Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lanskeith17 (talk | contribs) at 15:08, 14 June 2007 (→‎Cincinnati "The Banks" Image Question). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Media copyright questions
    Shortcuts

    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
    1. On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}})
    5. Hit Publish changes.
    6. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below.
    How to ask a question
    1. To ask a new question hit the "Click here to start a new discussion" link below.
    2. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end.
    3. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page.
    4. 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

    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)


    This talk page is automatically archived. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

    Image probably should be speedy-deleted

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Stockcarcrash_32.jpg doesn't seem to have the right fair use, nor really contributes to either article it's linked to I don't think. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guroadrunner (talk • contribs) 08:13, May 29, 2007 (UTC)

    Image:Armageddon score.jpg

    Hi, this image had no description given (my own fault apparently) as I uploaded this while still fairly new to Wiki. I have added a description and a purpose of use here

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Armageddon_score.jpg

    Would this now be ok? Douglasnicol 19:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's iffy at best. See WP:FURAT for a guide to what a good fair-use rationale should look like. Your best bet is to use the template. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't bloody win, I put up the template and an explanation, but its obviously not good enough for an overzealous bot. Douglasnicol 17:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete the above statement, it did disappear for a short while and then reappeared. I've put in a fair use rationale, does it seem satisfactory now? Douglasnicol 13:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I recently received

    a notification that an image that I had uploaded had been placed on the speedy delete list and that if I wanted it to remain then I should do something. I had up loaded that particular image, the cover of an Acker Bilk EP in 2004, well before the current album cover templates were set up. I also uploaded many more covers, notably for The Shadows and Manfred Mann but lots more. However I am not inclined to go back and change all the copyright information on them as some bot on a seek-and-whatever mission ferrets them out. Anyone looking at the images understands that they are record covers and as such are okay to use. I have had a lot of hard work removed from wikipedia through various different processes and am inclined to now be a deletionist about the material that I have added to the project. Folks want to toss it out, they can do so. Carptrash 14:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you have a question? ShadowHalo 14:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a way to program these bots so that they recignize material that pre-dates the nice templates that we have today? Or, should I just let these old postings go the way of all flesh? Carptrash 14:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there is no way to have the bots avoid tagging images uploaded before the rationales were made mandatory. All images, regardless of when they were uploaded, are required and have required for some time that there be a fair use rationale. ShadowHalo 14:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Carptrash 14:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Carptrash, I see that there are many contributers to Wikipedia who are faced with this kind of problems. I ask myself who defined these regualtions and who has the right here to say what is right. Those who are able to programme a "Bot"? I can't accept this. It should be discussed on some music portals before the copyright fan(atic)s delete all the material we have collected and integrated into this site. --Reinhard P. Braun 05:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Florida Memory Project tag OK'd

    I'm still getting notices from User:BetacommandBot about rationale even though the below tag is placed on the image and discussion pages. Example: Image:Goodwood Plantation rc04488.jpg. As you probably know, the Florida Memory Project template was discarded leaving many images either deleted or with notices. I now have it from one administator that it looks good.

    Digital Image Information

    This is a one of a kind unique digital image from The Florida Memory Project, Florida Department of State. It holds the archives' number of: 0000000. This image is needed to enhance and improve this article and no other representation exists.

    Use: The use of photographs and other materials in the custody of the State Archives of Florida is governed by state law and, in some cases, by the terms of the donation agreement under which the Archives acquired the images. In accordance with the provisions of Section 257.35(6), Florida Statutes, "Any use or reproduction of material deposited with the Florida Photographic Collection shall be allowed pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1)(b) and subsection (4), provided that appropriate credit for its use is given." Please contact the Archives if you have any questions regarding the credit and use of any material.

    Florida Department of State State Library and Archives of Florida 500 S. Bronough St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 (850) 245-6700

    Comments? Noles1984 16:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You'll have to notify the bot's operator of this, so that the bot will recognize the info as legitimate. --Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 13:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Album covers

    Over a year ago, I uploaded many album covers and am now getting bombarded with 'no fair use rationale' notices for them. The way I understood it when I uploaded them, was that they are album coversand can be used. I even added an 'album covers' template tag to identify them. Do I still need to provide a "fair use rationale", or is someone being pedantic? If I do in fact need to add a "rationale", is that rationale simply "this is an album cover"? I don't edit the Wikipedia much anymore, but think it's a waste of effort if these pictures get deleted because of "red tape". MrHate 00:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • You need to provide a fair use rationale to prevent the deletion of the images, and also, someone is being pedantic. I am wondering if we can't just add a general "Fair use rationale" for albums on the {{Non-free album cover}} template since it will probably be the same for all album cover images and it is pretty damn obvious why albums are fair use. The first example on the WP:FURG can help you with the rationale for these, MrHate, and I'm willing to help you add a rationale to some of these images if there are a lot of them. --Strangerer (Talk) 00:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll find my version of this up there somewhere under I recently received. I have decided to let the time and energy and even love that I put into uploading these images be spread evenly over the entire universe - after they get deleted. Put another way, I'm just letting them go. Carptrash 02:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I posted the above 5 more covers, all at Manfred Mann are on the chopping block. Oh well, wikipedia well be that much poorer. Carptrash 03:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also gotten many messages about album covers. The "licensing" drop down menu has a selection called "Album or Single cover" as well as many other types of covers. If these exist, then why are these bots deleting album covers? --StarberryX1337 03:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline for how to add a fair use rationale to the image page. Over time wikipedia's image use policy has gradually become more restrictive. Now we are enforcing the requirement to have a fair use rationale as part of the image description. Megapixie 05:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My wonder is, why is the rationale not built into the Album Cover template since it would be the same for all covers? Anyway, I did my part uploading the images years ago, now it is up to someone else to save them, if saved they will be. Carptrash 13:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC) - PS however, the bot is doing great work - 5 more covers for The Shadows that I'd uploaded have appeared appeared on the doomed list. Wave bye bye to the nice people. Carptrash 13:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The rationale is not always the same. A standard one can be applied if the image is used in the article about the album itself. However, that rationale includes the assertion that the image is low resolution, which is often not true. In addition, the rationale will be different if the image is used in an article other than the one about the album. ShadowHalo 14:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been months since I've contributed to WP. I log in today, and see my talk page hammered with deletion warnings for album covers. How does this motivate me to contribute now, or ever again? This pedantic crap is gonna kill WP. Wave bye bye to the nice people. Alcuin 02:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion of non-free images without time to add fair-use rationale.

