Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

Media copyright questions
Welcome to the Media Copyright Questions page, a place for help with image copyrights, tagging, non-free content, and related questions. For all other questions please see Wikipedia:Questions. How to add a copyright tag to an existing image On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page. From the page Wikipedia:File copyright tags, choose the appropriate tag: For work you created yourself, use one of the ones listed under the heading "For image creators". For a work downloaded from the internet, please understand that the vast majority of images from the internet are not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. Exceptions include images from flickr that have an acceptable license, images that are in the public domain because of their age or because they were created by the United States federal government, or images used under a claim of fair use. If you do not know what you are doing, please post a link to the image here and ask BEFORE uploading it. For an image created by someone else who has licensed their image under an acceptable Creative Commons or other free license, or has released their image into the public domain, this permission must be documented. Please see Requesting copyright permission for more information. Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{Cc-by-4.0}}), not forgetting {{ before and }} after, in the edit box on the image's description page. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}}) Hit Publish changes. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below. How to ask a question To ask a new question hit the "Click here to start a new discussion" link below. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page. Don't include your email address, for your own privacy. We will respond here and cannot respond by email. Note for those replying to posted questions If a question clearly does not belong on this page, reply to it using the template {{mcq-wrong}} and, if possible, leave a note on the poster's talk page. For copyright issues relevant to Commons where questions arising cannot be answered locally, questions may be directed to Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright.
Click here to start a new discussion

(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

Proper licensing of a picture

I am attempting to update the wikipedia page on my boss, Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, with his most recent official photograph. The photograph is published on our website at http://myfloridalegal.com/picture.html. The photograph is available for public use. I don't know which license to use when uploading it to his wikipedia page. Please advise. Thanks!

Sandi Copes, Press Secretary, Office of the Attorney General Sandisea (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The copyright to the picture will be owned by the photographer, unless there is an agreement otherwise in writing, or it falls under the definition of a work for hire. You will need to get the photographers permission per WP:COPYREQ, or take a new photograph. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, one more question. Was it taken by an employee of the federal government in the course of their official duties? If so, it's public domain and can be tagged {{PD-USGov}} --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be an employee of the state of Florida government. Corvus cornix_talk 21:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Homework question

In your opinion what is the impact or influence of mass media portrayals on delinquency in today,s society.? Discuss either entertainment or news sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdul77H (talk • contribs) 04:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the mass media spends too long encouraging people to stop thinking for themselves and impressing upon them the expectation that other people are supposed to do your homework for you. It also seems to encourage people to hit "Save page" without checking to make sure that what they're posting is something that is relevant to that page. Bad media. Bad! :) -- Hux (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

raven_claw14@yahoo.com.ph

define adolescence and what are the 4 developmental stage of teenagers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.52.28.111 (talk) 04:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

"Adolescence" is often characterized by the inability to follow instructions (such as those at the top of this page) along with a tendency to want other people to do things for them that they really should do themselves (such as their homework). The four developmental stages are 1) angst about life, 2) angst about girls, 3) misplaced indignance, and 4) emo hair. :) -- Hux (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright tag for image

A few days ago, I uploaded a photo for the Emma Roberts' article, which I found at the Internet Movie Database. I'm not 100% sure it is copyrighted, though, but if someone could help me with the tagging to let the image not be deleted (on the 18th), I'd really appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSilverRaider (talk • contribs) 05:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The problem with that image is that it's a replaceable nonfree image of a living person, which we can't have as we intend to be a free encyclopedia, with free images. If you can find a free image of her (released under WP:GFDL or into public domain, etc.) we'd love to have that. giggy _(:O) 05:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. But, what do you specifically mean by "public domain"? Also, does a fan site count, for example, www.fabulous-emma.com?

- The Silver Raider 05:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

"Public Domain" means (loosely) "100% freely usable by anyone, for anything, without limitation". It's simply a shorthand way of referring to creative works that are not controlled by any laws - see public domain. Not sure what you mean by your second question. The key point is that a) we can (generally) only use freely usable images on Wikipedia, and b) 99% of images you might find on the internet are not freely usable since they are typically copyrighted automatically the moment they are created. So, basically, unless you find an image that explicitly indicates that it's released under a free license (e.g. the GDFL) or into the public domain, you have to assume that it's copyrighted and therefore not usable on Wikipedia (except in accordance with the non-free content criteria). This will almost certainly apply to any image of Emma Roberts you might stumble across. It's unfortunate that the law is so strict in this area, but that's the way it is. -- Hux (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Choosing a license

How do I know which license to pick? leo604 13:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a list at WP:ICT; if you're having trouble, let us know the details. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Logo

I am writing about my company and I want to use the company logo but everytime the I make the page it keeps getting deleted for advertising but it says the pictures are wrong. How do i site this logo? Image:neulion(2).jpg

Right now, it says that you created the logo entirely by yourself. Is this correct? If the copyright holder won't put it under a free license, then you'll have to use a fair use rationale. If you're having trouble, one of use may be able to help; just let us know the details. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about your specific situation, but since you are writing about your own company, it would help to familiarize yourself with the following relevant policies: WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:COMPANY, and WP:COI. They may explain why your articles/uploads are being deleted. – flamurai (t) 03:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sammy the Snake

Where was Sammy the Snake's name on the list of characters?? I was raised on Sesame Street and The Electric Company and also Mr. Rogers...and I still to this day love them all! (My kids do, too)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.20.229.18 (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You might better ask this question at Talk:The Muppets. —teb728 t c 23:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Images of fictional characters

I've reviewed the Wikipedia fair use policies regarding images and am still unsure about this: Is it fair use to include, say, an image of a comic book character, taken from a widely published comic book issue or promotional artwork, in an article about that character? Or would it only be valid if used in an article commenting on the comic book issue, or artwork, itself? (I would note that nearly every article about a comic book character does include such images, but of course that doesn't necessarily mean they're not a violation.)

