Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 67.96.39.250 (talk) at 00:32, 6 March 2008. 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)


      Summary

      File information
      Description

      DESCRIBE YOUR PHOTO HERE

      Source

      self-made

      Date

      PUT THE DATE YOU UPLOADED THE PHOTO HERE

      Author

      EYELIN

      Permission
      (Reusing this file)

      See below.


      Posting television show theme song

      Hello all,

      I've read through these postings as well as Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Audio_clips but I still have a question. During a bet, solved by use of Wikipedia :-), I discovered that an old TV show I watched as a kid, Fame_(1982_TV_series), didn't list the famous theme song. Through a Google search I found it but it made me think about the rules of such.

      Can I upload the .mp3 of the theme song? What if I recorded it from a tape I owned? I assume someone owns the rights to that song (singer, producer) so there must be limits. What if I made an external link to another website that holds it?

      Thanks for your thoughts -- Joelotz (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Uploading the complete theme song would be unlikely to fall withing our non free content policy.Geni 11:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Joelotz: What you could do instead is upload a clip of the song to Wikipedia and provide a Fair Use rationale to justify it being used on that Fame article. Note also that if you choose instead to link to an external site that hosts the theme tune, you can only do that if that site is hosting the file with the copyright holder's permission. -- Hux (talk) 02:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Down-loading the Wikipedia

      I am a teacher in a prison in Victoria Australia. Our incarcerated students do not have access to the internet but would like to have access to the Wikipedia. Does Wikipedia give permission for content from it's free encyclopedia/wiki to be downloaded to a local intranet server to enable offline access? It is intended that it would be reproduced faithfully withou alteration, but would be acknowledged that content was captured on a given date Jonathon ellis (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      See Wikipedia:Database download it's a pretty big download (around 3GB for just the articles), and might be a bit fiddly to setup - but it's possible. See http://download.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20080103/ for the latest. Megapixie (talk) 04:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Jonathon Ellis: If you provide access to an offline copy without first removing articles like this one then I will applaud your commitment to the free spread of information. ;) -- Hux (talk) 02:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Wat_Phra_Dhammakaya... again

      [[1]] This page about the controversial temple in Thailand was suddenly bombarded with pictures of news clip hosted from geocities. These same clips have been posted before and was dismissed, you can still see the talk on the discussion page. I'm not sure if the articles should be tagged or images individually. Suredeath (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      If obviously copyrighted images are being used inappropriately then flag each image on its own page for deletion. In addition, if the article is continuously being bombarded with new, unfree images every time old ones keep getting legitimately removed, you could ask an administrator to help by posting at WP:ANI. -- Hux (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      It's essentially a carbon copy of the one at [2] - the editor has created the chart in an imaging progam, but has copied the house style of The Economist. Terrence Wrist (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      It would have to be traced to count as a derivative work. If the graph was re-generated using the data in excel, and the label names were reused, then it should be okay. I can't actually see the original. Has the user just traced the original ? Megapixie (talk) 01:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I can't see any significant differences. Colours , font etc are all the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrence Wrist (talk • contribs) 20:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Point #10 at this link seems to imply that recreated charts don't qualify as non-free images. -- Hux (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Ring of Barahir photo

      I was reading articles on Middle-Earth and wondered whether a photo from noblecollection.com of the Ring of Barahir (and other items) could be included in the article and under what license. I was thinking perhaps fair use since it illustrates a fictional item. Please respond on my talk page. Jonjames1986 (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Responded. -- Hux (talk) 03:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      The Devil Wears Prada

      Hi,

      I uploaded the image Image:Dear_Love_A_Beautiful_Discord2.jpg

      Now, I really can't figure out what the problem is. Its album art for the alum ...

      Can someone pleases explain in plan english what the problem is, and how can i fix it??

      Thanks you, :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpaceCowboy892 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Please read WP:FURG then add
      {{Non-free use rationale
|Article=
|Description=
|Source=
|Portion=
|Low_resolution=
|Purpose=
|Replaceability=
|other_information=
}}
      To the image description page filling out the fields as WP:FURG describes. Megapixie (talk) 04:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Alternatively, you can remove all the other tags and add {{album rationale}}, filling out each field. This template automatically adds the copyright license for album covers, and the FUR is specific to album art. I've done this for you. Please look over it so you'll have it for future reference. Lara❤Love 15:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      VHS Scans

      I am curious as to why properly-credited VHS back cover scans containing footage of a TV or video series for purposes of identification has absolutely no fair use protection. At the same time, I did not see how TV series logos are justified as being fair use, yet nobody questions these so long as they are credited for what they are.

