Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Claytonguy20 (talk | contribs) at 17:02, 26 January 2008 (→‎Can I use this picture?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

      Media copyright questions
      Shortcuts

      Welcome to the Media Copyright Questions page, a place for help with image copyrights, tagging, non-free content, and related questions. For all other questions please see Wikipedia:Questions.

      How to add a copyright tag to an existing image
      1. On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page.
      2. From the page Wikipedia:File copyright tags, choose the appropriate tag:
        • For work you created yourself, use one of the ones listed under the heading "For image creators".
        • For a work downloaded from the internet, please understand that the vast majority of images from the internet are not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. Exceptions include images from flickr that have an acceptable license, images that are in the public domain because of their age or because they were created by the United States federal government, or images used under a claim of fair use. If you do not know what you are doing, please post a link to the image here and ask BEFORE uploading it.
        • For an image created by someone else who has licensed their image under an acceptable Creative Commons or other free license, or has released their image into the public domain, this permission must be documented. Please see Requesting copyright permission for more information.
      3. Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{Cc-by-4.0}}), not forgetting {{ before and }} after, in the edit box on the image's description page.
      4. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}})
      5. Hit Publish changes.
      6. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below.
      How to ask a question
      1. To ask a new question hit the "Click here to start a new discussion" link below.
      2. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end.
      3. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page.
      4. Don't include your email address, for your own privacy. We will respond here and cannot respond by email.
      Note for those replying to posted questions

      If a question clearly does not belong on this page, reply to it using the template {{mcq-wrong}} and, if possible, leave a note on the poster's talk page. For copyright issues relevant to Commons where questions arising cannot be answered locally, questions may be directed to Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright.

      Click here to start a new discussion

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


      Questions merged from Wikipedia:Requested copyright examinations

      Adding tag to Image.

      I have recently uploaded an Image: RC6 Cryptography Algorithm.jpg . This image is owned entirely by me, and I would like to add an appropriate tag for the image, but how could I add tag to the image? I would like to distribute the image under GNU license agreement.

      Its easy click on the red words from the image then you open your pictures put the picture in you put in a summary then you select a license from the license bar then you can upload it - Trulystand700 (talk)

      is amazon....

      are amazon books covers ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miamicatlavender (talk • contribs) 03:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Yes with the required rationale and {{bookcover}}. Stifle (talk) 11:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Image of a unique parade float

      Regarding this image [1]

      An image of a unique parade float taken by an anonymous person who emailed it to a blogger who then posted it (according to blogger Shmarya Rosenberg. This important and illustrative image relevant to a number of articles including Chabad and Chabad messianism. Can one make a fair use argument that it constitutes a Template:Non-free historic image as no free images exist and the event will not be repeated?

      Would it be necessary to reduce the resolution of the image before it was used? Lobojo (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      That kind of argument seems reasonable. The image would need to be low-resolution to conform with the WP:NFCC. Stifle (talk) 11:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for the advice. Lobojo (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Use of Image or part of image of a painting in Wiki article

      Am I able to legally use an image or part of image of a painting that was produced by a Julius Scholz sometime between 1825 and 1893. Ezza —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezza61 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Yes, that can be uploaded as {{PD-US}}. Stifle (talk) 11:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      TIOH template & copyright

      I've been using Template:PD-USGov-Military-Army-USAIOH to tag images from the Institute of Heraldry, but ImageTaggingBot is telling me that I need to provide sources for the images still. Does the template not properly identify the source and creators? -Ed! (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Please mark the URL where you found this on the internet. If you create the image yourself (such as in Photoshop) and it is not a derivative image, please state so exactly on the page. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Is this image okay?

      It is of Guitarist Shane Gibson

      http://www.shaneguitar.com/news_images/20080108_SiriusRadio_002_sm.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kornography (talk • contribs) 21:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Nope, that's a copyrighted image of a living person, so it would fail WP:NFCC because a free alternative is obtainable. Stifle (talk) 11:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Ronald Kessler photo and autobiography

      In response to your question about the copyright status of the photo of me for use with my entry Ronald Kessler, it is free content. Also, since the material in my entry consists of barebones listings, could you remove the autobiographical warning at the top? Thank you for your help.--Ronald Kessler —Preceding unsigned comment added by KesslerRonald (talk • contribs) 13:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      I have marked the file as GFDL. Please read up on WP:GFDL in order to make sure that this license to make sure it is sufficient according to your purposes, and that you are OK with its distribution clauses. If you disagree, please mark the file with {{db-author}}, and it will be deleted. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      1969 cougar

      Hello, I am trying to find out how many 1969 cougar convertibles , with 351 windsor engine,in the 4 speed transmission were produced, can you help me? Thank you for your time, Norm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.30.235 (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Try asking that at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. This page is monitored by people who only know about copyright questions. --teb728 t c 00:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Video question?