    Hi,

    While I applaud the necessity to remove non-free or inappropriate images, serving notice to delete them (inviting the addition of Fair Use Rationale), but deleting the image only 2 hours later seems incredibly unfair.

    I refer to one specific instance, the Rebus (TV series) had a screenshot of one of the actors, Ken Stott - Rebus has been played by more than one actor. The request for fair use rationale was given here: diff, (and asking for comments on this page, which is what I am doing), but the image was deleted approx. two hours later - in the middle of the night in the UK, where the series is aired). diff.

    I am not necessarily questioning the deletion of this image, it is not my picture, and may not have qualified as fair use anyway, but I would have thought if Fair use rationale is being requested, some time should be given to produce that. It seems a violation of WP:FAITH, a) to question the good faith that somebody who uploaded the image thought it was fair use (the guidelines are quite complicated), and also b) the good faith required to allow some hard working editors (who also need to sleep) to carry out the FUR request, in order to attempt to improve the encyclopedia (by using appropriate fair-use images to enhance the quality of articles). As indeed Wikipedia:Featured article criteria rule3 suggests that It has images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject, this becomes even more difficult to find in some instances, as maybe there are no images that meet the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. Obviously non-free images should not be used if they don't meet the criterion, but if they can't be found will the article not pass FAC? Catch-22.

    As this image-removal drive seems to be working faster than 'human' editors can supply requests, are they expected to check every image used in their watchlist and supply the fair use rationale before an 'automated' bot beats them to it? This can be very time consuming, and also very demoralising, if articles that have had lots of work are ruined because the deletion of the images destroy the page. (c.f. this and that for discussions about another WikiProject I have spent a lot of work in.)

    Am I entitled to suggest that a period of 5 days be granted to supply requested fair-use rationale before deletion of an image (in a similar manner to a prod)? This doesn't seem unreasonable...

    Thanks, –MDCollins (talk) 09:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the wrong place to bring this issue, as policy decisions are not made here. This is for clarification of specific copyright issues. You might start at WP:VP.
    However, the best answer is that users simply should not upload fair use material without supplying a rationale in the first place. I don't find that the rules for fair-use media are all that complicated, and it's not as if both the upload page and the fair use templates themselves aren't explicitly telling the uploader what needs to be done. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your reply and have suggested to MDC that he may need to re-post elsewhere.
    However, while I agree with the principles, your second paragraph is a bit harsh. The images we are concerned about were uploaded some time ago, by other editors, when this issue was not being enforced. I agree that fair-use images uploaded from now SHOULD have the strict time limits for applying FURs imposed, and this will avoid lots of the problems. But it should be remembered that this is a transition period, and some grace should be allowed for bringing 'legacy' images up-to-scratch.
    EdJogg 11:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sherool makes the most important point below, but I have to admit I didn't check the file's log, but looked at the question from a different direction. MDC didn't say he was asking about "legacy" images. I see nonfree images lacking fair-use rationale uploaded time and time again: It's a current problem just as much as "legacy", so I chose to answer in terms of the current situation. The particular image he asked about was uploaded in May of last year anyway, and I don't recall that policies were all that different at the time. TCC (talk) (contribs) 11:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to avoid this turning into yet another urban legend about rogue admins I'd just like to point out that the image in question was uploaded and deleted by the same person[1]. That's right the uploader was an admin and he deleted his own image after the bot notification. This was a unusual situation and normaly such images are left for at least a week (usualy more due to backlog) before deleting. Unless the uploader happens to agree it should be deleted naturaly. --Sherool (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Copy vio Image:Marion Sparg publicity.jpg

    The template Template:PD-SAGov seems to indicate only South African government works older than 50 years of age are in the public domain, so wouldn't use of Image:Marion Sparg publicity.jpg violate Wikipedia rules? --Deon Steyn 08:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes. It will be deleted as early as June 7. ShadowHalo 08:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I see now it's already been automatically tagged. --Deon Steyn 11:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Old documents

    Image:Schoolapplication.jpg What would be the appropriate public domain tag for this image? Would a PD tag even be appropriate? cheers! Vassyana 17:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    PD tags are always appropriate if it's not copyrighted! :) I added one. It should be fine now. nadav (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I am really unclear on which tag to use for the image I'm trying to add to my article. Both the article and the image come from my gallery's website, and the image belongs to the estate of the artist. Also, after I thought I'd found the right tag (BSD), I was unable to add it to the image information. I couldn't find the image editing page. Which tag should I use, and how do I correct it so it is not deleted?

    Thank you, --Danngala 18:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello. I assume you are talking about Image:15748 Cresheim Mill.jpg and Image:RRT752.jpg. First, you will need to add the images to an article. Non-free images can only be on wikipedia if they are placed in appropriate articles for critical commentary and other such purposes (see WP:NONFREE). Once you do that, you should add the {{Non-free 2D art}} copyright tag. You will also need to supply a good fair use rationale. Best, nadav (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Help!

