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)

Ann & Eddie jpg

The photo was taken by me {{GFDL-self}}tag, and is fine to use on the Ann Forster page if there is one. Forster is a known publicist and writer within the PR & Media industry having spearheaded campaigns including the motion pictures Gandhi and The War Room as well as advocacy campaigns for the UN and numerous NGO's and corporations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ann Forster (talk • contribs) 13:19, 26 October 2007

Copyright rules for very old photos

Would like to understand copyright rules for several specific cases. First case....photo is potrait of long-dead public figure. The individual died in 1920 so photo was obviously taken before 1923. I found the image on internet, but I have also seen it on a book cover and number of other places. Are there any restrictions on use of this image? Can I upload it to Wiki-Commons? Second case....I have number of original photos take in China between 1915 and 1945. I did not take them, but I inherited them so the original hard-copies are my property. What copyright rule apply, if any? --Orygun 05:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyright law is a bit peculiar: you can own the original physical copy of something without owning the copyright. What's the history of the China photos: who took them, for what purpose, and have they been published anywhere?

As for the pre-1920 photo: is it reasonably likely that the photo was published before 1923? --Carnildo 07:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Pre-1920 photo is of State official; probably his official portrait. It was published in a local news paper obituary on 8 Jan 1920. China photos were taken by my grandfather who was U.S. diplomat in China. They are personal photos; however, many were taken while traveling on Gov business. There are few photos of him so he obviously didn't take those, but they were clearly taken with his camera. Photos have never been published. Among the photos is one formal portrait. It could be official State Dept portrait photo; however, there is no photographers label on front or back.--Orygun 19:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like they're all useable, then. The pre-1920 photo is in the public domain in the United States, and you appear to have the rights to do what you want to with your grandfather's photos. --Carnildo 08:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding my grandfathers China photos which you say are mine to release; I uploaded one of the images (Image:Ernest B. Price.JPG) and was notified I need to add a tag. The image is either mine as discussed above or copy of official Government portrait--either way, it should be releasable. However, image was hit with "No Tag" notice. I've tried 3 time to add tag, but w/o success. Really don't care how image is classifed just want to get it tagged so it can be used. What do I do?--Orygun (talk) 03:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If your grandfather took the photos then he owned the copyright; It seems unlikely that you would have inherited the hard copies without also inheriting the copyright. You would tag the pre-1923 one with {{PD-US}}, the others (that you own the copyright on) can be any free -self license like {{GFDL-self}}, {{PD-self}}, etc.—Random832 19:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

oh, and any that were official works of the US government are {{PD-USGov}}.—Random832 19:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Can't upload pdf from my computer

I have a file beneficial to Red Deer, Central Asian Red Deer, and Elk wikipedia pages...

The author mailed me a CD on the Symposium on Red Deer Taxonomy and allowed me to use it on wikipedia.

I have saved the pdf file onto my desktop, and have been trying to upload this file to wikipedia.

Everytime I try and upload this file, I get two errors:

1. Computer tells me that I am possibly not connected to internet (which is false) 2. My firewall settings...may be prohibiting me doing so...

Anyhow, can someone PLEASE!!!!!!!! help me.

Thanks

dlc_73 (dlc_73@hotmail.com)

Photos of sculptures

Who holds the copyright of photos of sculptures that are shown at a museum? The photographer, the sculptor, or both? Does it make a difference if the scuplture is put in a public square, like monuments? Kraxler (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is both. See Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2007/November#Albert Einstein memorial photos. And putting a sculpture in a public place doesn’t affect its copyright status. --teb728 (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That depends on the country you are in.Geni 02:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the photo may be copyrighted even if the sculpture is not, and vice versa. For example a photo of a sculpture that is public domain because of its age or for some other reason acquires a new copyright. The opposite is possible as well. A Wikipedia or Flickr user may release under GDFL license a photograph of a sculpture, whereupon there is no concern over the new copyright in the photograph, but the underlying sculpture remains copyrighted and thus subject to our non-free use policy. Or they could each have a copyright held by different people, or neither. In nearly all cases we would not use a photo of a sculpture when the photograph is subject to its own copyright, because unless the sculpture was subsequently destroyed the photo is considered replaceable. Someone could in theory take a new photograph and release that new photograph to GDFL. I'm not sure how or whether non-US law bears on things because we generally acknowledge only US laws on the English Wikipedia. Wikidemo (talk) 10:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You can certainly take photos of sculptures that are visible from public places in the UK. Secretlondon (talk) 10:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course you can take a picture. But if the sculpture is neither PD nor free-licensed, we can use it in Wikipedia only under non-free content restrictions. --teb728 (talk) 11:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Not true. Due the UK's Freedom of panorama laws the copyright status of the the sculpture would be largely irrelivant.Geni 12:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

As a relative newcomer to all this legal stuff, it took some time to track this down, but the reference seems to be on the Commons: freedom of panorama.