If it is NOT fair use, is it a violation only of Wikipedia's guidelines, or copyright law? Cnanninga (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is "clearly" fair-use... If it is not fair-use, It is a violation of copyright law... (althouth not a very serious one, i think...) but what constitutes fair-use is debatable, and as far as I know, only a court can have a final word... (please correct me if I´m wrong!) SF007 (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images item "5. Film and television screen shots" would seem to cover this situation. Be sure to remember rule 3a in the Policy section: "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(By the way, I'm not considering any particular image I want to use; I just want to learn more about fair use, as it's of very practical value.) So in your understanding, (this is just an example) using a single promotional image of Batman from DC Comics to provide a visual next to your commentary about the character of Batman is a commonly accepted fair use practice? Cnanninga (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The Press Association Pictures

There is a picture I found on the BBC website here of Supergrass at the Brit Awards 1996. I have searched all over for a picture of this but have been unsuccessful. I am unsure on whether I can use the picture as it has a PA logo on the picture but I assume it is a really low resolution from the original. Any help would be much appreciated. --TwentiethApril1986 22:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I see no indication of a free license on this image. Without that it could be used only under Wikipedia’s highly restrictive non-free content criteria. —teb728 t c 23:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

photo of John Brown House from Pennsylvania state archive site

This image Image:JohnBrownHouse.jpg was recently uploaded with what i believe is incorrect assertion that it is public domain. It is linked from the Chambersburg, Pennsylvania article. I would be interested to have such an image available, but i believe this is not PD. It is a photo of a house that is listed on the U.S. National Register, but it is not a Federal government photo, it is not from a Federal website. Instead, it is from the Pennsylvania state ARCH system, obtainable by going to search site http://www.arch.state.pa.us/search-form.asp and searching on "John Brown House" in the second search option. That system, like other state historic department systems, includes many photos that are Pennsylvania owned. No indication this is Federally owned. For sites to get listed on the National REgister, they go through the state process first. It is not likely that this was obtained from the Federal government; it could well have been sent to the Federal government as part of the state's application for this place to be listed on the National Register, but that does not forfeit copyright.

I am concerned because i work on historic site articles and photos, and i do want there to be photos added, but i don't want anyone starting to upload lots of copyvio ones from the Pennsylvania system or similar state systems.

I posted to the poster at User talk:Smallbones#John Brown House pic appears not to be public domain, but don't really know how to take care of this. Please advise! doncram (talk) 04:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

And there is this followup/discussion: User talk:Doncram#re Image:JohnBrownHouse. doncram (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I've moved that discussion here, with 1 minor clarification Smallbones (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The site [1] gives only information/pictures from the National Register Nomination forms (accepted in PA). As I understand it these are Federal government property.

Their description of the data (with my bolding): "ARCH provides public access to Pennsylvania's inventory of National Historic Landmarks and National Register of Historic Places. At this site, you will find the original, complete nomination forms for over 3000 National Register nominations and almost 200 National Historic Landmark properties. Each nomination includes the name and location of the property, a physical description, a statement of the property's significance, geographical data, biblographic references, and, at least one representative photograph for each property or district. Forms can be retrieved through a searchable database.

The original nomination forms and selected photographs were digitized for presentation on the Web."

There's no mention of anything else being included.

Sorry that the exact pages are difficult to link to (go to search, Franklin County, Chambersburg Borough)

The site says in its FAQs [2]

"12) Q. Can I save the National Register nomination form and photographs?

A. Yes, click on the square computer disk icon on the upper left corner of the Adobe Reader toolbar. From there, you can save the file to any directory on your computer.

13) Q. Can I print the National Register nomination form and photographs?

A. Yes, either pull down the file menu on the upper left corner of your toolbar and select "Print" or click on the printer icon on the upper left of the Adobe reader toolbar and a print menu will appear."

This seems pretty clear (from the State of Pennsylvania) that it's not under copyright.

Please let me know if you think this interpretation is wrong (after all, nobody came out explicitly and said "This photo is property of the US gov. and therfore in the public domain."

Thanks for any help.

Smallbones (talk) 12:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately their giving permission to users of their site to download and print pictures isn't as comprehensive as releasing pictures to the public domain, IMO. Although perhaps they would refute that perception if asked.--Appraiser (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

From the University of California (my bolding)[3]

What types of works make up the public domain?

Categories of material that are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection include:

• Ideas and facts
• Works with expired copyrights

....

• Laws, regulations, judicial opinions, government documents and legislative reports
• Words, names, numbers, symbols, signs, rules of grammar and diction, and punctuation

This is a (federal) government document, from a nomination form to the National Registry (intended for distribution to the public, now via going to the state or federal archive - but soon to be put fully on-line). The form (document) is needed to get, e.g. tax benefits. I'm sorry, but I just don't see how a government document, intended for distribution to the public (and indeed distributed by the web in this case) can be copyrighted.

Smallbones (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, the photo was included in the 1970 nomination without notice of copyright, and distributed (via the state archive) prior to 1978 (change in the law requiring copyright notices) Smallbones (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, I'm not seeing anything that clearly indicates that this photo is a work of the US federal government. It might be a work of the Pennsylvania government, but if so then that's a different ballgame, copyright wise - some states have similar Public Domain rules about state government created works, others retain copyright on all government works. But even if PA works are PD by default, I see no information in your links about who created the photo in question; we can't assume it's a fed govt. or PA govt. creation just because it's on a government site.

