Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 81.110.106.169 (talk) at 20:13, 2 June 2008 (→‎NFCC#8: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Skip to the bottom

      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)

      Image:Donboscotech_logo.PNG has a fair use rationale. Is it okay for it to be used?


      The available images can want you to use even Wikipedia of all languages in English version Wikipedia. .

      All Wikipedia should enable use it is possible to use it with English version Wikipedia. For example, I want you to watch this.→EnglishSuper_Mario_Bros,Japan[1].

      Why can the image of the character of game created in Japan able to be used in English version Wikipedia, and cannot use it with Japanese version Wikipedia?

      It can be said that this is discrimination. This is an acute problem. I request this problem to be canceled immediately. --Tree Cannon (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      If an image is free, you can upload it to Wikimedia Commons, and images from there can be invoked on all Wikimedia projects. However, if an image is not free it must be uploaded separately to each project where it is to be used.
      If you want to link to another language's Wikipedia, you can use the syntax [[ja:Article title]] for Japanese, or replace it with the appropriate language code for other languages. Stifle (talk) 11:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Adding image back to page

      Hello,

      I am a bit confused about adding this image back to the White Out (band) page. I am the copyright holder of the image and would like to use

      as the copyright information. It appears that the image was deleted but when I tried to upload it again, I was denied access. My account is more than 4 days old. Here is the code as it exists now on the page White Out (band).


      Can I just delete the comment and add the copyright info?

      Thanks a lot.

      Linoleum11 (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Sorry, the code didn't show up in my previous post. This question is concerning adding the image back to the page White Out (band). I am the copyright holder.

      !-- Commented out because image was deleted: | Img = WhiteOut.jpg --

      Can I delete the comment and add the creative commons with attribution license?

      Thanks again.

      Linoleum11 (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      According to the log, your account is only two days old. When your account is four days old, you can upload the image again with the CC license. After you have uploaded it, you can restore it in the article by uncommenting it. (Just to be sure you understand, the CC license goes on the image page not in the article.) —teb728 t c 19:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Also, since you're going to be contributing it under a free license, consider uploading it to Wikimedia Commons. It's part of the same organization that runs Wikipedia, and you use images from it just like they were on Wikipedia. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Falklands War

      Hi,

      A montage was recently created for Falklands War but apparently some of the images don't meet the appropriate criteria, so we're trying to find new images to use to replace them. We're looking at images such as this one and this one. These are licensed here but two of us have come to opposite conclusions as to whether this means that they can be used as "free" (so we can use them in the montage) or are fair use only.

      Could we have a judgement please? Pfainuk talk 21:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      crown copyright is not quite free. So I'm afraid we can't use the images.Geni 21:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      (ec) Definitely not free, as the license does not allow for unrestricted commercial use or for derivative works. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, Thanks. Pfainuk talk 21:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Sam Walton College of Business

      I would like to use the logo for the Sam Walton College of Business on the page of the same name I am making in Word, but am unsure of its licensing, etc. It is here, at the bottom in the right corner (the one that says University of Arkansas Sam M. Walton College of Business, not the round Old Main image.) Could someone please help, I do not want to violate anything. Brandonrush Woo pig sooie! 22:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      You can use {{non-free logo}} for the license, but make sure you accompany it with a valid non-free use rationale. -- Hux (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you very much Hux! Brandonrush Woo pig sooie! 22:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Unclear how to post my picture to a website

      I am trying to post a photo that I took to a website on wiki but beriing a novice, i am unsure how to do this as it has been rejected three times. It seems I do not know how to correctly tag, label or format this picture so can someone post a copy that I could cut and paste so I can put a picture of a wooden covered bridge to a wiki page please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ImN2Fun2 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Since you're uploading your own work, you can upload it to Wikimedia Commons, a repository of freely-licensed work. You use files on Commons just like they were on Wikipedia. See here for a step-by-step guide. If you need more help, here or on Commons, just write back. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Hi, I have uploaded the photo Bangkok_microzonation_map.jpg in Seismic microzonation page. The picture is my own creation and I want to release it in public with only two conditions (1) Anyone can use it freely for academic and business use but proper reference should be given to my paper published in http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/106564765/abstract (2) The picture should not be distorted beyond its original purpose meaning it should not be distorted to give any wrong meaning

      With these two conditions what copyright tag should i be using??