    My audio samples Media:Travelogue-The_Art_of_Conversation-Shards_of_Glass.ogg, Media:Travelogue-Telegraph-Reflections.ogg, and Media:Travelogue-Imaginary Hospitals-Hospital.ogg seem to be candidates for deletion. I did get permission from the artist to put them here on Wikipedia, but I don't know how to get them unmarked for deletion. I emailed the artist for formal permission using the GNU license. Can I put the deletion on hold?

    Would you mind using my talk page to respond, so I am sure to see it?

    Stshores24 19:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Chalmers University image

    I have permission to use an image for www publication related to research work at Chalmers University, the source of the image. I was not asked to pay for the rights to use the image. I am trying to formulate a fair use case for posting the image at Wikipedia. I'm not a copyright lawyer. My basic rationale is that it's not my image, therefore I wouldn't understand deciding to use one of the suggested licenses. The general policy for use of Chalmers images is stated vaguely, but their willingness to provide this image free for www publication suggests the image falls under their free use policy (i.e. it's not for profit and not created by an "external photographer" not working at Chalmers who charges for use).

    It all seems quite complicated. BTW: I have used the image elsewhere. It is now on the internet. --Rogerfgay

    I assume you are talking about Image:PN Chalmers 300.JPG? This image is problematic for use on wikipedia. It's a non-free image of a living person, and these are usually not allowed because they could potentially be replaced with a free image. You will have to get the copyright holder to explicitly release the image using a free license such as the GFDL. Alternatively, you could take a picture of this person yourself and use that. nadav (talk) 09:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Image:MTR.gif

    This page was tag so i think that i made the fair use rationale better, did i? But i do have to ask what is the wrong with it in the first places. It did has some rationale as compared with this page, Image:Union Pacific Logo.svg. Union Pacific is the copyright holder for both. Lazarus-long 04:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The rationale is quite good. Nice job! nadav (talk) 08:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Album covers

    Why do you have problems with the reproduction of cover and label scans on pages related with labels, records and other discographical information. They are absolutely necessary to better identify and to show developments. See recent changes on Pink Moon page or at [Island Records discography]]. I invested some (much) time to make sides attractive and informative to users. I can't agree with the actual policy. --Reinhard P. Braun 05:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a very basic example at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale examples that could help you form the rationale. Note that covers should not just be used for decoration or just for the sake of adding an image. There should be some more text describing the different versions of the CD or their cover art. nadav (talk) 08:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    FUR has been added to Image:LT_Logo.jpg that was to be deleted (because it did not originally provide an FUR). Please advise whether it qualifies, so changes can be made if deletion is still a possibility.--Combat Fetus 05:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The rationale should be expanded. Take a look a the very basic example of a rationale for a logo at WP:FURG. Try to add as much detail about why the particular page to which you are adding the logo needs the logo. nadav (talk) 07:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is all too complex for me...

    I believe the author of this plot has agreed that his image is free-content, but it's none too clear what lawyers would make of the case. Do I need to bug the poor guy with further emails forcing him to agree more explicitly to place it in GFPL or equivalent... and then move it to wikicommons or whatever the place is? This is prohibitively difficult the first time 'round! Thanks for any help... --Jasonphollinger 05:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This image is problematic because it could potentially be replaced with a free image based on the same data. Non-free graphs are usually not allowed on Wikipedia. Please either create a new graph yourself or request that the image creator license it using the GFDL or an acceptable Creative Commons license. nadav (talk) 08:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The data was unpublished. I asked the author if he would agree to CC:Attribution/ShareAlike license, and he agreed. I will update the image. Thanks. Jasonphollinger 20:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    What is considered "Low resolution"?

    Will someone define what 'low resolution' is in relation to album covers? Sa cooke 06:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The Wikipedia Image use policy addresses both the size and resolution of images on Wikipedia. According to that page, they should be less than 20 megabytes in size, and a maximum of 550 pixels wide. Jenolen speak it! 07:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Make the resolution of the image the smallest size that doesn't detract too greatly from the article. Lowering the resolution is a very important criterion when including fair use images such as album covers. There is no one-size-fits-all, since it depends on the level of detail in the picture. nadav (talk) 07:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Lowering the resolution is a very important criterion when including fair use images such as album covers. -- Well, I suppose, although since no properly-tagged, properly-sourced Wikipedia image has ever been found NOT to be fair use, I'm not sure why you believe that. That's more of the "Wikipolicies are way more strict than the law requires" prophylactic approach to to "non-free content." WP:NONFREE is, by unaminous consent and design, much stricter than any legal requirement. And, of course, there is an image use policy on Wikipedia - the aforementioned WP:IUP. So I don't see how anyone following both WP:NONFREE and WP:IUP should have anything to worry about? Jenolen speak it! 07:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The official policy (which is transcluded into WP:NONFREE) is at WP:FUC. Item 3(b) specifically calls for images to be low resolution. I have been informed that there is case law that indicates low resolution is equivalent to using only a part of a work, which is very useful for proving fair use. In any case, we are governed by our policies (including the non-free content guideline), not just the law. nadav (talk) 07:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    550 pixels is the maximum width at which an image should be used in an article; that's irrelevant here. In most cases, 300x300 would be a good resolution at which to upload album covers; that's the highest default width for thumbnails available in a user's preferences. Any cover that's a decent amount larger than 400x400 is likely to be tagged with {{fairusereduce}}. ShadowHalo 13:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thankyou. I'll ensure any further images I upload are within these limits. They sound disturbingly arbitary to me, but if that's Wikipdia policy then that's what I'll follow. Sa cooke 07:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    How do I had a tag to an image

    I received permission form the web site http://www.mendoparks.org/ to use this picture to build a Wikipedia page. How do I go about creating an appropriate tag for Image:Mackerricher.jpg ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wyorunner (talk • contribs) 07:47, 8 June 2007.

