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)

Use of Ecunet logo

I uploaded the Ecunet logo Image:Ecunet Logo.jpg in order to ask this question: Wikipedia guidelines appear to allow only images that are in the public domain or that have a free license. Yet I see logos on plenty of pages (cf. Chevrolet, CompuServe, which clearly are owned by the companies in question. Please tell me how to use a logo with permission. InkQuill 01:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

First, although they're tagged with a template that suggests they're copyrighted, most corporate logos actually aren't. According to the Copyright Office, logos are generally ineligible for copyright protection as they contain insufficient "authorship"; that is, they're composed of details of coloring, typography, and/or simple geometric shapes with no original artwork to speak of; and these things cannot be protected by copyright. However, they are protected by the trademark laws, so we still need to be cautious in how they're used.

We really ought to change that template, since its confusing in that way. Copyright-ineligible logos hosted at the Commons are generally tagged with {{trademark}}, as many "non-free" logos here really should be. But it's a bit of a judgment call in some cases, so better safe than sorry.

Second, we don't use non-free media with permission. That's why they're non-free; either that or the permission we have isn't acceptable according to Wikipedia policy. The non-free media guidelines are helpful if you want to find out how we do this. The legal basis is fair use, but non-free media are contrary to the basic goal of the project so Wikipedia policy is actually stricter than the law requires.

Third, you didn't need to upload anything just to ask a question here. We don't answer general copyright questions, but this one was rather pointed.

If, however, you have a legitimate use for this logo, tag it {{logo}} and then {{logo fur}} for each article where you are using it. Read the documentation for the latter to find out how to use it, since you need to provide some information in the parameters. If you're not planning to use the logo anywhere, you can expect it to be deleted as is the policy on unused non-free media. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Where do I put the {{logo}} and {{logo fur}} tags? Do put the first on the discussion page of File:Ecunet logo.jpg? Where does the second go? InkQuill 03:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, I really didn't know how to find out what the issue would be with this logo. I didn't mean to violated the policy against pointedness and I apologize. The rules are rather difficult to navigate. Even your explanation and the non-free media guidelines are confusing to me, or just too complicated for my feeble brain. I understand the efforts to keep Wikipedia's content open, but print encyclopedias have long used non-free content. I'm not sure how we'll ever be able to use the Ecunet logo on the Ecunet page under the guidelines. InkQuill 03:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, Wikipedia names are case-sensitive. Image:Ecunet Logo.jpg is not the same as Image:Ecunet logo.jpg. And when posting here, please add a colon before "Image". Otherwise you won't link to it, you'll insert it into this page and we don't really want that.

Yes, print encyclopedias have long used non-free content, but Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Encyclopedias have also traditionally been non-free themselves, but that's not what we're about here.

The issue with this logo is the same as with every other logo here. You can use it to identify the organization in an article about them. You just have to jump through the hoops to justify it.

To place the tags, go to the image page and click the edit link. This doesn't edit the image; it edits the text describing the image. Add both tags there, and make sure that you fill in the parameters for {{logo fur}}. Policy requires that we include a rationale justifying each use of non-free media, but logos are so commonly added and all for the same reason that we now have a template to make writing rationales for them easier. Essentially we need to know where you got it from, who it belongs to, and in what article you're using it. The rest of the text in the template should suffice. It will look something like {{logo fur|article=Ecunet|use=org|source=<say where you got it from if not the website>|website=http://www.ecunet.org<if that's where you got it from>}}. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I would add the following comment Gordon Laird 14:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Gordon Laird:

This Ecunet Logo has been provided to me by the President of Ecunet, Inc. who own the Logo. It was commissioned by the Board of Ecunet, Inc. by a motion made by that Board November 10, 1993. The person who was commissioned to design and execute the Logo was Phil Porter, who is a creative United Church of Christ consultant, workshop leader and co-founder of InterPlay (http://www.bodywisdom.org). I assert that we are acting on behalf of Ecunet, Inc. and have a 100% right to the use of this Logo. signed: Gordon Laird

I tried to put in {{logo}} and {{logo fur}} tags, but it's not working. It says there's no article name, even though it has article=Ecunet (I tried Ecunet and {{{Ecunet}}} too). And I can't figure out how to put in a Purpose of Use. It's hard to fill out a form when you don't know what the questions on the form are! InkQuill 18:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Gordon Laird 18:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Thank you, InkQuill, I am right with you. Could someone please explain to me the downside of making an image free for use for anybody? I can't see an obvious downside.

the field "article" needs to be capitalized - use "Article=" instead of "article=". Most of the fields in the template are like that, it's just a simple template. And be sure to spell out the article name precisely, without brackets. Very few people would be willing to give a completely free license to their logo, or donate their logo to the public domain, because that would allow people to use exact copies of it for other purposes. For example, consider AT&T's logo here Image:Att_svg.svg. If it were free I still couldn't use it for a telecommunications company. But minus the wording it sure would be a nice logo for a gumball company. Companies don't want to release their rights any more than they have to. Therefore, we pretty much assume that no grant of permission to use a logo is broad enough for our purposes, and we don't even have to ask - the "non-free use" is so well accepted we can just use it without permission. I hope that makes sense. Wikidemo 19:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think this confuses copyright and trademark issues. You can grant a free license for a logo as far as copyright is concerned -- as I said, most logos aren't eligible for copyright anyway -- without compromising your rights to it as a trademark. Copyright is all Wikipedia cares about. Even the Commons will host a PD (with respect to copyright) logo that's still protected as a trademark. As long as we're not using it for anything but identification of the organization it represents, and don't claim we're speaking for that organization by virtue of displaying its mark, we're within both the law and Wikipedia policy. (As far as I know anyway. I have never seen a policy about trademark per se making a logo non-free as we mean it here.)

