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)

Use of official seal of state and local governments in the US

As yet there seems to be no consitent treatment of how seals of state and local governments in the US are treated. What is the rule? I am specifically concerned with the use of the official seal of the City of Manhattan Beach, California, which is used at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Beach,_California -- I checked and learned that the seal as shown was changed and adopted in 1961. Can it be used here under the fair use doctrine? If so, how should the fair use rationale be completed? Thanks Oconnell usa (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately (for us), there can be no single, consistent rule for the treatment of state and local seals. The reason why is because their copyright status is judged on a case-by-case basis: for some states and locales, works created by government employees are in the public domain by default. However, in most areas copyright applies to government seals just it does for any other creative work. I don't know the status of works produced by the City of Manhattan Beach, CA, so you'd have to check. Alternatively, if it's a non-free image and you want to use it in a manner that is consistent with the non-free content criteria then see WP:FURG for information about how to create the appropriate non-free usage rationale. -- Hux (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Be aware that copyright is not the only issue relating to state seals. The Oregon State Seal, for instance, was produced in the 1850s, and is not eligible for copyright protection in the U.S.; however, there is a separate law governing its use. The seal may not be used (paraphrasing from memory, here) in any way that falsely implies official state endorsement of something. See the linked article for more detail.

In my personal, NON-LEGAL opinion, it's unlikely that any use on Wikipedia (illustrating the article on the state, for example) would violate this law; but YMMV. -Pete (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

University logo removal

Marylhurst University requests removal of its logo at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Marylhurstuni.png

There are many other images that may be used to represent the University. The University wishes to prevent misrepresentation and unapproved use of its logo. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarylhurstWeb (talk • contribs) 02:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I am under the impression, unfortunately, that the use of the logo in this encyclopedia qualifies as fair use, and is therefore allowed under U.S. copyright law without permission from the rights holder. If you feel the article is misrepresenting the University, perhaps you can point out the aspects in which it is doing so, and I (or you) can change the article to better represent the school in an unbiased way. Also, can you give any specific examples of the other images that may be used? Perhaps we can agree on a better alternate image. -Seidenstud (talk) 03:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

While it may be permissable under fair use, it puts our institution needlessly at risk ... and makes our logo available for free use through Creative Commons, which is not the University's intent. There are sites popping up on the Internet selling fake diplomas using institutions' logos; we must be vigilant in protecting the University's name. A better alternate image for Wikipedia use would be a photographic image used in University advertising. I would be happy to provide an alternate image. MarylhurstWeb (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you will protect your University by pulling down images of your logo. If websites are selling fake diplomas, you should be attacking those sites and the people who use them. A logo is something you should be proud of. You should be glad it is being displayed as when people read the article and see the logo in the future, they will think of you. Under your reasoning I should have my institution logo removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathbob (talk • contribs) 22:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Marylhurstuni.png has been marked only with a {{Non-free logo}} tag. It does not make the logo available under Creative Commons or any other free license. And it does not affect anyone’s ability to make a fake diploma. With all due respect, I can’t help suspecting that your posts here are a hoax: For I would expect that a representative of the university would come up with better reasoning than you have shown here and furthermore would have already proposed an alternative image. —teb728 t c 04:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

No organization besides Marylhurst University has the power to re-license the logo. While most of the images on Wikipedia are freely-licensed, there is no intent or ability to give the world at large the right to use the image in violation of your copyright. Fair use is not a license.

It occurs to me, though, that it's possible a blog post I published might be the source of your concern. That blog post is unrelated to the (relatively few) images that are used under fair use on Wikipedia. If I'm responsible for this confusion, please accept my apologies.

Also, please be aware that Oregon has a pretty active community of volunteers who would be happy to work with you. You could contact us here, or if you'd like to speak to someone, call me at 503-453-9766. Not that there's anything wrong with posting here, that was a good step; just offering another avenue. -Pete (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Images from ATOC

Can images be used from ATOC website. The website issues this :-

Conditions of use: You may download and print pictures from the ATOC picture library from this site for media related purposes or for your own personal use only. This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context. Where this material is reproduced, published, broadcast or otherwise issued to others the source and copyright status must be acknowledged. For commercial applications there is a reproduction charge. If you are looking for a specific photograph or wish to use photographs for a non media related purpose, please contact the ATOC press office or call us on 020 7841 8020.