So, as it stands I don't think we can use it. Imo, your best bet would be to ask for more info at the email address provided at the bottom of your FAQ link. -- Hux (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Smallbones' moving the discussion all to here is helpful, thanks! I fully believe that Smallbones means well, and might be frustrated, understandably, that we should not be able to use photos that are obviously put out there with intent for people to use them. He is inferring specific intent on Pennsylvania's part, however, that they would wish to put the photos out in the public domain, but Pennsylvania has not done that. It would probably be fine for an individual to use the photo in a blog somewhere, i doubt that Pennsylvania would care and would not prosecute or anything. However, wikipedia can't use many photos, including these, because we have higher standards and want to put out true public domain or "forever free" licensed images. We can't just grab photos without a clear license to do so.

Perhaps it would help Smallbones to understand that even many photos at the National Park Service, including many included in NRHP applications that the NPS puts up on its NPS Focus federal domain website, are NOT public domain. Here's a copy of what i wrote up a while back regarding that.

Quoting myself (with added bolding):

some but not all National Park Service photos are public domain: Some National Park Service webpages (within nps.gov domain) include photos that are NPS-owned and are public domain. But the NPS is clear that it uses, with permission, some copyrighted pictures, and those do not go into the public domain just because the NPS uses them. Some say from the "National Register Collection." Those would be okay to use. There may be different ways for them to say it, that they own the negatives, that they have ownership and put it in the public domain. The National Park Service copyright-related policy statement, at http://www.nps.gov/disclaimer.htm states, under Ownership, that "Information presented on this website, unless otherwise indicated , is considered in the public domain. It may may be distributed or copied as is permitted by the law. Not all information on this website has been created or is owned by the NPS. If you wish to use any non-NPS material, you must seek permission directly from the owning (or holding) sources. NPS shall have the unlimited right to use for any purpose, free of any charge, all information submitted to NPS via this site except those submissions made under separate legal contract. NPS shall be free to use, for any purpose, any ideas, concepts, or techniques contained in information provided to NPS through this site." So they are clear that some of the images they use are NOT public domain, but ones that are suggested to be NPS-owned are public domain. (from Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Resources#some but not all National Park Service photos are public domain)

About this photo, it would be nice if Smallbones would agree that it should be removed given all this discussion. Smallbones also received other counsel along these lines at User talk:Smallbones#Re Brandywine Redux from Ruhrfisch, an editor of several featured wikipedia articles on Pennsylvania historic sites who uses ARCH references. I think it's time to remove it. Should Smallbones put a "copyvio" tag on it and request its deletion, or what is the procedure? doncram (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me while I take a bit of time to take this all in. Smallbones (talk) 00:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that I can't be gracious about this. A Federal public record, designed to be released to the public on the National Register, with permissions explicitly given to print and download...ergh (the only polite thing I can say). I'll let others delete without any further comment. Smallbones (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I just want to close this and appreciate that you concede. I also sympathize, and i think you express the situation well, and politely! Anyhow, following what i can figure out of the processes, i just tagged the photo, and listed it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 June 22/Images, and gave one final notice at uploader Smallbones talk page. I believe that no further replies are needed, and that an administrator will process this and delete the photo in a week's time. doncram (talk) 07:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Odd that's it's just a frame house. I was expecting a Brownstone. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Mistresses of King George IV

I noticed that in the articles on some of the women there was no photo of them. The three women of whom there are no photos are, Frances Villiers; Isabella Seymour Conway, Marchioness Hertford; and Elizabeth, Marchioness Conyngham. The webpage with the photos is http://www.georgianindex.net/mistresses/prinny_mistresses.html. I wanted to know what license I may be able to use for the photos. The last woman to die was Elizabeth in 1861. So any photo of her must be at least 147 years old. I thought that photos' copyright deprecated after 140 years or something, and they entered public domain at that point, but I'm not sure. Please make a note on my talk page indicating what license, if any, I may be able to use them under. I'm afraid I can't find any information on them regarding their authors, date of photo, etc, so I'd need help with that. I hope someone can find out how to use the photos, or inform me of what to do on my talk page. Jonjames1986 (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I dont think the photographs are 147 years old as the photographs you link to are photographs of two-dimensional (2D) works of art (paintings) and the copyright is related to the creator of the painting, which could have been painted anytime after the death of the subject. If the creator or author of the work died more than 100 years ago you may be able to use {{PD-art}}. But you do need to know who the original painter/creator was, if he or she died less than 100 years ago the situation may vary depending on where the painting was created. MilborneOne (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

permission for posting photo

Hello,

I recceived permission to upload a photo taken by Michael Wilson who first-hand said it is ok to use this photo for commercial use non-commercial use including use on Wikipedia. the photo is Lee Townsend-Floratone which was uploaded recently to Wikipedia. An editor deleted this photo twice even after I made this note and marked the photo as copywrite-free. Can you please help me with uploading this photo with permission. thanks,

Lee Townsend's article

Adam

My advice would be to archive the release with OTRS; see WP:COPYREQ --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:24tv.jpg. Public Domain or Fair Use?

We can't decide if this is Public Domain or fair use. I'd argue that the image remains fair use, as a screenshot from a copyrighted TV show. I took the screenshot myself, and looking at the image closely, you can see the image flickering (as it does on 24). This is distinctly different to something such as this, you can see a very clear difference here, and for that reason, I'd argue that it remains fair use. Steve Crossin (contact) 20:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Colour (or shading) doesn't make something copyrightable "... mere coloration cannot support a copyright even though it may enhance the aesthetic appeal or commercial value of a work." [4] --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• I was asking for an independant view on the matter. And the link you've shown isn't a link to a Wikipedia policy. There's a difference here. Steve Crossin (contact) 00:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I linked you to the copyright office's own practices; that's pretty independent. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 00:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not going to climb the reichstag over this, but if someone disputes this as "public domain", it's my talk page that gets tagged. I feel fair use is safer, as this is an uncertain case. Steve Crossin (contact) 00:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

infringements or not

I copied alot of your pictures and some articles attached to family ancestors in your site and would like to have some sort of ok or written permission to use them in a book I am making only for my father and one for my mother as a gift. I wanted it completed by this year on parents day or grand parents day but I would certainly like your permission to do so. It would only be for my family. I could only afford two books. LOL

I know there are some things that are ok but some may not be. I do not want you sued or myself, so if you could please advise soon, I would definitely appreciate it. Thanks, Your faithful servant, Robin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin, queen (talk • contribs) 03:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

As long as you aren't using the image commercially, you are unlikely to require any kind of permission. Some of the images may be GFDL, but unless you are distributing the book commercially (or on a large scale) then I wouldn't worry. Megapixie (talk) 05:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

maps.live images in wiki articles

can birds eye view images (screen captures)from maps.live.com be used in wikipedia articles? if so, what is the proper tag to use?