The question is, has Gordon Laird actually granted such a license? He hasn't said so above. It needs to be something like {{PD-author}} (he's not literally the author, but it's a work made for hire owned by the organization he speaks for) or {{GFDL}} or {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} or one of those. In that case, we'd still identify it as a trademark by including {{trademark}}.

On another note, I can't believe someone wrote a template that only accepts parameter names in title case. That's not good design. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we are ready to proceed to use the Logo in the "non-free use" way. Yes, Ecunet is willing to grant that kind of licence. I think this logo fits under the category of 2 dimensional art work. Gordon Laird 00:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

We are ready to take the next step. What is the next step? Gordon Laird 15:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I added the {{non-free logo}} tag, so your page looks all set. Thanks for your contribution! Calliopejen1 02:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

SPAMing user talk page every time a bot runs through

God Dam guys can't you fix the problems of the uploaded images to make them comply yourself instead of make a bot spam the user page every so often. There are images that I uploaded a year ago that are being spammed to my userpage. --Cs california 18:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

We take copyright seriously. These are problems a bot can't fix, and to the extent that it could, probably wouldn't be legal (although IANAL). If you don't want to have your talk page filled with these kinds of messages, follow copyright law regulations and Wikipedia policy when you upload pictures. --Ybbor^Talk 18:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't you guys make an automated bot to tag certain image sizes and logos? I dont think I should get copyright notices for submitting these logos. Google has larger pictures and they have very few copyright lawsuits --Cs california 22:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"You guys" are not necessarily here. Try contacting one of the bot developers.

Besides, you're making two mistakes. One, Google has no pictures. They're a search engine, not an image host. When you click on one of "their" images, you're sent to the page where the image is actually hosted, not to someplace within Google. They do have thumbnails, but none of them are anywhere near as large as your logos. (Image:Brlogo.jpg, for example.) Second, as far as I can tell you're not being dinged for the sizes anyway, but for failure to provide use rationales on your uploads. For a logo (not box cover art, but logos) there's a template {{logo fur}} that can help you write one, as logos used to illustrate articles on the things they represent are fairly common.

Smaller is better, of course. When using material owned by someone else under fair use rules, there's usually no reason for the image to be larger than the size actually displayed on the page. For logos, this is almost always true.

What it boils down to is that you are responsible for making sure you're adhering to policy when uploading, not the bots, the admins, us, or anyone else. The messages on your talk page aren't spam, they're alerts that you did something wrong. Calling them spam is like calling a parking ticket littering. If you park your car legally, you don't get tickets. If you conform to the law and Wikipedia policy when uploading images, you don't get these messages on your user talk page. It's as simple as that. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Forestimages.org

In my hunt for public domain plant pathogen images I came across Forest images, an educational collection of images. When photographers upload images they have a choice about how they want there images used, and many are in the public domain and just require the appropriate image reference to be used. I just wanted to check that I can actually upload these images, with appropriate citation, to commons or if I am breaking some copyright thing I haven't figured out yet. Could you please let me know on my talk page. Million_Moments 17:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the image you are referencing? - cohesion 03:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Question/comment

Image:Chase2.jpgwas shot by GIO Photography and all rights were released to Chad Cary aka Chase Evans —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaseevans (talk • contribs) 19:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Please add the source and license to the image description page. For help on adding tags to image pages please see the help section at the top of this page. - cohesion 03:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Wayne Newton bio

In one area you indicate Wayne Newton was born in Roanoke, VA and in another it indicates he was born in Norfolk, VA.

Which is it? I am also from Roanoke and my family has always said that Wayne Newton was born in Roanoke but the bio is confusing.

Regards,

Patricia Pendleton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.156.110.33 (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe. Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. - cohesion 03:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use for Jack Daniels picture

I want to use this picture for Jack Daniels. Jack Daniels is deceased, and after searching for a long time, this is the only picture I could find. It is a state-run website (run by New Mexico.) -- Minute Lake 21:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

US state governments do not license their material in the public domain as does the US federal government. If you were to use this image it would need to conform to our non-free content policy. If you have any questions about specifics please let us know. - cohesion 03:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I realize this. I want to know if it's fair use. He is deceased, there are no other pictures of him on the Internet (as far as I know), and it would only be used in his page (here.) Thanks. -- Minute Lake 03:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Is Forbidden Planet in the public domain ?

There's this movie called Forbidden Planet. On the Leslie Nielsen page, someone put a movie screenshot image of Nielsen up under the GNU, which I know is incorrect. I think maybe this was a rookie mistake of thinking "I made the screencapture, and I'm releasing the screencapture to the GNU".

Before someone goes and kills Image:Commanderadams.jpg, could we check if it's PD ? Otherwise, the image needs its copyright tag changed a lot. -- Guroadrunner 05:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If Forbidden Planet is public domain, I don't think just taking and cropping a screenshot is enough to make the screenshot copyrighted. (as for that, if it was released before 1964, and not renewed, it would be public domain - don't we have people who do renewal searches? or where does that data live?) —Random832 12:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It was renewed in 1984 [1]. The image is currently tagged as fair use. It will be public domain in 2051 if my math is right, unless the laws change... - cohesion 04:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Misinformed uploader

Also, I think this person doesn't understand that even if you make the screenshot, it doesn't mean you own what's in the screenshot. There are a few other images tagged as incorrect licensing. See User_talk:Music2611.

Discussed this on the user's talk page and fixed his uploads to date. Calliopejen1 15:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Nirmala.jpg

The photograph is taken by me. (Nirmala jpg) and the copyright is with me —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mthelly (talk • contribs) 12:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Restored image and wrote on user's talk page that he needs to add a copyright tag. Calliopejen1 14:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

lincoln lancers

Image:LincolnLancers.jpg

The image I posted at Abraham Lincoln High School (Denver, Colorado) is from www.alhs.dpsk12.org, our school's web site. It's okay with our webmaster for me to do this, so does this fit Wikipedia's image policy?