Also is there an appropriate image license tag for such photos? Thank you --STTW (talk) 12:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Such terms do not constitute a free license, and therefore such images can only be used here under a claim of fair use. See WP:FUC for more details. -Seidenstud (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks Seidenstud, so I'll better look for an other option. cheers. --STTW (talk) 10:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"Where this material is reproduced, published, broadcast or otherwise issued to others the source and copyright status must be acknowledged. For commercial applications there is a reproduction charge." Does Wikipedia count as a commercial application? Surely it's not making any money. I would interpret that as saying there is no charge provided that we acknowledge the source and copyright status, which sounds pretty close to a Creative Commons attribution licence to me. Of course, I'm no expert.  :-p You could always contact them to ask for permission under such a licence, in any case. leevclarke (talk) 04:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No, this is definitely not ok here. Wikipedia requires that images be available for reuse of any kind, including commercial reuse. (Limited exceptions are provided for in WP:NONFREE.) You might want to request permission for free commercial use, though it's unlikely they'll grant it. See WP:COPYREQ for more information. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Matisse-The-Dessert-Harmony-in-Red-Henri-1908-fast.jpg

Should we tag subject image by {{PD-art-US}}? Later one (File:Matissedance.jpg circa 1909) is already tagged as {{PD-art-US}}.

If not, is it OK to have 1,476 × 1,216 pixels image tagged as fairuse?

Thanks, 4649 01:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Depends on publication date.Geni 01:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

How do we know if it was first published prior to January 1, 1923 or not? 4649 00:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

File:FaceKooLogo.png

This is the logo of the website www.facekoo.com. Should this file be tagged as public domain?--Wcam (talk) 06:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

maybe. Depends if you belive Davidyan74 and if you think they actualy have the right to make the release.Geni 13:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Does he have to do anything to prove it?--Wcam (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Please keep this conversation in one place. I'm going to reply at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2009_January_5#File:FaceKooLogo.png.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

uploading a logo

I have tried uploading a logo for a company and it has been removed. This logo was produced internally and is used across all advertising and information. What should I select for the type of copyright? i have permission to use it, but don't understand the different choices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Online Team (talk • contribs) 13:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Brightside logo.gif was deleted because it didn't have proper licensing info, and File:Brightside Group Logo.jpg was deleted because it was not being used. All images that are not free (such as a copyrighted log) must have an accompanying license tag (such as {{Non-free logo}}) and a WP:RAT, a fair use rational. You must explain why the image is used and how it qualifies for fair use (and we have helpful templates that you can fill out such as Template:Non-free use rationale. Finally, the image has to be used in the main article namespace, and nowhere else. Right now there is not Brightside Group article. You have a draft going in a user space User:Online Team/draft, however since the user space is not the main article namespace, non-free images cannot be placed there. A bot removed the image from that draft for this reason (see here). And that made the image unused. Unused, non-free images are basically automatically deleted after 7 days, so that is why the image was deleted. So, in summary, the image needs to be licensed, it needs a fair use rational, and it has to be used in an article in the main namespace (not the userspace or elsewhere). Hope this helps.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Postcard image

This postcard image of the Carson City Mint [1] is said to be in the public domain. I do not know what copyright tag to use for it. --Coingeek (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

1866 is a long time ago. I put a pd-old on it. Might be one more specific than that (first pub prior to 1923 is always PD by US laws), but it should work as is. DreamGuy (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Satellite and aerial photos by state government

I was wondering if orthoimagery from http://www.nysgis.state.ny.us was free-use. There is no cost or restraints on downloading or using images from the site as far as I can find. If images can be used from there I was wondering what the correct templates would be.Camelbinky (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Just because something is freely available does not mean it is public domain. I could not find anything one way or the other about copyright on the site, and all images are copyrighted by default. (Unless the map is so simple that it does not qualify for copyright, but that would be rare.) A few states release imagery into the public domain, but I don't believe that New York is one of them. So in sum, this image is unusable unless you can find some explicit release saying it is freely reusable. It might be worth emailing the site and asking if they would be willing to release the images under a creative commons license--see WP:COPYREQ for instructions. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

While not the orthoimagery program, I found some information related to this topic here on the GIS Clearinghouse Coordination program. They specifically say that that data is NOT public domain and explain why they think it's better that way. I really don't know enough about these programs of this topic to say whether hit is even relevant or not. But I'll echo Calliopejen1. If we have no explicit reference to the license of those images, we have to assume they are not free. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Zoological Museum of Amserdam pics: only with attribution

Ok, I have an image of the ZMA but they only allow usage with attribution. (like this one) Are we doing that? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This image on the page you linked to, when clicked larger, has a clear copyright symbol on the page. It also has a link to more legal information, which states that data can only be used for educational purposes, non-commercial, etc. All of these things are not compatible with wikipedia's image use policy, so the image cannot be uploade here (unless uploaded as a non-free image with a valid fair use rational). I hope I answered what you were asking.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I asked them, and I was told that we can use the image for wikipedia but only with attribution (U kunt de foto, met bronvermelding, gebruiken voor Wikipedia. -> "You can use the photo with attribution for wikipedia"). That was why I asked as I asked it. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires that photos be freely reusable by anyone, including derivative works and use for profit. Permission for Wikipedia alone is not enough. Please see WP:COPYREQ for sample letters asking for the required permission. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, clear now. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Since this is an extinct bird, it seems highly unlikely that someone could take a picture of it, so there could be a strong claim for fair use of that image. Alternatively, that image looks like a stuffed bird, and it may be part of the museum's collection, so if it is publicly viewable, we could try to find someone who could visit the museum, take a picture of the display, and then upload the image under a free license. Even if the stuffed bird isn't on public display, they may allow someone to come photograph it. Hmm... just some ideas.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