      Is the problem that I scanned it off the back of a VHS rather than grabbing an actual screenshot? Or is the problem that I used a scanner? If I found a clip of the show off a website, it'd be removed even more quickly. So then, how does any footage get used at all for identification if it is neither permissible from the web nor from a scanner?The Bulldozer --(talk) 07:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      If your question is with regard to Image:GreatestAdventureBackArt.jpg, the problem with that image is that have not provided a use rationale as described in WP:NFURG. —teb728 t c 08:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      It's fixed now. Lara❤Love 15:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Hello,

      Where do I find copyright information on old record album covers that have no copyright information? My uploaded images were deleted without this. How do I specify the image so it will not be deleted?

      Thank You

      Ron —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loginnowplease (talk • contribs) 12:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      You'll need to use {{Non-free album cover}} and either {{album rationale}} for albums or {{single rationale}} is it is for a single. Lara❤Love 15:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      If the album cover was first published in the United States before 1978 without a copyright notice, the album cover's copyright immediately entered the public domain. However, the album cover may contain artwork or photographs that are under a copyright separate from the album cover's. — Walloon (talk) 19:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      My question is can I insert this logo in the relevant Wikipedia webpage on Northern Ireland Alliance Youth Forum? http://www.alliance-youth.net/forum/Political Dweeb (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      You'll need {{Non-free logo}} and {{logo fur}}. Lara❤Love 15:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Why my image is a candidate for speedy deletoin

      I upoaded an image "Books islahi01.jpg" at url http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_Ahsan_Islahi. This image is a candidate for speedy deletion. It is argued that I uploaded it under fair use.

      The reality is that this image is not under fair use. It is taken by myself and I uploaded it into Public Domain.

      Then why have you declared this image as a cindidate of speedy deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhaur (talk • contribs) 05:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      User:Polly, who marked it for speedy deletion, seems to have realized her error immediately and removed the tag from the image page. Unfortunately, she didn't make the correction in the article itself; I've done so now. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


      Publicity photograph supplied by the subject of my article

      Katharinemcmahon (talk) Hi, Article: Katharine McMahon, British Author.

      The subject (Katharine McMahon) has supplied a publicity photograph for me to use on her official website (katharinemcmahon.com) and in her Wikipedia entry. I'm not sure which category this falls into. Is it 'fair use - living person?' Can you advise? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katharinemcmahon (talk • contribs) 09:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Hi Katharine - unfortunately, to use an image of a living person on Wikipedia, you'll need to get it either released into the public domain or released under a free license, such as the GNU Free Documentation License. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      You may be able to convince the copyright holder to release it under a free license. See WP:COPYREQ for assistance. howcheng {chat} 06:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      I want to ask a practical question on uploading images. I'm in the process of uploading an Alliance Youth image and want to know how on an image's page with rationale, licensing and file history can I put on a link to the Alliance Youth page under filelinks. This is practical information that can help me and anyone else using Wikipedia.Political Dweeb (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      The "File links" section of an image page is not user-modifiable; it simply shows what pages are currently using that image. So if you upload an image, go to Alliance Youth and add the image to that page, a link to that article will automatically show up on the image's "File links" section. In other words, don't worry about it. ;) -- Hux (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you Hux for explaining that the Young Alliance filelink is automatic however I have one final practical question to ask you. How do I upload that image of the Alliance Youth logo onto the Alliance Youth page.Political Dweeb (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi, it looks like you had a go at this but didn't get it right, and then another user fixed it. In case it isn't obvious, all you needed to do was to edit the Alliance Youth article and add the following line at the top of the section where you want the image to appear: [[Image:Alliance_Youth_Logo_phpBB.gif|thumb|right|Logo of the Alliance Youth]]
      Regards, Hux (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Help