Weston ontario (talk) 04:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you link to an example ? The short answer is probably not. Megapixie (talk) 05:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

hello, here's the image.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pinepointpark.jpg

and how it is used... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Point_Park

is it okay? Weston ontario (talk) 07:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No. Not fair use. In that context. If you don't understand copyright law, then the safest option is to use photographs that you took yourself. Random photographs from the internet 99.9% of the time are unusable. Can you provide a link to the terms of use of the website you got the image from. The answer will probably be there. Megapixie (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

this is where the image comes from... http://maps.live.com/

i think this is the TOU... http://help.live.com/help.aspx?project=searchtou&market=en-us#PU

Weston ontario (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Section 4 of the terms of use says, "In using the service, you may not...resell or redistribute the service, or any part of the service." Grabbing photos and putting them on Wikipedia would count as redistribution. Also, "All contents of the service are Copyright © 2008 Microsoft Corporation and/or its suppliers, One Microsoft Way, Redmond, Washington 98052-6399 U.S.A. All rights reserved. Copyright and other intellectual property laws and treaties protect any software or content provided as part of the service. We or our suppliers own the title, copyright, and other intellectual property rights in the software or content." Pretty unambiguous, I think. -- Hux (talk) 04:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:1434Menzies.jpg

The non-free / fair use media rationale says that the image should be low resolution. Could someone please check to see if Image:1434Menzies.jpg is low resolution? Or does it need to be scaled down a little? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be an unwritten rule that "low resolution" means 300 pixels or less on its longest side. Personally I think that's way too small given the increasing size of users' monitors, but I'll respect it I guess. I tried to crop/resize the image and upload the new version but for some reason it came out looking totally distorted, so I reverted it. Maybe you can do a better job! -- Hux (talk) 04:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Pre-1923 newspaper images and articles that are claimed to be under copyright

My public library offers access to page images of historical newspapers via several databases; for example, the Boston Globe 1872-1924 via Proquest. In addition to the text themselves, there is often badly-reproduced but still interesting graphics (e.g. advertising line art).

For example, a September 5, 1909 ad for Filene's notes that its "Tunnel Bargain Basement with its Automatic Price Reductions week by week--along with other extraordinary innovations--is the latest chapter in the story of the Filene Stores." An image of this ad would seem to be quite appropriate for the article on Filene's Basement.

But every result retrieved regardless of publication date carries a notice stating:

"Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission."

For articles dated earlier than 1923, can such a notice simply be ignored?

Surely a newspaper article in a U. S. newspaper, dated earlier than 1923, was published earlier than 1923, and therefore cannot be under copyright, and therefore there cannot be any "copyright owner" whose permission could be solicited? Dpbsmith (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Correct; for works published in the US, the published before 1923 rule has no exceptions. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Linkin Park - Numb.ogg

Is this sample too high of a quality?

I set Audacity to output the lowest quality possible with .ogg's, and it still kicked out 91 kb/s. Any ideas how to make it output lower quality? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

All REWORK..

I, would like to understand the purpose of using a GNU* as a way to express information cited in this Encyclopedia process. (1) I, just assumed 'Original Work' could be defined by proving the person behind the camera lens as one that took the image that came into focus.. (2)that seems only fair as in respect too getting any supplied image from the person. Reminder* ‘your’, ‘we’ are getting information to document. Please, know that everyday people are not the fosterling of important social news only they want hopefully to in those things that are sought for the entertainment, education, and intellectual sufficiencies that moral beings surplus. I, already know that I'm not going to get the answer that clears my conscious for misusing this Encyclopedia as you all's terms are subject to every change success. Only help me in clearing the images that I've already used at a personal liberty of interest. ASAP/Devona.westhaven_asboro3324.148.128.7 (talk) 00:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Smithsonian releases thousands of images with "no known copyright restrictions"

At Flickr Commons, The Smithsonian has released thousands of high-quality images under a (non-)license of "no known copyright restrictions". Can we upload them as free content, and if so, under which license? Skomorokh 04:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Recommend dropping a note at Commons:Commons:Licensing about this, as, if these have really been released, the images should be uploaded there. For now, {{PD-USGov}} could likely be used, though a more specialized license template would be useful. Kelly ^hi! 04:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I dropped a note there. Here is the ref for the image release. Kelly ^hi! 04:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. So would it be safe to say anything on Flickr Commons is fair game? As in I won't get steamrolled by BetaCommandBot if I use a couple dozen? Skomorokh 04:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"No known restrictions" images should be fine. I still recommend uploading at Commons instead of Wikipedia, as they are much more familiar with copyright there. Kelly ^hi! 04:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the advice, and keep up the good work (cabal permitting). Sincerely, Skomorokh 04:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Pictures of computer hardware including the interface

Greetings and salutations! I have a picture that I would like to upload for the iPhone article, however, as there is some consternation among the frequent contributors there, and I have had uploaded works deleted in the past, I am seeking clarification on the proper licensing for a self-made photograph of this hardware device with the screen on thus displaying a copyrighted software interface. If you could be so kind as to let me know on my talk page what the proper licensing for a photo of this composition would be, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks very much, --frijole (talk, contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 15:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If the interface in the picture is more than just a blur of colour then it will need a fair use rationale. It follows from that, that unless you're discussing the interface in the context of the picture that you're better off under the NFCC getting a photograph while the device is powered off. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, due to the importance of the interface to the iPhone, I think its pretty clear, then, that its a justified case for fair use. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ _{( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )} 20:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that this proposed guideline at Commons describes the concept pretty well. Kelly ^hi! 19:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

According to much discussion already, lots of images have been deleted for commons due to the fact that the device is almost all screen, and there's no fair use on Commons. Ergo, why I asked about uploading it here on WP specifically, where we can have fair use materials. Thanks, though. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ _{( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )} 20:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

57 year old picture with photographer deceased

The person who took this picture is deceased, yet the photograph was taken in 1951, less than 100 years. The issue is under question for it to be deleted.