LIBELOUS POSTING NEEDS TO BE REMOVED

i just noticed that one of your editors posted something about me personally that is libelous and untrue and needs to be removed. What steps does one take to remedy this and file a complaint against the editor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FADEINMAG (talk • contribs) 02:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC) {{subst:uw-spa|FADEINMAG}}

nb: I've replied to this at the editor assistance page. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This role account has been blocked. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Permission

Alpha takes a photograph of (Canadian) Beta. Beta dies 2008. The photograph is on the internet. Gamma gets a copy of the photograph from Delta. Gamma uploads it to wikipedia, understanding from Delta that Alpha is cool with this. Alpha doesn't want to upload it himself. Gamma thinks Beta is notable. What is the appropriate image licence and how does Gamma set about proving it? Kittybrewster ☎ 13:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Gamma should read WP:COPYREQ and have Alpha send an email to WP:OTRS licensing the photo under under a free license. —teb728 t c 23:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Additional input needed on a ticket at PUI

A ticket at PUI has been stale for several weeks now and is causing a delay in processing the page on which it is listed. Please contribute to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 December 11#Image:Trans World Airlines N306TW 1997 1.svg if you have feedback to offer so that we might get this one closed. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Calendar Cover

I am in possession of a calendar released by St. Francis Preparatory School with images of the school in the past and a photo of the existing building. I believe these images would help in illustrating the school in its various locations during its history. However, I don't know the proper license under which to upload it or whether or not I can. I cannot find the name of the photographer anywhere on the calendar. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 22:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

We'll have to assume that the images are copyrighted. And since anyone could walk up to the school with a camera, it seems very unlike that there would be a valid fair use rational to explain the use of such non-free images. Perhaps we could find a wikipedian in that area who could go out and take a few shots.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could contact the school (or other publisher of the calendar) to identify the photographer(s). Failing that there seems no way of getting a free license for the photos. So there would be no way of using the photo of the existing building; for as Andrew c said it could be replaced by a free image. If images of the school in the past are essential to understanding the article, we might be able to use them under the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. But WP:NFCC#8 is a pretty high hurdle. —teb728 t c 23:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I live in the area of the existing building so I could do that myself. I don't know why I asked about that part. Thank you for the answers. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 01:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Question about "Bumblebee Mustang.jpg"

Hello,

I recently uploaded a picture of a yellow Roush Mustang (File:Bumblebee Mustang.jpg) and was told to find a the correct license status for the picture. However, I am unsure as to which license to choose for the picture, as I took the picture myself on my camera phone. I would greatly appreciate some help with this. Please contact me on my talk page.

ZackTuren (talk) 05:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to release the image into the public domain then add {{PD-self}}. ww2censor (talk) 05:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate the help.ZackTuren (talk) 05:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Why am I getting an image fair use message from Fairuse Bot for a sound file?

I added a couple of short sample ogg sound files to the articles for Al Hirt and Doc Severinsen. A couple of weeks later I find boilerplate messages on my talk page from Fairusebot specifically referencing use of images. They're not images, they're sound files. When first uploading them, the system even adds a copyright rationale to the file's page, such as here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Doc_chimes_festival.ogg

Any input will be appreciated. Thanks. Docsavage20 (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You need to add a fair-use rationale to the file description page. See WP:FURG. Megapixie (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The bot probably wants adjusting to mention "files" rather than "images", but its point is still valid. All media are subject to the same copyright policies as images. ~ mazca ^t|c 20:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Image size

Hi. WP:ALBUM indicates that album covers should not be larger than 300px to meet WP:NFC. Is this based on a hard and firm rule, or just a rule of thumb? If an editor were, say, replacing smaller images with larger (File:Lil'Kim-LaBellaMafia.jpg and File:LaBellaMafiaclean.jpg) how would this be handled? Ordinarily, I'd tag it {{nfr}}, but that's an odd tag to use when the image is already on wiki at a good size. Wanted to check and see if WP:ALBUM knows what it's talking about, particularly since I've already addressed one of this contributor's articles as WP:CSD#G4, and I don't want to seem bitey. Frankly, if WP:ALBUM is right, I'm still not quite sure how I'll raise the point. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not a 100% hard and fast rule but we not use bigger non-free images that what is strictly nessesary to get whatever information the image is supposed to convey across in the article. In this case I'd say put the smaller image will do just fine, so just put the original image that actualy have a rationale back and tag the redundant one with {{subst:orfud}}. --Sherool (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Or would do, but you did already. :D Doubly thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