    Image:Mackerricher.jpg is a scenery picture from North California, so Wikipedia's criteria for including non-free images (item 1 specifically) would probably not allow using the image if it is not free content, which is much stronger then just having permission to use the picture. Therefore, you will have to ask the copyright owner of the image to release the image using a free license such as the GFDL. Helpful instructions for how to do this are available at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Best, nadav (talk) 02:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Derivative works

    Are pictures of buildings considered derivative works? I know that pics of statues are derivative works and should thus have a copyright tag on them. What about buildings? BlueAg09 (Talk) 07:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    In a way they are, but US copyright law has a special provision that allows pictures of buildings without any problems. Take a look at Freedom of panorama. nadav (talk) 07:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So in that case, what kind of copyright tag should they have? BlueAg09 (Talk) 08:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    According to US law, you hold the copyright and can license it in any way you want. In other countries, that may not be so, but that's not important for this case. Further details are at Wikipedia:Public domain#Photographs of buildings. nadav (talk) 08:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Image:Irimescu100.jpg

    Hi - The image I uploaded (Irimescu100.jpg), to be used on the page about Ion Irimescu, was deleted. I am not very familiar how to specify things so that it would stay there. This image is available on the official website of the city of Falticeni at http://www.falticeni.ro/images/irimescu100.jpg. The original website is freely available to the public from a state-owned website and the website images are not copyrighted (there is no copyright notice anywhere on the website that I can find). Hence, to my mind there is no copyright infringement according to Romanian copyright law. Please let me know what you think and whether it is alright to have the image on wikipedia. Thank you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rmn1791 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

    The status of the copyright is not that easy to determine. We have to assume the image is not free unless you can prove otherwise (by referring to specific statutes of the city or government). My opinion is that the image can still be used in the article though, because Ion Irimescu is no longer living and the event portrayed was somewhat unique. When you upload the image again, make sure to use add a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|Article}}. It is also crucial to add a good fair-use rationale that explains exactly why the image should be allowed: see WP:FURG for more info on how to do that. nadav (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blisstv and B4tv logos

    Hi there. I uploaded two images. One of the Bliss TV logo and the other of the B4 TV logo. I am unsure of which copyright tag to choose I took the logos from the Bliss and B4 MySpace pages, so could someone help me choose the correct copyright tag.

    Many thanks Senna. --Senna123 15:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    {{non-free logo}} would seem to work. You also need to write a fair use rationale for each use as well. MECU≈talk 02:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c) You will probably want to use the {{non-free logo}} tag, and you will also need to provide reasons for why the logos are important for the pages and why our use of them won't hurt the companies. You can read how to do that at the Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline. Also, note that logos shouldn't be added just to make the page look nicer; they should be familiar to the reader and help recognize the subject of the article, or else there should be discussion in the article about the logo itself. Other general guidelines are at WP:LOGOS, but don't worry too much about all that. I'll follow the pages to help just in case you have any trouble. Best, nadav (talk) 02:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    ASMS.jpg image deleted, why?

    I have received the copyright notice on this image (image:ASMS.jpg) and have updated the fair use criteria, indicating this is a logo that is displayed on the organization's website. However the image was still deleted on 2007-06-05T20:57:43 by User:Naconkantari. Why? I would like to have clarifications on this issue. By looking at Naconkantari's talk page, there are a lot of things going on with him/her right now. I am not sure if the deletion of this image has been well thought of. Lobster 21:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You need to talk to the admin. Leave a message on their talk page. If you don't get an answer or are unsatisfied with the results, you can then look into deletion review. MECU≈talk 02:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the advice. I did leave a message at Naconkantari's talk page. Looks like he deleted a ton of images on that day without checking the criteria: there was confusion about removing the tag. The admin thought the user was supposed to remove the tag, but the tag specifically said that users should not. Anyway, I expect this to be resolved soon. Lobster 05:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    How can i make the Pic legal?

    I think the logo is basically OK now. The article on the ASMS should be expanded now. nadav (talk) 23:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Image published in a French textbook

    I uploaded an image Image:Eccentric & rod 003.jpg taken from a questionnaire published in 1916 for a long-defunct French railway company. I cannot imagine how there could possibly be a copyright problem, however none of the licensing criteria given by WP seem to apply. Help!--John of Paris 16:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If it was not published in the US at the time [and is in compliance with "US formalities"], then the work is public domain in the US.[2] In that case, the {{PD-US}} tag is appropriate. If the work was authored anonymously or attributed to the railroad company, then it is also in the public domain in France, where collective works are released into PD 70 years after their publication. This would probably make it PD in all countries signed to the Berne Convention.[3] Thus if you want a more general tag, you can use the {{PD-because|Reason}} tag and replace Reason with this explanation. nadav (talk) 23:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    no for works published outside the US the cutoff date is 1 July 1909.Geni 00:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do say this? That's not what the page I cited says. I admit that it is complicated though. There are a number of conditions that should be met for it to be automatically free in the US without regard to status in France. nadav (talk) 03:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    see the "Works Published Abroad Before 1978 Without Compliance with US Formalities" section.Geni 08:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I did see that section. I don't know if textbooks of the time were published in or not in compliance with US formalities. I guess it's safer to assume the latter without further info. nadav (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    there would be non reason to publish in the US so the 1909 copyright cutoff likely kicks in.Geni 17:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Logo of my site

    Image:S2R.jpg I have not included any thing yet as i am not sure what to put. It is the logo of m site and i am goin to put it on my userpage soon. I did not create the image but requested it from http://cgarts.myfreeforum.org/ by a user called Gem. How should i put the copyright notice?