Under the heading United Kingdom, it says:

"Section 62 of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 is much broader than the corresponding provisions in many other countries, and allows photographers to take pictures of

• buildings, and
• sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship (if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public).

without breaching copyright. Such photographs may be published in any way.

Note that under UK law, works of artistic craftsmanship fall into a different copyright category from artistic works such as paintings, photographs, drawings and the like. The freedom provided by Section 62 does not apply to artistic works such as for example murals, advertising hoardings, maps, posters or signs. These cannot be uploaded to Commons without a licence from the copyright holder."

...and a little later, it says:

"The practical effect of the broad Freedom of Panorama provisions in the UK and in other countries with similar laws is that it is acceptable to upload to Commons not only photographs of public buildings and sculptures but also works of works of artistic craftsmanship which are on permanent public display in museums, galleries and exhibitions which are open to the public. According to Copinger and Skoane James, "The expression "open to the public" presumably extends the section to premises to which the public are admitted only on licence or on payment". Again, this is broader than 'public place' which is the wording in many countries."

So I think there has been some undue restriction placed on photos of sculptures. But I am sure someone will disagree.... Patche99z (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I have found another reference on an important example of uploaded photos of a statue: commons:Category:Angel of the North. This shows several photos of the famous statue of that name, with a special copyright warning regarding the limitations of photos of statues under the freedom of panorama laws. I guess that some other photos on the commons which should have this warning do not do so, because people do not know about it. Patche99z (talk) 14:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Tretorri Rende.JPG

I have uploaded the pic choosing 'it is the work of someone else, who has given permission to use it on Wikipedia'
the photo is already on the original page of Rende in italian wikipedia.
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rende
what can i do to use that pic?
which tag i must use?
please, be patient with me. the tutorial in english are little hard for me. but i am trying to improve
thanks maurizio (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it up for you. The info was in the edit summary. I don't know why it didn't get into the descrption page. --teb728 (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Gwm-logo.jpg

Can somebody tell me why this is supposed to be deleted? The image is used in the infobox on the article page. Poeloq (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the Bot that tagged it as invalid fair use rationale is broken. It doesn't make sense. It's all there what is needed, especially the point in question. Kraxler (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Replaceability, and "reasonableness"

Can anyone confirm that not knowing where something or someone is going to be at a given time is not a valid argument for "not reasonably replaceable"? I believe there was some discussion about this a long time ago in relation to images of individuals used only to show what they look like that because we don't know where someone was going to be does not mean in and of itself that the image is not replaceable. Image at hand is Image:Arrivavoyager.png, and I'd appreciate a neutral party that knows something on the matter weighing in. 90.203.45.244 (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen the specific example of a rebranded train, but by analogy in cases of humans the matter of not knowing the public appearance schedule of a celebrity does not mean that a free image cannot be made. It simply means it will take more work. People have mentioned in hypothetical arguments that an extreme degree of difficulty would be required before saying that no picture is likely to be available of a living human being, e.g. the person is imprisoned somewhere for life or has been missing for a long time. To extend the analogy, if the train is the same but one simply does not know where it is on the line, one can assume that a picture could be taken if someone cares enough to do so. However, if the train is repainted or is otherwise different in appearance, one could say that like a human the old one has "died" and the new one is not a true replacement. Hope this helps. Wikidemo (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

So, how hard would it be to just call up the company and ask them what route that particular train is going to be running that day? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

New York Yankees logo

I came across Image:Crossed_N_and_Y.jpg in CAT:CSD, and there are several issues. The image that it was a claimed copyright violation of, now gone, was tagged PD-USa and moved to Commons (and deleted there by User:Durin). The Yankees have been in New York since 1903. My question is: How long has the current logo been in use (is it old enough to be public domain) - is it copyrightable anyway (it's just two letters superimposed), and - clearly it's fair use if it is, and it should be either here or on commons (if it's in fact PD), not both. I'm undeleting Image:ALE-NYY-Insignia.png for now, as it was deleted under I8 and no longer exists on commons. —Random832 21:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ruth1920.jpg, a picture clearly taken before 1923, shows the logo on Babe Ruth's cap. So it would seem it's not copyrighted in the US. Any other opinions? —Random832 21:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

See also New York Yankees#Logo, uniform, and dress code and Image:NYYLogos Cap.PNG. --teb728 (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted this per CSD G12 as an obvious copyvio. Besides, it's nearly an exact copy of Image:NYYLogos PrintNY.PNG and the uploader used a false public domain release, claiming to be the original copyright holder.