      Can someone take a look at this image and let me know if I have submitted an appropriate argument for fair use. Thanks Image:Sabrina.Matthews.gif‎ —Preceding unsigned comment added by DYiokaris (talk • contribs) 21:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Sorry, but you have not explained why a free equivalent could not be created. Ms. Matthews is a living person; she is not a recluse; and she is not in jail. Why couldn’t someone take a free picture? Perhaps she or the Boston Ballet might provide a free image or license this one freely. —teb728 t c 21:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Hey guys, I was hoping someone could give me some quick help over at the page, Tomorrow's Pioneers. The page contained many links to YouTube (and other website) clips from a Palestinian TV show which has been translated into English with subtitles. I'm not really up on my international copyright law, but it seems to me that this is very questionable material. I doubt, for instance, that the translation alone would grant the translator rights to the clip considering there are online versions of the translated transcript. Then again, I seem to remember that unless a country has signed a copyright treaty which the US is also a part of, copyright laws are not respected. Eitehr way, I deleted all of the links a few days ago but one of the editors who patrols the article reverted my edit. Rather than start an edit war I figured I'd defer to your judgment. Thanks so much, -Thibbs (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      As far as I know (but don't quote me on this), Wikipedia policy is that editors should not link to any site that uses copyrighted works without the consent of the copyright holder. Irrespective of who owns the rights to the clips you're talking about, YouTube is clearly such a site given that it hosts millions of videos that people have uploaded without any permission, so on that basis Wikipedia articles should never be linking to YouTube (except perhaps on the article about YouTube itself). -- Hux (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, there are legitimate uploaders on YouTube as well, but I agree that the vast majority are just copyvios. howcheng {chat} 06:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      My question more relates to the existence or non-existence of copyrights protecting the original videos rather than the source they come from. Apparently there are two major groups who translate the videos for Western viewers. These two organizations are MEMRI and Palestinian Media Watch. MEMRI hosts videos on its website and it seems that PMW hosts .asx video files on its website as well as posts videos on YouTube under its own account name. My question is whether wikipedia should be linking to videos by either or both of these groups or if it should simply cite the original show which is broadcast by the Hamas-run Al-Aqsa TV station of Palestine.
      In discussion on Tomorrow's Pioneers it has been suggested that since the US considers Hamas to be a terrorist organization, it doesn't consider that Hamas has any copyright protection. Is this true? Are there any intellectual property rights from Palestine which the US respects? Furthermore, is wikipedia legally considered to be a US website? It has also been suggested that Al-Aqsa TV is not a legal entity sanctioned by any country, and that there is no international licensing covering distribution of racist materials like Mein Kampf and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. My instincts tell me that this is incorrect. Thoughts?
      Finally, if there are no copyrights protecting the original source of this material then what would be the best way to cite it? Should we use the YouTube clips? Should we link to .asx files? Should we go with the non-Youtube video links from MEMRI? Some combination of the three? Or if copyright protection covers this material then would we be allowed to cite transcripts? -Thibbs (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      To address your questions:
      • Regarding the "the US considers Hamas to be a terrorist organization, it doesn't consider that Hamas has any copyright protection" argument - AFAIK that's bogus. Hamas' terrorist status in the eyes of the US is irrelevant to whether or not Hamas-produced works enjoy copyright protection in the US.
      • Regarding Al-Aqsa's legal status, again that's not relevant in terms of whether its work has copyright protection. It's only relevant in figuring out who has such protection, i.e. is it the TV station or is it the individual(s) who created the work? If copyright is honored in the Palestinian territories then someone must be the copyright owner.
      • Yes, the English Wikipedia is based in the United States, so its actions are governed by US copyright law.
      • Whether or not works produced in the Palestinian territories have copyright protection in the US depends on two things, as far as I can see: 1) whether Israel is a signatory to the various international treaties governing recognition of copyright by foreign entities, AND 2) whether the Palestinian territories are considered part of Israel for such purposes. I'm assuming that since Israel is a WIPO member state, the answer to #1 is yes. I'm not so sure about #2 though, given that those territories exist in legal limbo: they don't constitute a separate country but then they're not in general considered a straightforward sub-entity of Israel either. It's a bit of a minefield really (no pun intended).
      • If the works in question do not enjoy copyright protection in the US then imo it would be better to avoid YouTube and link to MEMRI, or some other site that does not also host obviously infringing content.
      • If they do enjoy such protection then we can't link to complete transcripts as those are copyrighted as well. We could link to partial transcripts (and partial video clips too, for that matter) and use them in accordance with Fair Use though.
      If I had to stick my neck out and make a decision, I'd say that works produced in the Palestinian territories likely fall under the copyright laws of Israel and that Wikipedia should therefore respect them as such, i.e. we would require attribution and the correct use of copyright tags on each work we use, just as we do with works from almost every other place in the world. -- Hux (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you! That's exactly what I needed to know. Cheers! -Thibbs (talk) 04:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Image:Vincennes shot.jpg