Here is the text of the discussion thus far.

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Adel-tinys-horse& buggy.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nyttend (talk) 13:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I fail to understand the nuances of public domain licensing. This particular picture is un-copywrited, un-licensed and the person who took the photo is deceased. Plus there is no one who desires to protect the licensing over the picture. Perhaps there is different licensing rules can be applied to this picture? If so, could that licensing rule be applied to the picture?

As for this, I don't know; my knowledge about copyright law is small, although I do know that something created just 57 years ago by a now-dead person is assumed to be copyrighted unless we have other reason to believe it. You'd do better to ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, where there are people who know the law better than I do. Nyttend (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

to the public domain licensing legal experts, what say ye?

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rabbit.runner"

There are two scenarios which could put the work in the public domain; if it was published before 1964 and copyright was not renewed, {{PD-Pre1964}}; if it was published before 1978 without a notice of copyright, {{PD-Pre1978}}. Check those templates for any details or caveats. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The picture was taken by a private individual and it was never published in any newspaper or periodical. The photo resided in a pack of photos in a desk drawer for years, then someone (in the computer age) decided to digitize the image (and a bunch of others), storing them on a PC. There they resided until discovered by my brother who was repairing the PC. He passed them along to me (with the owners permission). The photos were never used in any publication, never used for any display, and never used for any advertisement. They were only used for enjoyment by the family and their friends. So, Rat at WikiFur, I'm not certain what you mean by published. To me that term means used in some commercial venture or for advertisement. To my knowledge, this picture was never used for that purpose. Since the photo was a family picture, there would never be any notice of copyright. So how would this picture fit in with those two caveats? I wait to hear back from you again. --Rabbit Runner - Those who dance, appear insane to those who do not hear the music. 01:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabbit.runner (talk • contribs)

I don't know of any rule in that case that would put the work automatically in the public domain. From what you've given so far, copyright would expire 70 years after the author's death. You would either have to use it under fair use(which in this case probably doesn't apply), or get the author(or their heirs) to release it under the public domain(see WP:COPYREQ) --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 08:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The situation you describe makes it an unpublished work. Copyright will last until 70 years after the photographer died; it's currently held by whoever the photographer's heir is. --Carnildo (talk) 08:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• The photo in question has a caption superimposed on the image. Was that on the original (in which case it looks like a postcard) or was that added later by someone else? If this was a bunch of photos taken by the deceased, this is different from a bunch of postcards bought by the deceased. Carcharoth (talk) 09:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Carcharoth, I wondered about that caption. I can't answer your question because I don't know. Carnildo, I doubt that it has been 70 years since the photographer passed away. I believe it was the 60's. I'd have to enquire further for the exact date, if you believe it's necessary. The family passed the photos along to me with no expressed restrictions. Rabbit.runner (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Coin images

Has anyone actually complained about copyright infringement in respect of the coin images in Wikipedia? If not, then would the person or people who seem to have a mission to delete all coin images because of "invalid non-free use rationale" concerns (or similar) please consider:

1. Finding something more useful to do with their time.
2. Following the advice given at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline to "consider, as an alternative to deletion, fixing the description page".

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.194.52 (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Since you don't give any specifics, I'll have to reply in generalities. The first item to consider is the copyright of the coin itself. Wikimedia Commons has a good list of the status of different countries currency copyright [5]. The second is the copyright of the person who digitized the coin; see [6] --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

100 Players Who Shook The Kop

Is 100 Players Who Shook The Kop copyrighted? The list is from a subjective poll. Corvus cornix_talk 21:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

See WP:PD#Non-creative works, or for a similar case, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive24#Should this be in the main namespace --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, what I thought. I'm going to list the article for AfD. Corvus cornix_talk 21:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:RobertPetersWikipedia.JPG

Image:RobertPetersWikipedia.JPG From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Image File history File links Metadata

Size of this preview: 450 × 600 pixels Full resolution‎ (864 × 1,152 pixels, file size: 316 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg)

Dear Sir

This image is own by me as a free lance photographer. Wiki has my utmost permission to have this inserted in Robert Peters article. I'm also Robert Peters literary executor. I submit this photo for free domain. I've filled out the form many times. I'm very frustrated by submission not being accepted. Do I have to get a license from Congress in order to legalise this photo for insertion? It seems to be far more complicated to insert a photo into an article than to edit it. Forgive my frustration. Again I own the photo, I took it privately. I have no intentions of violating a copyrights. I simply don't know what forms you want me to fill. Sincerely Pjt48 (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

When you say “free domain,” do you mean “public domain”? If you release an image into the public domain, you give up all your rights to it. If that is what you want to do, put {{PD-self}} on the image description page. —teb728 t c 05:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Manuscript page with handwriting

mailer-strawhead.jpg is a page from Hannum and Norman Mailer’s script for Strawhead, with Mailer’s handwritten notes. I want to use the image in an article on the play, Strawhead. Which fair use template fits best for this situation? Bebestbe (talk) 02:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If there were an appropriate tag, it would be {{Non-free fair use in|Article}}. But I can’t imagine how any use of this image could comply with WP:NFCC#8: “Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic.” In addition to the tag you would have provide a non-free use rationale, explaining among other things why the image is essential to understanding the article. Sorry. —teb728 t c 05:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Not Alex

