael Smith Chiefio, unless you have a particular reason to believe that he indicated that he wanted a different attribution. It is your responsibility to choose one of the three licensing options that are available for this image, and to word the credits according to your own understanding of that license, taking into account your style and the particularities of the media you are using. For what it's worth, if I were to reproduce that image under, for example, the CC-by-2.5 Generic license, I would probably write something more or less like this:

"Photo by E. Michael Smith Chiefio, EMS-89615-Rosecrucian-Egyptian-BeerMaking.jpg. Used under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/legalcode). Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EMS-89615-Rosecrucian-Egyptian-BeerMaking.jpg"

But that's just my style. Other people would word it differently. Any style is fine, as long as you are satisfied that your wording includes the mentions required by the text of the license. -- Asclepias (talk) 07:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Personal image + wounds + Fineral

Can I use the following pictures for Death of Ahmed Jaber al-Qattan topic? The pictures are:

1. Personal picture for Ahmed before he died.
2. Picture for his body with birdshot (buckshot) in it just after he died.
3. His body at the morgue which shows the autopsy mark.
4. Two different pictures for his funeral.

Those pictures were release on a political forum for distribution, but the author doesn't mention any license for copyright. One of the pictures is taken from a media Facebook page, again intended for distribution.

This is one of the pictures.

I uploaded the images to the Commons, under Free Art License, but that was considered as copyright violation. 2 of those pictures have been deleted.

I was advised to upload them here at Wikipedia claiming fair use, is that OK? and how to do so? Bahraini Activist (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it. You haven't tried to get them released under a free license yet. Contact the photographers or appeal on social media. This is high profile enough you'll have to register anything you get with WP:OTRS or risk deletion, perhaps for reasons not entirely aimed at improving the site. Hope this helps.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to get them released under a free license. The photographers don't respond, it seems they don't understand the importance of releasing the work under licenses. In my culture people just save pictures and publish them without permission. And in situations like those in Bahrain people want their work to be published regardless to their copyright.

How to appeal? Bahraini Activist (talk) 07:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

1923 question

I'm busy with Walking Liberty half dollar. The reverse, or tails side was based on a medal that Adolph Weinman did in 1907 for the American Institute of Architects, it can be seen with the eagle. So is a 1907 medal that was photographed and published before 1923 out of copyright even though the medallist hasn't been dead 70 years? Convince me! Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I hate this stuff, and I'm not going to do a full-blown analysis or cite any legal authorities except the simplest: "Applying these standards, all works published in the United States before January 1, 1923, are in the public domain." (U.S. Copyright Office "Duration of Copyright") --Bbb23 (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyright

I'm not sure how to determine if this image is appropriate under copyright restrictions. I copied the image from this website, but it is a historical place drawing from 260 years ago.

File:Carbonear Island 1750map.JPG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cokebaby5 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The upload is fine. But, on the file's description page, please include at least the link to the source (the webpage you mentioned above) and a status tag to indicate that the image is in the public domain (for example the {{PD-old}} tag). It is good practice to use the {{Information}} template to include the basic information, such as a description (at least a few words to tell what the image is), the source, the date, the author ("unknown", if unknown). Please also add relevant information and a license tag to the other file you uploaded (if you are the author of the photo, you choose the license). It is also recommended to upload such free images on Wikimedia Commons (instead of on Wikipedia), so they could be used by other language Wikipedias. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

my own personal photograph that I took

My image does not have a copyright. It is my own personal photograph that I took. Could you please advise me on what to do, how to reference it so it is accepted by Wikipedia. Here is the image for Tony_Harrington,_aka_Doctah_X.jpg‎ (269 × 463 pixels, file size: 30 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg) Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karenbellxx (talk • contribs) 21:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean File:Tony Harrington, aka Doctah X.jpg. You must add a freely licenced copyright tag and fill in all the details in the information template that I have added to the image. Many photographers use the template {{PD-self}} to release their images. ww2censor (talk) 23:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you SO much. I'll do it, and thanks again!! I'm truly grateful. Karenbellxx----