      image on site

      This image is rife with questionable copyright, it's supposedly {{GFDL}} yet has a watermark from from the site it was obtained from. That site makes use of images like this photo somebody took of a TV program

      A discussion at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 February 4 was unable to determine the status but decided it could be kept nonetheless (despite not addressing the blatant misapplication of license). Since I figured discussion of its status was a bit pointless, (if the uploader was indeed the creator of the image I'd like to think he could manage a copy without another site's watermark on it).

      Now I'm not asking for the image to be deleted here, as it's up for deletion elsewhere, but my question is what's the deal with this image from a copyright standpoint, is it really ok to upload stuff like this claiming it as your own? Anynobody 02:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      I see two issues: First, it's entirely possible (albeit unlikely) that the site in question has released the work under the GFDL, but if not then the uploader has no right to release it under such a license (or any other license). Looking at the summary, it might be saying that the the site is indeed releasing it on those terms, but since I don't speak Farsi I can't tell for sure. Maybe you could find a Farsi speaker to translate? Second, as the licensing section correctly notes, Iran is not a party to any of the international copyright treaties that force people to recognize copyrights in foreign works, so any works produced in Iran have no copyright protection in the United States. As a result, Wikipedia can legally do whatever it likes with such works irrespective of whether or not the website has released it. It would be nice if we could get better source info but ultimately it's not a problem for Wikipedia, liability-wise, so the image certainly shouldn't be deleted on the basis of a copyright issue. -- Hux (talk) 02:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for responding :) Your answer prompts other questions though, like how can we know it's the site's image to release? They're also releasing photos of pictures on a TV and labeling it GFDL. (I've been told by the uploader the language is actually Persian.) And also, just because it's from an Iranian site, does that mean if the photo's owner is Israeli he/she can't sue us? Anynobody 02:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Therein lies the problem: is the Iranian site the real owner of the photo, or did they get it from someone else whose copyright is legally valid in the US? If it's the latter then yes, in theory that copyright owner could sue Wikipedia, so that's why in general we try to err on the side of caution. Sometimes, though, we have to make a judgment on the information at hand. In this instance, I think it's reasonable to assume that the work is Iranian, given the subject matter, in which case there's no legal issue at stake. It would still be good to try to attribute it correctly anyway though, for the sake of courtesy. Oh, and FYI, "Farsi" and "Persian" are two different words for the same language (the latter is just the name of the language in English). ;) -- Hux (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Image:Ur-Quan Kzer-Za.png

      The above image is copyrighted and under a creative commons license according to the link on the image's page. Does it still need a rationale?--Rockfang (talk) 12:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Ur-Quan Masters is a tricky subject, to be honest. I know they definitely open sourced the code a few years back, but the images and the old 3DO music, I'm not sure. Will (talk) 12:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The ship images are CC-BY-SA-NC[3] so not free for wikipedia.Geni 17:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      I uploaded a bunch a few years ago, which recently got mass deleted per invalid rationale. If anyone wants the files and will prepare proper rationales, let me know. Andre (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      I would like to ask a question thats of use to me and any other Wikipedia users. On a image description page of an uploaded image how do you add to it a copyright tag with the license and source of the image.Political Dweeb (talk) 15:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      See the Frequently Asked Question, “How to add a copyright tag to an existing image,” at the top of this page. Beside that, if the image copyright tag you choose in step 2 is a non-free tag, you will also need to provide a non-free use rationale.
      So, for your image Image:PUP Logo.gif, for example, presumably the tag should be {{non-free logo}}. And since this is a non-free tag, there needs to be a use rationale (as you have already done). —teb728 t c 18:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