      Rabin (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      I'm sorry to have to break this to you, but in order to contribute your work to Wikipedia, it has to be usable by anyone for any purpose. On the positive side, requiring proper reference, including a link, is an acceptable condition to place on your work. If you do decide to contribute your work, see WP:ICTIC to choose a license. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 23:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Eastbourne - Holywell gap in reef.JPG

      This image has been tagged because of insufficient copyright info. It is a picture which I took myself and I am unsure what I did wrong when posting it to Commons. Pse advise. Mikeo1938 (talk) 09:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Image:Eastbourne - Holywell gap in reef.JPG (This is the correct file name. Mikeo1938 (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      You entered the permission as "GFDL". The bot, not being as smart as a person, did not recognise that as a license. You have since changed it to a {{GFDL-self}} tag, which is what was needed. I removed the warning for you. —teb728 t c 09:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Old Latvian newspapers

      Would publications at [2], printed 1920 and earlier in Latvia be PD? --09:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

      In the US, they would be considered public domain, as in {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. As Latvia is in the European Union, it probably follows the usual "public domain 70 years after death of author" rule. If you know this to be the case, the tag is {{PD-old-70}} --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      But who is considered as the 'author' in this case? the newspaper editor, the typograph or all individual article authors? --Soman (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      My first pic

      I just go a notice on a missing copyright tag on my fist upload. I added one, kindly inform me, if this is okay and if I can use the picture now.

      Second question, I have several pics of this person made by family members, who do I claim permission when uploading them? Thank you--Ambrosius007 (talk) 11:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      To your first question (which relates to Image:Ida10-1.jpg), you included {{tl|GFDL-self}} when you should just have included {{GFDL-self}}. {{tl|}} is used to display and link to a template for the purpose of informing someone else, and should not be used to invoke the template. I've fixed it.
      To your second question, you should get your family member to release the images under a free license (see WP:IT for some possible licenses) and upload them to the Commons. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Shaban Djordje Nidzovic

      Majmun ili Seljak?

      We were recently sued by a party out of state after renting our lake home for a week to them. They trashed it, stole from us and ruined sheets and towels, lost silver ware, ruined games etc. and more. Our home is in Michigan, we have a 4 page rental agreement and we kept the $300.00 security deposit. $2130.00 how in the hell is this considered legal and how corrupt has the USA really become.

      This ridiculous abuse, is Pauling and and I can't imagine a judge in his or her right mind even allowing such a thing to happen. Ill. doesn't even have jurisdiction in Michigan and this should be stricken from the records.

      This party along with the state of Ill. should be sued and for a great deal more money to stop this type of criminal activity.

      Sorry this page is for questions about image copyright but please note the Wikipedia is not a source of legal opinions. MilborneOne (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      SkyEatsAirplanepromopic.jpg

      Sorry if i set this up wrong, still new to this. My question is this picture recently was taken down because of its license, i have permisson from a member of the band to upload it. let me know if i put up the wrong license, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtbs7645x (talk • contribs)

      Please see WP:COPYREQ and let us know if you have any further questions. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Hello, I have uploaded the photo Image:C.Mitnick2.jpg as well as Image:C.Mitnick.gif. The images were taken down due to a question of copyright and license. Both images are a headshot used by CBS and NewsCorp entities. It is available publicly and it is not copyrighted. What tag should I use?? scorsese (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      The gif is from the Nixle.com website and the source page is marked as copyright 2008 Nixle LLC. If you have that company's permission then you need to provide proof that it has been released into the public domain. The process is detailed in Requesting copyright permission. Note that just because news organisations use the image it does not imply that it is not copyrighted or free to be used. MilborneOne (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Thank you. Craig Mitnick is the founder, CEO, and owner of Nixle LLC. I have been given permission to use this image by Craig Mitnick, even though it is not copyrighted. Do I still have to send him an e-mail, copy his permission of usage e-mail, and paste into an e-mail sent to Wikipedia? If so, I will perform this task immediately. Danny Gosser (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Since any creative work is copyrighted to the creator(except in the narrow case of a work for hire) as soon as it is created, the photo is probably copyrighted, unless copyright has been explicitly released. So yes, you will have to archive the license or copyright release with Wikipedia's permissions queue. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Also, I work for Nixle LLC and, like I said, have been given direct permission from Craig, the founder and CEO, to use this image. My e-mail has the suffix: @nixle.com. Danny Gosser (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Since you yourself have the permission, the next step would be to email the OTRS system, which will ensure that it is secured held. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      I own a piece of art which I wish to photograph and add the image to a current wikipedia article. Can I do this? http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm312/phillyshutterbug/yvondanjoutempera01.jpg Rhondamarie (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Typically, in the US, purchasing a painting gives you the right to exhibit it and resell it, but the original artist retains copyright. Meaning you would need the artist's permission to create and distribute copies of a recent painting, which is what placing photographs of it online amounts to. So, in general, you would need to secure the artist's permission, unless the painting is so old (often more than 100 years) that the copyright has expired. However, some uses may qualify as fair use in certain cases, such as in articles about the painter. For more information on that see WP:NFCC. Dragons flight (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Copyrights