Thanks again. I tried what you suggested but am getting very discouraged. It didn't seem to work. I appreciate your help, but Wikipedia sends me to so many links with so much information and it never seems to tell me what I need to know. What I need is a simple formula which is what I thought you tried to give me, but I must not be techy enough to make it work. I SO want to be done with this project. I'm sure you'd like that too! I think the article is interesting and the photo looks good. I wish I could get Wikipediat to accept it and let me move on. Please advise again. I'm SO sorry to be taking up your time. Thanks again. karenbellxx(----)10/16/11

Before you do anything irrevocable, you must decide what you really want to do with your copyright on this photo and you should be comfortable with the consequences of that decision. Do you want to reserve all rights, some rights, or give away all your rights on this photo?:

• If you want to reserve all your rights, then the image cannot be hosted on Wikipedia (or on Wikimedia Commons).
• If you want to give some rights but still want to retain some other rights (so that other people can reuse the photo but on condition that they must at least credit you as the author), then you can choose any of the available free licenses. If you're not sure which free license to choose, one that is often recommended is CC-by-sa-3.0 unported. If you want to use it, you can copy the tag {{CC-by-sa-3.0|Karen Bell}} to the image description page. If you prefer another free license, you can copy the tag associated with the license of your choice. Specify the name under which you want to be credited (it can be your Wikipedia username Karenbellxx or you can specify a different name for attribution).
• If you don't care at all that anyone can do whatever they want with the photo and you want to give away all your rights on it (in other words, you want to give the photo to the public domain), then one recommended tag to express your decision to that effect could be Cc-zero. Note that if you give your photo to the public domain, you cannot change you mind later. So, before you take that decision you should read what it means there, and if that's ok with you then copy the tag {{Cc-zero}} to the image description page. (Or the tag {{PD-self}}, which has almost the same effect.)

-- Asclepias (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

While you filled in the information template completely you seem to have had difficulty with the licence. Perhaps you were thinking too hard about it because you just needed to add the {{PD-self}} tag just as it is written and not with the hidden display coding, template prefix or file name added. I have modified the licence to show correctly now and unless you are unhappy with it, the deletion notices can be removed. Should you want to apply a different licence per Asclepias' suggestions above, just change what is there for a different one. Hope that helps. Don't get disheartened by any initial difficulties; copyright can be a bit difficult but there are always editors available to help you. ww2censor (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

OMG, you are so kind. I appreciate your help more than you can imagine. So I'm basically done now? Do I remove the tags or does someone else come and do it? I'm still confused about that since it seems an administrator needs to do it. I think Wikipedia is wonderful,just that I'm not adept at it. You all have been so helpful to me, and I will tell everyone I know about you. Please let me know if I need to do anything else. karenbellxx(---) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.58.193 (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the PD licence you added previously but incorrectly formatted, that I fixed, you have added a Creative Commons attribution licence. You can't use both, one of the other applies. Choose one and remove the other. You can also remove the deletion notices when you have done that. ww2censor (talk) 00:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I think that in my example I should probably have written "Karen Bell" (instead of "Karenbelxx") as an example of the attribution parameter, because if I look at the image page, that seems to be the name you used in the author field. Anyway, just write whatever you want as the attribution parameter (that is the part that comes after the vertical line, after "CC-by-sa-3.0|", in the template. It tells people under what name exactly you want to be credited). -- Asclepias (talk) 06:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll leave the license you put in. I can't thank you enough. You are a saint!!!!I would hug you if I could. Karenbellxx(----).

It won't let me remove the "delete" tag. It says I'm not an administrator. Duh!! I certainly am not. I can barely get in and out w/o asking you how! Please advise. I even have a copy of the Missing Manual here, but can't find it in there. Again thanks for all of your help. Karen.(----)

I've remove the deletion notice and refined the other information. Perhaps you were clicking on the "delete this file" link instead of editing the notice out like any normal edit. It is all fine now. ww2censor (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I am so greatful. You have been such a HUGE help to me and to Doctah X. Wikipedia is lucky to have you. Karen Bell )----).

Help!!

Hello, I want to upload an image from this website of a 3D reconstructed head of a mummy, a bog body specific, called Yde Girl. The image of the reconstion does NOT belong to the website, but to Richard Neave Source, who created the sculpture. I also want to use it on List of bog bodies. I also plan on using the same liscence as the image of the Lindow Man. I could use a little help on how to upload the image. --GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 00:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You should email Richard Neave and ask him to release the image under a WP-compatible license. →Στc. 00:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

How to tag items that are clearly in the public domain in the U.S.