    The Sims 2 logo is copyrighted by EA Games and cannot be used in the user namespace. For information on how unfree media can be used, please see WP:NONFREE. ShadowHalo 22:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes but the logo has been recoloured and changed, another idea is maybe just to chop off ea's logo and just leave the S2R part, this would then be , eas logo, edited by 'Gem' with the ea logo removed by me, by the way what copyright notice would i use on that?Ω§Blacksmith2 23:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I intend to upload the new image within 6 hours of the instuction to do so, it the instruction is in the next 4 hours, other wise done within 48 hours Ω§Blacksmith2 23:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You will need to eliminate the part of the image that is similar to the actual EA Sims2 logo. Just changing its color is not enough. nadav (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    done, now what copyright should i put on that? Ω§Blacksmith2 23:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    My guess is that it probably cannot be copyrighted in the US, since it is just three letters in a certain font and color. In that case {{PD-font}} may be a good option. If you want people in other countries to be able to use the image also, you should ask Gem to release the image into the public domain or under a free license such as the GFDL. Best, nadav (talk) 23:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok now its got that 'who what where' question there,, have typed in what i think is the relevant info, just have a look , is it alright?--Ω§Blacksmith2 00:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    In my opinion at least, It's fine now. You can use it on your user page. nadav (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's a modified version of a copyrighted image. It clearly cannot be used on Wikipedia, more or less on a userpage. Miranda 08:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See this...
    "The Sims™ © 2000 Electronic Arts Inc. The Sims, Maxis and the Maxis logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts Inc. in the U.S. and/or other countries. All rights reserved. Maxis™ is an Electronic Arts™ brand.
    In simple terms, this means that the image is copyrighted by EA, and cannot be modified w/o the company's permission. Miranda 08:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are misunderstanding the law. Consider this analogy: I take a copyrighted book and excerpt a three word phrase from it. The result is a work that is ineligible for copyright, and I may do anything I want with it. That's what's happened here. Moreover, no part of the actual Sims logo has been used. nadav (talk) 08:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Then you translate the words into another language and add another sentence, then remove the bit you took from the book.Ω§|Blacksmith2 08:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Navdav, you are confusing plagiarism with copyright, which are technically the same thing. Second, the image is probably under a non-commercial license which means that the image cannot be modified without explicit permission of the author. Miranda 08:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand what you mean. Here's an idea though: we keep the speedy deletion tag on the image, and if an admin deletes then so be it. Then we open up this up for discussion at the Can I use...? page, where we will be able to discuss the matter leisurely.nadav (talk) 08:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Image has been blanked.i personally perfer this to deletion.and does a Uder called Real 96 know about this at all Miranda??Ω§|Blacksmith2 09:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I am sure she, or he knows about the situation. Miranda 20:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    wait you are real96Ω§|Blacksmith2 06:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Peter Nehr Image

    ShadowHalo, I have attempted many times to get the Copyright correct on this image. We have permission to use it. It was taken by the State of Florida's photographer and is part of their archives released for general use to their representatives as needed. Please, can you tell me which copyright this can be? I have used the same copyright information as provided by the prior State Rep that held this seat and you are still questioning it so obviously I am confused since he had no diffulties. --Anitanehr 17:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)Anita Clark Nehr[reply]

    I doubt very much that this image is in the public domain. You will need to show strong evidence that the photographer or Florida Archive has given up all copyright claims to the photo. Wikipedia as a general rule does not accept non-free images of living people, so this image cannot be used. You can get around this problem of course by just taking a picture of your husband yourself and uploading that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadav1 (talk • contribs) 23:10, June 10, 2007 (UTC)
    That you have permission to use the photograph is unfortunately insufficient for Wikipedia. We are here to create free content, and you must realize that any work considered "free content" may be used for unrestricted commercial reuse and derivative works. "Permission to use the photograph on Wikipedia" is not the same as "free content". If you are connected with Mr. Nehr, please add an official e-mail address to his government profile, fill out this template with an appropriate free license, and then send this e-mail to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org with a link to the image and article in question and a link to his government profile.
    Note, however, that a "free license" only refers to the irrevocable copyright license of an image; given that this is a photograph of a person, there are personality rights, moral rights and other statuses that affect how someone may legally use the image. I am not a lawyer and I cannot comment on how you should view releasing the image under a free license, but I hope that you do consider releasing it as such.
    Finally, if you are unwilling to release it freely for everyone to use, reuse and modify, then, though you can upload it, I can say with confidence that it will be deleted. For better or worse, non-free images of living public persons are regularly deleted on Wikipedia. If you decide not to freely license it, then hopefully we will get an un-official portrait or photograph at some point in the future.
    Hope that this helps! Feel free to ask any further questions here. Cheers, Iamunknown 23:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that the copyright, I believe, is not owned by Peter Nehr, but by the state of Florida. Mr. Nehr has permission to use it, but that's all. If you want to ask the copyright owner to release the image under a free license, then instructions are available at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. nadav (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. I forget that! Copyright can be so confusing... :S We could try contacting the website maintainers at this link to see if they have any useful information regarding copyright. (I'm not inclined to right now, tho, sorry :\) --Iamunknown 23:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Copyrighted images

    Hello. I just happened to notice that two images were deleted in Jeannette Piccard with no warning. I did post a note to the talk page of the person who deleted them but this person is on wikibreak. May I or may I not reupload these photographs? Is this a new Wikipedia policy to delete images without telling anyone? Thank you. -Susanlesch 22:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Image88-13377.jpg