--Aikibum 16:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Aikibum

Not unless they told you there was a free license. See WP:COPYREQ TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

image copyright message, can't figure out how to proceed

Greetings: Uploaded

from Smithsonian Institution which is of course U.S. Gov't Picture.

Photo taken in the 1860s. There should be NO COPYRIGHT as it is long out of date.

Cannot figure out how to get this thing to take. The warning box doesn't permit editing and I followed all the steps in the upload wizard only to hit a huge error message.

I'd get more pictures up if the system would stop deleting them. I have a lot of old images from original prints (such as this one) and it would really really rock to get them on WikiPedia.

Wiki has even deleted photos which are MINE and which I indicated were my own work. I am totally confused even though I don't feel like a stupid person. I don't think the instructions are very helpful.

I understand your concerns about copyright - understand them completely. But do the instructions have to be impenetrable and the wizards not produce the desired result? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellin Beltz (talk • contribs) 21:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Ellin. I've added a tag to the image {{PD-US}} which is used for images first published in the US before 1923. If you could provide source information on the image page (a url, the name of the book it's from). Megapixie 22:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This photo is so old that it seems safe to assume it's in the public domain by virtue of age, but I want to dispell the idea we can use any Smithsonian Institute images. The Smithsonian was set up by the federal government as a separate institution. It can and does maintain copyright of works (see [2] for their copyright statement). If we have a bunch of images people have tagged as PD-Gov because they're from the Smithsonian we should be changing these to fair use where applicable and deleting where we can't make such a claim. -- SiobhanHansa 20:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

use of pictures

Sir/Madam:

I appreciate your noble goal of freeing information, photos and artwork. Society and civilization will be greatly advanced as a result.

My personal experience so far is that there still remains an impenetrable wall between a person who wants to use photos in Wikipedia and those who place photos on Wikipedia. I would say, 90% of photos are unusable because of this wall.

The wall is made of esoteric legal terminology. Why not simply state whether a photo can be used or not? If a photo needs a photographer's name, why not provide the name? If it needs additional information, why not provide the information up front? Why lead people off into dead-end websites and non-existent email addresses in search of names and legal requirments? If a photographer uses a foreign language, there is absolutely no hope of contacting him.

Why state that I must contact the photographer without providing an email address? If a photographer wants information to accompany his pic, why doesn't he simply provide the information with the pic. If there is a reason to contact a photographer, the system has failed because it is impossible to contact him.

As it is now, the only pics in Wikipedia that are usable are those with the copyright sign crossed out. Only a fool would use any other photo because of the very real possibility of a lawsuit. Is it possible photographers are using Wikipedia as a means to sew people?

My experience is that the devil does his best work in confusion because that is where predators hide out.

I think predators are hiding out in the dark shadows of Wikipedia. edsketch@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.145.160.12 (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Any information required by any of the free licenses is already on the image description page. Any non-free media shouldn't be used anyway. What's the problem? TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mornington_tourist_railway_station,_October_14,_2005.jpg

Any idea why this was tagged by User:STBotI as unsourced? I would've thought that looking at the summary, it was fairly clear where the image came from. --ozzmosis 09:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This bot is not coded well and is causing all sorts of problems. I removed the tag for you. If it readds the tag, just remove it again. Hopefully the bot will be stopped soon if it hasn't been already. See discussion about this bot at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#STBotI. Calliopejen1 20:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! --ozzmosis 12:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

US Government image repeatedly bot-flagged

Image:MASINT-XM93-Fuchs-NBCrecon.gif is a US Army photograph. Each time I loaded it, I both checked the pulldown that it was a US government work without copyright, and, the second time, also added the government information in the description. I've had other government images go in with no trouble, so I don't know what is happening here. The image goes in Measurement and Signature Intelligence. I'm also confused why the bot says it was removed today, when the other messages were saying it would be removed by October 14th if the information was given. Please notify me on my talk page. Howard C. Berkowitz 13:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, you must have missed what you were aiming for in the pulldown menu the first time because this image has never had a copyright tag. If you need to add a tag, you don't re-upload the image, you edit the image page and type it in manually. As a US Army image, the correct tag is {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}}. There are more specific tags for various groups within the army, but this one should be OK regardless.

You also have to say where you got the image from. Add a link to the web page where you found it to the image page.

The image has not actually been removed from the servers, just from the article. Once you correctly tag it, you can remove the warning tag from the image and replace it in the article. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Help needed to identify correct image copyright tag

image:Caldwell close1.jpg I had added an image on the Robert Caldwell page entry (updating on behalf of my father) The image (a portrait (4" by 5½") was taken about 130 years ago (ie. 1877- so copyright would not apply) by 'Wiele & Klein of Madras', and was bequeathed to my father by Caldwell's daughter, Mrs Mary Emily Mayne. My father allowed the portrait to appear on the front of Caldwell's 2007 biography, on the associated Internet site [www.britishempire.co.uk/article/faithandfamily.htm], and on the WIKI biography.

It was removed as I had not provided a suitable tag. Can you help me identify how to correct this. Please notify me on My Talk page. Thankyou

--SarahApps 14:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking for source and copyright permission

Hello,

I'm looking for the source of the English translation used for the Tamil poem Kuruntokai 234 in the wikipedia article on Sangam landscape (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sangam_landscape). Here is the translation, which appears about halfway down the page I linked to above:

The sun goes down and the sky reddens, pain grows sharp, light dwindles. Then is evening when jasmine flowers open, the deluded say. But evening is the great brightening dawn when crested cocks crow all through the tall city and evening is the whole day for those without their lovers.

In the article, all the English translations are unattributed. I've been unable to track them down -- the English translation above is quite a bit different from Ramanujan's translation of that Tamil poem in _Poems of Love and War_. Could someone help me identify the source of the translation above? I need it urgently in order to seek copyright permission to quote this translation in my novel, _Evening is the Whole Day_, forthcoming in May 2008.

Thank you very much.