I have spoken to an archivist at Stanford University about the use of various photographs that I have posted under Shark Island, German South West Africa, Okahandja Concentration Camp, Windhoek Concentration Camp and Swakopmund Concentration Camp. These photographs were taken roughly between 1904 and 1918. I was told that in the United States anything that was published before 1923 is now in the public domain. Precisely because of this, I avoided posting these photos to WikiMedia Commons, where they could possibly be used internationally (not limited to the United States). Thus, these photographs should be in the public domain in the United States.

Since there was no way to assign these photos "Public Domain" as a classification (that choice is not one of those in the drop-down for classifying photos when you upload), I assigned them the classification "Historically significant fair use (deceased persons or historic events)". There ought to be no fee for using a photograph that's in the public domain!

Was the classification I assigned, incorrect? Please advise! I want these photos to be seen legitimately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virago250 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you know if the images were published in the US before 1923? If so it is easy to prove public domain. Otherwise you will have to pay attention to German South West Africa copyright law. Look at Template:PD-US-1923-abroad. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It depends on where the photo was originally published; if it was published in Germany, you'll want to pay attention to German law ({{PD-old-70}}); if in German South West Africa, I imagine that Namibia probably holds the current copyrights ({{PD-Namibia}}). You can use this, in conjunction with Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights, in case the images were published after 1923. If they were published after 1923 (or never published), you'll have to look at this document [2] to determine the copyright status in the US. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

1920's election artefacts

 Done --Senra (Talk) 21:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I have access to a selection of election leaflets, pamphlets and photographs from the election campaigning of Frank Broad MP from 1918-1935. I wish to use a photograph of Frank Broad on his Wikipedia page but I am unable to trace the photographer or accurately date the photograph. The image I wish to use comes from a 1922 post-election thank you card. The card is part of a private family collection of similar artefacts. I have not yet uploaded the image. How do I go about ensuring that I use the correct copyright tags on the image after uploading? Does Wikipedia (specifically Wikimedia Commons I guess) need written permission from the Broad family? --Senra (Talk) 11:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

This is from the UK. Template:PD-UK-unknown may apply. If you consult the Broad family and they do not know the photographer, then you will have met the reasonable inquiry requirement. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

A few things: anonymity in the UK is based off making a reasonable search into the authorship. If you can't find the author, after making reasonable inquiry, then it is considered anonymous. This applies even if the author transferred the photo rights to the family.

Publication is defined as making copies available to the public at large. Handing out leaflets to people on the street probably applies; sending out only a few to friends in the mail probably doesn't.

If the item was published before 1941, and is anonymous, then it is public domain per Graeme Barlett.

If it was never published within 70 years of the photo being taken, and is anonymous, it is public domain (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1995/3297/made §5, Sec. 1-3)

If it was published after 1941 but before 70 years of the photo being taken, it is copyrighted and you need permission.

If you can find out the author and his/her date of death, then it's 70 years after their date of death.

Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Whatever happens, if it was widely distributed it's going to qualify as {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, so can be uploaded to Wikipedia. If you can determine the UK copyright status, it may be possible to transfer it to Commons. Jheald (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

purchase the space invaders game, the original

Where can I find the orginal space invaders game for purchasing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.27.117 (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6.8 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

applying a copyright to a photo

I need to put a copyright on a photograph... after uploading photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmg706 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

When you want to add something to a file description page, you can edit the page, like you would edit any other page. If you are talking about File:Robert H. May.jpg, please provide the source from where you took it. Also the author and first publication details, if available. You were trying to add a CC licence, but it would be surprising if this 1872 photo was under a CC licence, or you should explain why it is. Also, why uplaod two different photos on top of each other? -- Asclepias (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Photo of Acija Alfirevic

Photo of Acija Alfirevic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goran500 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

We have an article at Acija Alfirević but what is the question? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

How do I credit an image's copyright to myself?