Also, these are trademarked logos, which I'm pretty sure don't lapse into the public domain if currently in use. Caknuck (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Trademark is not relevant to inclusion of an image on Wikipedia, it's completely separate from copyright. The idea that Logos are "inherently copyrighted" is false - whether this specific one is or not; the Coca-cola logo, for example, is not. The false release is, obviously, not nice, but should have been fixed rather than deleted IMO —Random832 22:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Meh - the image that was deleted was a JPG copy of an image that already exists as PNG, so no-one should be crying over it anyway. I'd like to see the wider question resolved, though.—Random832 22:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sam Brown (singer) photo

Whom should I attribute the copyright if I want to cut Sam Brown's photo form the file (album cover?) already on the Wiki article, and post it separately? GuggiePrg (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you can’t use such a cropped photo to illustrate Sam Brown on Wikipedia. The album cover is undoubtedly copyrighted; so by Wikipedia’s policy on non-free content it can be used only to illustrate the album itself. --teb728 (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

LUMS

So, what is the deal with this [1]. I basically copied the "fair use" rights that are on a number of other restaurants that actually still exist, while LUMS is effectively dead as a chain, so, there isn't anyone who is going to complain anyway. I don't really care, but, seems silly to jump through so many hoops. Dletter (talk) 05:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem was that the non-free use rationale referenced the LUMS disambiguation page rather than Lums (Restaurant Chain). I fixed it. --teb728 (talk) 06:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

the impact of internet

i want a short note on the impact of internet in the modern universities —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.207.13.154 (talk) 11:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not a media copyright question. So don't expect an answer here. --teb728 (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Joe Murray

I'd like to know if this image is suitable for upload to WP? Yngvarr 13:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be under a free license so no.Geni 14:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyright issue with my picture

The picture featured at my entry on Wikipedia--Tibor R. Machan--was taken by a student while I was giving at talk in Italy. He sent it to me via email but I no longer recall his name--the event was attended by several dozen students from several countries. There should be no issue about featuring the picture--it belongs to me now.

Tibor R. Machan TMachan@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Szatyor39 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The image has been deleted; so I can’t see what was on its description page and its history. But judging from the messages on your talk page, I would guess that the image description page didn’t have a copyright tag (like {{GFDL}} for example. An image without a copyright tag) is sure to be deleted. See WP:ICT for more about copyright tags. --teb728 (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Drawings of symbols that appeared on a TV show

I am currently trying to get an article up to GA status and tried to replace some non-free fairuse images from a TV show with drawings. Now I'd like to have a second opinion whether these drawings still fall under copyright as a derivative work, or if alternatives would work.

1. My first drawing (edit: now only accessible as the October 4 version, intentionally orphaned) is based on a symbol that regularly appeared on a car in the TV show. This car now belongs to a fan and was presented on a fan convention. Note that this symbol is similar to the title card of the TV show. Another fan took a photo of a truck on the set, similar to this one. So, was it right to license my drawing under GDFL (because I used PD and GDFL elements, and it is not exactly the title card)? If I got the owners of these photos to license them under a wiki-free license, would those photos still fall under derivative work?
2. Another of my drawings is a reproduction of a symbol that appeared on a few props in the TV show. These props were also photographed on a convention. Because this symbol is very much based on a real-world symbol, I had based my drawing on it also. I already uploaded it to Commons, but I'd like to know whether that was correct.

I'd rather deal with the possible consequences myself now before someone later (e.g. at WP:FAC) tells me I was wrong. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Using A copy of a page in the leicester mercury as referance

--Marquisofqueensbury (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC) is it ok theyre from the 1960's --Marquisofqueensbury (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You can use them as a referance although obviously you can't coppy them.Geni 20:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

DVD Cover for TV programme

I have upload a copy of the dvd cover Image:Malice aforethought.jpg and posted it on the relevant article.

For hints on what to do I have looked at other similar articles, and I posted the picture with the same license as these examples, with the license {{Non-free DVD cover}}

This has been disputed but I am not sure why as other articles with the same info are not??? How is this consistent?

What should I add to prevent this from being deleted?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Madnaduk (talk • contribs) 11:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The 'license tag' isn't the only thing necessary, you need a fair use rationale, explaining why it's needed in the particular article you're using it in, with a link to that article. —Random832 16:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

World Series Programs: scanned images

Am I allowed to upload scanned images of Major League Baseball World Series programs and if so what copyright type should I select upon uploading? What other restrictions apply to using scanned magazine or program covers? Thank you. Kjbopp 18:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The closest tag seems to be {{non-free magazine cover}}. Indeed a program is really a kind of a magazine.