      Blu-ray covers

      Should fairuse images originating from a Blu-ray disc cover use the Template:DVD rationale or some other template or are they even allowed? MBisanz talk 22:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      I think using DVD rationale is perfectly okay for Blu-ray covers. Megapixie (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Image:Hbrodkey.jpg

      This image was recently tagged with a db-I9 as a suspected copyright violation. I noticed that the artist of the image, Howard Coale, has a similar name to the uploader, User:Hcoale, so I figured this could be a legitimate creative commons license. I was going to ask the user to clarify if he was the same person as the artist and confirm the licensing. However, the user hasn't been active for some time, so it's unlikely he will respond on his talk page. His email appears to be enabled, so I could try emailing him. I guess my question is over how far we ought to go to validate the CC license claim, or do we accept it unless contacted by the artist?--Kubigula (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      For reference the copy of this image uploaded to commons, Commons:Image:Harold Brodkey-New Yorker.jpg, has also been nominated for deletion. —teb728 t c 05:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for pointing that out. Under the circumstances, I've gone ahead and emailed the uploader to see if we can confirm that it's the artist. I am still curious whether this kind of verification is usually considered necessary. I suppose it depends on the image, what other versions are available on the net, and the licensing of those other versions etc.--Kubigula (talk) 05:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      For users who are the subject of articles, it's best to verify their identity in some way. We don't want it someone just using a similar username. OTRS is your friend in this case. howcheng {chat} 06:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      I have upload image of Rahimatur muncipal Council building Muncipal_corp_rahimatpur.JPG. I don't know what copyright i need to put because i took this image using my personal camera. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahesh kashinath gaikwad (talk • contribs) 04:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      You can choose any copyright tag from WP:ICTIC. —teb728 t c 05:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      There are lots of options. The most popular (and most restrictive license allowed) is Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike. Basically Atribution means that anyone who uses/copies the image is required to attribute yourself. ShareAlike means that anyone who uses any part of your image must use the same type of license (so they can't copyright the derivative image. To use that license add {{Cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}} to the image description. Royalbroil 05:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      UCLA digital library program

      User:Ucladiglib has uploaded numerous images from the UCLA digital library/Los Angeles Times archives [4]. Here's an example image. Issues: 1) their website claims CC-Attribution ShareAlike Non-Commercial [5] and Non-Commercial is not acceptable. 2) The user sent me an email after I marked that example image as a copyright violation. I asked how they can claim Creative Commons for images that they did not take. This person told me they were doing what they were told. It sounds like copyfraud to me. Royalbroil 05:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      It may be as simple as the LA Times having donated the images to UCLA, thus handing the copyrights over. Regardless, CC-BY-NC-SA is still unacceptable. howcheng {chat} 06:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm going to revert the copyvio you placed at Image:Wiki uclalat 1429 b18 N20.jpg. I think that all the images uploaded by Ucladiglib need to be handled en masse and not picked off one by one. They all share the same problem and they may all have the same answer. As for, "doing what they were told" and copyfraud, it may be that they have a misunderstanding of how things work here. In any case, the solution should be global. --evrik (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Sounds good - I agree. Would you contact me with the link to the discussion so that I can continue following up on this topic? Royalbroil 16:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Sure ... for now, let me list the images:

      That's all I could find. --evrik (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      how to enter info to get image to show up

      I have spent several hours trying to find the right template to fill out re image "Rothkevflyer.jpg" so I can show it on the entry for Samuel Roth. I have no idea what to do to enter info on "determine the license and the source of the image." Where to enter it. The links only lead to long articles. It is an old newspaper image and I have had perm to use the image. It is clearly fair use to use it in this entry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgertzma (talk • contribs) 05:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Insert [[Image:Rothkefvflyer.jpg|thumb|right|Caption]] in the article where you want the image to appear. —teb728 t c 05:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Jgertzma, you have typed in the wrong image name in the article. Royalbroil 06:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, notice that the image name has an f both before and after the v. —teb728 t c 16:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      pic uploading.

      how do i get back to the pic i up loaded for your site? i have the info but can't figure out how to get back to it so i can update it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by R B P J (talk • contribs) 08:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Your image is Image:Jamie Bell.jpg‎. (If you click on “my contributions” at the top of every page, you can get a list of all your contributions.) —teb728 t c 16:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Ahsroundlogo.gif

      The image was created by the school's web team. I am a teacher at the school and have their permission to use it on the wiki page. How should I properly label the image. They have stated it should be public domain.

