Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mdavidson98 (talk | contribs) at 05:21, 17 November 2009 (→‎About Copyright law for Images: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Active editnotice

Skip to the bottom


    Media copyright questions
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Click here to start a new discussion

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


    File talk:Derain CharingCrossBridge.png

    see there. 212.199.200.76 (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Assuming that this painting was hung publicly before 1923, I don't see the issue. Steve Smith (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that public display generally does not amount to publication. TJRC (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, my bad on that point. Steve Smith (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Stephen Fishman, The Public Domain (4th ed., 2008), p. 128: "Simply putting a work on display and allowing the public to copy it is not enough to make the work published for copyright purposes, as long as the work was created after 1977. Before then, a work of art was considered published if it was displayed to the public and the public was allowed to copy it freely." — Walloon (talk) 14:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah - then my bad on falsely acknowledging an earlier bad. I'm just going to back slowly away from this thread now. Steve Smith (talk) 14:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds wrong to me. Pre-1978, publication was the event that typically took an unpublished work out of the state-law-based copyright system, and put it into the federal copyright system. If the publication was with notice, then copyright subsisted; if not; it didn't. The heart of publication always has been distribution. I don't know what Fishman is relying on, but there may have been some cases that construed giving permission to copy without requiring a notice to amount to distribution of copies, which has a certain amount of common-sense appeal. Such a distribution without notice would put it (uner the laws of the time) into the public domain. But I'm not aware of those cases. I can't say they don't exist, but I'e not come across them. Even the close cases, like the one about the Oscar statuettes, required a distribution in order to find the limited publication that brought it into the federal system (but was less than the general publication that would have required a notice to put something in the public domain. It would be interesting to know what cases her's relying on to come up with that. In any event, it seems like the part about "and the public was allowed to copy it freely" is a critical aspect of it. TJRC (talk) 02:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears that this is part of the permanent collection of the National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC (i.e. owned by the Federal government) Smallbones (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ownership by the federal government does not have an impact on its copyright. Authorship by the federal government is what makes a work not subject to copyright under section 105. TJRC (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why this didn't jump out at me earlier, but more importantly, ownership of the copy (even the original) is not the same as ownership of the copyright. Even if the U.S. Government owned the copy that was on display in the NGA, that does not mean that the U.S. Government ever owned the copyright. And then, even if it did (and here's where the section 105 issue comes in), section 105 does not prevent the U.S. government from owning copyrights; it just prevents the U.S. government from obtaining copyrights by virtue of its own authorship. TJRC (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay use or derivative work?