As with all non-free tags, the tag must be accompanied by a non-free use rationale for each use. The use(s) must conform to Wikipedia’s highly restrictive non-free content criteria, and the rationale(s) must document that conformity. See the non-free use rationale guideline.

In particular, the approved use for a magazine cover is to illustrate comment on the issue of the magazine in question in a way that words alone could not. Presumably a program cover would be used to illustrate comment on the program. --teb728 (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Using a figure from a scientific journal article

Hello, I've been visiting Wikipedia for years but this is the first time I've written an article - the article is on the prokaryotic cytoskeleton. I added an image, found here that I found in a journal article that I believe is a very helpful visual aid and I made sure to cite the source. However, I stated that I was unsure of the copyright information in the image, and the image is slated to be deleted. I don't know what Wikipedia's policy is on using figures published in scientific journals and I surprisingly haven't been able to find anything in the Wikipedia image use guidelines on this subject (and I'm sure I'm not the first to ask this question). Anyway, please let me know what I should do or (even better) feel free to edit the image yourself as appropriate. Thanks in advance.

Chaoticcranium (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Soccer pictures inside stadia

Many pictures of football (soccer) players are taken by fans inside the ground. However, only photographers with licenses are allowed to distribute pictures taken inside football grounds (in the UK at least) due to rights issues.

So should all images taken "from the stands" be deleted? Duke of Whitstable (talk) 23:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Public domain movie screenshot

Hi there. Is a screenshot of the public domain movie also considered to be in PD? If yes, how can I tag it? Thanks, --Kober^Talk 14:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this eligible to be uploaded to Wikipedia

Is this photo eligible to be uploaded to Wikipedia? It is from the Hungarian National Museum Historical Photo Gallery. The photo was taken in 1945. The photo is apparently in the compilation Nagy képes milleniumi arcképcsarnok. 100 portré a magyar történelembõl. from 1999. I'm unsure what the policy is regarding museum photos.--Palatinus Regni^!!! 15:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for Removal of All My Images

Based on recent unpleasant events associated with my account, I would like to request that all of my images be removed. How do I go about it and what is the fastest way to achieve that? Thanks for your help. MarkMarek (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but when you uploaded your images, you licensed them under the GNU Free Documentation License. This license is not revokable; so what you want to do is not possible. And I am sorry you had an unpleasant experience; I hope that you will get over it. --teb728 (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I would hate to have to go through all of my images and add notes to them explaining what is going on and that I don't approve for the use of them after some true colors have been demonstrated to me. There's a difference between a change of heart and not wanting to be associated with a website where cyber bullying and power tripping go berzerk. I hope this is understood and the removal of my images goes without major delays. I appreciate your time. MarkMarek (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid, Mark, that TEB728 is correct. I don't know the circumstances of your conflict, but try to rise above the keyboard warriors. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not about the keyboard warriors. It had been before it turned into a lynch mob event where anyone who was around felt compelled to come by and take a kick at the guy on the ground. This is a matter of dignity and self respect. I'm asking you once more not to pour any more salt into the open wound and respect my wish so I can leave in peace without additional abuse. Thank you for your understanding. MarkMarek (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Although this might sound heartless, you really should have thought about this possibility before you licensed them under the GNU Free Documentation License. As soon as you did, you gave up the ability to ask for them to be deleted. Duke of Whitstable (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Mark, I read the history on your talk page and I can understand you are frustrated at a few administrators here who may have mistreated you. However, as the previous authors have mentioned, you can not revoke the licensing of your photos, you have entered a legal contract. And: Consider the greater good to the readers of Wikipedia all over the world and just forget what happened to you. Poeloq (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Poeloq, that's exactly what I was doing - offering my time and photography for the greater good until a biased admin jumped down my throat and decided to show me that he is more than me because he's the admin. As if that wasn't enough, few more admins join the party and each of them threw the stone and enjoyed every second of it. They all let me feel that I'm a nobody and they are admins so they can do as they please with me. What would you do if you were in my shoes? Would you be as excited about the greater good?

They are still admins and it still is just a question of time before they take a second round of abuse against me. They were having a lot of fun at round one... No my friend, I'm all for the greater good but the line is drown as soon as I'm turned into a subject of multiple abuse. You know what the worst part is? This place is infested with powertripping abusers. YOU could be next! MarkMarek (talk) 04:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses, I truly appreciate that. Can anyone point me at the right direction? I would like to speak to someone who has the authority to do what's right, rather than what's politically correct. Someone from the higher up on the hierarchy scale, possibly a member of the management team, etc. Can anyone give me a pointer?