      GateTree (talk) 13:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Tag the image with {{PD-because|reason}} replaceing reason with the reason it is public domain.Geni 14:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      In the reason, please also note the person/entity who released the photo, just in case there are any problems later on down the line. Thanks. -- Hux (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Images from www.culture.fr

      Are images available from the french government website culture.fr copyright free? Can they be used on wiki, especially the image of Lucien Febvre? STTW (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      I think french goverment images are protected by copyright. US fed goverment is unusal in that they are not.Geni 18:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Is a wikipedia logo that I modified for the purpose of an award (like a barnstar) allowed on wikipedia? Signed, Nothing444 18:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Sure. If it's Wikipedia created then it's freely usable and if your modification does not substantially transform it into a new work then it remains freely usable. -- Hux (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Correction: ironically it appears that the logo in question is copyrighted and not usable without permission. -- Hux (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      uploading an image of me

      DevorahLeah (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)I am the woman who discovered the rock group RUSH and in Sept. 2006, I was keynote speaker at a British convention of fans. The organizer took a photo of me speaking and sent the image to me several months later. He said he hoped I enjoyed it, and that I could use the image if I wanted to. Since then, I have used it several times. Today, I tried to upload it to my web-page (I never did like the one photo that is currently on the page!) but I got an error message that I did something wrong and the photo will soon be deleted -- umm, I am a newbie and the pages and pages of instructions really made my eyes glaze over.[reply]

      Please help me fix whatever I need to fix-- something about a tag? I don't know from tags. I was given permission to use the photo. An amateur fan took the picture at my request. He said I could use it. It was never published anywhere in a magazine or book or anyplace else. I tried to post it for use on my web page. What did I do wrong?

      Unfortunately, just getting permission from the photographer is not enough for Wikipedia. In order for the photo to be usable here, that photographer must explicitly release it either into the public domain or under a free license such as the GDFL. See WP:COPYREQ for more info.
      Regarding tags, every image must contain information about its copyright status. This info is placed on the "licensing" section of the image page. See this image as an example. If you click the "edit" link in the "licensing" section you can see that the uploader used the {{Non-free film screenshot}} tag. For more info about image tags check out WP:ICT. (However, don't add a tag until the photographer has released the image to Wikipedia!) -- Hux (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Police booking photo and fair use?

      Some months ago I uploaded the image david hahn mugshot.jpgusing the Mug Shot/Booking Photo rationale for fair use, and explained it on the discussion page of the image. Now many months later I received a message from user Samuell stating that I did not provide a rationale for the fair use tag, and that the image will be deleted unless I do so. Anyone knows what else I am supposed to provide in such case? What am I missing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdsouza (talk • contribs) 20:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      A reason why you think it is fair use and the name of whatever article(s) it is meant to be in.Geni 21:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      To elaborate on what Geni said, you need to put a Fair Use rationale in the "summary" section of the image page itself. See this image for an example. Also, bear in mind that there needs to be a separate rationale for each article on which this image appears (which in this case is only one article). -- Hux (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Maas Brothers

      I have scanned a copy of the Maas Brothers logo from my own credit card. How do I denote the copyright status of this? Thanks for your help Dma124 (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Use the template {{Non-free logo}}. Remember to write a fair use rationale (or the image will be deleted) instructions are here. Hope this helps Mr Senseless (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      I uploaded a pic under the name of Jenaveve Posing.jpg. from flickr.com from and its located in my own account. It's been subjected to speedy deletion, how can I stop that since its from my account on flickr.com?

      Have you relesed the image under a free license such as the GFDL?Geni 00:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      I uploaded a pic under the name of Jenaveve Posing.jpg. from flickr.com from and its located in my own account. It's been subjected to speedy deletion, how can I stop that since its from my account on flickr.com? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supper76 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Looking at the comments of the deleting admin here, it's apparent that the deleting admin didn't realise that the image was your own work, and assumed you were uploading another persons work. The original image is apparently tagged as "all rights reserved" on flickr. Two suggestions, make it clear in the image description page that the photo is your own work, change the license on flickr to a compatible creative commons license - i.e. cc-by or cc-by-sa. Megapixie (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Deep sea pictures