      Hello, I've tried to find the answers myself but can not, can you please point me in the right direction. I've posted one photo and some how I got it right, but there are problems with the copy right even though it's me own work, I'm really not sure how to supply you with the correct information, I really do not know the code or format. I need to understand how to format photo, for size and position on the page. There is a lot to understand about your programming. I stilling reading FAQ and documents. I have asked to be adopted nothing yet. I think with just a little Help I can get going on my own. Thanks Andy2159 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy2159 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      If you are contributing something that you created entirely yourself, you are the copyright holder, so you choose the license. See WP:ICTIC. If you've chosen the license, but have troubles tagging your image, let us know the license you've chosen and we'll help. As for putting them on the page, see Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. If you have any further Media copyright questions, write back here. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Also, please use the "Show preview" button when you edit, before saving your work with "Save page". Thanks. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Please restore

      Please restore so that I can add a fair use rationale that will be acceptable to your robot. It already had a fair use rationale, but I would be happy to add a {{logo fur}} if that is now necessary. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 20:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Federal Trade Commission

      You are a staff attorney for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and your job is to monitor fast food marketing. Part of your job is to determine how the FTC can prevent a particular fast food company from marketing its newest food treat, “Deep Fried Fat on a Stick,” a taste sensation that has no nutritionally redeeming value but for the claim that vitamins and minerals have been added to every Deep Fried Fat on a Stick.” It is aimed especially at young children by including a penny toy with each Fat on a Stick purchase. Parents are also encouraged to give it try, using the 2-for-1 coupons found in local newspaper ad inserts.


      • How can you stop this marketing blitz, given the Constitutional protection of the company’s commercial free speech rights?
      • Do you suppose the FTC even has the authority to regulate this kind of activity? Where does it come from?
      • What political restrictions may frustrate your mission? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.22.100.4 (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      That looks like a homework exercise. Wikipedia will not do your homework for you. Sorry but, if you have a more specific question—one that doesn’t look like a raw homework question—try asking at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. In any case, this page is only for asking media copyright questions. —teb728 t c 22:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Manned ATV rendering

      there is a paragraph in the ATV artickle that could really use this picture. I'm quite shure that it's non-free content but given that there is no realistic chance of it being reproduced by a free source I am asking if I can upload it anyway.U5K0 (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      I can't give a yes or no, but the two questions that will be most important per WP:NFCC are whether it "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic", and whether a free alternative could be made, including by asking and considering Wikipedia's own illustrators --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Cover Art Fair Use

      Two of my images have been bot deleted from an article under fair use concerns:

      Image:DevCDVolIX-Front.jpg and Image:DevCDVolIX-Back.jpg

      From this page: CodeWarrior

      Both images are from a CD ROM cover (front and back shots) and are being used to clarify the origin of the CodeWarrior name. Surely this is considered Acceptable Use under "Images - Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepmac (talk • contribs) 17:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      By WP:NFCC#8, “Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.” I frankly don’t feel that my understanding of the article is impared by the absense of the images. —teb728 t c 22:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      information

      hello and thank you for your website full of usefull information. I have created a website and I would like to know if I am allowed to use some texts and images for my website. Thank you. Bling'n'chic. Cat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathyh-m (talk • contribs) 18:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Please see Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_content and write back if you have specific questions. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream short story - AM talkfields

      I have written this entry describing how two images in this short story have been manipulated and changed by mistake in many of the published copies. I now have scans of the original talkfields and would like to publish these to illustrate what the original talkfields look like. I think this falls under fair use? Assuming it does, what license do I select ... Book cover? Thanks. --Samwiseuk (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Yes, it's likely fair use. No, don't use book cover. Use {{Non-free fair use in}} --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. Now uploaded the images to the article.--Samwiseuk (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Now that I've seen the images, I think you may be able to skip the rationale and just tag them {{PD-ineligible}} --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Logos of schools in Germany