Please note, I do appreciate the advice of everyone who chimed in with their 2 cents. I did get it. You do not need to repeat it to me again. If you do have the answer to my latest question, please respond, otherwise please move on to something else. Thank you. MarkMarek (talk) 01:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You're basically looking for an out-of-process deletion, which is rather rare. The only one I can think of is the one revolving around the original version of Image:Big Quran page.jpg. The situation in that case was that an established editor had taken a photo of his wife next to a large scroll of Quranic calligraphy. Here's the first and the second talk page archives of the resulting uproar. This was further complicated by the hapless uploader asking that the photo be removed because of emotional distress over being connected to the controversy. Things reached a head when an admin deleted the image out of process, citing both the interminable argument and the request of the uploader, and was taken to WP:RFC by critics, which in turn resulted in a majority of editors, including a very special appearance of Jimbo, supporting the invocation of WP:IAR in the deletion.

You probably don't want to hear this but, as far as I can tell, there is nothing like that extensive sinkhole of effort from multiple editors involved in your request. Note that where you say "politically correct" above, other editors would say "legally binding." You might be interested in following the current discussion on Commons about the photographer of a featured picture attempting to revoke permission for use of the high quality version of his picture. So short answer: you need a rogue admin who can make an argument that would result in the images staying deleted, and preferably keep the admin from being desysopped for abuse of the tools. You could try bumping it up to an email to the permissions queue at WP:OTRS, but I rather doubt you would get an outcome you would find satisfactory from them. - BanyanTree 06:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

part_time job

can u anwer me that how is status of part_timejob in students , if ok, can u give me some statistics of sts do part_time job in some universities or any place.than ks much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.252.254.215 (talk) 04:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That is not a media copyright question. So don't expect an answer here. --teb728 (talk) 04:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Use of logo for a userbox

I wanted to make a userbox for myself saying "This User loves animals, but despises PETA" and for the image, I made a variation of the PETA logo with an X through it. Before I uploaded it, I wanted to make sure if I can do this and what I would put down for copyright info considering that its a variation of an image.

Heres a link to the original image I put an X through:

Thanks.--Renegade Replicant|^{leave me a message} 05:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

In general you cannot use a non-free image on your user page for any reason. There's a reasonable question whether the PETA logo is copyrightable because it's just stylized text. However, better to be safe and just make up your own italicized PETA image in a standard italic font and start from there. Then you won't have a copyright issue. You might want to check around for userboxes. I doubt there's an anti-PETA one specifically but there are plenty for issues you might think of as conservative. Also, I'm not sure if there are any rules here against that kind of advocacy but I doubt it inasmuch as Wikipedia isn't censored. Hope that helps.Wikidemo (talk) 07:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'll just use regular text, as you suggested. Thanks. By the way, I don't plan on finding any conservative userboxes considering my left leg is considerably shorter than my right, metaphorically of course.

I lean to the left, but I cannot stand how PETA is ran with their "we're right, you're wrong" policies. They have some of the most obnoxious cronies.--Renegade Replicant|^{leave me a message} 16:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

part time job

can u anwer me that how is status of part_timejob in students , if ok, can u give me some statistics of sts do part_time job in some universities or any place.thanks much222.252.247.115 (talk) 09:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

my english no good.. can somebody make e- mule ok for me. can not download... ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.28.25.184 (talk) 11:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Norwegian royal family

It is difficult to obtain good images of the Norwegian royal family that are totally free. Images taken by regular people are usually not good and images by professionals are usually not free. The royal house has released a set of images here that is inteded for use by the press and similar. As such they are the similar to promotional press kits. The kit also group images of european heads of states, throne heirs and so on which are impossible to dublicate and IMO impossible to obtain under a free licence. The page states that the images are released for "editorial" (redaksjonelt) use, that selling the images are not permitted and that the photographer and the Royal Court must be credited. Can these images be uploaded to wikipedia (not commons of course) and used by us? Inge (talk) 12:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Because one of Wikipedia main goals is to produce freely reusable content, it prefers an image which is not good to one which is not free. If a grouping, however, were notable in itself, a non-free image might be acceptable to illustrate a comment on the grouping, provided it contributes significantly to the article in a way that words alone could not. (But the usefulness of that seems unlikely to me.) --teb728 (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. I didnt really get that much out of it though...You believe the group images possibly could be used if the group is notable? As pointed out the images are free to use for editorial puposes as long as they are credited and not sold. That means they can be used by anyone so long as they follow the rules. Are they then not permissable on wikipedia?Inge (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