      Can non-free video files be uploaded to Wikipedia as long as they meet the criteria for non-free content and have a detailed fair use rationale, just like any image would? Or is there another policy for dealing with video? Noah¢s (Talk) 21:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Yes, I believe you can upload that video under the said reasons. However, Wikimedia only accepts files in the ogg format. For more help, see Commons:Help:Converting video. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      If you can't convert or don't have time to, then upload anyway and come back and let us know the file needs to be converted. We'll need the location of the file to work with it. Someone will be able to help get it in the right format. Guroadrunner (talk) 05:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      ?

      I am not sure I understand. When I upload images, Wikipedia asks me for the status of the image, and I always chose the one that asserts that those were my own works available for common use. I then attached the images to certain articles. What is wrong with this process, and why were they removed from the Duck Mountain Provincial Park article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldgate (talk • contribs) 02:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      In fact, I have restored the images, as they were removed without comment, and there was no reason to do so. However, I'm looking through your contributions, and you need to give each image a license. Please go back and mark each image with a proper license: I suggest {{PD-self}}, {{GFDL-self}}, or {{self|cc-by-2.5}}, depending on which license you choose. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Is an image with a watermark of the source OK?

      Can I post an image with a water mark clearly showing the website from which it came from (it was posted on the original website with the watermark) or can I only post a link to it at best?

      http://www.bcfc.co.uk/javaImages/2a/fb/0,,10327~3537706,00.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by XanderBingo (talk • contribs) 12:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      It's preferred that such images are not watermarked, but if it is the best available image to illustrate the article and it meets all the criteria, it's not forbidden. Stifle (talk) 11:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      License

      What license can I put on the Image:Dudu_nobre.jpg, if the source site does not cite any copyright and does not limit a person's reproduction of anything contained in the site? --Nadir D Steinmetz 15:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Sorry, but unless you can show that the image is licensed to be reused by anyone for anything, Wikipedia policy doesn’t permit using it. --teb728 t c 18:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      The little Bighorn picture

      Who painted this picture and when?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennykeyman (talk • contribs) 23:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      X-33630.jpg‎ (640 × 418 pixels, file size: 48 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg) WHO PAINTED THE Little Bighorn Picture< and when? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennykeyman (talk • contribs) 23:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      We don't know, please address this to the reference desk. Stifle (talk) 11:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Fair use rationale for Image:Mona-weblogo-plain-200px.jpg

      Hello,

      I received a message re: Fair use rationale for Image:Mona-weblogo-plain-200px.jpg. I am unclear what I need to put on the image description page. This logo was created by Mona Foundation for Mona Foundation - what do I need to do so that I can keep the image in the Wikipedia article on the Mona Foundation????

      THank you, Sarah —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorgnati (talk • contribs) 00:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Please take a note, I have fixed up the image. In the future, please use the template format situated at Wikipedia:Fair_use_rationale_guideline#Template for all fair use images, and the problems should be resolved. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      cocktail- where was the bar in jamaica where it was filmed name and location

      where is the bar used in cocktail in jamaica where tom cruise worked and met elizabeth shue. what location is it still there ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.93.189 (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Please address this type of question to the reference desk. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Proper image tags for Swerve (Transformers)

      I just posted 2 pictures on the article Swerve (Transformers). This article covers 5 different Transformers named Swerve that have been made in the last 20+ years, so I decided to add pictures of a few of the major ones. Can anyone tell me if I did the non-free tags properly? Thanks Mathewignash (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      They appear to be pretty good with two caveats. If you could provide a more specific source for the URL (see {{bsr}}), and if you could provide a short explanation of why it's not replaceable fair use under the proper section (even though it already is fairly obvious as is). The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The hasbro web site no longer hosts these images, as it's changed and deleted their pages on Universe and Cybertron toys, so I can't give a better URL. Mathewignash (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I added a couple more like on the pages for Clocker (Transformers) and Skyblast. Any problems with those pictures? Mathewignash (talk) 02:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Old image OK?