      Hello! Yesterday I have written to articles (Kaiserin-Friedrich-Gymnasium and Humboldtschule (Bad Homburg)) about schools in Germany. In the German articles of them there are the logos (KFG, HUS) of the schools but they are uploaded in German Wikipedia only. It is possible (regarding/concerning the rights) to upload the logos also at the English Wikipedia? (Because my English is not so good, I request that your answers are not to difficult to understand. Thanks. :-)) — Despairing, 00:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Yes, it is possible to upload logos here if they meet the criteria. Each one needs a copyright tag, probably {{Non-free logo}} and a rationale for each article it is used in, which can be added with {{Logo fur}} --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Do this two logos (and also this one (→ new article: Gymnasium der Stadt Kerpen)) meet the criteria? Are not there maybe any problems with the copyrights? Can I upload the logos without any problems? I do not understand the page WP:NFCC. I have not understand the thing with the templates {{Non-free logo}} and {{Logo fur}}. Which one I have to use for the two respective three logos? — Despairing, 12:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Federal Reserve system

      How does each of the following actions taken by the Fed will affect the supply of money and credit? 

       A. lowering reserve requirements of member banks

       B. raising the discount rate

       C. buying securities in the open market
      To whoever posted the above, unsigned post: please see the "welcome" box at the top of this page and note its contents. -- Hux (talk) 03:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Scan of 29 year old newspaper article - what tag should I use?

      I scanned an article that appeared in a New Zealand newspaper "The Dominion" on 16 July 1979. I cannot find the appropriate copyright tag for this.

      I scanned the article and uploaded it as proof to substantiate an edit I made to the Wikipedia entry for Iggy Pop. There was a factual error there about his 1979 visit to NZ that I corrected, but this was quickly undone by someone in Australia, on the basis that I did not provide citation.

      I redid the edit and uploaded the scanned article. This seems to have worked, as the chap across the Tasman seems to have chilled-out and accepted that my correction was valid. Now the scanned article has been removed (because it lacks a copyright tag). I fear that without the scanned article, my Australian neighbour may have a relapse.

      The only NZ copyright tags I can find are not relevant for this instance. Help from a fellow Kiwi would be much appreciated.

      Gregwgtnz (talk) 04:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Template:Non-free newspaper image would seem appropriate to me. But that's if the article itself is of some importance. If you are just using the article to correct a factual error, you just need to add a footnote. Could you point out the image and article in question? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Why is this image public domain the author has not been dead for 70 years ?
      Image:Tomtebobarnen.jpg--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 09:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      One possible explanation is that the photograph was published in 1910 and WP:PD says "In the U.S., any work published before 1923-01-01 anywhere in the world is in the public domain." --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      My gamercard

      I want to add a image of my XBOX Live gamercard, made on this website, to my userpage. What license should I use?

      If each of the images in the card are public domain or under a free license, then you can use it, otherwise no, since fair use images aren't allowed on user pages. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 02:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      RSAF Black Knights

      The RSAF Black Knights article has seven non-free images which I think is a bit excesive. I started to look at the images which have a fair-use rationale for this article. I started to remove them from other articles without a fair-use rationale. The uploader has reverted my changes and added in some cases fair-use rationale. Some of the images of aircraft are used to illustrate features in the background (for example an island). Can somebody else have a look at this collection of images please particularly when it claims they are not replacable when they are a public aerobatic display team and the Black Knights article has other free images taken by the same uploader!. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Please provide me with a MINDEF authorisation letter to take a photo of the island and I would gladly let my images be removed from those pages. I am a former member of Republic of Singapore Air Force and I am still bound by my signature on the Official Secrets Act to not use my own images of the said island for use here, otherwise I would have very gladly provided them and risked getting prosecuted by my own works. Is that what you want? Btw, you did read my reasoning and rationale on them image page or haven't you? FYI, I had taken very careful considerations before adding them for use on other pages on top of the original page. As for those other images, which does not have any features of landmarks... they were aerobatic stunts performed during the Singapore Airshow 2008 and was taken by me. Take a look at U.S. Air Force Thunderbirds#Image gallery, I based my article format on this page. Thank you. --Dave1185 (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I dont have a problem with images taken by the uploader but that proves that the non-free images used on the same page are replaceable despite the rationale given that they are not replaceable. The page has a gallery that included both free (taken by the uploader) and non-free images of the same subject. Certainly a large number of non-free images of the same subject is probably outside the guidelines. Not an expert on the use of backgrounds on non-free images so I will wait for others to comment. MilborneOne (talk) 22:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Come on, if you are no expert then why not ask my opinion first? You claimed, in your own page, to be an ex-member of RAF but you are not aware of your legal binding by the Official Secrets Act of UK? In Singapore, we adhere to this even more strictly than you do, thus I wouldn't upload any image(s) that might be construed as a security breach without the proper clearance (I was a part-time official photographer for RSAF) unless it was taken by someone else such as Peter Steinmann - a professional photographer who had been commissioned by MINDEF on several occasions for photo shoot of RSAF's aircraft flight formations. And as far I can see, there are no problem on the above-mentioned page unless you deemed so but by what reason(s), might I ask? Using too much images? Is that it? I had merely consolidated them into one single image gallery for better presentation and viewing, is that necessarily a bad format? If so, I'm open to any better idea by you. Thank you. The below is what I had added under the fairuse column, take your time to read through slowly.