In short no. The restriction on selling (among other things) is actualy a fairly big restriction, so images with that kind of conditions are considered non-free. They may be used in accordance with the non-free content policy iff deemed nessesary to adequately explain a subject (such as a spesific historic event), but for simple identification such images are not permited as long as it's possible to create new free licensed photos of the subjects, and members of the royal family often appear in public where they can be photographed. It may also be possible to contact the copyright holder for an existing image of them, and ask them to release it under a free license, see WP:COPYREQ for more info on how to go about that. --Sherool (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think there is a misunderstanding because the English word “free” can mean either free of cost or free of restriction. When Wikipedia talks of “free” images they mean the latter. Specifically, free images on Wikipedia are images that can be reused by anyone for anything. An image which can be used only for editorial purposes or as long as it is not sold is “non-free.” --teb728 (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Deleted Rightfully Uploaded Pic

Why did Wikipedia deleted my rightfully uploaded picture? I had the permission of the owner to post it, but it was still deleted! Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midoria (talk • contribs) 14:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The image has already been deleted; so I can’t see what was on its description page and its history. But judging from the messages on your talk page, I would guess that the image description page lacked information on the source and/or information on the license and/or a copyright tag. Be sure you understand: Wikipedia does not accept permission to appear only on Wikipedia; we only accept permission which allows reuse by anyone for anything. Because some people mistakenly upload images without that kind of permission, we have to be able to check. --teb728 (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Bowser Verifacation?

Could someone verify that Image:Bowser in his Modern Appearance.jpg is properly attributed? --Is this fact...? 12:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. --teb728 (talk) 07:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:JulieHarrisChips.JPG

This photo is from a publicity kit MGM issued in conjunction with the release of the 1969 film Goodbye, Mr. Chips. There's no category in the pull-down menu on the upload page that accurately describes this. How do I categorize it? Please respond on my talk page. Thank you for your help. MovieMadness (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The tag to use is {{non-free promotional}}. You will also need a non-free use rationale, as described in WP:NFURG. --teb728 (talk) 08:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Publication marked 'copyright free'

I wish to upload a scan I found on the net of an old (1978) promotional poster for a vehicle, issued by the manufacturer. It comprises mainly a photo and a paragraph of text, at the end of the text it states clearly the name of the company and "Copyright Free". Am I correct in assuming this can be uploaded with the tag {{Copyrighted free use}} MickMacNee (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I would guess that’s not the correct tag, but I would have to see the source page to be sure. In any case you would have to specify the source on the image description page; so that someone could verify it. --teb728 (talk) 23:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, don't know what you mean by source? The original source of the image is surely the company, it is a press photo. The scan of the original photo [2] is hosted here [3] listing the photo for sale. Don't know the in's and out's of this I'm afraid, but I didn't think you could copyright scans of original photos, the copyright holder (or free issuer) is still the original photos creator, hence the scan is 'copyright free' aswell? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MickMacNee (talk • contribs) 02:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The two links you gave were just what I meant by source. According to the listing page, it is a press photo of a Bedford JJL Midi-Bus prototype, which explains why it is marked “copyright free”—they want the press to use it. But I don’t know if “copyright free” means public domain or what Wikipedia calls free content or something more restricted than that.

Does someone else have an opinion on that? --teb728 (talk) 08:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Freefoto.com

What is the procedure for adding photos from Freefoto.com? MickMacNee (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The potentially applicable FreeFoto.com licensing condition is, “ANYONE, by which we mean commercial and non-commercial alike, can use FreeFoto.com images in an online setting, providing they provide attribution to the image and a link back to FreeFoto.com (either the image or the main site). This license allows blogs, social networking sites and use in emails, just to name a few, providing they provide the required attribution, this includes sites that pay people to write, carry advertising or are selling and promoting products. The only requirement the attribution and link back. … You MAY NOT use the images to create your own photo gallery web site.”

Wikipedia accepts only licenses that permit reuse by anyone for anything. A license may require attribution. But I suspect that the requirement of a link back, the restriction to online settings, and the restriction on creating a photo gallery web site may be unacceptable to Wikipedia.