I intend to upload a low resolution screen capture from the Not Alex TV commercial and add it to the commercial. It is my understanding that this is acceptable under fair use rules. Am I correct in my understanding? Chicken Wing (talk) 05:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

In order to be acceptable under the WP:NFCC#8 policy, use of the image would have to significantly increase readers' understanding of the article. I doubt you could make a convincing case for that. —teb728 t c 07:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Bummer. Thanks for the advice. Chicken Wing (talk) 07:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Question about deleted image

The NASA image Image:Yarlang tsango river tibet.jpg was deleted here because it was moved to the Commons. Then a bot came and deleted it from the article it was in, Yarlung Tsangpo River (Tibet)‎. How do I get the image back into the article? I cannot find the image on the Commons. Thanks! –Mattisse (Talk) 13:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If you can't find it on the Commons then try contacting the editor who deleted it from here. -- Hux (talk) 03:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It's Image:Yarlung Tsangpo river tibet.jpg. I'll put it back in the article for you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops, someone beat me to it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

How do I justify photograph usage??

I own the photograph.. The photograph was taken of a painting that I own..

It was listed under Fair Use but that may not be correct..

so.. How do I state to Wikipedia that this photo is given with permission of owners to be placed in Wikipedia?

I don't wish to say that anyone can use the photo for anything.. Just that it can be used on Wikipedia.

bth-talk

Ben (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless there is an agreement in writing otherwise, the copyright stays with the creator of a work; when you purchase the work, you are usually only getting permission for personal use. If the painting was created before 1923 it may be public domain anyway; if you think it may be before 1923, let us know the details and we'll work out whether it is or not. Second, Wikipedia does not accept images that are licensed for use only on Wikipedia(though if it does turn out to be public domain, it may not be a condition that you can impose anyway). --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Image Copyright tag

I have uploaded a JPEG of an image in my possession. Image:F Brooks at Nora's mast.jpg The image was photographed sometime between 1953 and '63 by a friend of one of the people in the image. I was given the photograph by this gentleman, without any restriction on its use. Both the photographer and the person who gave me the image have now passed away. The photographer was an amateur, co there will be no commercial interest in the image. Having studied your image copyright tag page, I could find no category into which the above circumstances fit. Please advise. Boatbuff (talk • contribs) 20:29, 21 June 2008

There are two tags that would have put the work in the public domain if the image was published before certain dates. If it was published before 1964 and copyright was not renewed, {{PD-Pre1964}}; if it was published before 1978 without a notice of copyright, {{PD-Pre1978}}. But since you say nothing about it being previously published, copyright will expire 70 years after the death of the photographer. So you will probably have to get permission from the heirs(see WP:COPYREQ --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Xerophthalmia Article

I have noticed that the article for Xerophthalmia looks almost EXACTLY like the article on this website here: http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=6040. I just thought that the people on wikipedia might like to know...

220.253.64.89 (talk) 23:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC) What do they mean by signing stuff????

Thanks. I just removed the copied text. "Signing" just means typing ~~~~, which causes either your username or your IP address (if you are not logged in) to be inserted, along with a timestamp. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Image in article says Copyright by photographer

Resolved

I don't usually see the copyright symbol under images on Wikipedia, this image Image:Glen Canyon Park Chert Outcrop.jpg says it is licensed under Creative Commons, but in the article, Franciscan Assemblage, it says, ©2007 Eric A. Schiff., underneath. Is this the usual? --Blechnic (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Creative Commons licenses are just permissions put on top of a copyrighted work, so it is usual for a Creative Commons-licensed work to be copyrighted as well. As for whether the notice is in the caption or just the description page, that's a matter of some debate on Wikipedia as can be seen at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_25#Photograph_attribution_in_image_captions --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 05:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not the attribution, though, that's an issue, but that the copyright to the individual in the caption trumps the copyright on the image page. No one is going to look at the image page to see if they can use it, because the image is copyrighted to a single individual in the article. --Blechnic (talk) 05:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the copyright from the caption with an appropriate edit summary. —teb728 t c 06:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all. --Blechnic (talk) 06:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Dispute over copyright ownership

There's currently a minor dispute over the copyright on Image:PsychologicalWarfareII.jpg. The image is a photocopy/photograph of a US govt. propaganda leaflet. The original uploader claims copyright on the work, on the grounds that he created the copy. As I understand copyright law, simply copying a work doesn't transfer copyright of it. So in my opinion the work is public domain as all US govt works. I guess either way it's not a problem for inclusion on wikipedia, but for reasons of credibility the wikipedia community would benefit if this issue is resolved. Can someone help with this? Meachly (talk) 04:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I just photocopied a couple of pages out of a brand new text book at the school library. Do I now own the copyright to the 6 pages I photocopied? It's a well-written text, and I would love to just use it as my own without attributing it to its authors and editors. That's weird, Meachly. Good luck. --Blechnic (talk) 04:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you the comedian Blechnic. If you have some sort of issue with me, take it up on my talk page. And as I said in my response which you deleted in favor of your ill-willed attempt at humor,

I said that the issue was resolved, and my issue with Meachly is his disrespect to a user of 4 users when he's been involved for 3 months. It was an honest mistake on my part, but anyone who refers to me as silly and fraudulent is going to get an argument on anything I can throw at them. This is not your issue, it's none of your business, and you've added nothing to it accept now I have the knowledge about you that you may think you're sardonic and witty, when in fact you're meddling, petty, and abundantly ill-informed about the original intentions of Wikipedia. Sometimes, there are people in the world who are harried, who actually work, who don't have a lot of free time, but want to contribute something to Wikipedia of historic value. So I put a photograph of something on Wikipedia and attributed it wrongly - there are 700,000 stolen images on Wikipedia right now! I think a long time user can get one break without having to tolerate a nasty comment about my mistaken attribution. You two should get together, join Furries, and go out on a date with each other. Googie man (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I changed the tag back to PD. BTW, I recommend against using the word silly in an edit summary; it makes people less likely to accept your change. —teb728 t c 07:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Usable image?