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Image75-15326.jpg

    -Susanlesch 22:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at the Answers.com mirror of the article and the image ([4], [5], [6]), it appears that the two images in question were from the Smithsonian Institute website. Normally uploaders of images are notified of pending deletion, but this was a special case that I guess no one notified uploaders. The template in question — Template:Smithsonian — was subject to a deletion discussion archived at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 2. The consensus was to delete the template and then tag any remaining images with deletion tags. You should consider reading the discussion to understand why this was determined, but basically it is because the Smithsonian Institute does not own the copyright to very many works, and so it is only useful as a source of images, not as a copyrights status (which, if you look at those Answers.com pages, the template presented the Smithsonian institute as a copyright holder).
    That said, you can re-upload the image, but please only do so if you are familiar with who the copyright holder is and with the copyright status. The images may be in the public domain, but I don't know, and you should make sure to check out Hirtle's chart regarding the public domain. If you intend to upload the photographs and find more information, but still have questions, feel free to come back! Cheers, Iamunknown 22:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Iamunknown, thank you so much for your help (no way would I have guessed what happened). How does this one look? OK to link it to Wikipedia? -Susanlesch 00:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that one should be fine. It lacks exact information, but seeing as how it was created (and, I assume, published in a newspaper) in 1933, it should be {{PD-US}}. Just link it like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia: [[Image:Balloon-Settle-Fordney-Akron-1933.jpg|thumb|left]]. I'm glad I could help! --Iamunknown 01:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Woops. I changed it to {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}. Do you think {{PD-US}} is better? Also I uploaded another one from the same publication. Are these two both ok? (Neither one says who took the picture, only that they came from the Settle collection -- the guy flying Ms. Piccard's balloon). If so I think that the Piccard article is better off now without the fair use images. Thanks in advance. -Susanlesch 01:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that it is safer to assume the images are {{PD-US}} because they were created and (probably) published in 1933. (I say probably with some confidence simply because it was the World Fair and I assume photographs of that fair would have been published far and wide.) The other image may be okay for that same reason. --Iamunknown 01:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a reason to assume the photos were taken by the government? Just because they appeared in a government publication doesn't mean they were taken by government workers. I agree with Iamunknown that the PD-US tag is safer. nadav (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In retrospect, my assumption that these two images are in the public domain is not without doubt. Research would be required to determine with confidence the copyright status of the images. They were published in 1933, which does not automatically qualify the photographs for public domain status (those images published before 1923 in the United States are automatically in the public domain). I will try to contact the Smithsonian Institute regarding the first one (at Answers.com); it may end up that the copies uploaded to Commons must be deleted too. --Iamunknown 01:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Mysteriously (or I am looking at an old copy), someone restored the deleted images in Jeannette Piccard. But now I have replaced them with the commons images. If it isn't too much trouble, would the resident expert tell me on my talk page what to do if something needs to be done? Thanks for your help. -Susanlesch 01:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I called the Smithsonian who said they would help by email which I sent, including their negative numbers and links to the two images source pages. They replied they couldn't figure out what images they are and need a form filled out and mailed or faxed. Makes very little sense. Meanwhile the deletion requests have been removed by the original admin. I am tempted to ask for the commons images to be deleted and go back to the two images above (non-free and low res but better quality). -Susanlesch 18:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Image:DSCF2285.JPG

    What do you guys think about Image:DSCF2285.JPG? Currently (IMO) it is tagged in a manner based on the assumption that the object itself is copyrighted and so derivative works cannot be freely licensed. I kind of think that assumption is correct and the image is non-free (for some of my reasoning, see commons:COM:L#Acceptable_licenses, the list under "Specifically, the following are generally not allowed:"). What do others think? --Iamunknown 23:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's somewhat tricky, but I'm pretty confident that you're right in saying that it's a derivative work. The robot, I assume, was visually portrayed in the Dr. Who television series, and the model is supposed to be faithful to that representation. There is case law that considers statues based on images to be derivative. Therefore, the picture of the statue is also a derivative of the original. Note that the image is being used on the userpage of User:The-Doctor. I'll inform him of the problem. nadav (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    General question

    how do i add copyright tags. i am also have alot of problems with my thins being deleted —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PyreXions (talk • contribs) 02:10, June 11, 2007 (UTC)

    You can examine your contributions by going to your user talk page—Special:Mytalk—and click "User contributions". From there you can examine what images you have uploaded—Image:Glassvibe-1.jpg, Image:Spin web.sized.jpg 1.jpg and Image:Cartv2.jpg. None of them have been deleted, so I am unsure what you mean by that.
    To add copyright tags, you must first know the copyright status of an image. In general, to know the copyright status of the image you must first know the source of the image. In particular, what is the source of Image:Glassvibe-1.jpg and Image:Cartv2.jpg? Also, are you the photographer of this photograph? Then it might be a little easier answering your question. --Iamunknown 03:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Image Copyright problem
    Image Copyright problem

    Thank you for uploading Image:02746ju.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