Best, Preeta Samarasan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preetabird (talk • contribs) 16:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The translation was added by User:Venu62, as can be seen on the article's history tab. You should probably contact that user on his/her talk page to confirm that the translation wasn't copied from somewhere else. (That would be a violation of Wikipedia policies, but of course it happens from time to time.} For information on reusing Wikipedia content elsewhere, see Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ#Can_I_reuse_Wikipedia.27s_content_somewhere_else.3F. You also could talk to Venu62 to see if there are other acceptable terms for the reproduction. Good luck! Calliopejen1 16:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This was not at all difficult to track down. The source was http://www.penkatali.org/cankam.html. The site is offline these days, but the wayback machine has it here: [3]. The question is if the webmaster of that site gave permission, or if the webmaster was in fact the editor who added them. If not, then these are copyright violations and have to go. Or, since Venu62 can presumably read Tamil, she (I'm guessing) can make new translations herself. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

image: John Moore House, Sparta

I appreciate your careful regard for copyright. I have tried very hard to comply. I have attached a certificate from the photo creator/owner releasing the image into public domain. What else can I do? Thank you. BroadcastingliveBroadcastinglive 14:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem was you hadn't put your public domain declaration into a machine-readable format. I added the text {{PD-self}}, which is what you needed. However, your PD release is kind of confusing because you say you want to be attributed, which is inconsistent with putting something in the public domain. If you want to be attributed, you should change the license to {{attribution}}, and if not you should delete those sentences. Calliopejen1 20:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

deleted pictures

[Image:Europe_map.gif [Image:180px-Flag_of_Europe.svg.png

You have deleted two pictures we used from wikipedia common. We have read the notice, and have read how to add copy rights it is very muddling - can you explain in simpler form - we cannot even trace the wikipedia common page we got the picture from. There must have been a liscence attached to it.

We have spent 4 hrs with this work - we do not get paid for it.

Can you at least put the tag example for one of them and we will try and emulate/copy what you have done.

Oh there is another problem, you upload window are different http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Upload One can get straight at the wikipedia work. Your reply will be appreciated Grandlarousse 19:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The upload windows are different because they're two separate (but related) projects.

The basic problem here is that you screwed up for reasons unrelated to copyright. That these images are apparently not tagged correctly is a side issue.

There's no reason whatsoever for Image:180px-Flag_of_Europe.svg.png to exist. The EU flag is on the Commons in .SVG format. This is a scalable vector format and works well at any size. As it's on the Commons, all you have to do if you want to use it is to link to it as if it were local to the English Wikipedia. Like so: Image:Flag_of_Europe.svg If the default size of the image is too big for where you want to use it in the article, the thing to do is not to create a new version of the size you want. Instead, use the extended image syntax to scale it to the appropriate size on the page.

However, according to the log it was deleted because it contained no fair use rationale. That means you must have tagged it as a fair-use image. That was incorrect. The Commons image is public domain; simply scaling it does not create a copyright. But since you tagged it as fair use but apparently didn't provide a rationale as required by policy, it was automatically deleted. Which is just as well, because as I said it's quite unnecessary. But if it was appropriate for you to have uploaded, since it was based on a public domain image but had insufficient work added to create a copyright, it should also have tagged as public domain. Exactly which public domain tag to use is a bit of a conundrum, but it's also moot.

Image:Europe_map.gif has not in fact been deleted, and I don't understand why you think it is. but was only removed from the article. You can put it back once you get the copyright issue sorted. There are a number of possible originals for it at the Commons, but you do have to say which one. Some of them have licenses that impose requirements for reuse for derivative works. They're free licenses, but they still have conditions attached such as attribution. If you can't do that you are not in compliance with the license -- it would have been clearly marked on whatever page you got the original from -- and this image should be deleted. But see if it wasn't one of these. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

How can I upload this pic

The image was in a book titled The Kennedy Women by Laurence Leamer. The publisher received permission to print this photograph in the book from Peter Lawford Collection.

A friend of mine edited the photograph, which is to say she took that one and enlarged it. Then she sent it to me through a private message on the Kennedy family forum (thekennedys.confourms3.com).

I would like to use this photograph in an article here on Wikipedia. How would I write the summary, and which heading under licensing would I click on?Ajsoa 07:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Who is it a picture of? When was it taken? TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Dennis Shulman Image

To Whom It May Concern:

An image of Dennis Shulman that I posted has been removed twice.

Mr. Shulman has given me permission to post this image on Wikipedia. But, as it keeps being removed, I must be posting it incorrectly.

Can you please help figure out what I need to do to keep this image posted?

I'm a new user and have every intent of following Wikipdia's rules and regulations. I'm just not certain on what I need to do.

Thank you in advance,

Daniel Goldstein —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel A Goldstein (talk • contribs) 19:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, permission to post an image on Wikipedia is not sufficient for use on Wikipedia. The permission must also permit re-use and modification by others, even including commercial use. Please refer to the instructions at WP:COPYREQ for more information on the type of license that is required. Thanks! -- But|seriously|folks  20:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Photo of William P. Foster

I've located a photograph of Dr. Foster with his entry on the Florida Artists Hall of Fame website. [4] Would image be usable on Wikipedia and if so under what license. The website and the program are products of the government of the state of Florida. CJ 19:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

In order to use this image at Wikipedia, you would have to persuade the copyright holder to license the image. There is some excellent guidance for doing so at this link. Good luck! -- But|seriously|folks  20:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks CJ 22:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

How to handle images with questionable licensing claims?