    Hi. I'm courtesy listing an image question here that needs resolution at Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Illustration_workshop#Add color to the drawing. Can textures modified from a copyrighted photo be transposed to a drawing, or does that constitute a derivative work? Please, if you can shed light, answer there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no copyright issues for works in the public domain, since noone holds copyright. You can use them as you see fit with or without credit and without restrictions. — raeky (talk | edits) 17:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, I think she knows that. She's asking whether a specific extraction of material from a copyrighted source for use in a public domain source constitutes a work derivative of the copyrighted work (in which case the copyright would follow to the new work). I'm not good at evaluating the threshold of creativity, so I have no useful thoughts. Steve Smith (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, thanks, that's exactly what I'm wondering. With visual work, I share your difficulty evaluating the threshold. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Using a copyrighted source for color inspiration in a painting I doubt constitutes a derivative work, is the copyrighted source very near identical in position/pose of the public domain outline that is being colored? — raeky (talk | edits) 19:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I gather of the situation, the image was used more than for "color inspiration". The non-free image was used directly, but heavily photoshopped to alter it to match up better with the drawing and to remove scratches, and to filter it so it looks more like coloration and shading, than a superimposed photo. The question is probably similar to this. Was the original altered enough so that it is no longer a derivative work (and while we are at it, was the underlying line drawing simply a trace/"line inspiration" drawing of that same photo? would that be a derivative work as well, or does mechanically drawing a photo transfer the copyright?)-Andrew c [talk] 19:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's the situation as I understand it. Sorry I didn't go into details; it's all set out at the thread I linked. This was more by way of request for feedback there. However, now that it's more fully explained here, you can see the images with and without color at the top of that link. The copyrighted source is at this pdf (which currently is not loading for me, but I know it does work; I've seen it. :)) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is really a borderline case. My personal opinion is that it's best we stick with the black and white version and try to obtain a new photograph of it at our earliest convenience. The colored version isn't a substantial enough improvement to justify the risk here. I admit I am being really conservative though. Dcoetzee 07:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, I'm the one who colored the pic. So feel free to ask if you have any further questions. Andrew c summed up pretty well what I did. When I did the coloring, I did not consider it as a copyright violation. If you look at the color of the image (the black lines are public domain), you'll see that it has very little details. It is basically an orange-to-brown gradient for the shell and some shades of grey and blue for the head. I'd consider this to be too simple and vague to deserve copyright status. Then again, I have little clue about those legal issues and where to draw the line of copyright violation. As for the original line drawing, it is most certainly also based on the same copyright image from that pdf. There are very few pictures of that snail around and the line drawing fits almost perfectly to the copyrighted photograph. However, I don't think this is our problem, because the line drawing was not made by an editor here but taken from a PD publication of the US Fish and Wildlife Service. SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 23:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Splette, has taken a copyrighted image, altered it and used it. He even said, that that he did it exactly like this. It is definitely copyright violation. (I am sorry to say that, because I proposed to color it. The correct way is like this: Look at it photo how it look like and then draw completely by yourself.) --Snek01 (talk) 10:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What admin speedy deleted the image? It isn't blatant copyright infringement and therefore should have been taken to PUF. ZooFari 17:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Public domain video

    Would CC camera footage from the US Fort Hood shootings be in the public domain? It seems they should be under PD-USGov. The footage in question. The talk page discussion about it. Copana2002 (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Depends. A work produced by a federal government worker (which would include those serving in the army) in the course of their official duties is in the public domain by default. However, you can't automatically assume that CCTV cameras on the base are owned and operated by the US Army. For example, local police officers work on the base and they're not covered by the federal public domain rule. Do they own the CCTV equipment? Or perhaps it's run by a third party contractor. So, we need more info, basically. -- Hux (talk) 07:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction: having checked your link, that footage is not from CCTV cameras. It's clearly from hand-held cameras and could easily be news media footage, for all we know. Without clear evidence of it being in the public domain, we have to assume that it's copyrighted. -- Hux (talk) 07:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Google Maps...again?

    Hello. It's always been my understanding that Google Maps images cannot be used on Wikipedia (or any derivative works of Google Maps) as there is no compatible license nor does Google allow it (Their copyright policy indicates that images from Google Maps cannot be republished, re-edited, ect without explicit permission which Google does not give Wikipedia). So if that is the case, then Google Maps images should be eligable for speedy deletion under F3.... I tagged File:Argleton - Google Maps 1257569106217.png for deletion but the uploader indicated to me to that there are several images in the article Google Maps, screenshoted from Google Maps. I realize that per WP:OTHERSTUFF, pages for deletion are to be considered on their own merit, but on the Google Maps article, all the images except for one seem to be copyright violations. Yet, somehow, they have survived for over 11 months. Could someone please clarify things for me? Thanks in advance. Confused, FASTILYsock (TALK) 06:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've just had a look at Google Permissions, which suggests that a claim of fair use may be valid without permission from Google. On the other hand, it also suggests that a screenshot must include the attribution text and that the text be legible. I'll gladly defer to the judgement of others here, but if it helps then I can retake the screenshot with the attribution text intact. Small-town hero (talk) 07:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Google's permissions are completely irrelevant to whether or not material can be used under fair use; fair use is, by definition, use of copyrighted work without the approval of the copyright holder. In this case, the non-free use rationale seems to be adequate, and so the image should not be deleted (and certainly not without a deletion discussion). Steve Smith (talk) 10:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. This is exactly what Fair Use is for: critical commentary on Google's mapping itself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that the copyright of satellite image belongs to someone else and not Google. Plus, an external link would likely be sufficient - a direct image is not really needed. SYSS Mouse (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Images in a Pennsylvania sculpture garden