      The images Image:Nur04507.jpg and Image:Nur04505.jpg appear to have the wrong copyright tag, which includes: "This media file is in the public domain in the United States. This applies to U.S. works where the copyright has expired, often because its first publication occurred prior to January 1, 1923." I sincerely doubt the pictures were taken before 1923, since hydrothermal vent ecosystems were unknown, and I doubt the copyright has expired in any other fashion. If it is determined to be a work of the government or a governmental organization, it would be public domain and qualify to remain, but I see no justification for the current tag.--♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ (talk) 05:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      I changed their licenses to PD-USGov-NOAA since the images were found at NOAA's website. Royalbroil 06:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Image:Chewstoke.gif

      I received a message from User:Nv8200p about Image:Chewstoke.gif saying "the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content". When I uploaded the file in April 2006 I included in the summary "with the permission of the artist Jenny Ireson and the parish council who commissioned it." Can you tell me what else I need to add to clarify the source?— Rod talk 08:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      If you add that to the image description that would probably be sufficient. Megapixie (talk) 08:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks I've added that to the summary - is this what you mean by image description?— Rod talk 08:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Using an official promotional photo

      I'm working on the page for Ed Feulner, president of the Heritage Foundation. This is my first project and I've never uploaded pictures before. It stands to reason that the picture on his official bio[6] would be appropriate to use, after all it is available for download in a high resolution. But I do not know if it violates Wikipedia policies anyway. Can someone give me a definitive answer, or hopefully explain what is the best license to choose if I can upload it? --Stargat (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Sorry, but it doesn't look good: Wikipedia image policy generally is that all images should be licensed under a free license (or be in the public domain). Non-free images can be used only under special circumstances, including that they could not reasonably be replaced by a free image. An image of a living person is almost always replaceable, because someone could just take a photo of them.
      The Heritage Foundation site says “All Rights Reserved © 2008, The Heritage Foundation”; so apparently the image there is non-free. You might try inquiring of the Heritage Foundation if there is a free image, or if this image might be freely licensed. (Note that “free” mean reusable by anyone for anything.) See WP:COPYREQ. —teb728 t c 22:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Guidance needed for non-commercial permission

      I need some guidance - I work for the Institution of Civil Engineers and on the page List of Presidents of the Institution of Civil Engineers (and elsewhere) there is an image of William Henry Barlow. This is not the correct image (no idea who it is). We have an image which we own the rights to, and we would like it to be used on Wikipedia, but we would like to be notified of any other non-commercial use, and we would not allow it to be used commercially for free.

      Is there any kind of license that would allow us to do this?

      --Mrussell78 (talk) 10:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Are you sure you own a copyright on the image? Considering that he died in 1902, I should think an image of him would be in the public domain. In any case Wikipedia does not accept permission for non-commercial use. —teb728 t c 20:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I am the original uploader of the above image which I got from here where it must have been erroneously captioned. I will remove it from the articles and delete it (as I have no idea who it is otherwise). I hope something can be worked out for getting more pictures of ex-presidents onto Wikipedia in the future. Thanks for pointing it out - Dumelow (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Image use in a magazine

      Image:Anne-Louis Girodet-Trioson 005.jpg

      Do you know what the copyright laws are for using this image in a magazine? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.35.245.236 (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      That image is in the public domain worldwide; so it may be used in a magazine. —teb728 t c 20:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Andy Hunter image

      I've uploaded a picture of Andy Hunter. Image:Andy-Hunter.jpg It's a downgraded picture I got from the TV. What do I have to do to keep this picture here and how can I use it for both the Andy Hunter article and the Michael Higgs article. Michael Higgs is the actor who played Andy Hunter. I just don't know what to write where to keep at least one of my images on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rune Thandy (talk • contribs) 22:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      You have the right copyright tag but your Fair Use rationale could do with being a little more extensive. Take a look at this image as an example of a solid Fair Use rationale. -- Hux (talk) 09:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      The image upload form currently only really allows for two kinds of category: Your own work or Someone else's work (which requires a release). It seems to me that Wikipedia needs another category for people, like myself, who are copyright holders but not necessarily the original creators. This situation is quite common where the original creator has died and the work (and the copyright) are now owned by their Estate. I want to upload a number of images for which I (representing the Estate of the deceased) am the copyright holder. But since I am not the original creator, do I have to give myself formal permission to do so or is there a simpler way? Thanks in advance. --Wardsislander (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      In that case, use the "Your own work" form. howcheng {chat} 21:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Passports and ID's

      Hi,

      i was wondering, if i wanted to submit scanned copies of my passports/ID's, what license would i chose in the list?