      Would it be OK for me to upload the next-to-last image here to include it in World Chess Championship 1948? These are the five participants in the 1948 tournament, an important historic event and the photo can't be replaced. Bubba73 (talk), 02:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      This would probably be fair-use irreplaceable, so yes. You might want to read up at WP:FU and make sure to provide the proper template. However, there is also a good chance that this is a free image, depending on where it was first published. If it was published in 1948 in Russia, and the author is unknown, you can give a tag of {{PD-Russia}}, but you will have to upload it to commons for legal reasons (see the bottom of the template link for an explanation of why it's not PD in the US). However, you will probably have to try to find information on where it was first published, and author information. There is also a fairly heavy chance that you will be able to mark it with {{PD-US-not renewed}}. However, all of this will require finding information on its first publishing. If not, you can probably just go with fair use. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Unfortunately I have no idea about the original photographer or where it was published. I'll read up as you suggested. Bubba73 (talk), 20:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      General pemission found on website

      General permission to use image below is found at http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/mkt/katy.html

      I have complied with the site's requirement that the copyright holder and photographer are given credit. I have included the link in the image's caption.


      How do I keep this image from being deleted?

      Lownen (talk) 05:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC) image:mkt153ags.jpg[reply]

      The problem is you didn't place a license on the image; each image needs a proper license tag. In this instance, please take note of the change I've made: [2]. It would also help if you could revise the page to give a more precise location for the image, as there appear to be a few subpages. The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm also concerned that the general permission may not be sufficiently all-encompassing for the tag used (and for use on Wikipedia). For example, it's far from clear that derivative uses are covered. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      question

      I found some photographs of the first edition of the Die tote Stadt score from web which were published in 1920 in Mainz of Germany and in 1924 in Chicago (near close to pd-us).[3][4][5]

      http://thompsonian.info/korngold.html

      I don't have much experience of uploading that kind of images here except copy free images. Can someone tell me whether it is usable for the article or not? And do I need to get a permission from the website owner if the book falls under 3d object? Thanks--Appletrees (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Would like to uplad image but not sure if I have suficient permission.

      I noticed that there is no photo of Chandra Wickramasinghe attached to the article about him so I emailed him asking for such a photo. Dr. Wickramasinghe was gracious enough to send me such an image but when I sought to upload same I found that the process was a bit more complicated than I had realized. The photo is no doubt his personal property but probably not taken by himself.

      Here is a copy of the email interchange regarding said image.



      Dear John

      Attached is a recent photo you can use. Please do the needful for Wikepedia. I can send an autographed copy to your mailing address.

      Thanks

      Chandra

      >>> "John Green" <ulao@blablabla.net> 19/01/08 4:11 AM >>> Dr. Wickramasinghe,

      I have for many years followed your work along with that of Fred Hoyle. While at times controversial I have always found your work fascinating. I am currently involved in beta testing a face recognition product named Polar Rose. while involved with that work I visited the page at Wikipedia for yourself and noted that there is no image of you on that page. I can only suppose that because the author could find no public domain picture of your likeness none was included. If you could send me a public domain digital photo I would like to rectify that situation. Alternatively you might submit one yourself.

      One more alternative; You could send an autographed photo which would be most treasured to;

      John Green 229 Shepherds Bluff Dr.

      Somewhere, NC 28xxx USA


      Respectfully yours

      John Green


      My question is; What permission (and from whom) do I need to meet requirements to upload it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulao (talk • contribs) 21:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      The person from whom you'd need permission is the copyright holder. By default, this is the person who took the photo. However, if the photographer was taking the photo on hire for somebody else, then the copyright holder is likely to be whoever hired the photographer. The type of permission you need is a free license release (the free license most commonly used on Wikipedia is the WP:GFDL). This means that the person releasing it agrees that it may be re-used for any purpose. Given that the subject is alive, a free license release is essential.
      I know this can be frustrating to people simply looking to improve Wikipedia. Thank you for checking up on this here rather than just proceeding unilaterally with something you didn't yet understand; I wish more editors followed your example in this regard. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks Sarcasticidealist. I suspect from the way the subject is posed that was self taken. I shall however email Dr. wickramasinghe requesting the needed permissions.

      Ulao (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      If I have the photographer return the folowing statement would that be considered suficient?

      I, (insert name of copyright holder) the copyright holder of this work, hereby grant the permission to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.


      Ulao (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Absolutely. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Fiar use sufficiently justifiied?

      Is my statement claiming fair use at Image:ReubenFine.jpg sufficient? It is a historical figure (Reuben Fine who is dead, and it is used in the article about him. Bubba73 (talk), 01:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Borderline. I've added in a templated fair use rationale (available at WP:FURG#Template) just to be on the safe side. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you, I noticed that. Bubba73 (talk), 01:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Where to go from here...

      Two of my uploaded pictures' fair use:

      Image:Twmposter3.gif Image:PokeCenter.jpg

      Has been disputed citing WP:NFCC#10c. I am not sure where to go because I believe both rationale are legitimate and correct. I don't know what to do at this point but it seems to be clear cut that both pictures will be removed for little to no reason at all. It would be nice if I can get some council. --Raderick (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      I don't see a fair use rationale on either image. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Would you care to explain to me how to make one? --Raderick (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure - the easiest way is just to get the template from here and fill it in as appropriate. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Image:PetClark.jpg

      I question if the use of Image:PetClark.jpg qualifies for fair use. It is an ad scanned from a copy of TV Guide and used in two articles.