42 year old photograph from an unknown newspaper

The following photograph was taken from a website with no attribution to it: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRImarcelloTrafficantiRagano1.jpg It comes originally from a 1966 newspaper photograph of unknown origin. The photograph was used as evidence in a trial 36 years ago. A portion of this photograph has already been used in a Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santo_Trafficante,_Jr.) and listed as "public domain." I want to use the entire photograph in a new article. Are there copyright issues? If I can use it, what information do I give for it? Please notify my TALK page of any answer.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrio (talk • contribs) 21:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Pictures of product packaging

If I recall correctly, it's prohibited to upload/use pictures of product packaging. Does anyone know where this is stated in our policies or guidelines? Tan | 39 21:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the answer, but I see images like File:Sierra mist orange lemon.jpg a lot, with free licenses (often tagged with the trademark tag as well). I'd be curious to know the answer to this as well, because it seems like freely licensed product packaging images are ubiquitous. -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Dannii Minogue picture

I have been granted permission to use this image from this website, which tag do I need to place on it? I asked this question on the Help desk and I don't feel I got the right answer can somebody please help me out?.--intraining ^{Jack In} 03:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Your second link doesn't work. Nonetheless, do you have written permission? Tan | 39 03:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh that site was working fine a few hours ago (I think we have to wait for the maintenance to be done). I do have written permission.--intraining ^{Jack In} 03:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Email me; I can best explain it there. Tan | 39 03:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

O.K. I will email you as soon as the site is up and working again.--intraining ^{Jack In} 04:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Photo and posters on uncopyrighted web site

I have been contributing to the article on the Scottsboro Boys, which does not have pictures of them. This web site has a 1930s photo of them and their attorney as well as several Communist Party posters promoting their cause. http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/a_f/boyle/chronology.htm I cannot find a copyright notice anywhere on that page in particular or that web site in general. Would it be permissible to upload and use that material?

Springfieldohio (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record, the main page has a copyright notice at the bottom. Tan | 39 16:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I spent some more time on that web site and see what you mean. However, that photo is on virtually every web site and shows up in every book about this case with no mention in any of the places that use it that it is being used with the permission of anyone else. That photo has to be in the public domain. By that rationale, would it be possible to say it was first published before 1978 without a copyright notice?

Springfieldohio (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you can't just assume that, because you cannot easily find out who owns the copyright or who took the photo, that you can say "it was first published before 1978 without a copyright notice". I looked around the Library of Congress image files and while I did not find this photo, there are a few other Scottsboro Boys photos there and all are restricted use. The likely situation is that this was taken at the jail and so would be an official work of the state of Alabama. Most states official work is copyright to them not like federal official works that are PD in the US. I did see one newspaper that published the photo. Why not ask them what the source was? You have some work to do to find the answers. Otherwise your only chance is to use it as a non-free image with a fair-use rationale claim. ww2censor (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you suggest such a fair use claim, so I can give it a shot. Again, that photo is everywere with no mention of having anyone's permission to use it. For instance, the Linder web site, while copyrighted, plainly says that he thinks his photos, including that one, are not copyrighted, but he does not know their source. "The materials included in the Famous Trials website are original works of authorship, government records, works for which copyright protection has expired, works reprinted with permission, or works that I believe are within the fair use protection of the copyright laws. If any author objects to the use of any work appearing in these pages, please contact me by e-mail and I will remove the work and review the propriety of including it. This is an educational and non-commercial site maintained at the University of Missouri-Kansas City Law School." http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/ftrials.htm The photo itself has no copyright notice or mention that anyone gave him permission to use it, so he must be relying on fair use to use it. If law Professor Linder thinks it is a fair use, one would think that there is a good case for it being a fair use.

Springfieldohio (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, one way to find out is to upload it and see what happens. I uploaded that image with my best defense for a "fair use" rationale. It is posted in the Samuel Leibowitz article, where I gave it my best shot for a "fair use" justification. If it has to be removed, it has to be removed. However, that photo is so historically important, is so old and is so unlikely to be subject to a copyright (the web site from which it came frankly says that), I hope it will either be blessed as is or someone can add the right words to make it eligible for "fair use".