I could use a little advice from more experienced users. I have come across two images Image:Gc-quality.jpg and Image:Default-GC.jpg both uploaded claiming they came from websites and are released under cc-by-sa or public domain. But a specific URL for each photo isn't given. I've looked on the sites given for the photos and can't find them, neither site appears to release any material under an open license or into the public domain. I've left a message on the uploader's talk page asking for clarification. Should I also tag the images somehow - and if so how? Or list them somewhere - and if so where? Thanks -- SiobhanHansa 19:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The images should be listed at WP:PUI - thanks for working this! Videmus Omnia ^Talk 19:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I listed the two. The same editor uploaded what looks like one of the same photo at image:Default-myspace.jpg with a cc-by-sa license and this time listed the actual link. But the page does not provide any release under any license. I placed a speedy tag on it and informed the uploader. An IP address (likely a sock given the edit history) came along removed the tag and claimed the subject's publicist says all photos of the subject on the internet are available under public domain. Where do I go from here? I feel like I'm being run rings around. Now an entirely new account has been created who has added commons:Image:S01_074.jpg to Commons claiming ownership of the image. This could well be true (we suspect several accounts are socks COI editing on the article). But it doesn't seem like this should be sufficient to establish licensing for an image that has already been published on the internet - how do we know to whether or when to trust a claim of ownership? -- SiobhanHansa 00:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

How can i add a copyright tag on my picture? Avgoustinosc 05:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyright

Is there anything that is specifically not copyright protected?, if so please list examples68.193.126.223 11:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

By definition, everything not copyright protected is public domain, and vice-versa.Wikidemo 12:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Montenegrin image

No creations of Montenegrin state officials fall under copyright laws. Thus all the work is public domain, much like the case with Serbia. Image:Nebojsa Medojevic.jpg I don't know how to tag this image for example. --PaxEquilibrium 12:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

First, you need to give the image source regardless of the copyright status. If you found this on an official website, link to the page. For that matter, when a free license is available, please upload the highest resolution version of the image you can find. This is obviously a thumbnail.

For now, tag it with the tag for Serbia {{PD-SerbiaGov}} and explain the situation in a note. I can't find that Montenegro has yet codified its own set of IP laws, and until we can find out that it has we should probably assume it's still operating under the laws it inherited 2003-2006. It really deserves its own tag, something like {{PD-MontenegroGov}}, but we need to have a law to cite before we can create one. If you know differently and have a law you can cite to this effect, please do and we can create the Montenegrin tag. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Use of image: Ian Chappell

I have uploaded an image of Ian Chappell (Image:Chappelli.jpg) which is owned by the National Archive of Australia. I requested permission from the NAA which was granted in an email. Can you advise why I received a message saying it is missing a copyright tag, and what tag I should put on it. Phanto282 13:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You were informed the image is missing a copyright tag because it's missing a copyright tag. That should be self-evident. If you want to know what a copyright tag is, look up image copyright tags.

See here for what you should do on receiving permission for releasing an image under a free license. I note that's not actually the permission granted here, which appears to amount to "Wikipedia only", so it'll have to be deleted anyway. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Cruzvillegas.gif

The image for Abraham Cruzvillegas is taken from an art gallery which was selling his work. Does this count as advertising, or free licence or anything of that sort? Thewikiman 15:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Thewikiman, 15 October 2007, 16:48.

It might or might not count as advertising, but without an explicit release saying so it's not a free license. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Image: Poland Jan. Uprising107.jpg

I still cannot figure out how to add anything about a newspaper copyright as it is not in your column. I chose what I thought was closest and in the description wrote it is from the Webster Times in Webster, MA. Your directions seem to be for folks who are vastly computer literate. Please advise. My email is <email removed>. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sedoanne (talk • contribs) 16:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed your email because writing it on pages like this one will cause you to receive lots of spam. We don't have an image tag for what you uploaded because it is not acceptable according to our policies. Because the newspaper was published in the 1940s, it is still under copyright and we cannot reprint an entire obituary here. See WP:NONFREE for more on our policies. This image will be deleted soon, but what you can do instead is write an article in your own words about this person, citing the newspaper as a source. Good luck! Calliopejen1 18:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

EBPP - Sorriso Technologies sample pic

I have recently loaded a final copyright choice for this editorial/picture addition to the EBPP section. Can you please help getting this posted?

Jeffco 1;40pm Oct 15 ------

Getting what posted? The image is there. What license do you want to grant? TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Image Violations on Twitches Too

Ok, so the new Disney Channel Original Movie Twitches Too recently aired, and a user by the name of User:Karsh-ileana has uploaded multiple images in the character bios section that he screenshotted from a copyrighted website by Disney. However, I have no idea what to do to report the images other then asking here, as I haven't located the article describing what to do yet :/ I'd prefer a response on my talk page, but here would be fine. Myzou 00:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You can simply retag them so that they're correct. Assuming their use in the articles is valid, they should be {{non-free film screenshot}}. Be sure to include a use rationale for each article in which they're included, showing how it conforms to the non-free media policy and gudelines. If it turns out they cannot be used as nonfree media, see Wikipedia:Copyright problems for how to proceed.

Just with a casual inspection, it looks as if at least some of the uses are invalid. We cannot use non-free media to show what living people look like, as a free image can be made instead at public appearances and so on. So to use this to show what the actor looks like, as opposed to what the character looks like in the article about the movie, is wrong. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Dejima in Nagasaki harbor

It uploaded two images, both of which were tagged by a robot. Obviously I should have done something different, but I don't know what the problem is:

• 1a. 01:31, 16 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:Harbor_view_nagasaki.jpg‎ (uploaded a new version of "Image:Harbor view nagasaki.jpg": Any use allowed by owner This is a Japanese postcard from before 1920 Courtesy New York Public Library Picture Collection) (top)
• 1b. 01:18, 16 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:Harbor_view_nagasaki.jpg‎ (This is a scanned postcard from the Picture Collection of the New York Public Library. The library grants permission for any use. NYPL does not require, but does prefer an acknowledgment -- something like "Courtesy of the New York Public Library Picture)
• 2. 01:56, 16 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:Nagasaki-harbor 2006.jpg‎ (This image comes from Wikipedia Commons -- "Dejima"; but nothing happened when I tried to link "Image:11177052 048a37914f.jpg" ... so I downloaded the image to my desktop and I'm uploading it again with the proper attribution and source indicated)

There were limited options from which to choose; and I did explain exactly where these images came from and why they were appropriate for posting. What else was I supposed to do?