      • Petula Clark where it is used in connection with a discussion of the program being advertised but without any reference to TV Guide or any discussion of the ad itself, rather the discussion relates to the program being advertised.
      • 1968 in television where it is used in such a way that it does not add anything to the discussion at all, which is primarily about interracial contact, that is not even indicated in the add. Additionally there is no FUR for this usage of the image.

      Please correct me if I am wrong, but this seems to be a clear copyright violation to me. Dbiel (Talk) 03:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Re: 1968 in televsion -- Pet Clark is white and Harry Belafonte is not white, which I would assume is why it is on that article. Guroadrunner (talk) 05:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      And how would you say that is be represented by an image that has a black and white line drawing of only one of two individuals. Dbiel (Talk) 05:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Which fair use rationale for a non-commericial non-profit organization's logo?

      I uploaded Image:WCIC Logo.png a while back. Recently, someone added {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} to the page. I don't understand why a rationale is needed since I was given the image by a station employee. I also don't understand which tag to use: {{Commercial logo rationale}}, {{Logo fur}}, or {{Logo rationale}}. Will (Talk - contribs) 07:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Your tag is fine. What's missing is a fair use rationale. The easiest way to get one on there is to fill out this template. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, any of the templates to which you linked will do nicely too. Pick whichever of those or the one to which I linked strikes your fancy, I suppose. As for why a rationale is required, it doesn't matter who provided you with the logo: it's still a non-free image, and accordingly still needs to abide by Wikipedia's policy on non-free material. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      important question

      hi my name is hanan am 24 from saudia arabia i want to use some information from wikipedia in my book is it ok or not ?? plus am going to but this site name as a referanse so plz i need answer thank i —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceeuinheaven (talk • contribs) 09:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      As long as it's properly attributed, material from Wikipedia can be used by any one for any purpose - see the GNU Free Documentation License for more information. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Email Permission to use an Image

      Dear Friend,

      I have received an email from the manager of Mark Selby (snooker player), to use an image from Mark Selby's website: http://www.markselby.info/ on his Wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Selby

      Can an administrator contact me re forwarding that message and to let me know how it can be tied into uploading a copy of the image in question?

      Thanks, bigpad (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Hi there. Has he explicitly said which free license to use? A simple "You can use this image" is not enough, unfortunately. Commons:Email templates gives some insight about how to get the proper permission from the author.
      The usual procedure is usually one of two: the copyright owner of the image sends an email like the one I pointed at to the address point there, with the image attached, and a OTRS guy will upload it after certifying the mail. Or you can upload the image yourself, and then forward the email you got to the OTRS (the email address found there) stating the image you have uploaded (both the name of the image in the site and the link to the image you have uploaded), and a OTRS guy will slap a tag verifying the image is indeed free. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      License status

      Hi, I took some photo by my mobile phone (Image:TwoKamal_1.jpeg, Image:TwoKamal_2.jpeg, Image:TwoKamal_3.jpeg, Image:TwoKamal_4.jpeg, Image:TwoKamal_5.jpeg, Image:TwoKamal_6.jpeg), and published them on wikipedia, but i don;t know what should i do for their license, what is the license status of these kind of photo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talizadeh (talk • contribs) 20:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      If you want to use them on Wikipedia, you'll need to release them under a free license, such as the GNU Free Documentation License. Which license you decide on determines which license tag you'll attach - in the case of the GFDL, you'd use {{GFDL-self}}. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Meraloma diamond M

      I created an image of our logo Diamond M and uploaded several times. I credited myself as the creator and yet it was deleted. Why? Meraloma (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      I suspect you didn't attach a copyright tag and/or a fair use rationale. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      User-created content must be licensed as free content. Which license tag did you use? --teb728 t c 00:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Image in question is Image:Diamondm.jpg, also uploaded as Image:DmndM.png. Stifle (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Upload a logo?

      I am writing an article for the Hudson Valley Federal Credit Union and would like to upload its logo. Am I permitted to use the logo found on their website homepage [www.hvfcu.com] or would I need to acquire the company's permission?

      Thanks! Crispy1995 (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Hey thats my credit union, never thought I'd see it in the news! yes you can upload it under the Logo fairuse license on the [6] page. Drop me User talk:MBisanz a line once its up and I'll go in and tidy up the templates and stuff. MBisanz talk 01:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Screenshot of a Java-constructed image?