How do I credit an image's copyright to myself? Is that even plausible? Thank you ZephyrWind (talk) 05:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this regarding the image File:WilliamScorpion.jpg that you recently uploaded? Where did this image come from? Did you take the photo yourself? If you hold the copyright to this image you can license it for use under a free license. A free license allows anyone (not just Wikipedia) to use the image for any purpose, even to making derivative works or commercial uses. One such license is the Creative Commons attribution license, which only requires that the copyright holder (you, if you took the photo) be credited. For more details, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. However, if you don't own the copyright to this image you may try reading Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for more information and guidance on how to proceed. If you can provide additional details about the source of this image I'm willing to assist you with this image. —RP88 ^(talk) 06:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyright rules

Do you suppose I could upload the twitter profile picture of my subject to use as a photo on my wiki article? Is that allowed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikita sss (talk • contribs) 06:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

If this is regarding Sangita Santosham, I am afraid the answer is almost certainly no. While the English Wikipedia allows limited use of non-free content, all such use has to comply with an established non-free content policy. In this case, your proposed upload runs afoul of WP:NFCC#1, namely that a free equivalent is either available, or could be created. Because Sangita Santosham is still living, it's reasonable that a Wikipedia contributor could take a picture of her and license it for use under a free license. As such, using a non-free image of her isn't permitted. —RP88 ^(talk) 07:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. So I suppose as long as I get an authorization to use her photos i can use anything I can get my hands on. I can try getting one from her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikita sss (talk • contribs) 17:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

There needs to be proof of that permissions, so an email from her to the OTRS queue see Wikipedia:Contact us/Permit stating that you have a permission to release her photos under the free cc-by-sa-3.0 license. But please make sure that she is copyright holder. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Moral Majority

Is this pic [3] free? And would it improve Moral Majority? Thanks, – Lionel ^(talk) 11:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

No. The artwork on the membership card is copyrighted by the Moral Majority. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, the picture itself is licensed as cc-by-nc, which is a non-commercial license, which means it cannot be used at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 13:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrong information.

Regarding File:Fradelle.jpg, the uploader stated he owned the copyright, but this was actually a painting done in the 18th or 19th century. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

PD-old-100 applies. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I know that somewhere around here

there is a discussion about "freedom of panorama" (or something like that) in different countries. I know that in the United States the creator of a statue has the rights to images of the work, but I also know that this is not true of all other countries. I have a photo of a statue in Mexico and am wondering if it is copyright free or not. I have this spot bookmarked, so hope to hear from someone. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

A photograph taken of a statue covered by copyright is a derivative work of the statue, and absent special provisions in law you'd normally need permission from the statue's copyright holder to contribute your photo to Wikipedia. However, you are correct, in many countries a special exception in copyright law eliminates the need to get permission from the statue's copyright holder if the statue is in a public place (and, as you said, this is sometimes called "freedom of panorama"). Over on Commons there is an excellent summary (at Commons:Freedom of panorama) of these laws for many countries. For Mexico, if you take a photo of a statue visible from a public place (either an interior or exterior public place) you can license your photo under a free license and upload it to Commons. Make sure to include the {{FoP-Mexico}} tag in the image description for your photo along with the image copyright tag corresponding to the free license you choose for your photo. The only gray area is if the statue is located in a venue open to the public but the venue requires a fee for admission. Whether such a venue qualifies as a public place is not yet settled under Mexican law. —RP88 ^(talk) 23:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt and informative reply. The statue is indeed in a free, public place, but I have not been able to upload pictures at Commons in a couple of weeks. Not that i have been in trouble there, just when I hit "Upload" (or whatever), I wait and then get a FAILED flag. I will try to upload it at wikipedia and hopefully the tag that you've provided me with will work here too. Life is supposed to be interesting. Carptrash (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately freedom of panorama and dealing with the attendant subtleties based on country of origin is mostly a project of Commons. None of the templates for dealing with FoP exist here at the English Wikipedia. If I were you, I'd try Commons again to see if your issue with uploads has been fixed (if not, maybe inquire at commons:Commons:Help_desk or commons:Commons:Village_Pump). If you can't resolve your upload issues with Commons and end up uploading your image here, I'd encourage you to mention Mexico's freedom of panorama in the permission section of your image summary. —RP88 ^(talk) 00:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I might try contacting Commons and see what they suggest. I did load the image here [4], probably without enough explanation. But that is my problem now. I originally wanted the picture for an article about the sculptor that I found on the Spanish wikipedia - there was no article in the English wiki, but I could not seem to be able to post it there. However I think I am going to squeeze an article out of bablefish translations - which are about 47% better than my Spanish, and what ever else I can drum up. Sort of a scary thought. Carptrash (talk) 01:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Some people have had problems using the commons upload wizard but you could try using this upload page but make sure to fill in everything you can and then add the FoP Mexico template after it has been uploaded. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 01:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I wandered over to the link that Ww2censor provided and it looks promising. However since it is beddy-bye time here I am not going to give it a try tonight. Once the week starts (I get Monday off !) thing can get weird, but especially after I get an article on Ignacio Asunsolo ready I shall, in the words of Douglas McArthur, return. Carptrash (talk) 02:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