If these need to be deleted, okay -- go ahead. I'll figure this out at some other time. This is certainly not an urgent matter as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't have even bothered if someone hadn't put the Wikipedia Commons gallery on the Dejima main page ... and I noticed that a current photograph was just like one of the postcards I'd found at the New York Public Library. --Ooperhoofd 02:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Tag the old postcard {{PD-Japan}} and {{PD-US}}. That second one might be redundant, but it couldn't hurt. You do have to give the source by Wikipedia policy. (Something like, "Picture Collection of the New York Public Library") Also give the date if you know it.

I don't know what went wrong with the Commons image, but please don't do what you did. Use the original and ask at WP:VPT if you're having trouble with it. I've tagged the local version for deletion. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Great Stella

Will people knowledgeable on copyright issues please comment at Template talk:Great Stella. This template was proposed for redirection a while ago and the redirect was actually done, but it was reverted. The author of the software is trying to assert a copyright over any images produced with it, and I believe this to be invalid. But there was no discussion at all on the TfD, so informed comments are needed. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Picutre question.

Is this picture ok?

Image copyright problem with Image:07-5-24-LisaGerrard.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:07-5-24-LisaGerrard.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. Ineversigninsodonotmessageme 03:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you take it? -- But|seriously|folks  03:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't. Is it against the policy? If so, I'll take it down.

Ineversigninsodonotmessageme 03:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Ineversigninsodonotmessageme

Yes. It's against the law too, unless in the place where you found it, it was explicitly licensed under the GFDL. But in that case you're in violation of the license because you don't link back to the original or preserve the original copyright information. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

All right, I'll take it down. Sorry about that.

Ineversigninsodonotmessageme 16:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Ineversigninsodonotmessageme

Company logos

What copyright should be used on company logos? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judef (talk • contribs) 03:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Almost any kind of logo should use the {{logo}} tag. --Hdt83 ^Chat 04:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Question about this kind of images

I'm willing to use a computer-drawn picture, to illustrate a particular instance of a data structure. It is a diagram of some instance of the data structure, simple but illustrative. I found an image like this, in a book. I re-drawn that image by myself, but only to achieve a better quality than the scanned pages had. So, I have an image that depicts a diagram of a simple instance of a data structure; it is the same diagram and the same instance of one found in a book. Can I use it in my article? To what extent? Alfredo J. Herrera Lago 04:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That depends on whether it's a standard data structure, for which just about any diagram will be much like another, or whether it's something more unusual. In the latter case, it might no longer be common property and therefore copyrightable even if redrawn. What's the data structure? TCC (talk) (contribs) 11:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a segment tree (there's a stub already). It's not a very complex or exotic structure; it's for computational geometry. I learned it from a book of Computational Geometry (I'll put the reference later here). I guess it's described in many books and courses, and used in many applications. I'm currently playing around with it in my diploma thesis. Alfredo J. Herrera Lago 20:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I just renamed the article for you; you had it at Segment Tree. Article names are case sensitive, but Wikipedia style is that only the first word in a title gets capitalized except for proper nouns.

This is a borderline case. To be on the safe side, I would suggest redrawing it "from scratch" if it now resembles the original too closely. I hadn't been familiar with this particular structure before (which just shows I've been very lazy about keeping up) but from a casual look around there seems to be a number of creative choices in how one might present an example of this structure. Any individual example might therefore be copyrightable, so you'd be better off making it entirely your own work. (You might want to cite the original in context as a reference though.) In that case, please license it from this list. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, dude. I'll follow the and build the graphic from scratch, it will be easy. Thanks for the case fix too, I had not realized that I mispelled the name. Alfredo J. Herrera Lago 00:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Super Nintendo image?

The photo of a Super Nintendo found at Image:Super Nintendo Entertainment System-USA.jpg is very suspicious. There is supposed to be a gray "Super Nintendo" logo on the controller and console. It looks like this image may have been lifted from an online retail store which removed the logos.--Dwedit 09:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The image was uploaded to the Commons from the Japanese Wikipedia, and I don't imagine the Japanese and American models are completely identical. Unless you have definite information to the contrary, we assume good faith on the part of the user who says he made the image. TCC (talk) (contribs) 11:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not the Japanese model, the Japanese controller has multi colored buttons for A, B, X, Y - not purple. It also does not claim to be the Japanese model, and the picture is of a style often found in online stores —Random832 13:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, the rest of this user's uploads look suspicious. And we get lots of cases where there's a bogus GFDL-self or PD-self tag, and this looks no different. —Random832 14:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

We can't go throwing around accusations of copyright violations without some kind of proof. Proof consists of finding the image hosted somewhere under someone else's copyright. We do get professional-quality photography from time to time, so the style doesn't tell us anything. In this case, all of this user's contributions are in this style, even photographs of food items. It's far more likely that this is his style than that he's carefully stealing only images of the same style, even for entirely different subjects.