      Page in question is here[7]. Graph would be used to demonstrate connections. -Kallahan (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      No, since that's a result of possibly copyrighted code. ViperSnake151 19:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Commons image

      How is this Image:HR Block logo.png on commons? I know many people believe simple geometric shapes aren't copyrightable, but considering they've got the little trademark sign and commons is only supposed ot be for totally free images aren't we pushing it? If this is teh case, then we have a ton of non-free logos that are simple geometry and should be pulled out of that cat. MBisanz talk 02:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Copyrights and trademarks are different things. The trademark character “®” is just another text character, which is not subject to copyright. As the Commons:Template:Trademark shows, it is a trademark. (The Microsoft logo is another trademark which is not subject to copyright.) --teb728 t c 00:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Copyvio images

      For some time, I noticed that copyright violation images have only been determined by judgement from a Wikipedia user and never by complaint from the copyright holder him/her self. I really wonder, has there ever been a time where the copyright holder actually complained? Wubzy (talk) 04:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia is a vast online encyclopedia; so an owner cannot easily recognize whether their works have been used without prior permission. To save Wiki from such, several editors identify possible imagevio and throw them to the hands of admins who will later decide whether to delete or not. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 04:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I couldn't tell you with what frequency, but I seem to recall seeing a couple of things disappearing due to ORTS tickets being filed by the copyright holder. These things are normally done without leaving a lot of breadcrumbs. The vast majority of images are deleted before the copyright holder notices. Dozens of images are speedily deleted on commons shortly after they are uploaded. Unlike google wikipedia doesn't have such deep pockets, and would be hard pressed to fight a lawsuit like YouTube's upcoming one: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1536695/20060719/index.jhtml?headlines=true Megapixie (talk) 04:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The copyright holder ,whose work is being featured on YouTube, seems to be taking the matter way too seriously. Rather than applying such drastic measures on the video website, he could at least tell them to stop airing what his off and everything will be alright. Wubzy (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, as the copyright holder, that is their choice/right. By being strict about removing suspect material we reduce Wikipedia's (and any re-users) chances of being exposed to such litigation in addition to trying to achieve the goal of being a free encyclopaedia. Megapixie (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Fairuse overuse

      Someone care to take a hammer to Image:Bo Schembechler promo.jpg, its well outside its FUR. MBisanz talk 08:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Removed from offending pages - thanks for bringing this to our attention. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Grand River Hospital

      I would like to use the banner images on http://www.grandriverhospital.on.ca/. I'm not sure what, if any, license should be used. As this is a Canadian hospital, they are owned by the Government of Ontario. I understand logos can be used, but what about these types of images? Are they suitable to be used as they're government owned, or does that only apply to United States based public facilities. tyx (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Which banner image? The picture of the hospital? That would be a definite no-go, on the grounds of replaceability. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Oops. Yeh that's the one I meant. Thanks for the clarification. tyx (talk) 03:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Screenshot of a Java-constructed image?

      Page in question is here[8]. Graph would be used to demonstrate connections. -Kallahan (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      What is it that you want to know about media copyright? --teb728 t c 19:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Is it copyrighted, and if so, how should I list it in terms of the image's details? Website screenshot? Kallahan (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, it is copyrighted. The tag would be {{Non-free web screenshot}}, but it would require also a use rationale. And I cannot imagine any possible use that would conform to Wikipedia’s non-free content criteria: It could be used only to illustrate comment on the website (not on the relationships to Soros). And the resolution requirements would make the details illegible. --teb728 t c 23:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Swimming Pool on the V O I.jpg

      Thanks for uploading Image:Swimming Pool on the V O I.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

      If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 08:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • I have given as much information as I have about this image as I have. I don’t know what more this annoying BOT needs, As I have explained this is a scanned image of a postcard I have of this ships swimming pool and that the card has no copyright information on it. Also the ship was torpedoed during the second world war which as I understood qualifies an image for fair use. Can anyone help with this issue. Stavros1 (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I've changed it to a non-free tag with a fair use rationale (although if it is indeed non-free, the resolution will need to be reduced), since I didn't see any evidence that it was released under the GFDL. It may be public domain, though I'm not an authority on that at all; if it is, the resolution can stay as is. Either way, the bot should be satisfied. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The resolution will need to be reduced though. Stifle (talk) 11:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      John Logan Campbell license