    If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Jesse Viviano 16:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I uploaded the following image from the Library of Congress Image:02746ju.jpg, the source is clearly listed on the image's wiki page, along with the link to the Library of Congress website with all the relavent information relating to the image: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsc.02746 I further researched and found this page that references Rights and Restrictions "Which states: As a publicly supported institution the Library generally does not own rights to material in its collections. Therefore, it does not charge permission fees for use of such material and cannot give or deny permission to publish or otherwise distribute material in its collections. For further information, see the Prints and Photographs Division's online brochure, Copyright and Other Restrictions Which Apply to Publication and Other Forms of Distribution of Images: Sources for Information." I clicked on the link pertaining to the Copyright and Other Restrictions website and found this: Copyright and Other Restrictions That Apply to Publication/Distribution of Images http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/195_copr.html It seems clear to me that this image does not violate any restrictions that Wikipedia copyright violations; not only is part of the Library of Congress and can be used for public use (which is stated on the LOC website), it may also be used under the Fair Use Clause which is stated on the Copyright and Other Restrictions website. -Signaleer 04:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That means that the Library of Congress may not grant nor deny permission for most of the work it contains. Since this image was published after January 1, 1923 in the United States, that means that Time magazine still owns the copyright on this image, and therefore is the entity that may grant or deny redistribution rights, fair use excepted, so this is at best a fair use image. Since this image is being used to illustrate the American mood during World War II about this person, it needs a fair use tag and a fair use rationale. Jesse Viviano 05:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you would have elaborated on this fact with your initial statement referencing the fair-use, it would have saved me a lot of time of culling through the LOC website. -Signaleer 05:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not know that you had that misconception at first. I therefore started with a boilerplate challenge. Your response revealed your misconception, which is the misconception that led to the creation of the now-deprecated {{PD-LOC}} tag. Jesse Viviano 05:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I corrected the copyright tag, therefore this discussion is moot but thank you for bringing up this valid point to my attention. -Signaleer 05:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fair use rationale on Image:Bel07a.jpg

    Uploader is also the copyright holder - aren't all contributions to Wikipedia under GFDL? How can this image then be "fair use"? --Branislav Jovanovic 09:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Re deleted image UndaraTubes©Gari.JPG

    UndaraTubes©Gari.JPG

    Why was this deleted? I took the picture myself when I was there and the title stated " ©Gari.JPG " and that is me. Methinks your BOT can't think and it needs to be programmed to read the ©

    Do you still have the pic to re-instate? Gari (Garigolf)

    You can ask the administrators or request a deletion review. Otherwise, if the picture is yours, and you release it to the public domain or use creative commons licenses, then the picture can be uploaded. Otherwise, the picture cannot be accepted as a nonderivative picture. The image can be uploaded as a fair use picture, but can not be used in userspace. Miranda 17:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, you indicated that the image could not be used commercially. Wikipedia allows use of its content for any purpose, so we do not allow restrictions on commercial use. If you'd like to reupload the picture and release it into the public domain or under a free license such as the GFDL or a free Creative Commons license, then it can be used. Otherwise, the image appears to be a of a place open to the public where it would be possible to create a free picture, and it does not meet the first of our criteria for using unfree media. ShadowHalo 18:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    can I upload lyrics and/or chords to music I like? what would be required to make that legal?

    No, including all of the lyrics of a song or its tablature would be copyright infringement. ShadowHalo 18:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    book covers and title pages

    I don't understand the copyright rules with regard to book covers and also promotional portraits. For example, on the Alexander Altmann page I made a while ago, what were clearly promotional portraits were deleted, and now the image of the book title-page is also targeted for deletion. I don't know if this is someone being overzealous or not, but it really makes me not want to bother with this anymore. I spent a lot of time trying to get book covers and title pages through Interlibrary Loan and other means to make these biographical pages appealing, and now they are all being deleted. Really, what's the point? —Dfass 18:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The issues I see with Image:Alexander altmann smile.png are only that it has no fair use rationale and that it doesn't specify where the image came from (See Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline on how to add a well-written rationale). Once you add those two things, I believe current policy will allow you to use the image. Best, nadav (talk) 23:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Concerning the book title page Image:Altmann title mendelssohn.png, the issue is more complicated. The painting of Mendelssohn is in the public domain because it is very old. The US copyright office holds that short text with typographic ornamentation is not copyrightable, so it perhaps may be the case that the image as a whole contains no copyrightable material. However, I'm not a lawyer so I am hesitant about making such determinations. In any case, if the image is not free, then it shouldn't be used because it doesn't contribute much to the article besides making it look more aesthetic. Best, nadav (talk) 23:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a lot to be said for aesthetics. One of the strongest criticisms of the new Encyclopedia Judaica is that they took out many of the pictures. Pictures make an article inviting to readers. If there's going to be all these problems, I think Wikipedia administrators should make it much easier for uploaders to specify the proper copyright info. There should be a dynamic form that shows exactly the fields you need to fill in for a given media type. None of this "it is believed that this is fair use" crap that invites people to spend time uploading, only to have their labors negated by some unthinking Bot that deletes all the pictures. Thanks for nothing, Wikipedia. —Dfass 13:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    image of a living person licence

    What licence should I add to Image:Benmoody.jpg ??????? Ivanescence 20:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    We do not accept copyrighted images of living people. Please read our policy on using unfree media. ShadowHalo 20:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you please place instructions for newcomers on whether it is required to reply to a bot that is unhappy about a missing image copyright tag?

    The warning notice suggests that I Please notify the uploader with xxsubst:Image copyright|Image:Burdetterie.jpg}}xxxx

    Neither the warning message on my talk page nor the image's talk page gave sufficient instructions on if or how to notify the uploader. Where, pray tell, do I place this message to notify the uploader? I've spent nearly half an hour trying to figure out if I need do anything more. Please think about your Wiki instructions from the perspective of someone who has just received puzzling instructions.Pat 05:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Um... you are the uploader, the instructions are for people (well bot in this case) adding the no license tag to also add {{subst:Image copyright|Image:Burdetterie.jpg}} to your talk page where it will expand into the warning message you are refeering to. What you need to do add a proper copyright tag, wich I see you have already done so your work is done. --Sherool (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm going over the images uploaded by a user who didn't care much where an image was from so long as it was on a United States Government (USG) server. In deed, some were clearly copyrighted (and licensed by the USG under a license Wikipedia does not accept), some were public domain and clearly labeled. I don't know what to do about those which are not credited but appear on a USG website without copyright notice. i.e. Image:Rhmi2.jpg, Image:Becky_Branch_Falls.jpg, and Image:ANST-Triangle-Logo_1.jpg. Pdbailey 13:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    In my opinion, it's not good enough. Government publications can include copyrighted photos under fair use just like regular publications can (I think). It would be much be better to send an email to the website administrator specifically asking about where the photos came from (the Fort Bragg site has a useful question page, btw [7]). Note also that pictures taken by private government contractors are often copyrighted. Best, nadav (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, thanks. There are about 100 photos that I'm looking at, as such I intend to mark them all as possibly unfree and let others cleanup if they like the images. Pdbailey 01:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoa. Well if it's that many, then I guess that's the best approach. Good job on tackling this! nadav (talk) 02:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    book covers and title pages