Springfieldohio (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The burden of proof is up to the uploader to supply the justification based on facts not conjecture. You are trying too hard to infer this image is in the public domain without any proof. Using words like: "that photo is so historically important, is so old and is so unlikely to be subject to a copyright" is cojecture and not proof. Using a fair use rationale may be acceptable but the text fair use rational that you added to the image file is not good enough these days, you need to put the {{fair use rationale}} template into the file and fill it it completely. However, the use of the image File:Leibowitz, Samuel & Scottsboro Boys 1932.jpg in Samuel Leibowitz is definitely not acceptable until the rationale is fully completed. ww2censor (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Image submitted to the Wikipedia entry regarding William Fetter

The image I submitted was given to me personally by William Fetter. I have enhanced its contrast and filtered it for clarity in its .jpg form. As far as I know, there is no copyright on the image. It may be the first example of computer drawn three dimensional objects.

Steve Ellis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen.R.Ellis (talk • contribs) 21:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

A work with any kind of creativity is automatically copyrighted simply by being created. From the fact that he gave the image to you, I would say that you could reasonably infer only a right to use it personally not a right to publish it on Wikipedia. His heirs or the original publisher probably own the copyright. —teb728 t c 08:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Jayanthi Indian Acress.jpg

Image:Jayanthi Indian Acress.jpg is an image which was published in the news. Can this be considered as a free image? Bharathprime (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It would seem not. At the bottom of your linked page it says, "Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu" This explicitly denies free use. —teb728 t c 21:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, but it's important to note that even in the absense of such copyright notices beeing published in the news or anywhere else doesn't make anything free licensed. There needs to be an explicit statement saying the image is free licensed for it to be so (with the exception of old photos where the copyright have expired altogether, see public domain). --Sherool (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Bharathprime (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, she is alive, so the image is replaceable, so the fair-use rationale claim won't do either. ww2censor (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering if I could use a frame from her 1967 movie in the infobox. Bharathprime (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

jessica

i want to start my own radio station for my area i want to kn what and how i start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.7.69.11 (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This page is for media copyright questions only. ww2censor (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Using Text from Wikipedia on other website

I am building a website and am wondering exactly what I need to do to use the text from Wikipedia on my website and stay within the copyright guidelines.

Thanks, IkeL —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilhoskins (talk • contribs) 00:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You might want to check the FAQs, see here.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

See also WP:REUSE. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Image Use

[2]

[3]

Can this image be used? If it can, what would the license be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinosrawr (talk • contribs) 08:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I couldn't figure out for sure if it's public domain or not. Your best bet is to find out who the photographer was and the date it was taken. The other possibility is to use it under fair use, which would probably stand since he is no longer alive, but may still get deleted. For that you would use {{Non-free fair use in|Article}} and a Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 09:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinosrawr (talk • contribs) 15:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Image: A Side Productions company logo.jpg

Hi, I just uploaded the logo Image:A Side Productions company logo.jpg to A Side Productions. I would appreciate if someone could have a quick look at it and tell me if there is information missing, and if so, which? And where do I find this information? Thank you, Dafos (talk) 11:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I added the file's original source location and changed the licence from {{Non-free logo}} to {{Non-free commercial logo}}. ww2censor (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Zimbabwe Banknotes

Several images I have uploaded have been recognised as not having a Fair use rationale by FairuseBot (click first list to see the list on my talk page). I am not sure why they have been tagged as such as I believe that all have a rationale - the page they were on has since been renamed (now Banknotes of Zimbabwe rather than Banknotes of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe). I wondered whether this was the reason for the tagging or if there was any other reason for it... Thanks Mangwanani ^(talk) 17:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I did not check each of the images but the ones I looked at do not have the {{Non-free use rationale}} template added and filled in for each image; they have a short prose rationale which is why the bot noticed and tagged them. The ones I looked at showed their use in articles (near the bottom) but remember that if a fair-use image is not being used in an article it may be nominated as an orphan and deleted. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

They are in an article, just the article they say they're in is a redirection page. Is that the problem or the template? Mangwanani ^(talk) 20:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is there are no {{Non-free use rationale}} templates in the individual image files. ww2censor (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

How long do I have to ammend the issue before they're deleted? Mangwanani ^(talk) 20:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