    This question regards File:MatsudaBldg.jpg and File:McCut.jpg, which depict sculptures found at the Abington Art Center north of Philadelphia. These are clearly derivative images; do we have any way of finding out whether the sculptures are in the public domain, or if they've been released under a free license? Powers T 21:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unless we can establish that those sculptures are sufficiently old/have been published sufficiently long ago to be in the public domain, those images are non-free and can only be used under the non-free content criteria. Steve Smith (talk) 02:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I figured, but I wasn't sure what tag to put on them. Powers T 02:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say the correct approach is to list them at WP:PUI. Steve Smith (talk) 02:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    EU presidency insignia

    I have downloaded three files from this website, which allows their use. Actually, the website's only purpose is to host the files for public download. The EU wants use to use them, as long as we do not abuse them. I have given the link to the source when uploading the files. So, I do not understand why my talk page is pestered with three template messages. Isn't the case obvious enough? Tomeasy T C 21:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The notice on your talk page pretty much explains the issue (as does the notice on the actual images). This image or media does not have information on its copyright status. and If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. These images are lacking copyright tags. Problem is, it isn't clear from the page you've linked to what the copyright status is. Being made available for the public to download is different from "public domain". Two very different things. Is there some underlying EU law regarding PD content? In the US, works of the government are generally PD, but I don't know about the EU. But then again, after looking at the images, you could probably just tag them with {{PD-textlogo}}. While it may not be entirely apparent, all images on wikipedia need a copyright tag attached to the image description page. You have the option to choose from a number of licenses during the upload process, and there is a bigger list at WP:TAG that you can manually add after you upload. Once you find the right tag for these images (if there is one), then simply add the tag to the image page. You may want to look at other images for example purposes. Hope this helps. -Andrew c [talk] 22:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks a lot for your detailed explanation.
    I have read the messages on my talk page, and I understood that I was asked to put the tag. The problem is that I do not know which one. It is more than obvious to me that the EU wants people to use these logos and therefore hosts this site. However, as you also explained, this does not mean they are public domain. Well, and at this point, I have to admit that I am no expert in the field of copyrights. I was hoping that the person who left the messages, who certainly knows this much better than I, could easily add the proper tags. Probably, this is too much asked, because my case is not the only case this editor is dealing with.
    Do you think it would be OK if I used a little bit of common sense and pick a license tag that I find appropriate even if, most probably, it is not the correct one? I would not have a problem with this approach, as I am certain we are not doing wrong using these logos. I was just afraid that Wikipedia would not appreciate such sloppy approach.
    I could think of {{non-free symbol}} or {{non-free logo}}. They are related, but I would guess that we are free to use these logos. At least we would have tags then. Please let me know what you think. Tomeasy T C 08:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Those tags are for non-free content, and would be appropriate if you have no evidence that the content is licensed freely (and if you believe they meet our strict WP:NFCC policy. Keep in mind Wikipedia favors free content, and thus severely restricts if and when we use "fair use"/non-free content). If you are to tag those images as non-free, you'd also need to write a fair use rationale, per WP:FURG, and make sure all 10 points of WP:NFCC are met. The only other possibly tag I can think of is the one I already mentioned, {{PD-textlogo}}. I'm pretty sure that even adding funky flag color schemes to basic lettering does not make it any more eligible for copyright, but it doesn't hurt to seek another opinion. Let's see if anyone else has some ideas. -Andrew c [talk] 14:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks again. I also look forward to hearing more opinions. Perhaps someone can point at a tag and say this is exactly what we need here. That would be great.
    For the time being, I will add the tag you proposed, to ensure that my uploads will not be deleted. Tomeasy T C 16:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for being stupid, but I do not find where/how to add the tag. Can you help me out? Tomeasy T C 17:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, hit the big "edit" tab at the top of the page. Copy and paste the template into the edit box. Hit save. The "template" is everything between the curly brackets (including the double curly brackets). Often, people create a heading that says "Licensing" or something along those lines. Look at the code for File:Activision.svg if you need an example. Hope this helps. -Andrew c [talk] 18:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh my God - so easy. Now, I feel ashamed. Thanks again for your help.
    I have looked up other EU presidency insignia (as they are called). Those which are of comparable simplicity use the same license rationale. The more evolved logos use the fair-use rationale and carry lots of explanation.
    I hope this issue is now solved. Probably, I should not be the one who removes the warning from the file page, or may I do this? Tomeasy T C 19:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I just realized there were instructions for this at the top of this page (under the box). Ha. Anyway, the template says the warning can be removed if a copyright tag has been added. -Andrew c [talk] 18:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK thanks for the entire support you gave. Tomeasy T C 18:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Player Photos