Does someone have a second opinion on this? --teb728 (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Images

I downloaded few images from Google images to my computer,and I want to upload them to Wikipedia.I think,that because I downloaded them to my computer that I can upload them to Wikipedia freely,but I am not sure.Can you help me? Aleksandar665 (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No, that’s absolutely wrong (though perhaps a common misconception). Almost everything on the web is copyrighted. You are entitled to fair use of it on your own computer, but that doesn’t change the copyright. You can upload copyrighted material to Wikipedia only if it appears under GFDL or other free license license. --teb728 (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Experienced editor with a novice question

I'm a little embarrassed that I don't know the answer to this question, given that I consider myself a pretty experienced editor, but could somebody clarify for me the fair use legitimacy of using a copyrighted photograph to illustrate a deceased subject in which no free image is known to be available? I was under the impression that this was allowed, but when I upload the file this isn't one of the fair use rationales available in the dropdown menu. Could somebody set me straight (and, if I'm doing this wrong, tag Hawrelak.jpg and Laurence_decore.jpg for deletion)? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:ICT/FU use {{Non-free fair use in|Article}}. --teb728 (talk) 00:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added the tags. Can I take your response to mean that this is indeed a valid fair use rationale? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No. I believe that with this, as with all non-free tags, you need a separate rationale. --teb728 (talk) 01:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:FultonStreetAnd10thAvenueWithMunisFirstBusAndFirstStreetcarRoute.jpg

Hi, I have a question about this image I just uploaded that it was published in the United states before 1923. However, it says that permission is needed if the image is to be used. So, to be safe, I uploaded the image under the Public Domain for now, but I am not sure whether it is really in the public domain. Thanks for your help! -Goodshoped 02:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I found the image in San Francisco Historical Photograph Collection, ID AAC-7747.

http://sflib1.sfpl.org:82/search/i?SEARCH=AAC-7747&x=37&y=8

It indicates the photo was taken in 1918 but the only publication date given is October 13 1962.

If you look at the Cornell Copyright Information Center, unpublished works have a copyright term of life of the author + 70 years. You need to find out when it was first published. If it was first published under copyright in 1962 it would have to be renewed 28 years later (1990). http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain

The copyright of old photos can be very difficult to determine. You should ask the San Francisco Public Library. Please note that sometimes organizations claim a copyright on images that are in the public domain. Ask who the photographer was and when he (or she) died. Also ask about the chain of copyright ownership.

Good luck. After doing a lot of searching I found that most Ziff-Davis Publishing and Gernsback Publications magazines published before 1964 did not have their copyright renewed and are in the public domain. You may find this photo and others in the collection are in the public domain. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 03:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

hi...

i recently uploaded an image...
...and i was left a message by a bot that told me i had to tag it or something...
and i took the image myself and dont want to put any copyright thing on it... but when i followed the instructions on the talkpage it left me to add the tag... i cudnt figure it out...
Could you message me please?

xx Iamandrewrice (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Since you took the photo yourself you have a copyright on it. Wikipedia wants your permission to host it. So we can see that you give that permission, you need to put tag on the image description page. In your case the two most likely tags are {{PD-self}}, which means you give up your copyright, and {{GFDL-self}}, which means you keep your copyright but allow anyone to use the photo for anything.

After you decide which tag to use, follow the directions at the top of this page to add the tag to the image. --teb728 (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Uploading actor headshot

I'm totally new to wiki, so please excuse lack of understanding of how to do this/under what licence etc

I have permission from the publicist for actor Michael Shanks to provide a stock headshot/promotional photo sent to me (for use on the Michael Shanks Online website) as an image for such sites as wikipedia. (I've already provided the same photo for use on the SciFi Channel's own wiki.)

I would like to add the image to the wikipedia entry for Michael, but not sure how to do it, under what licence etc. Could somebody please advise?

Mfluder42 (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The tag to use would be {{non-free promotional}}. You would also need a non-free use rationale, as described in WP:NFURG. This rationale must explain why no free equivalent image is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. But I am sorry to say that this may be impossible to explain, as exemplified by the fact that a free image of his wife does exist.

By a “free image” I mean one with a license that allows reuse by anyone for anything. Your promotional photo is almost certainly not “free” in this sense. Wikipedia policy strongly favors free content. By policy Wikipedia would rather wait for a free image than use a non-free one. --teb728 (talk) 08:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Re-Creation of Diagrams

I am creating SVG versions of existing jpg/png diagrams. No actual image data from the original is used although the results are supposed to be nearly identical. The diagrams in question are released into the public domain. What is the proper way of attributing to the original author and licensing the resulting image (Happily to the public domain)? Image:Simple distillation apparatus.png

Jermonian (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say something like “Source: Image:Simple distillation apparatus.png Author: Original PNG by User:Quantockgoblin, SVG conversion by User:Jermonian” If the original is PD, the conversion should be PD as well. --teb728 (talk) 07:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Viva Pinata PC.jpg

This file does not appear to have a copyright tag. Copyright tagging is required in order to provide a consistent way to identify the copyright status of files, and to allow for automated classification of files. This template should be replaced with the appropriate copyright tag. Failure to tag an file may lead to its deletion. If you have any questions, please see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
Administrators: delete this file.image with no copyright tag as of 2024-09-09 (CSD F4)

This file does not have information on its copyright and licensing status.