In making over 7500 uploads to Commons, I've never used anything other than Special:Upload. It just about always works for me. Nyttend (talk) 05:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Help required

I have uploaded a file File:Map_mumbai.gif I have also added a source http://202.54.119.40/basic_map.htm but still I am getting message for copyright. The source is Public Domain and anyone can use it so what can I do please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkalein (talk • contribs) 07:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The source is copyrighted, because Indian governmental works enter the public domain 60 years after their creation. I have deleted it as a copyright violation. Nyttend (talk) 12:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

If you want a non-copyrighted map that depicts the same thing, you could ask on WP:GL/MAP and see if anyone would make one for you. That is where our volunteer map-makers hang out. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Iphone 4 Box

De minimis is claimed for the image of the iphone 4 on the box lid (the copyright of which is almost certainly owned by Apple). I do not believe that de minimis applies in this case because there is no way that the image of the iPhone 4 can be considered incidental to the subject of the photograph. Further, the photograph has been taken to deliberately include the image. The principle further fails because the test of whether obscuring the image would significantly affect the subject matter of the picture fails - because it clearly would. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I note that the iPhone 3 box picture was deleted for precisely this reason. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• I concur with your assessment. However, the image is on Commons. We can't do anything about it here. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

There is now a deletion nomination on Commons. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Sf1912.jpg

I have uploaded this file: File:Sf1912.jpg, a Christams seal issued in 1912 in then Russian Finland. I was unaware who the author was. Now I have discovered that this Christmas seal had been designed by Väinö Blomstedt who died in 1947. I am uncertain now if there is any copyright covering this picture. Finnish post stamps issued prior to 1945 do not fall into this category, but I do not know how it looks like with Christmas seals. I hope it is in public domain now, but I would be happy if you could check this. If the image is copyrighted, please delete it. Thank you. Kiejstut9 (talk) 08:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

well if is not considered a work of art, the copyright expired in 1962. (template:PD-Finland50) but otherwise expires 70 years after author death in 2017. (Template:PD-Finland) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry: I'd say it's a work of art, and we'd have to wait until 2017. Somebody want to do the deletion honors on Commons? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

linking websites

Hi, please can you tell me how you link a website on your page? For example when writing Skysports how do you make it so if you click on the name it will direct you to their website?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.92.232.178 (talk) 09:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The Opta Sports page already has all the links it needs. You correctly added links in this edit, but they were removed by a bot because these particular links are not allowed to appear in Wikipedia because they have been used for spam. I would stop trying to add these links, and also read WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

BP 110 is this correct?

I added the copyright tag "Promotional material" to this file File:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Baha_3_BP_110_sound_processor.jpg Does it look OK now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josabeth (talk • contribs) 11:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid the image File:Baha_3_BP_110_sound_processor.jpg can't be used on Wikipedia. It's a non-free image of this device, but we'll need someone to create a free image for us to use it here. (We can't reproduce someone else's copyrighted image without their permission in this case.) – Quadell ^(talk) 12:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

about the book 'the space program'.

what ponit of view does the author present in this acticle? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.84.123.90 (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 3.7 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck.Template:Z25

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our policy here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know.--Orange Mike | Talk 17:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Weird image source issue

I have no idea if there's a better place than this one to point this out; I apologize if I picked the wrong page. I was curious about the source of File:35wBridgecollapse.gif so I looked at the description page and ended up pretty confused. Apparently (as far as I can surmise) the file was uploaded to Wikipedia, and then to Commons, and then for some reason, the Wikipedia description was replaced by the Commons description, which says "This file originated at Wikipedia" and links back to the Wikipedia description, which now just says "This file originated at Wikipedia" and links back to itself.