      What type of license should a image of John Loagn Campbell that has been authourized to go on a article but not to be used for any other commercial use. I uploaded it and then it got deleted before I had a chance to do anything. Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 02:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      First of all, we need to figure out whether anybody does, in fact, still hold the copyright. I presume that it's a New Zealand photo, and if the photographer died more than fifty years ago (which seems likely, although not certain, given that the subject died in 1912), tag it with {{PD-NZ}} and be done with it. If you can't be sure that it's in the public domain, tag it with {{Non-free fair use in | John Logan Campbell}}, and attach a fair use rationale (a template for this is available at WP:FURG#Template). Note that if you go the latter route, the resolution of the picture needs to be at most 0.1 megapixels. If it's in the public domain, there's no restriction on resolution. I hope this was helpful. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Note also that if it is in the public domain then the person providing it can't stop you using it commercially. Stifle (talk) 10:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Maps produced by the city of San Diego

      Image:NortheastSanDiego.gif comes from the San Diego website. That site's disclaimer includes the following seemingly contradictory statements:

      • Except for the third party materials described below, the materials and information on this site were generated, compiled, or assembled at public expense and are freely available for non-commercial, non-profit making use, provided the user keeps intact all associated copyright, trademark, and other proprietary notices.
      • Unless a copyright is indicated, information on the City of San Diego Web site is in the public domain and may be reproduced, published or otherwise used with the City of San Diego's permission. We request only that the City of San Diego be cited as the source of the information and that any photo credits, graphics or byline be similarly credited to the photographer, author or City of San Diego, as appropriate.
      • Copyrighted © 2002-2005 City of San Diego. All rights reserved.

      (emphasis mine)

      So it's saying that non-third party stuff on the site is all of the following:

      • Public domain
      • May be used with permission
      • May be used for non-commercial uses
      • All rights reserved

      What should be done here? --NE2 09:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      I think their use of "public domain" is inconsistent with ours. As such I would say that anything from that site would need to be claimed as fair use and WP:NFCC complied with. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Sh-tltomm-cd.jpg

      I went though this with you a few days ago. I have the fair use justification on the graphic that I was told was fine. What's the problem with it now? Bwmoll3 (talk) 11:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      The problem seems to be that the rationale is for the image's use in Strong Heart, but the image is actually being used in The Last Thing on My Mind (Patty Loveless song). I'll fix it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Image:Salvation_Army.svg

      BetacommandBot just alerted me to the fact that Image:Salvation_Army.svg doesn't have a valid fair-use rationale. When I uploaded the image, I wasn't aware of the fact that a rationale was required.

      Anyway, the file description says that the image is not even used on the Salvation Army article anymore. Is it worth keeping?

      Thanks, — Jeremy 13:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      You didn't do anything wrong at the time, as {{logo}} used to be a sufficient tag on its own. However, the non-free content criteria have become more stringent since then.
      The image is used on three tangentially-related pages and shouldn't be. If you do nothing, it'll be deleted. If you want it deleted quicker just remove it from the three pages it's on and put {{db-author}} on it. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Image:Stefan_Engels.jpg

      This image was tagged for non-free-usage violation - perhaps someone could explain this to me a little more clearly. The articles in which this picture is used are listed at the bottom of the page, and an explanation has been given in the summary for the single article in which this picture has been used. As far as I can tell, it is not in violation of any policy - again, though, a clear explanation would be welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Random Pipings (talk • contribs) 14:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      The first problem is that the copyright tag you selected is for album covers, which this does not appear to be (in any event, it's not being used as an album cover, but rather as a picture of the artist). The second problem is that that your fair use rationale, while reasonably complete, isn't in a form that would be recognized by the bot (see WP:FURG#Template for future reference). The third, and most insurmountable, problem is that this is a non-free image used to illustrate a living person. On Wikipedia, all non-free images used to illustrate living people are considered to be replaceable by free images (since somebody could theoretically take a picture of the person and release it under a free license) and therefore unusable. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I have deleted the image per CSD #I7, "non-free images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag (such as a {{logo}} tag on a photograph of a mascot) may be deleted at any time" as the tag was an album cover and the photo was a publicity photo or back page of a magazine, or something that's not an album cover. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Video clips of races

      My question was not answered when it was posted at Wikipedia:Requested copyright examinations. For some reason it was not copied here even though it was not answered, so I'm asking it again. That page was not cleaned up properly: the unanswered requests were left hanging on the talk pages of all of the articles at that former link. Royalbroil 14:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Talk:Wisconsin International Raceway I was considering uploading two short (less than 1 minute) video clips of a few laps at stockcar races at two notable tracks, one of which is Wisconsin International Raceway. Is there any copyright concerns with uploading small portion of races at stockcar tracks since the product that they sell is what I taped? I would of course use a free copyright license for my contribution (as far as I am concerned it is acceptable for my contribution to be freely licensed). Royalbroil 02:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you taped it yourself, you can upload it here with no problem. Sometimes sporting and entertainment events print on the tickets that you cannot release anything you record while you are there, but Wikipedia basically has a history of overlooking those clauses. I think the basic idea is we figure that unless the copyright holder venue complains that's a contract between you and the venue that we aren't going to concern ourselves with. And in defense of my cleanup, all questions over two months old were moved to the archives linked above, where old questions on this page also go. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ok, and thanks for the reply. The event tickets are extremely generic and have no legal wording on them. Only the name of the track. It's probably worth it to spend some time visiting those questions and removing the notices off of the talk pages. I didn't know the answer to the ones that had been left. Royalbroil 15:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      In C

      Hi!