1 week.Geni 20:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a much worse problem than the bot recognized: Banknotes of Zimbabwe has dozens of non-free images with no critical commentary. As it says in the {{Non-free currency}} tag, the image may be used only “for the purposes of commentary or criticism relating to the image of the currency itself.” The use of these images is a major violation of Wikipedia’s non-free content policy. In particular, WP:NFCC#3 says, “Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.” With critical commentary the article might be able to use one or two non-free images, but not dozens. And WP:NFCC#8 says, “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.” The images are used only as illustrations; the text is perfectly understandable without the images. —teb728 t c 20:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Three points: (i) The policy refers to used for the purposes of commentary or criticism relating to the image of the currency itself - not critical commentary only. The article Banknotes of Zimbabwe contains commentary on most (all?) of the notes - that is what the article is. (ii) Is it relevant that the majority of the images are of former currency units? (iii) How is this different from e.g. Euro banknotes or Banknotes of the Swiss franc? Babakathy (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#8 requires not only "commentary or criticism" but significance so strong that omission would be detrimental to understanding the article. As for the other two articles, the images there are free (PD or licensed); so their use is not restricted by WP:NFCC. —teb728 t c 23:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC) If there are other articles with comparable multiple non-free images of banknotes, the images should be removed from them as well. —teb728 t c 23:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There are articles like this for most currencies. I don't see why the images can't be used under fair use policy (most of them are worthless, no one can make any money out of them and let's face it, what would forging Zimbabwe dollars do for anyone?!). I would however, like to draw your attention to this page. Surely these guidelines exist within the Numismatics WikiProject because they have had the go ahead by those with copyright paranoia. Why would numismatics editors be TOLD to present the articles in such a manner if it was not allowed? Mangwanani ^(talk) 16:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The WikiProject Numismatics style guideline for currency articles works fine for free images, but for non-free images it conflicts with Wikipedia’s non-free content policy. In order to increase the reuseability of articles, that policy is intentionally much more restrictive than fair use law. I have IFD’d File:Zimbabwe $2 1980 Obverse.jpg as a test case. —teb728 t c 02:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The cause of the problem is in fact just the name change. I don't think the bot can recognise page moves so therefore the simplest solution is to update the rationale to point to the current name. However I did take an opportunity to have the rationale of most images updated. --Marianian (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Update: I have revised the rationale of all affected images and should now point to the current article. --Marianian (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment:

Copyright in Legal Tender Notes and in Coin

50.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Part II, copyright shall subsist in bank notes and coin issued by the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe in terms of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Act [Chapter 22:10], whether before, on or after the appointed date, which is legal tender in Zimbabwe and—

(a) such copyright shall vest in the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe;

(b) the term of such copyright shall be the period from the date on which such bank notes or coin are issued until such bank notes or coin are demonetized in terms of the said Act.

(2) Coins to which subsection (1) applies and the artistic work defining the design of any such coin shall, for the purposes of this Act and the Designs Act, not be considered to be designs.

— Zimbabwe: Copyright, Act

[4]

I take this to mean that once the notes have been demonetized (which most in the article have) the copyright ceases to exist. Mangwanani ^(talk) 14:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Sergio Galindo

I have a photo of the Mexican novelist Sergio Galindo that I want to upload to the Wikipedia article about him that I have authored. The photo appeared on the cover of the following publication:

Galindo, Sergio (1970). Nudo. Mexico City: Editorial Joaquín Mortiz.

No copyright or authorship is indicated in the book, and the copyright for the book is now owned by the author's widow, Angela Gonzalez de Galindo, who also owns the original photograph. The photograph was scanned and sent to me at her request by the author's son, Manuel Galindo. Sra Gonzalez de Galindo does not recall who took the photograph, which was taken over forty years ago.

I would appreciate advice. Thanks!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjholula (talk • contribs) 19:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

copyright category

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do. The link gave me all these letters that make no sense. What I have is a drawing that was done by a friend. He used a NASA image for part of it. He has sent a letter saying he gives his permission. It seems I have to pick some category to classify the image. I could just try one after the other to see what works, but there are many categories. The last time I asked a question, I was told to read the directions. I don't understand the directions, but I guess you do not have the time to help me. Jim```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmarsmars (talk • contribs) 20:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What are the exact terms of permission your friend has give you?Geni 20:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

And which specific image are you talking about, if already uploaded. You have edited some images, so we don't know which one you are referring to. ww2censor (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You’re asking about File:TEMPO3picture.jpg, right? (It would have been helpful if you had said so in your question.) Did your friend give you permission only for use on Wikipedia? If so, you need to know that Wikipedia requires a free license that allows reuse anywhere by anyone for anything. There are several licenses that give that permission. Some popular free free license tags are {{cc-by-3.0}} and {{GFDL}}. Or if your friend gives up his copyright, you could tag it with {{PD-author|name}}. —teb728 t c 22:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I'm sorry I did not mention that the picture was TEMPO3picture.jpg. I was totally confused. I'm starting to understand. Now if my friend has granted me permission to only use it for Wikipedia, what do I do? Is there a form for him to fill out? Does he send you a letter? Do you take my word for it? Thanks, Jim ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmarsmars (talk • contribs) 20:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough: Permission for use only on Wikipedia is not acceptable. If that is the permission, the image must be deleted. —teb728 t c 01:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

My friend would like to have the picture on Wiki; he would probably give me permission to use it in any of the categories. Which category of permission would be easiest to use? How does he give permission? Does he write a ltetter? send an email? fill out a form? Thank you, I feel like I'm heading toward a solution. Jim Jimmarsmars (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