      Fair Use For RSAF Black Knights & Pulau Sudong

      This image linked here is claimed to be used under fair use as:

      1. No free equivalent. All Singapore Armed Forces camps and bases impose physical security measures, just like any other military camps and bases in the world. These measures include:
        • No entrance possible for persons without official reasons;
        • No image-capturing devices allowed, regardless of military status, unless special approval has been granted.
          As such, it is not possible for the uploader to obtain a free equivalent to this image. An exception would be when RSN ships participate in foreign exercises and images of the ships are taken by, for example, a United States Navy personnel. It is also noteworthy that unlike in the United States, works of a Singaporean civil servant produced during his/her course of work (for e.g. photographs) is not public domain. Perhaps the interested person objecting to the fair use status could find out when will the next foreign exercise be and request for permission to be onboard the foreign warship.
      2. This image is produced here in a non-commercial nature with the illustrational and informational purposes.
      3. Details of the copyright has been properly attributed to the copyright holder, the Ministry of Defence (Singapore) (MINDEF). As a government agency, it is also not known to sell copyrights for works such as images. As such, it does not limit the rights or undermine the copyright status of MINDEF in any way.
      4. This low-resolution image serves its purpose of illustration adequately.
      5. This image has been published previously by MINDEF in their official publications. A simple search online will yield these images; 95% of them are works of MINDEF.
      6. This image meets general Wikipedia content requirements.
      7. This image is used in at least one article.
      The uploader would appreciate any good free alternatives to this image, and would also like to urge the person objecting to the fair use claim to channel his/her efforts into helping Wikipedia obtaining free alternatives rather than simpy tagging them for deletion. It is believed this would be a more enriching and fufilling experience for the Wikipedian; after all, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort.

      --Dave1185 (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Your rationale explains why the non-free images cannot be replaced by a free replacement showing the same thing. But it does not explain why the free images which are already in the article do not serve the same encyclopedic purpose. By WP:NFCC#1, if a free image serves the same encylopedic purpose as a non-free image, the non-free image is replaceable. In particular, I submit that the non-free image in the infobox could be replaced with one of the free images in the galery.
      Your rationale does not address WP:NFCC#3 at all. “Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.” Why does the article need multiple items of non-free content? Couldn’t one item convey equivalent significant information?
      Your rationale does not address WP:NFCC#8 at all. “Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.” Why are any of the non-free images in the galery essential to the article? I submit that the free images in the galery are more than adequate to illustrate the article. I submit that the last image of the galery serves no encyclopedic purpose. —teb728 t c 06:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I acknowledged the last two issues but might I ask you a question here? Have you read up on the page with those two images in question? Besides, if I was really that adamant about doing things my way, I would have put those two images to use for the other two nearby islands as well but I didn't since I use it on one to illustrate my whole point of the "Restricted Area" & "Southern Islands Live-Firing Zone" which encompasses all the three islands with those two images. --Dave1185 (talk) 06:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Now that you add Pulau Sudong to the rationale, I would say that the use of the two non-free images on that page fails WP:NFCC#8. They are not necessary to the article. The images do not illustrate the "restricted area" and even if they did, that text needs no illustration. The panorama and the map (both free) provide any illustration that the article needs. —teb728 t c 08:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry but I don't see it your way, you say that both image fails WP:NFCC#8. On the basis that the panoramic image, which in my opinion offers such poor 2D plan view of a group of islands from approx 5km away, and the map you point out illustrated to the point fully, which I think is ridiculous given an analogy that a blind person being led to an Elephant and be told that it is an Elephant? What I offered is a 3D view of where and how it is exactly, to the fullest point without any shred of doubt, it is that simple and clear. Moreover, the RSAF Black Knights were indeed training over them islands and was photographed on a PR mission by a renowned professional photographer - Peter Steinmann, which he doesn't has copyright over those images since MINDEF commissioned him to do the job. What is there more to say about that now? Besides, if you think it is that easy to get clearance to take a photo in them Live firing zone, I ask you to produce one for me now. I've served in RSAF before and am bound by the Official Secrets Act of Singapore, my own works are considered government property and hence no such possibility of me releasing them here or I risk getting prosecuted. --Dave1185 (talk) 08:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Not sure why you seem to think we want to replace your non-free image with some highly classified photo from the your past. All that is being said is that the non-free image may not be suitable under the NFCC guidelines. If an image is needed apart from the panoramic view already in the article then a non-free substitute is possible which could have been taken any time in the last sixty or seventy years. MilborneOne (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      This page is asking questions about copyright and about Wikipedia image policy; it is not a forum for debate. Since Dave1185 seems to want the latter, I have nominated the images for fair use review. —teb728 t c 19:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for that TEB728 MilborneOne (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Image:Pele HVO.JPG