I scanned a negative that belonged to my father who is now deceased. This is a photo of my father in a Link Trainer at Freeman Field, a Army Air Force base, taken in 1942. The photographer is unknown. I believe he had someone take the photo with his camera. Is this type of photograph acceptable and if so what copyright tag should be used? JMSchneid (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

As an anonymous work that hasn't been previously published, copyright expires 120 years after creation. You do mention however that it was taken at an Army Air Force base. Works of the United States federal government are automatically public domain. If you know that it was taken by a federal government employee(for instance the base was not open to the public, or he mentioned that a fellow soldier took the picture), you can tag it {{PD-USGov-Military-Air Force}} --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like your father owned the picture. You indicate it was his camera and I doubt the passer-by that pressed the shutter button filed for a copyright on the photo. The photo now belongs to your father's heirs and they can release the photo under any license they wish. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleting images

i have added an image and would like to delete it till i get permission from the person in the photograph. how do i do soSaratahir (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted it for you. You can also request deletion in such cases by placing {{db-author}} on the page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright Question - Rand McNally Atlas of 1895

Someone has scanned in a public domain atlas of the Unite States published by Rand McNally in 1895. The maps in question were posted by Pam Rietsch on her website which can be found here. Ms. Rietsch is claiming copyright over all the maps on her site, even these 1895 maps, even through the original document was in the public domain. Her reasoning is that she "spent thousands of hours enhancing, cleaning up etc. to make them easier" to use. She has not added anything "original" to the maps. The only thing close would be that she has posted smaller maps of individual counties scanned from the same original public domain source, which she has cropped and recolored.

Identical maps are also posted by Ray Steiner on his website, apparently from the original paper source. I have no idea who posted or scanned them first. Mr. Steiner does not appear to be claiming copyright of the 1895 maps, though he does apparently request attribution.

My understanding is that pursuant to Bridgeman_v_Corel, "exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright because the copies lack originality." I believe similar court cases held that changing the colors of a public domain map also failed to provide sufficient originality to justify a copyright, though I can't recall the specific case.

Therefore, would I be able to take the scanned state-based maps from this website and post them on wikipedia, including my own county-specific crops of the larger state image? That's seems pretty clear based on Bridgeman V Corel. I'm a little hazier on whether I could do the same with the county maps Ms. Rietsch created. In either case, I would give her attribution as the original scanner (or Mr. Steiner if I use the maps on his site).

What says the peanut gallery?Dcmacnut (talk) 01:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably bridgeman would hold in court - but do you really want to go there ? Why not just spend a little money on ebay [7] and scan the bits that you are interested in yourself ? On commons we've gone backwards and forwards on issues like this before (see [8]). Megapixie (talk) 01:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no plans on using the images at this time. I've merely been curious and was asking a more "what if" question. Many of similar maps are also available through the Library of Congress website. With your ebay analogy if I scan something public domain (which I did with Blabon, ND and Sherbrooke, ND) I could claim a more restrictive copyright right than public domain, including a commons by-sa license. I guess the fact that Ms. Rietsch is claiming copyright should be enough to give someone pause, even though the spirit of the ruling states there is no new copyright. I tried to find out if Stener or Rietsch was the original scanner, but archive.org won't show me anything for Sterner's site because of a block. Again, I was more asking for sake of discussion.Dcmacnut (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

There shouldn't be a problem, though it's slightly possible that there could be copyright in where the county maps were cropped. [9] has another set of scans of the same maps, and doesn't overtly claim copyright (though that's of course not a requirement post-1989 when there is creativity). --NE2 02:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I can't be completely sure about the digital files, but all three sites definitely used the same set of originals, since there are some stains (such as the one west of and below the label for Donnybrook, ND) that match. The Rietsch one has a higher rate of JPEG compression than the others, which is most obvious around text. The Broer one looks very slightly blurrier than the Sterner one, but otherwise identical; since the rotation is the same, they are almost certainly the same file. I myself would have no qualms about uploading the Sterner scans, which are the highest quality. --NE2 02:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

How does PD-Art cover things that are debateably two dimensional

I'm reposting a third time, since it's gone unanswered and keeps getting archived by bots:

One thing I've been wondering: how do the provisions of {{Template:PD-art}}, and by extension, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. (which explicitly mentions only two-dimensional works), cover things that are debatably two dimensional?

The two examples I am specifically thinking of are 1) coins (ancient ones, not current ones that are still within copyright), and 2) vase painting (again, thinking mostly ancient Greece). The former case is basically but not exactly two dimensional, as coins feature a certain degree of relief; the latter case is exactly two dimensional, but occurs on a three-dimensional surface. I assume that a close-up photograph of an ancient painting on a vase, one that was close enough and cropped enough to make it difficult to tell on what surface, exactly, the work occurs, would be covered by PD-Art, while a slightly wider frame, that reveals the painting to be on a curved surface, or that reveals the vase itself, would not. Or maybe not even that. I don't know; that's why I'm asking.

You can answer here or on my talkpage, whichever is convenient. Thanks in advance for the assistance. Ford MF (talk) 03:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

What you suggest regarding vase paintings more or less matches what I vaguely recall reading about them somewhere before. Unfortunately, I have no idea where I may have read that or how authoritative a source it might have been from.  :-/ Anyway, it's worth keeping in mind the reasoning behind Bridgeman v. Corel, which is that the verbatim duplication of a work involves no creativity and is thus ineligible for (separate) copyright protection. Conversely, this means that if a reproduction does involve any creative elements, even such limited ones as lighting and choice of camera angle, it's probably not appropriate to appeal to Bridgeman v. Corel in that case. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 04:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Image suitability for wiki

I wanted to contribute to wiki by attaching this image to the "Martha my Dear" Song by the Beatles.