More details for donating images to this wiki are here depending on how you and your friend want to handle it but remember, as was already mentioned, that Wikipedia use only is not acceptable. ww2censor (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Picture of the Health Museum

Hello, I have some picture of The Health Museum I would like to add to their wikipedia page. The last time I added them, they were deleted. What do I need to do I get them accepted? They're part of the press kit from the museum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thm wiki (talk • contribs) 22:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears, based on your username, that you are affiliated with The Health Museum. (FYI usernames that imply affiliation with a company are discouraged; since it's a somewhat cryptic acronymn, though, I don't think it's so bad you'll be blocked and forced to choose a new name.) For photos to be included in Wikipedia (with few exceptions), they must be available under a free license. This means that they must be available for anyone to use for any purpose (including commercial use and derivative works). A list of suitable licenses is available at WP:ICTIC. Since these are press kit images, we would need confirmation from an official email address that this is authorized by the museum. See WP:COPYREQ for instructions on this. I would advise choosing a license, uploading the images, placing the chosen license tag on the image pages (e.g. {{cc-by-sa}}, see instructions at the top of the page if you need help), sending the permission email, and tagging the images {{OTRS pending}} which indicates that permission has been sent. (If this tag remains on the image for a long time without someone who staffs Wikipedia confirming the permission, the image will be deleted.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance, I'm just trying to help out. =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thm wiki (talk • contribs) 22:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Old image digitalised

I was hoping to add the image found at [5] to Laurie Nash. It's known as the iconic image of Nash and has been used in a number of books mentioning him. The image was created in 1936 and under Australian law is in the Public Domain. Is the laws about PD different if a PD image is digitalised (as this one is)? Or do I need to scan the image from a book (hunting down a scanner in the meanwhile)? --Roisterer (talk) 05:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

As long as you can attribute where you got the image and explain why it is public domain ({{pd-because|reason}}), it's fine. Stifle (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much! --Roisterer (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Vishnu Gotra In Brahmin Cast

sir

Just tell me about vishnu gotra

Thanking you

B.K.Mishra

<email removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.143.166 (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over two million articles, and thought that we were directly affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the online free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is a help desk for asking questions related to using the encyclopedia. Thus, we have no inside track on the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the left hand side of your screen. If that is not fruitful, we have a reference desk, divided into various subjects areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. Stifle (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Paul von Hintze

So, the image File:hintze.jpg has been tagged for deletion, on the grounds that there's no information about its source. It is true, there's no information about its source. That being said, the image is about 99% likely to be in the public domain. Hintze is depicted in his uniform, and he retired from the Navy in 1911. It is very doubtful he would have worn his uniform for a portrait after the end of the German Empire in 1918, which would put this image solidly in the public domain. In addition, Hintze was 59 in 1923, when copyrights expire - he pretty clearly does not look to be over 60 in the image. Beyond that, even if, by some chance, the image was taken after 1923, the chances are still pretty damned high that it's in the public domain. Works published between 1923 and 1964 (and Hintze died in 1941) are only considered under copyright if a) a copyright notice was attached when originally published; and b) if the copyright was renewed in the 28th year after publication. The idea that what is presumably a German portrait from the 1920s (at latest) would have had its U.S. copyright renewed is close to unbelievable. So, while I can't prove that this image is in the public domain, it's incredibly likely that it is. Surely whatever applies to allow File:Daladier.jpg to be on the commons ought to apply to this image. john k (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. File:hintze.jpg has no source indicated while File:Daladier.jpg has its source indicated. If you want to prove it is in the public domian then you need to prove that not infer it. A source might help answer that question. The text fair use rational is not good enough these days, you need to put the {{fair use rationale}} template into the file and fill it it completely which includes providing the source which is a requirement. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

To be honest I would be inclined to accept this as PD on the balance of probabilities. Stifle (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

john k's argument holds only if the photo was published before 1923 or if it was first published in the US before 1964. It does not hold if it was first published abroad (e.g. in Germany) after 1923 even if it was taken before 1923. —teb728 t c 22:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, a few points. Firstly, by "source" what are we talking about? The Daladier image just notes that it comes from a French government website but has no further information about when it was taken. I'm no longer sure where I got the image file from, but if I download a lower resolution version of the same image from here and say that's where I got it from, does that satisfy the "source" requirement? Other than the fact that the French government is perhaps a more reliable source than firstworldwar.com, I don't see how the information on the origins of the Daladier image are any more detailed than providing that about Hintze. I terms of TEB's comments about public domain, I will admit that I'm not an expert on copyright law, and stipulate that he's right. That being said, the probability is still quite strong that the image was published before 1923. But whatever. The whole treatment of images on Wikipedia is absurd. We have here an image which is most likely public domain, which, even if it is not public domain, is never going to actually be claimed as a copyright violation, and whose use would arguably be fair use even if it isn't public domain and is claimed as a copyright violation. And yet we can't use it, apparently. I'd add that, although I have no wish to see it deleted, because that would be ridiculous, by these standards, the Daladier image is pretty clearly on shaky ground as well. The image page provides absolutely no evidence that the picture is more than 70 years old, or that its author never disclosed his identity. Daladier was prime minister until 1940 and lived until 1970. And we know absolutely nothing of the author - we have nothing but the uploader's word that it's anonymous. john k (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