I don't know what, if anything, should be done to correct or improve this situation, but I thought I'd point it out to those who may have a better understanding of this stuff. Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it used to say that - note the commons pages says "Originally from en.wikipedia; description page is/was here" - not a lot of use for most. But if someone on commons wanted to check all the history that did exist here, then they could do so (providing they are an admin here). Seems to be different now, one image I moved recently, now says just "Transferred from en.wikipedia"  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

It makes sense for the Commons description to link to the original Wikipedia description, but I don't see why it makes sense to replace that Wikipedia description with the Commons description that just links back to the Wikipedia description that isn't there anymore. The fact that admins can still look at what used to be on the Wikipedia page doesn't make it all right. Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

image:HillsdaleMichignaDowntown.jpg Copyright

I uploaded the image mentioned. Wikipedia is threatening to delete it unless I release copyright data and permission from the original author. Below the image I recently included the FULL email exchange between the author and myself, in which he is clearly giving me permission to use his image. I would like the deletion warning removed immediately. Brother Atticus (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)Brother Atticus

You didn't upload it to Wikipedia; you uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons. You have to discuss its deletion there. Even ignoring technical requirements--a pasted-in email is generally not considered trustworthy enough--the permission is not sufficient. "Use on your web site and personal use by viewers are fine with me. I'd appreciate it if persons planning commercial use would contact me first to discuss their intent. I may or may not request compensation from them, depending upon their proposed use." is not good enough.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

First, I don't see how the most literal possible statement of permission, presented outright to boot, can be "not good enough." Secondly, how can I provide a "link" to a statement of permission that was given over email? Am I supposed to hand out my email password? Brother Atticus (talk) 02:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Brother Atticus

It seems to me that the phrase "depending upon their proposed use" suggests that the image is not free. "Free" means the proposed use does not matter. Carptrash (talk) 02:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Because it's not a free license; it restricts commercial use. You need to use OTRS. And again, you need to discuss this on Commons, not Wikipedia.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrong photo on ASTRA National Museum Complex's page

Good afternoon,

My name is Eliza Penciu and I'm working in the marketing department of ASTRA Museum from Sibiu. I would like to change the main photo of the page which belongs to Astra Library not to ASTRA Museum with one of our National Museum Complex. Which are the possibilities to do this very important task?

Thank you very much,

Eliza Penciu ASTRA Museum Sibiu phone: +40269202413 www.muzeulastra.ro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizapenciu (talk • contribs) 08:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Eliza Penciu, I'd be happy to help you. I assume this is regarding the page titled "ASTRA National Museum Complex"? The first thing you have to understand is that Wikipedia's goal is to be a free content encyclopedia, with free content defined as content that does not bear copyright restrictions on the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, or otherwise use works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially. This means that if ASTRA Museum Sibiu owns the copyright to a photo that you would like to upload and use on that page, you need to arrange for the photo to be licensed under a free license, such as the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license (Romanian version). Wikipedia has a page that discusses how to donate content to Wikipedia. Probably the easiest way to do this is to upload your preferred photo to the www.muzeulastra.ro website, then send an email from a @muzeulastra.ro email address that references the URL to that image and indicates it is available to use with the language from the template at WP:CONSENT. Then upload the file to Wikimedia Commons and place {{OTRS pending}} on the image page. Someone from the OTRS team will reply to your email, indicating whether the content and your license is acceptable and update the page to indicate that the confirmation of the license has been received. If you require additional assistance please let me know, I'm happy to walk you through the process. —RP88 ^(talk) 09:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like this photo on Commons was uploaded by you. Is this the photo you'd like to use on the ASTRA National Museum Complex page? If so, all you have to do is edit that page to use the photo you've already uploaded to Commons. You still should arrange for Alexandru Olanescu to send an e-mail with the language from the template at WP:CONSENT indicating that he is willing to license his copyrighted image under a free license. As it currently stands, the folks at Commons might delete your photo on Commons sometime in the future since there currently is no indication in the photo's description that the uploader (Eliza Penciu) had permission from the photo's author (Alexandru Olanescu). —RP88 ^(talk) 10:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you have to wait a certain amount of time before uploading a non-free content logo?