    Can you upload photos of athletes that are taken as to promote to organisation and use in an article when there are no non-free alternatives? (Example Ryan Searle) I don't know much about images apart from ones I take myself or are logos :P Cheers JRA_WestyQld2 Talk 02:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a presumption of replaceability for photographs of living people - that is, unless you can convince us otherwise, we assume that non-free images of living people are replaceable by free ones, since anybody could go out and take a picture of them, and then release it under a free license. There are rare exceptions (famous recluses, for example), but I don't think any active athlete is going to qualify, since by the nature of their profession they tend to be out in public a lot. So, in short, that image isn't usable on Wikipedia. Steve Smith (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Understandable, thanks for the clarification. JRA_WestyQld2 Talk 02:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Uploading copyrighted content from owner

    Hey, I'm working on a wikipedia article for a tv program, and I'm not sure what to list for copyright info for the photo. The source of the photo is not a website, as I'm doing it for the company the photo was supplied directly. I was not given any written permission, just the photo for the purpose of putting on the website. I have read that specific permission for wikipedia is not allowed, do I need them to write me an official statement declaring that it is a promotional photo? I have direct access to the owners, so I can pretty much get anything... Whatever's easiest I guess. Thanks in advance BunnySound (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If you can get whatever you want, I would suggest you get them to send the following e-mail to permissions-en@wikimedia.org: "We hold the copyright for File:NAMEOFFILE on the English Wikipedia, and hereby release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, allowing for unlimited re-use by any person for any purpose, including derivative works, subject only to the requirement of attribution and the requirement that any derivative works be released under a similar license." Then, tag the image page with {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. Steve Smith (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I forgot one thing, however, and I'm not sure how it affects things. I and the company are in Canada, does that mess with the creative commons stuff in any way?BunnySound (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not in the least (so am I, actually). Steve Smith (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, thank you. One last thing, the photo is of characters which are of course copyrighted. Would sending that letter simply mean that the specific photo could be used, without undermining any other copyrights? This may be a silly question, but this whole world of copyright and fair use is fairly new to me. I'm just an assistant making this page as a side project, so there's lots to learn.BunnySound (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume that the copyright of the characters is held by the people you're working with, there's no problem; the licensing would only be for the specific image (and works that can be derived from that specific image), and not for the underlying characters. If the characters are owned by somebody else, then depending on the nature of the picture and the characters you might need permission from those owners too. Steve Smith (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much, you've been extremely helpful!BunnySound (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I should also mention that if the owners don't want to release the image under that license, it would probably be possible to use a single shot in the article even without them needing to release it. I can give you more details on that approach if you like; the downside is that it's more complicated and the terms under which you can use the image are more strict, while the upside (from the owners' perspective) is that they don't relinquish any control over the image's use. Steve Smith (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That might be worth it, if you don't mind. Then when I talk to them next I have a couple options... As long as I've got you here. Very appreciated!BunnySound (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, American law includes a concept called fair use (which is similar to the Canadian concept of fair dealing) which allows for copyrighted works to be used under certain conditions without the permission of the copyright holders, so if we went that route we wouldn't need the owners to do anything by way of permission. Wikipedia voluntarily uses fair use images only in very narrow circumstances, defined by our non-free content criteria. In brief, this means that in the article about the show we could probably only use a single low resolution image, and would have to make the case that the use of that image significantly increased the reader's understanding of the article. If we go the CC-BY-SA approach, on the other hand, we could use as many images as the owners were willing to license, and at whatever resolution we could get (but, once the owners licensed those images, anybody else could also use them for any reason). If you decide to go the fair use route, let me know (either here or on my talk page), and I'll help you jump through those hoops. Steve Smith (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    james thackara.jpg