      I've seen the comments you added to my site. What's wrong about the licensing? User_talk:Saippuakauppias I've provided the articles name, on which the image would be inserted. But there is still a discussion about this topic here. I think to have provided enough reasons for fair use. Please explain and - DO NOT DELETE THE PICS BEFORE 15.02.08. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saippuakauppias&redirect=no —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saippuakauppias (talk • contribs) 14:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      The images are present only in the talk namespace, this violates numbers 7 and 9 of WP:NFCC.
      We are unable to accept your request to not delete the images for 21 days. They will be deleted in 7 days unless you can bring them into full compliance with WP:NFCC. However, if they are deleted, and you later demonstrate that they are compliant, they can be undeleted by request at WP:DRV. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Post Toasties

      Does Post still make this cereal? We cannot find it in our area any more..Thanks...Jerry in Texas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.102.252 (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Thanks for your question and for visiting this website. Unfortunately, this is the website for Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, and not for Kraft Foods, who make post Toasties. Please try asking Kraft Foods your question at www.kraft.com. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Image:Rabbi_Adin_Steinsaltz.jpg

      Betacommandbot left a standard message claiming this image was non-free and lacked an article-specific fair use description. User:Historian2 replied stating that he has records proving this image's transfer to the public domain and asking where he should send them. Where should he send them? How can Betacommandbot's presumption that television capture images are non-public domain be rebutted? Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Same issue for Image:Sanhedrin in session.jpg. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      The user should send these records to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org", making sure that the links to the pictures are in the e-mail. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      "Then I'll do it my self," said the Little Red Hen, and she did.

      First a statement of frustration - (which probably some bot will read?) and then a question. I have posted hundreds of pictures on wikipedia - pretty much all taken by me - many of them before the current templates were available. My way of dealing with a bot's threat of removing one - this one in Einar Jonsson, is to go to the page, remove the picture myself, along with all my other pictures at that page. That is my intention here and now. Actually, no question. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      If this is intended as a protest against Wikipedia's rules on non-free content and fair use, Wikipedia talk:NONFREE might be a better target for it. I'd note, though, that going through your contributions the issues with your fair use rationales go substantially deeper than just that they're not based on the current templates - "My wife took it, she said okay", for example, is not a fair use rationale, no matter how it's formatted. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for taking the time and effort to point out a better venue for me to post on (this is enough, it's where the links led me.) and for looking at my history here. Probably my wife took the picture of me on my user page. But I'll pull that too. Life is supposed to be interesting and it always is. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC) No, must be another one, but she took my user page too. Feel free to remove the other one that you found. Carptrash (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


      Whitestar image

      i need thhis picture from this picture, [9]

      copy and paste it. I tried and could not find the websites publishers email, what should i do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wsllover (talk • contribs) 21:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Image: SunburnCover.jpg

      This is ridiculous. This the second perfectly good image of mine that's been tagged. Like I said with Natural Selection, I provided fair use rationale. I provided no less information than the Something Like Human cover, which no one seems to have a problem with. Could someone please point out a difference, because I don't see one? What the heck else am I supposed to do, recite War and Peace in Latin? Obviously I'm so incredibly stupid and not worth anybody's time. Natural Selection was a perfectly good picture with citations and everything, but apparently those blundering geeks have nothing better to do than nitpick perfectly good images. I have a lot better to do with my time than wage a legal battle over a damn picture on Wikipedia with people who would prefer to split nonexistant hairs. Tell me exactly what I need to put in and I'll do it. I don't know what Sunburn could possibly be lacking that Something Like Human is not. There was nothing wrong with Natural Selection and there's nothing wrong with Sunburn. Please respond on my talk page, not here. -- §HurricaneERICarchive 23:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Replied. Megapixie (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Regarding album cover for Raw Material

      I'm curious as to why the image (Image:Rawmaterial-uprock.jpg)I uploaded for Raw Material does not fall into the category of fair use -- it is, after all, an album cover image that's being used to identify the page for that particular album. I'd love an explanation. Thank you. Wardomatic (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      You need to add a WP:FURG the template on the image itself explains this. Megapixie (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      cc sa by

      I'm soliciting photographers for images for articles I've been working on. Obviously the issue is getting them to change their copyright.