Do you have to wait a certain amount of time before uploading a non-free content logo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosimo, Inc (talk • contribs) 16:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Well you have to satisfy the requirements for non-free material, so it has to be used in an article and serve a useful purpose. For new users they can't upload images until they have been here 4 days and edited 10 times, so that may be your situation. You can ask at WP:FFU if you cannot see an upload button. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Questions regarding CC-BY-NC-ND 3.0

I have some questions about the use of CC-BY-NC-ND 3.0 license in a website (a public forum) in order to publish some of it's content into Wikipedia:

1. Is it possible to apply this license to content from a specific date so that all content published before this won't be included with it? (ex: I only want content from 2011 to be included in this license and the rest to stay reserved) How to do so?
2. Is it possible to change the license later after applying it? (either to restrict copyrights or to increase them) and if copyrights are restricted, does this mean that the work published would be considered as copyright violation?
3. Is it possible to only include some parts of the website under this license and keep the rest of it as it is? How to so do?
4. What if someone changed some of the content which he/she copied from the website, is that considered to be a copyright violation?
5. If the forum (website) is licensed under CC-BY-NC-ND 3.0, does this mean that all pictures which their owners (the original photographer) decide to publish them are licensed under CC-BY-NC-ND 3.0 as well?

Thanks, Bahraini Activist (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

NC and ND are not acceptable for works entering Wikipedia. The most restrictive license we accept is CC-BY-SA. Broadly speaking such licenses are never revocable. For some types of uses it may be acceptable to say that works created after a specific date are licensed differently than works that came before, but it can depend on the specific license used and whether the new works directly depend on the old ones. Dragons flight (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright, let's talk about CC-BY-SA then. Thanks for answering 2 questions, can you answer the other 3 as well? Bahraini Activist (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It should also be noted that virtually nothing posted to a web forum is going to be considered useful here, since with very rare exceptions a web forum is the quintessential example of a non-reliable source. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

What if the photographer only published his work on a web forum? Doesn't this makes it the original source? Bahraini Activist (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that's another matter entirely. I was mostly addressing the text/information content of such fora. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Question about picture on David A. Huffman

Picture: File:David A. Huffman.jpg

A new user Adamforum (Talk) added this picture in good faith to the article David A. Huffman. See also Talk:David A. Huffman#Photo.

I have no experience with copyright on pictures, so I'm not sure if the copyright status is ok. Can somebody with more experienced have a look here? Thanks, SchreyP ^(messages) 22:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The image is on the commons, not here, and there is no evidence to verify the FAL copyright status of the image, so it has been nominated for deletion. Several websites use the image but only two attribute the image to anyone except two University of California Santa Cruz webpages that attribute themselves and a photographer Don Harris. The image is likely in copyright. Because he is deceased it may be acceptable to use a local upload of this image under the non-free content policy guidelines but a reasonable search for a free image must be made before doing that. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page that was written for editors like you. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 22:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi thank you Ww2censor for your help; I learned already a few things. I will keep the two provided links for reading later. -- SchreyP ^(messages) 06:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

image uploading

The image is created by me.So i dont know what information to be added to it..Plase guide me as soon as possible — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nilima kale (talk • contribs) 07:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello User:Nilima kale. For images we need information such as a written license for use. THis can be the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license. Also you should provide the information such as who made the picture, by what means, when, and what is it a picture of. Go to File:Rule engine.png click edit and add in all this information. There are information and copyright templates that could be used, and there would have been a chance to fill them in at upload time. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

File:OC-104.jpg

Its source has become unreliable: the FOX.com has shutted down its The O.C. webpage along with this image. Therefore, this image's copyrights and rationale should be considered, and the permission to use it is considered, as well. The administrator Postdlf told me in my talk page: [5]. What are your solutions? --Gh87 (talk) 19:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Postdlf told this user that FOX.com no longer hosting a page for The O.C. does not matter regarding whether this image's use is valid or not. As seen in that link, Postdlf explained fair-use to Gh87. As did I.[6] 174.137.184.36 (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

File:OC-325.jpg

What about this one? Its source is gone, thanks to FOX. Does using it with a dead source violate anything? --Gh87 (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)