      I'm trying to determine whether Image:Pele_HVO.JPG is a copyright violation. It is a photograph of a painting hanging in the Hawai'i Volcano National Park Visitor's Center. The uploader is the photographer and has given permission to use the photograph, but the copyright on the painting is unclear to me. The uploader said "copyright is (in)eligible since it is government property" but I don't think "government property" is sufficient. I think it needs to be a work produced by or for the US government. The talk page has the discussion thus far. I want to avoid copyright paranoia so I won't push the issue, but I wouldn't mind some independent voices. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      The US Government public domain only applies to works created by a federal government employee in their official duties. Even a work created by a contractor of the federal government is not automatically public domain, so I have no reason to think that being "government property" is sufficient reason in itself. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 02:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I found the artist's web site where he clearly asserts copyright. I have marked the image for speedy deletion. Thanks! --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 02:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Recreated image

      Maybe I'm going crazy. I thought Image:Cheproducts2.jpg had been deleted per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_May_8#Image:CGproducts2.jpg. Yet the image is back. What are the rules on this? Thanks, –Mattisse (Talk) 22:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      It's on WikiMedia Commons so I nominated it for deletion there. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Fair use image Orville Gibson

      Hi. Would it be OK to use this image [3] on the Orville Gibson article with Template:Non-free historic image? Ha! (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Two comments:
      (1) That template says "the image is low resolution and of no larger and of no higher quality than is necessary for the illustration of an article". The image is 2094x2891 which I would not consider low resolution. I don't know if that means you should make a low resolution copy of it to upload.
      (2) I'm not sure I understand that template. The photograph was taken before 1923 (since Gibson died in 1918), so its copyright has expired. I wouldn't think that a scanned copy of a public domain photograph could be covered by copyright. I added a question for clarification on the talk page of that template.
      Bottom line is, I guess, that I don't know. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you. Ha! (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      A copy of a two dimensional work with no original input does not create a new copyright and it inherits the copyright or lack thereof of the original. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Hmm.. so this might be public domain anyway and might be better on commons, depending on when it was published, if it still has a copyright on it or not and who owns it. I mailed Gibson who say they're OK with it being used on Wikipedia so I might ask them what it's precise origin/status is. Ha! (talk) 00:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      InterlockingPentagons

      Concerning: Image:InterlockingPentagons.svg and its use on mini-mental state examination.

      Cross-posting from WP:ANI. Two anons (155.41.160.31 (talk · contribs) and 24.60.18.243 (talk · contribs)) have raised the concern that a simple image (drawn by myself) of two interlocking pentagons is somehow "plagiarism" or a copyright violation. The image is part of a larger test of mental capability. This test was initially released in 1975 without copyright restrictions, but in 2001 a company based in Florida acquired the rights and started enforcing copyright on it. We used to list all the questions from the test, which were removed after we were made aware of the fact that the test was copyrighted.[4]

      The anons now claim that:

      Comments invited with regards to the status of the image, as well as the claim that we might be breaking the law. JFW | T@lk 06:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      If by "released in 1975 without copyright restrictions", you mean it was first published without a copyright notice, it is now irrevocably in the public domain; see {{PD-pre1978}}. Second, a very simple shape like two pentagons is likely ineligible for copyright as in {{PD-ineligible}}. I'm not a lawyer but I think the uploader would win for those reasons if if ever came to a legal battle, but it's up to the uploader if they want to take that risk. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Thanks RaWF. The problem is that a medical journal is not public domain. But your second point is well taken and I will wait for my friends to return and argue their point. JFW | T@lk 09:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      C.H. Moore House photo