I note there's a newer version of this file at the Japanese Wikipedia uploaded by Muband that's not only better quality, but still has the logos in place. (It's an entirely different photograph.) You might want to upload it over the current version at the Commons. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

On further examination, it seems this was incorrect to begin with - the logos were removed by ja:User:Hr from the original picture that did have the logos - this is why ALL versions need to be uploaded to commons, and the entire history needs to be shown - there would have been no confusion here if that had been done. —Random832 13:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

my picutre got deleted

hi, recently i added a picture to the article titled "Thuraiyur". But the wikipedia admin has deleted that because of inadequate license. It is my own work and i have released the picture to public domain. What is your problem in using that image... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samkulo (talk • contribs) 14:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I restored Image:Thuraiyur.jpg for you. The problem was it did not have a source listed, or a copyright tag, two requirements for image uploads. In the future, if you want to release your own photo into the public domain, include a statement like "own work" or "I took this myself" and the copyright tag {{PD-self}}. Calliopejen1 16:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Creative Commons licence

I found a photo on Flickr with this licence. Is this okay to upload as long as it is appropriately attributed? Strobilus 19:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Tag it {{cc-by-sa-2.0}}. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Strobilus 23:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Acturally, that's {{cc-by-2.0}}, no sharealike required. Calliopejen1 13:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Question for Rilya Wilson image

image:RilyaWilson.jpg I don't know what to categorize it as for the copyright tag. Please see Rilya Wilson article for more info. - Cyborg Ninja 21:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't embed images in this page, but follow the directions at the top for linking to it instead.

As with any image we host here, you need to give the source. "Released by the police" is insufficient; we need to know where you found this. We also need the name of the copyright owner, particularly as this is a fair use image. That it was probably released for ID purposes in a missing persons case doesn't affect its copyright status. So it also needs to be {{fair use in|Rilya Wilson}} and a specific

When non-free media files (images, videos, and audio clips) are used on Wikipedia, a justification for their usage, called a non-free use rationale (or use rationale or fair use rationale), must be presented in the file description page, explaining how the file is used in a way consistent with Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. This justification will help other users determine if the claim of non-free use could apply to a wide variety of uses or a narrow range of uses. It will also help determine if the given claim of non-free use is appropriate for Wikipedia in the first place.

If you are using non-free images or other media files, you must include two things on the file description page:

1. An appropriate copyright tag explaining the basic claim of non-free use. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Non-free for a list.
2. A detailed non-free use rationale. A separate, specific rationale must be provided each time the media file is used in an article. The name of the article the media file is used in must be included in the rationale.

Be sure to examine the guidelines on non-free content before uploading the file. Wikipedia's policies are more restrictive than United States fair use law in terms of what is and is not allowed.

Note: Non-free media files that do not include both a copyright tag and a use rationale may be deleted after seven days.

Non-free use of copyrighted text does not require a rationale. However, text reuse must fall within our copyright policy, not create copyright violations, and must be properly attributed to avoid plagiarism.

Necessary components

A well-written use rationale must explain how the use of these media meets the Non-free content criteria and should state:

• What proportion of the copyrighted work is used and to what degree does it compete with the copyright holder's usage? For example, if the image is a photograph or logo, the entire work is likely being used. A screenshot that reveals the most important discovery of a documentary or the ending of a movie, for example, though a very small portion of the work, may disproportionately compete with the copyright holder's use. In the case of a music sample, the length should be no longer than 10 percent of the song's original length or 30 seconds, whichever is shorter.
• If applicable, has the resolution been reduced from the original? In the case of music samples, has the quality been reduced from the original?
• What purpose does the image serve in the article? If applicable:
  • Is the image a logo, photograph, or box art for the main subject of the article?
  • Is the image being used as the primary means of visual identification of the subject or topic? (e.g., a corporate logo or the box art of a DVD)
  • Does it illustrate the topic of the article? (e.g., a screen shot from a movie)
  • Is it used for commentary on a particular topic? How?
• Why the subject can't be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text or using free content media.
  • If, for example, an image is a screenshot of a movie that is used for an article about the movie, or a corporate logo, there is obviously no such thing as a "free" version of it – all of the resources in the world could not produce one. If, on the other hand, the image is a photograph, the image is more easily replaced, even if Wikipedians may lack the resources to create a replacement.
• Any other information necessary to assist others in determining whether the use of this copyrighted work qualifies for non-free use.

Template

Please note that meeting the NFC does not require the use of these templates, as long as the description on the file page addresses all 10 criteria outlined by the NFC.

The template {{Non-free use rationale}} facilitates both adding essential metadata and creating a use rationale with the necessary components.

{{Non-free use rationale
<!--Obligatory fields-->
| Description    =
| Author         =
| Source         =
| Article        =
| Purpose        =
| Replaceability =
| Minimality     =
| Commercial     =
<!--Optional/expert fields-->
| Date                =
| Publication         =
| Replaceability_text =
| Other information   =
}}

Optional/expert fields and can be left out.

An alternative is to use {{Non-free media data}} with {{Non-free media rationale}}; this is helpful for items with multiple uses. The {{Non-free media data}} template is applied once and a {{Non-free media rationale}} template is added for each use, providing a separate purpose (rationale) for each use, per policy.

Insert this once:

{{Non-free media data
| Description       = 
| Source            = 
| Portion           = 
| Low_resolution    = 
| other_information = <!-- Optional parameter -->
}}

Repeat this as many times as needed:

{{Non-free media rationale
| Article           = <!-- No linking required -->
| Purpose           = 
| Replaceability    = 
}}

There are more specific use rationale templates in Category:Non-free use rationale templates, such as for album covers and logos.

Non-template

Below are some basic examples. Good use rationales will expand on why the non-free item is needed, why a free item cannot be used in its place, and what essential function it performs in each article in which it is to be used. If the media file is used in several articles, then you must include a separate use rationale for each article. If the article text comments on the media file itself, then write so. If it does not, be sure to explain why the media file is necessary despite the fact it is not mentioned.

Logo in the article about the topic that the logo represents

=== Non-free use in [[ARTICLE NAME]] ===

Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws, and the stricter requirements of Wikipedia's non-free content policies, because:

# It illustrates an educational article about the entity that the logo represents.

# The image is used as the primary means of visual identification of the article topic.

# It is a low resolution image, and thus not suitable for production of counterfeit goods.

# The logo is not used in such a way that a reader would be confused into believing that the article is written or authorized by the owner of the logo.

# It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value.

• Other text indicating conformance with the Wikipedia:Logos guideline may be added, such as confirmation that the logo has been rendered at a small size and with lower detail if it is a scalable vector image.