Although the work is completely mine, I would like to know if it adheres to the wiki policies before taking any further action, given it's a derivative work from my personal interpretation of the song.

Fefogomez (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That would probably fall afoul of WP:NOR. --NE2 17:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, as a derivative of a non-free copyrighted work, it's not free. Transcribing the melody by ear is not transformative enough to eliminate the composer's original copyright claim, given that the song is still recognizably the same. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, but the idea was to put it in the article about the song, which then gets into harder questions of whether it passes WP:FUC. But we can sidestep that issue by using NOR. --NE2 20:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Questions 1- If I had copyright to my music score then would not there be any problem in publishing it? 2-What kind of music writing is one allowed to publish in wikipedia for describing a particular rhythm or a song snippet with foreknown authorship? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fefogomez (talk • contribs) 21:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You mean if you were Apple Records? Then you certainly could. --NE2 21:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I mean for example hal Leonard and others own copyright over their own music sheet transcriptions of well known artists.

I'm no expert on this so my idea is probably miles away from the truth, but if this is the introduction of a song in musical notation, acould perhaps we apply WP:SAMPLE? I know that's meant for sound recordings, but it does justify it's use on Wikipedia normally as, "Music samples can be a valuable addition to articles about bands, musical styles, and genres. They can illustrate the particular instruments or musical elements in a song in a way that a text description cannot. However, usage of such samples needs to comply with copyright law and Wikipedia's guidelines. The limitations on length and quality described here apply only to fair use samples; free content samples are not subject to these limitations.", and so doesn't explicitly say such samples have to be auditory, only non-text, and the image supplied is most certainly non-text. If a sample doesn't have to be audio, then obviously the image would still have to fit into the relevant time frame given in WP:SAMPLE, but it would be interesting if that policy can apply here or not. Deamon138 (talk) 22:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Daemon. It would be truly interesting if short classics sheet music snippets could be incorporated into corresponding articles. It would bring more interest to musicians and even interesting exchange of ideas could be put forward. Fefogomez (talk) 22:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Photo of University Shield

I'm creating a Userbox for Wikipedians from my university, the National University of Singapore (NUS). Previously I used the logo on the NUS page, but was told non-free images cannot be used for templates and userboxes. My question is, can I take a photograph of the NUS shield placed outside the library, and upload it as a copyright-free image? AbhikMajumdar (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably not. (Does freedom of panorama come into play here? I'm not sure.) --NE2 17:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Which tag is most restrictive?

I've uploaded a photo which I took and had wanted to only allow use on wikipedia although I now believe that this is not possible; can you tell me which tag is the most restrictive - ie witholds as much of my rights as possible? Cheers.

There is no "most restrictive" tag per se, but {{GFDL-1.2}} and {{CC-BY-SA}} are probably among the most restrictive options acceptable to Wikipedia. Dragons flight (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

WOMEN soccer

How many teams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.102.205 (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Written permission.

I have 2 images I uploaded recently. 1) Image:Atilla26m.jpg and 2) Image:Magyar_huszar_1850.jpg

The respective owners of the pictures have given permission in email to use the pictures on Wikipedia.

On 1) (Permission was asked for use an was given by owner of image. His email address is regiamilitiahungarorum@vipmail.hu URL is: http://erdelyikutatok.extra.hu/uploads/photos/408.jpg Appears on page: http://erdelyikutatok.extra.hu/modules/myalbum/p)

On 2) (Hungarian hussars wearing atilla. Permission was given for use, website also states that images are free to use for educational purposes. contact for images are Info@magyarhuszar.hu website is: http://www.magyarhuszar.hu/)

So the point is that in any case, there is a specific permission given, to use these images on Wikipedia, as they illustrate the subject matter, which is hard to imagine without the images themselves.

What would be the tag that I use in these cases so the images are not deleted? Thanks Thadson (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, permission to use in Wikipedia only, or educational use only is not sufficient in itself to allow use on Wikipedia. See WP:COPYREQ --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding images to a wiki entry

Hello, I have added content to a school entry for Jane Addams Business Careers Center. I put an information box on the page and would like to add a picture of the school.

I contacted our web design team, who told me simply to copy the image.

I do not know why, but when I try to upload the image it tells me the image is not permitted.

The image is a jpeg.9.8KB,the size is 300x297, the dpi is 72. The color model is RGB. Most of this information is lost on me as I do not really do much with digital photography.

I would like to add this picture and a couple others to the Jane Addams Business Careers Center page.

Thank you Teala1 (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

What exactly did the message say? --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I am usually very careful when I am troubleshooting technology to write down exactly the error message, but did not think to do that with this sad to say. I now know better. The gist of it was that this type of media was not permitted. So I double checked to see if it was a jpeg and it was.

I am wondering if it is too big??Teala1 (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Unused Public Domain images

This image, Cary1.jpg, as well as others uploaded by the same user are listed under a Public Domain license. Only one is currently being used in an article. According to WP:CSD#I5, they should be tagged with {{subst:orfud}}, however that template seems to only apply to fair-use images, not public domain. Is this correct, or should I submit these to WP:IFD? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Freely licensed or public domain images not used in an article should be moved to Commons --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course it should be reasonably believed that they are in fact freely licensed. --NE2 21:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Album cover art

Do you know if you can use album cover art from wikipedia and put it on to your ipod so the cover will show up on your ipod while the album is playing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.135.21 (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I do it all the time. It's just like copying it from Amazon or discogs in my eyes. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)