      Is it possible to use the image at this url: C.H. Moore House photo in the C.H. Moore House article? Oli (talk) 07:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Does the house still exist? If so, the ideal would be for someone to take a picture and put it under a free license. The other option would be to find a picture and ask permission per WP:COPYREQ --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 17:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Not seeing anything to the contrary, I have to assume the image has a copyright. Given that, the rules at WP:NONFREE apply. Of the "10 criteria" that must be met, in my opinion this fails two of them:
      • (1) No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. ....
      • (8) Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
      (It fails (1) because, as Rat at WikiFur said above, someone could take their own photo and release it under a free license.) --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Ok,I understand thanks
      Oli (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Forgive me if this has already been discussed (I couldn't find it, if it was), but I was thinking of uploading a particular pictures of Peter Paul Rubens, c. 1615, to illustrate some classical mythology articles. The image, "Daughters of Cecrops Finding the Infant Erichthonius", depicts, well, just that. Unfortunately, the only instance of the image I've been able to find was a postage stamp from Liechtenstein. I'm guessing this makes the image unusable, but I was wondering if there was any way to find out with certainty. Is there a place on the internet (or better, on Wikipedia) that might help me out with this question? Please drop any answer on my talk page, if possible. Thanks. Ford MF (talk) 05:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      According to Wikipedia:Copyright_situations_by_country, copyright in Liechtenstein expires after Life+70. I didn't see anything that would make an exception for postage stamps. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for pointing the way. I wasn't quite clear on if postage stamps and currency weren't some kind of weird exception. Ford MF (talk) 18:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      I have a question regarding linking to videos on YouTube from an the Demos from the Basement article. The videos are unnofficial, and consist of a music track over a still image [7]. I understand that linking to an unnofficial video is not allowed due to copyright, however the question here is whether these songs are indeed copyrighted. They are from a demo album of which only a limited number (200 I think) were made and distributed for free, which has led some to believe that they are not copyrighted. Personally, I still believe that there would be a copyright associated with these songs even though they were given away. Thus, my query is basically are these songs copyrighted and can we link to these videos or not? Cheers Nouse4aname (talk) 09:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      I tend to agree with you on this one. The fact they were given away for free doesn't mean anything. My guess is they are still copyrighted. Just my opinion though. Landon1980 (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Would this Copyright Notice forbid the content it covers being displayed on Wikipedia?

      I want to use photographs found at www.dfat.gov.au. On www.dfat.gov.au/copyright is this copyright notice

      This work is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in unaltered form only (retaining this notice) for your personal, non-commercial use or use within your organisation. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, all other rights are reserved.

      On the basis of what the notice says, am I permitted to upload and use such photographs? Kransky (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      No. The restriction in that statement for unaltered, non-commercial use is problematic, since Wikipedia requires images can be altered and reused for any purpose, including commercial ventures.Dcmacnut (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Dcmacnut is correct - see WP:CFAQ#Non-commercial licenses. Kelly hi! 16:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Could I have a image of Gordon Brown

      To Wikipedia 

                 I've got website and i wondered if you have a image of Gordon Brown i could use hope you do!

      From David aged 12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.145.189 (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Yes, go to Gordon Brown, click any of the images, and it will tell you under what conditions you can use the image. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Australian Government images

      What would images from Australian Government websites be classed under? I've always thought they have been in public domain.

      Hothguard11 (talk) 06:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      I believe that works of the Australian government typically are copyrighted and restricted to non-commercial non-derivative use. See the post a couple of sections up from here. With such restrictions they are non-free and may be used only in accordance with Wikipedia’s restrictive non-free content criteria. —teb728 t c 07:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Non-exist organization's images

      Hello, I'm a sysop from Vietnamese Wikipedia, a user there uploaded some photos which he said that it is from some booklets published by Ministries of Republic of Vietnam in 1960s. I'm very confused what license tags should be used and hope that experienced users here can help me. The issues are:

      1. As international practice, if a country is eliminated, all the copyright will follow the successive state (like Empire of Russia, USSR will be Russia, so Republic of Vietnam will be Socialist Republic of Vietnam).
      2. In Vietnam, the copyright law protects right for 50+ of author's life and everything will be in public domain (or as it says "not protected by law") if they are "official documents, legal documents of government, political organization; technical specifications,...". So, if a ministry published a booklet about news and photos, currently it is copyrighted in Vietnam.
      3. But the problem is, Republic Socialist of Vietnam doesn't recognize Republic of Vietnam's publications as they say "they were propaganda of older regime, and against the current communist regime".