      Non-commercial and No Derivative Works are stated as definitively non-free. Let's say I convince them to remove these restrictions but they still want Attribute, or Share alike by CC. If used will these images violate wikipedia policy as well? - Steve3849 talk 15:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      No, that's fine. Creative Commons SA images are free for Wikipedia's purposes. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Protein Data Bank

      Hi there, a user has queried the P-D tag of Image:PBB Protein NFAT5 image.jpg, although the website says at [10] "The contents of PDB are in the public domain." This is complicated by the fact that they then appear to state a restriction on use in the next paragraph. Has this been dealt with before? I've e-mailed them for further clarification but might not hear back for a while. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      (Tim narrowly beat me to it. Merging sections, but keeping this text since it has a few additional links...) Hello... Image:PBB_Protein_NFAT5_image.jpg, an image a bot I own uploaded, was recently tagged with {{di-no license}}. We originally tagged it with {{PD-release}} based on the opening line of this link, which states "The contents of PDB are in the public domain." Tim Vickers also asked the PDB folks directly by email and was referred to that link. Our bot has uploaded many images and this is the first time someone has raised the issue. Do people here agree that there is an issue that we need to address? If so, suggestions please... Thanks, AndrewGNF (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Back to the Future timeline

      Is Back to the Future timeline a derivative work? Is this timeline of the Back to the Future universe a copyright violation?

      The Transhumanist 01:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

      It's reporting about the series, in a form too much summarized to make any sense seen as a derivative work. If this it were, nobody could write anything about the plot of a fiction at all. I see this as an attempt to ask the other parent, after repeated deletion attempts have been almost unanimously defeated, and a deletion review [11] closing as almost unanimous support of the keep result.DGG (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      It's a "derivative work," if it's original research. It IS original research and, in this case, it's original research derived from copyrighted material, and therefore violates copyright law. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 06:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      It's not a derivative work. It's a plot summary. Original research isn't a copyright violation, therefore your assertion is baseless. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 06:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Presumably someone owns the rights to the plot and characters of the movies - I don't imagine that anyone could legally make a movie with the same plot, characters etc. The article currently uses that plot and characters to create an original piece of work - the timeline. It is not reporting or summarising the plot, it is creating a new work based around the plot. That's just my opinion and even if it is correct I have no idea what it means from a legal perspective. (I do think it is a violation of WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:OR but that's not relevent here). Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 06:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      I'd more than agree with the article issues, but as you said, irrelevant. This timeline, while arguably useless, isn't much different from a plot summary in bulleted form. I do not see how a variation on summary can be copyvio without direct plagiarism in some form. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 07:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Facts cannot be copyrighted, not even facts about fictional works. This is something that has been affirmed by the courts many times, in the case of "fan" encyclopedias etc. I would question the usefulness of that article, though.--Pharos (talk) 07:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      We actually have an article (ableit not a very good one) that deals with a similar subject - Legal issues with fan fiction. I think it is the copyright status of the work as a whole (the article) rather than the facts within it that is being questioned. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 12:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Logo use for a company entry

      Hi, I have 2 questions: I am working to add a page for a company that has been in the news a lot recently, and cannot get the logo to upload. (1) what do I need to put in for liscensing permission to use the logo (I am so confused by this), and (2) it is a jpeg, and I am getting a notice that the file is corrupt. Not sure what I am doing wrong....thanks! [I've been at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload trying to do this to no avail!] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Llcavall (talk • contribs) 05:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Hello. First of all, if it's a company logo, it's a non-free image, meaning that you can't upload it to the commons. Upload it directly to Wikipedia instead, here. When you're uploading it, under "Licensing", scroll down until you get to "Logo" (it's under "Fair use / copyrighted"). Once you've uploaded it, you'll need to insert a fair use rationale; this template is a good start.
      I can't help you with the fact that the file is corrupted. Does it open for you on your computer? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Fair use box ok?

      I recently had a notification that an image I had uploaded, Image:SEUCK.PNG required a fair use rationale. I copied a box from some other game screenshot and edited it to fit. (It was btw not so simple to actually find a screenshot with such an explanation :)) I also removed the warning notification from the image's info. Can someone advise me if it is ok now? -- D64 (talk) 10:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Looks okay. The only thing is that the "portion used" field is supposed to be used to indicate how much of the image is used (we don't use entire fair use images if a portion would suffice), not the portion that is copyrighted. I've fixed it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Can I use this picture?

      The picture is located at http://english.unak.is/?d=3&m=forsida. The picture in question is the one of the school campus. I do not know the copyright information, and I would like to use the picture in an article.

      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions&oldid=187054004"