atlanta falcons logo/trademark

i am an upholsterer and would like to use the falcons logo on a car seat which i will offer for sale. what would i need to do to sell this product legally and not infringe on any copyrights vialotions. or how do i obtain permission to sell these car seats. is there a per use fee or per year fee? excuse my ignorance. thank you. 74.160.69.215 (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You should contact the Atlanta Falcons directly and/or a lawyer. We are Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, and we cannot give legal advice. —teb728 t c 22:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Book of Luke.jpg

I'm just wondering about the copyright status of this image, is the copyright owned by the publisher of the book or is bible text in the public domain? Guest9999 (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The original text would be public domain, but some translations would be copyrighted. I believe this is the King James version. It's sort of a special case; it's public domain in the US, which is good enough for inclusion Wikipedia, though it may still be copyrighted in the UK. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, should the copyright tag on the image be changed from cc-self to public domain then? Guest9999 (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No, because there is creativity in the photography so there could be copyright in the photograph. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. Guest9999 (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

US Navy Images Question

Hi, I want to upload images of SS Europa (1930) from [6] to Wikimedia Commons but I don't know who is the author of those work and are they free? If so, what copyright tag should I use? Aquitania (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If they're verified as Navy photos, you can use {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}} as a license template. Howover, I looked at the source site and they don't say the photos are from the Navy. FYI, it looks like the German government has donated a lot of photos of that ship to Wikipedia. Kelly ^hi! 00:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure where to put this.

[7] I want to add it to the Tōhoku Daigaku Karei Igaku Kenkyūjo Kawashima Ryuta Kyōju Kanshū Chotto Nō wo Kitaeru Otona no DSi Training article, as it shows an aspect of the game's development - however, there doesn't seem to be any licensing to place it under, and no way to get it released by Nintendo. Can anyone give me assistance? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously a copyright image of a major corporation. Assuming (usually a bad thing to do) that there is no way of making a replaceable image at some game show or other event (even if you can't do it yourself), then the only thing you can do is to justify its use under the fair-use doctrine by following the fair-use guidelines and adding the {{Non-free use rationale}} template to the uploaded image. ww2censor (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I checked out the fair-use guidelines, and I strongly believe it applies - it cannot be replaced, and it provides significant commentary for the article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I was pointed here

so hopefully you can help. Copy-'n'-paste of my message from WT:CP:

I nominated the article Paul Grassi for deletion a few days ago, and while it looks like the article is probably going to be kept (if only as a redirect), there are three images on it that had uncertain copyright and source status. I told the uploader to specify their statuses, and he did on Talk:Paul Grassi. I have no idea if his specifications are sufficient, or if they are, what to put on the pages for the three images in question.

Hopefully someone can help me out here. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 04:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No release under a free license so we can't use them. Permissions would probably need to sent to permissions@wikimedia.org.Geni 23:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Image use

The owner of the image I posted is the United National Gridiron League, but I'm not sure how do add that. It's the logo for the league. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearsfan1234 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The file needed a copyright tag such as {{non-free logo}} and a non-free use rationale. I have provided them for you; see the changes here. —teb728 t c 03:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

new logo for Berwick Academy

the current logo image for Berwick Academy is out of date. The file is Berwick_Logo.jpg. We have moved to a new logo image for the school, which you can see on our website www.berwickacademy.org. How would I go about uploading the new logo image for Berwick Academy?

Images from out of copyright book

Hi, I have a book from 1906 downloaded from the Internet Archive, which indicates that it is out of copyright and so apparently now in the public domain. I'd like to use several images from one chapter. What is the procedure for using these, especially declaring that they are out of copyright, suitable for use in a Wikipedia article, etc? Any guidance would be appreciated. Thanks.
John. Jomeara421 (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Just be sure to indicate the source (the book's name and date is fine, but an internet archive link is also useful) and tag the image with {{PD-US}}. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you. Jomeara421 (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Contd... Replaceable fair use Image:Jayanthi Indian Acress.jpg

I was about to add a frame capture from a Jayanthi starer 1967 movie in the infobox (for article Jayanthi (actress)). Please let me know if it's ok. Bharathprime (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Quote: However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable. (from Wikipedia:Non-free content) Thanks, Bharathprime (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)