Historical photographs

=== Non-free use for [[ARTICLE NAME]] ===

Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws, and the stricter requirements of Wikipedia's non-free content policies, because:

# It is a historically significant photo of a famous individual. [To strengthen the claim, consider adding sources to back up this claim, like news articles mentioning this image (and not simply using it)]

# It is of much lower resolution than the original. Copies made from it will be of very inferior quality.

# The photo is only being used for informational purposes.

# Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because the photo and its historical significance are the object of discussion in the article.

Again, the above are only general examples; for more information on what needs to be included in this entry see Wikipedia:Non-free content. The information should be as specific as possible, i.e. why you need to use the media file as part of the article. Adding this information is no guarantee that the media file will not be later removed, but it will demonstrate a use rationale to others that you may have a valid justification for including non-free materials that can be used under the GFDL.

needs to be added to the image description page. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

How could I find the copyright owner, when it was released by the police to various news agencies? It could have been released by the accused in the case, or by another relative, for all I know. I doubt the police ever mentioned who it was from. - Cyborg Ninja 15:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea, but that's what you legally have to do to use it here unencumbered by non-free media restrictions. It looked like a school photo; probably the photographer actually owns the copyright. But you must have gotten the image from somewhere. I didn't say you had to track it down to the person who originally released it.

In the meantime, it's been deleted. You could certainly have used it as fair use. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Images :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Paul%27s_School%2C_Darjeeling

St.Paul's School DARJEELING has granted all rights on images to http://www.zubin.com for online promtional purposes.The same can be contacted for all copyright issues.The Images have been uploaded from the official websites of the institution ,www.spsdarjeeling.com and it's online alumni portal at ZUBIN mentioned above. What is the appropriate copyright tag from the drop down list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanbirgrewal (talk • contribs) 14:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If the images have been released into public domain or a free license, please forward the permission to permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org. For images sourced from zubin.com, this permission should be sent from e-mail address associated with zubin.com (such as somebody@zubin.com). For images sourced from spsdarjeeling.com, the permission should sent from e-mail address associated with spsdarjeeling.com (such as admin@psdarjeeling.com).

Non-free images released only for promotional purposes are not accepted, except in some special cases (such as logos, software screenshots, film posters etc.). utcursch | talk 14:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Question for Thailand emblem

I've changed copyright tag in Image:Thai Garuda emblem.png from fair use to public domain. Since I already know that this emblem was originally scanned from front cover of Thai gazette (official notebook).

Look back to the past, one of users in Thai Wikipedia uploaded this emblem to Wikipedia and tagged as "Copyrighted". When we took this image to English Wikipedia, the copyright status was unclear. I thought the emblem should be retagged since it was from official works. So I discussed with Thai Wikipedia users to retag it as insignia and public domain, and this idea is accepted now.

Can I ask you these questions:-

• Is the tag below image appropriate?
• I've also tagged it with {{insignia}}, is it wrong?

Tangmo ^(talk) 14:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's good to include {{insignia}}. But how are you justifying your extension of the {{PD-ThaiGov}} to include emblems? It says nothing to exempt them. Unlike US law which mandates public domain for all works produced by the US government, Thai law calls out specific categories of works. Emblems are not among them.

That doesn't mean it might not be PD for another reason, but it doesn't appear to be by this law. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see. Now, I've adjust {{PD-ThaiGov}} for shorter and clearer text. I just intend this tag to be used with a part of Thai governmental documents. Some of emblem and flag of Thailand used here was scanned from governmental documents and cropped for neat image. Thai law only says that they cannot be used in foul ways like many countries.

Is newly adjusted tag appropriate? Tangmo ^(talk) 13:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No, this is not ok. In fact, it is worse! The category list came from the Thai law, so it should be included in the template. You still haven't explained how the emblem fits into one of those categories, or why it is PD. So far we have no reason to believe it is not copyrighted. I'm putting back the template to the way it was before. Calliopejen1 14:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

For clear answer, I'm putting the image back to what it was before, wait for new SVG, and delete it finally. Since its information in Thai Wikipedia is too short and unclear. But as I review the law, it is fitted in "by-law" section of Thai copyright law. Tangmo ^(talk) 15:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it should be "explanations" section, since the emblem (and also flag) came from this.Tangmo ^(talk) 16:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Espevær - copyright infingement

Hi,

I have made an article on the island my family come from, a small island off the coast of Norway called Espevær. I took the article from Espevær's own website and have requested their permission to use it which I fully expect to receive. I am a regular user of Wikipedia but this is the first article I have created so I don't think I have referenced properley. Please could you help me with this.

Many thanks.

Andrew Long —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.138.205.241 (talk) 10:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

???

sorry, i was just trying to use my computer and it started going out of wack, i am not computer savy as you, but i do not want my infor. all over the web and definitely not images i have not approved of maybe i should just throw this computer out the door, am i being violated about my personal info. i do not want everyone to know. how to handle? is it a network problem or program on my computer which was given to me as a present about 1 year and a half ago. i am not as computer smart as you, i mean genius as you. thanks for all the infor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.130.54 (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Need help understanding copyright stuff

Being a member of the Canadian Forces, I'm interested in expanding & improving the Canadian Forces ranks and insignia article. However, a problem presents itself. If I understand copyright correctly, images of rank/trade/branch/unit insignia are copyright by the government, even if I create my own illustrations of them. Would small, low-res illustrations created by myself qualify for "fair use"? I'm pretty sure the Canadian Forces has no problem having their insignia displayed in informational articles, but I doubt very much they'd release them to public domain. Thoughts? (Note: I'd prefer replies here so I and everyone else can keep track of people's feedback on the subject)   ¥    Jacky Tar  16:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

DSC 1605

Apparenly, Hypocondriac did not mean to upload this picture and needs to be deleted quickly and asapHypocondriac 16:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)