      So, what should I do with those images, I thought about fair-use, but I hope it will be the last solution. Vinhtantran (talk) 07:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Plymouth Blitz

      {{helpme}}Can I upload this image onto Wikipedia (I'd prefer onto commons, though). If so what license should I give it? http://www.bbc.co.uk/devon/content/image_galleries/it_came_to_our_door_book_gallery.shtml?6 }}

      But it's used as the front cover of the book It Came To Our Door and on the gallery on BBC, which put together a collabaration of World War Two photos that were "lost" for a long time. I doubt that the authoer of the book or the BBC have the author's direct permission. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Under the other info section for buying this book it says "Illustrations & Other Content Notes: 400 b&w photographs, many previously unseen". http://www.whsmith.co.uk/CatalogAndSearch/ProductDetails-It+Came+to+Our+Door+-9780954348038.html#
      You would need to see the book to see what they say about ownership of copyright. The BBC can claim fair use where we cannot. They are also quite likely to have explicit permission. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      It seems a little odd that these images from World War Two were put into a book and sold for money and now Wikipedia, a non profit organisation, cannot use the images to display the Plymouth Bliz. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I believe you were actually reviewing the wrong image here. Try try the link at the top of the section again. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I saw that. Unfortunately no one can comment on selling the book for money until you know more about the ownership of copyright. Perhaps the author of the book paid the author of the photo a shedload of cash and now you're proposing to give it away for free. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      How about these bad boys? Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Creator: Devon Library and Information Services

      Title: World War 2 : German military intelligence documents

      Imprint: : Devon Library Services

      Date: 2003

      Format: Web page : HTML

      Series: Devon's heritage ; D941

      Ref. no.: WEB NAZI

      Coverage: Westcountry . World War 2 . Military intelligence . 1939-1945

      Last Updated: 06/05/2005

      I see no evidence that these are in the public domain (the works are credited so you may be able to check further). Also see Wikipedia:Public_domain#German_World_War_II_images and possibly ask at WP:MCQ. You should try looking for photos by US service personnel as they are usually in the public domain, or perhaps ask at one of the WikiProjects. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Eugh, EU proving as useful as ever in intergrating europe there! Anyway at the bottom of the section it says "However, fair use cases can be made in many cases". I need some help on how to upload a fair use image though... Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Use of images from Press information Bureau

      Can the images published by the Government of India in the Press informatin Bureau website can be uploaded into Wikipedia. The website claims its free and meant for the press/media/public. Source:[8]. The copyright holder is obviously the PIB. But they are stating that those images published can be used free can these images be used in Wikipedia.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Please come to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. As the banner at the top says, this page is closed. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 09:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Similarly I would like to know about uploading the images from this site.[9] which give permission to use it for free "This photo is free for news media use." Chanakyathegreat (talk) 02:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      No, that's not considered free content on Wikipedia. It has to be usable by anyone. You could try WP:COPYREQ --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 07:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Image:Blair_Witch_Project.jpg

      why was this image removed, and where is the notification that it was up for deletion in the first place? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      The image was deleted for not having a fair use rationale. See deletion log following the above redlink. Megapixie (talk) 07:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay. Now, how to go about seeing the image, so as to be able to verify that a user utilizing a bot did not make an error (Maxim was apparently using the bot to remove images beginning with the letter 'B') - in other words, how to see the deleted image? The image was apparently removed w/out discussion (ie, I couldn't find a note of it). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      It indeed had no rationale (admins can see it, other users unfortunately can't), so the deletion was formally correct. However, since it's a movie poster of a notable film, I don't see why there should be a problem once a standard rationale is added. If you want to provide one, I can undelete it for you, I don't think anybody would object. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      (e/c)Images are tagged as questionable by bots, but they are deleted only by admins. And once deleted they can be viewed only by admins.
      The bot posted a warning on the uploader’s talk page, User talk:Brandon.Weight. —teb728 t c 17:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, FutPerf, please undelete it, and I will provide a rationale. Clearly, the wisdom of watchlisting all the images of an article I am working on is apparent. Is there a reason why notice wasn't given in the article? It would seem (to me, at least) to be a no-brainer to post a notice int he article discussion page, since the uploader might be long gone, and the people working the article would have more interest in the deletion of an image being used in the article. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Done, undeleted. About notifications, there is a notification template that can be added to the article page itself, and I'd guess the bots are configured to do that routinely, but perhaps they have technical difficulties pasting the template if the image is being used in an infobox. You're right, it would be a good idea in such cases to post something on the talk page instead. Perhaps you could make that suggestion to the bot owners? It's not really for this page here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      hello sir,

      how can i link my images to other page. if i want to put my image to other pages is it possible..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratikppf (talk • contribs) 07:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      NFCC#8

      Can anyone confirm that images used for purely decorative purposes in galleries fail this criterion? Thanks. 81.110.106.169 (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions&oldid=216694755"