      //Santiago —Preceding unsigned comment added by Santiagosilva (talk • contribs) 09:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Which country are the passports/IDs from? In some countries, official government documents cannot be copyrighted and are in the public domain by default (and Wikipedia typically has a specific template you can use). In other countries this is not the case. -- Hux (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Scanning Old Photos

      Dear All

      I wonder if someone would be kind enough to help me with regard to the correct information, license, etc. I would need when uploading scans of old photographs I have. In these cases I have a number of prints but do not know who the original photographers were, and consequently do not have any negatives. The pictures themselves would have been taken in the 1920s or 30s, so as their 'authorship' is unknown and they are over seventy years old, I believe the original images would be out of copyright. Obviously if I scan them then I assume I become the copyright holder of the digital images? An example would be good if someone has one, which I could then use as the basis for when I upload my scans. Many thanks.

      Regards (Lepidus Magnus (talk) 13:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

      Which is the country of origin of the photos? --Soman (talk) 13:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Dear Soman
      The original photographs would have been taken in England or Wales (United Kingdom). Does this help?
      Regards (Lepidus Magnus (talk) 13:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
      Generally, under UK law copyrights in photographs expire 70 years after the death of their creator, so the chances are high that the photographs in question are still under copyright. Unless you can find the person who took the photos and get them to release them under a free license we pretty much can't use them here, unfortunately (except under a proper Fair Use rationale). "Author unknown" is not, as far as I know, a valid reason to engage in an action that would otherwise constitute copyright infringement.
      Also, just so you know, if we were talking about photos that definitely are in the public domain due to age, then you would not become the copyright holder by virtue of scanning them. Once something is public domain it remains public domain and freely usable by anyone. That doesn't look to be the case with these photos though. -- Hux (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      I was wondering if Image:Switzerland Zürich Grossmünster Zwingli Münch 1935.jpg could potentially cause a copyright violation for Wikipedia. The photographer has given permission to use the image, but is it not possible that the relief statue itself is under copyright? What are the copyright rules for using the photographs of (relatively) modern statues? --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      "In Switzerland, works permanently installed at or on publicly accessible places or ground may be pictured, and such pictures may be offered for sale, sold, transmitted, or otherwise published. It must not be possible to use the picture for the same purpose as the original." [7] This is not the case in the US. Ty 15:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      If publishing house have right to use wiki images?

      Hello, could you please give me information on if the publishing house has right to use images from your website with copyright sign:"I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide.In case this is not legally possible, I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.

      Thank you very much in advance. With best wishes! Alexandra fenix_alex@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.84.164.50 (talk) 14:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      If it's Public Domain, anyone can use it in any way. If it's GFDL or Creative Commons, certain conditions apply. Ty 15:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      License tagging for Image:Clowns by Petar Mazev.jpg warning

      Hi, I received a License tagging warning from User:ImageTaggingBow about an image that I have uploaded. This image is my still photo of the artwork. I have tagged this image as:

      What have I done wrong, and which licence tag should I use?

      I would say your photo is a derivative work of the original artwork, the copyright on which is presumably owned by the heirs of Petar Mazev. You can’t grant a GFDL license on it because you do not own the copyright. —teb728 t c 21:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      It is my painting, I own it.Crnorizec (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Ownership of the phyiscal painting does not mean you own the copyright on it.Geni 23:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Photo for biography

      I have just created the article for Moshé Machover. I wrote to Professor Machover, to request a photo, and he sent me one. What details do I need to quote in order to upload the photo and use it in the article? RolandR (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      You didn’t mention anything about licensing from the photographer. In order to be used on Wikipedia the photo needs to be licensed under a free license (i.e. one that allows reuse by anyone for anything). See WP:COPYREQ. —teb728 t c 21:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      hi

      What is the latest media beyond film for these images? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.96.39.250 (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Why is ultraviolet light sometimes called “black light

      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions&oldid=196172385"