    Can someone please address my question above? Thanks. —Dfass 15:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Book covers have to acquire permission from either the author or the publishers. After 70 years of the author's death, the book is in PD. Miranda 22:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How come for the past year the information on the {{bookcover}} template has said that low-res images of book covers are considered "fair use"? When did this change? That's a lot of effort gone to waste for me. I'm not going to start writing to publishers. That's simply too annoying. Wikipedia is going to lose a lot of color if we can't even have book covers.

    Fraudulant image tags

    What do we do with fraudulant copyright image tags, such images that are claimed to be the work of an editor but are clearly not so? --Beaker342 16:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You can add {{PUIdisputed}} and list it on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. Though if it's very obvious I tend to just strike out the incorect tag and add {{subst:nld}} (no license) and drop a note on the uploaders talk page. If you think the image can be justified under fair use just change the tag to a fair use one and add an apropriate rationale. --Sherool (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If the image is definitely taken from a non-free website, then you can nominate it for speedy deletion (criterion G12) with {{db-copyvio|url=web address of nonfree image}}. If it doesn't meet the speedy deletion criterion but you are still confident the image is a violation, then I tend to prefer using the procedures at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. My preference is to use WP:PUI for images I'm somewhat less confident are violations, or where I only dispute parts of the sourcing info. Maybe someone else can refer me to a discussion somewhere on how the two are different? Best, nadav (talk) 00:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    R-Expo Images

    Dear Sir I inserted 4 images in R-Expo Article which i guess r appropriate Image copyright tags. Following are the image names: rexpo.jpg rexpooldstore.jpg rexposupport.jpg rexpoeuropa.jpg

    I would request u to explain me the reason why its been repeatedly deleted and what shall i do to put it up.. thanking you Sanchitm 19:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Lack of copyright tag. Who took the photos?Geni 00:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    working within the National Library of Australia

    I am working as a volunteer on a project to link images in the Pictures Branch Collection of the National Library of Australia to relevant pages in Wikipedia. I have access to all the copyright documents for the collection and staff with copyright knowledge. My problems are:- 1. uploaded images from the online catalogue are immediately tagged for deletion due to copyright issues 2. there is no option in the copyright tags for "out of copyright"

    I am an absolute beginner as far as editing in Wikipedia is concerned so would be very grateful for any advice/help regarding these issues.

    The curator is happy to support me with any corroboration you may require

    Please notify me on my talk page

    NLA PIC 04:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Image:ProfileSanne.jpg and Image:ProfileSylvia.jpg copyvio?

    Both pictures seem to be copyrighted and come straight from the MaxModels website (they're promotional pictures for the Dutch Next Top Model contest). As I am only familiar with the deletion policy on Dutch Wikipedia, I would like to know what to do about these two pictures here...

    Thanks! Kind regards, Erik1980 15:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:CSD#G12.Geni 16:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, so how do I make sur it gets deleted? I now listed it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 June 13/Images, but is there anything else I need to do? Too bad I'm not a sysop here, too, these pictures would have been long gone if I were! ;) Erik1980 16:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    {{db-copyvio|url=whatever}}Geni 18:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    logos for deletion

    when the logos bear the name of the owner why must it be deleted especially a logo for peace or for a free campaign ICP logo for example and the ICP symbol also (Motegole 19:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    All images without free content licenses must conform to the Wikipedia non-free content guideline, regardless of what they depict. nadav (talk) 04:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Image:Tech-achieve-award.jpg

    Image:Tech-achieve-award.jpg was uploaded with a {{PD-release}} tag. I was unable to find such a release at the source website, though I may have missed it somewhere. I asked the uploader about it (diff), and the the uploader replied saying they couldn't remember the circumstances (diff). Could someone please check on the image and take appropriate action? Thanks. -- Jonel | Speak 19:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I truly doubt that the image is public domain. In fact, no one can release it to the public domain except the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, who own the copyright to the Oscar statuette[8]. I'm listing this for speedy deletion, since I don't think the stub it's on gives enough context for using this image anyway. 04:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

    Replaceable image?

    I posted this on Wikipedia:Fair use review, but further comments would be really useful. nadav (talk) 10:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I am concerned about whether this image is in compliance with our policy on non-free images of living persons. The uploader says the image is not reproduceable because it shows the subject at a unique phase in his research with three of his robot creations surrounding him. I have trouble understanding what this means. In any case, I sent a letter a few days ago to the copyright holder asking for the image to be released under a free license, but have yet to receive a reply have since learned that he will allow use of the image by permission only, so I am putting this image up for review now. nadav (talk) 11:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Cincinnati "The Banks" Image Question

    I am currently working on "The Banks" page discussing Cincinnati's plan for the riverfront. I wanted to upload an image (which can be found here: http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/transeng/images/transeng_img7095 ) but I have no idea what to tag it with. Thanks.User:Lanskeith17 10:50, 14 June 2007 (GMT)

    Help

    Can someone help me determine the copyright of this photo: [9] Thanks.Hajji Piruz 14:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions&oldid=138143199"