Unless the copyright and licensing status is provided, the file will be deleted after Monday, 16 September 2024. Please remove this template if a correct copyright license tag has been added.
Administrators: delete this file.

---

Usage: {{di-no license|date=9 September 2024}}
Notify the uploader with: {{subst:di-no license-notice|1=Media copyright questions}} ~~~~
Add the following to the image captions: {{Deletable file-caption|Monday, 16 September 2024|F4}}%5B%5BWP%3ACSD%23F4%7CF4%5D%5D%3A+Lack+of+licensing+information

Tofu Time (talk) 04:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I gave it an appropriate tag. --teb728 (talk) 06:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Charles Boyce page-

Do not consider the image sent awhile back for this page. It's hard to determine what it is that needs to be edited on this page. Can you indicate in talk what it is that's hindering the completion of this page. If it's possible. Charles boyce (talk) CB —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles boyce (talk • contribs) 15:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page. --teb728 t c 00:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Copuyright rules for city archive photos

I found on the site of a newspaper many photos of Melitopol, Ukraine. The photos are taken by different photographers, some of them are not photos, but postcards. All of them are old, some were taken from 1903 to 1930, others from 1941 to 1980-s. They are property of the Melitopol Public Museum and may be copied by anybody. So, the journalists copied them and placed on their site, I downloaded them. May I upload them to Wiki? Demidov2007 (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tuff.jpg

I did not find this image in any web site. It was actually from a burned DVD. The "invalid fair use" tag must be removed. User:Jonghyunchung Jonghyunchung (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't the problem. The problem was that your rationale did not mention the page where the image was used. I fixed it. --teb728 t c 23:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Uwlathletics.gif

What is the problem with this image? Why does it need to be deleted?? --Crosscountrycpjon (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You need to provide a non-free use rationale for its use in University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, as described at WP:NFURG. --teb728 t c 00:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyright rules for 60's magazines

I am doing an article about Architect Harry Gesner. I have an image of his work from the 1969 issue of "Home Magazine" that I would like to include. The image is in the middle of this page http://www.malibumag.com/onlinemagazine/febmar06/harrygesner.htm.

What are issue with using something 28 years old?Wicklonious (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well if it was first published in the US before 1989 and did not include a copyright notice it may be public domain (more info reqired to say for sure) if it was not an omission that was not corrected within 5 years. Also if it was published before 1964 with a notice, but did not have it's copyright renewed within 28 years it may also be public domain now. See this flowchart for more details on copyright expiration rules. If the copyright can not be demonstrated to have expired it will have to be treated like any other non-free work though. --Sherool (talk) 00:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Another dumb question from an experienced editor

When copyright was held by a corporate entity that no longer exists, who has the capacity to license something under an acceptable license? Specifically, I'm wondering about material published in a newspaper that stopped publishing in 1951 (with the corporation that published it going under the same year). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyright still exists - it's just difficult to determine where. This kind of thing actually happens all the time. Can you indicate/link the newspaper in question. If it was published in the US without stating that it was copyright - it may actually be public domain. Megapixie (talk) 00:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It was a general question mostly, but the newspaper I used in my example (and the one from which I'd probably like to eventually upload some content) is the Edmonton Bulletin,; .jpgs of some of them are available here. Actually, if these guys are displaying .jpgs of old issues online, they must know who has the copyright, right?

More generally, what happens to a copyright after the organization holding it goes under? Is it just sold off like any other asset? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, bankrupcy laws probably differ a bit, but generaly speaning I believe the ownership of all the company's assets, including the rights to it's intelectual property is passed to some kind of temporary court appointed entity run by a lawyer or such who's sole responsibility it is to sell off the assets in order to pay off as much of the company's debth as possible. So any copyrights of any value will most likely be sold. A few odds and ends might fall between the cracks if they have no commercial value, but I believe the copyright still legaly persist even if there is no new owner, possebly defaulting back to whatever person originaly created them or some such... --Sherool (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and in case it wasn't clear, this is a Canadian newspaper. If you know the answer to my question as if it was an American paper, though, I can probably figure out any relevant differences between American and Canadian law. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Unknown licenses

If there is material of which the license is unknown, then how do I found out what kind of license it has?--24.62.236.10 (talk) 02:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)