    I have a letter from the person who took the photograph of tghe above subject. How do I indicate taht this photo can ben shownb on the wikipedia. Thanks very muchLumenlitt (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately, to be usable on Wikipedia the photographer must not only give permission for it to be used on Wikipedia, but to be used by any person for any purpose (this is because of Wikipedia's own rules, not because of broader copyright law). If the photographer is prepared to grant this permission, the simplest thing would be for him/her to e-mail permissions-en@wikimedia.org an e-mail with the following content: "I hold the copyright for File:ames thackara.jpg on the English Wikipedia, and hereby release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, allowing for unlimited re-use by any person for any purpose, including derivative works, subject only to the requirement of attribution and the requirement that any derivative works be released under a similar license." Then, tag the image page with {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. Steve Smith (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, the person who took the photograph of File:James_Thackara.jpg is happy to have it inserteded inte the eponymous's article and have it downloaded and or reproduced for free with no attribution. Does that suffice for what is needed by Wikipedia? If so how do I get that information to you? If you need more can you tell me? Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumenlitt (talk • contribs) 11:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is sufficient for Wikipedia (provided that he/she's okay with the picture being used for commercial purposes, and with derivative works being produced). Have him/her send an e-mail to permissions-en@wikimedia.org explaining this, and then tag the image with {{PD-release}}. Steve Smith (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I need to add copyright info for the two images I uploaded, but can't make any sense of the info you provide. It is our company logo and a photo of our headquarters buildings. We own both images. I am not sure how to label them. Can you provide detailed guidance? I think all will be removed by 11/15/09 if I don't fix it, but I can't figure it out. (see EWEBlogo.jpg and EWEBheadquarters.jpg).

    --Ksproles (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Katie[reply]

    Hi Katie - there are some complications here. I doubt that EWEB wants to release its logo under a free license (which would allow any person to use it for any purpose), which means that it will need to be used under fair use. That's fine, but not until EWEB has a proper Wikipedia article (as we don't allow the use of fair use images in userspace). If you want to contact me either here or on my talk page when that happens, I can help you out with things then. The headquarters picture is a little tougher: I don't think it's okay for fair use under Wikipedia policies, so if you want to use it the copyright holder will have to release it under a free license. If they're prepared to do so, have them send the following e-mail to permissions-en@wikimedia.org: "We hold the copyright for File:EWEBheadquarters.jpg on the English Wikipedia, and hereby release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, allowing for unlimited re-use by any person for any purpose, including derivative works, subject only to the requirement of attribution and the requirement that any derivative works be released under a similar license." Then tag the image page with {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. Steve Smith (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Nord Stream

    Hello.

    I wan't to use this map of the proposed Nord Stream pipline, taken from the press kit at Nord streams webpage. Here are the details page of the image , it says "Photo may be used to accompany reports on Nord Stream provided the source is mentioned. Resale to third parties is prohibited". Do that mean that we can use it with the Non-free promotional tag?

    Thanks in advance! The Illusional Ministry (talk) 00:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That's not free enough for our purposes, since it limits the purpose for which it can be used and says nothing about derivative works. The {{non-free promotional}} tag is for works used under fair use (i.e. those for which the copyright holder's terms are irrelevant). I don't see a rationale for using this image that would allow it to pass the non-free content criteria (in particular the replaceability one). Sorry. Steve Smith (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, pity. Well, thanks anyway for your fast and unerring reply Steve. The Illusional Ministry (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete my file

    Why will delete my file File:Van Meeuwen en Meijwes van Meeuwen familiewapen.jpg]] (by van Meeuwen). The whole picture is made by myself, see [1] (original is the picture made by my friend David Jan van Meeuwen. I hope that my picture will not delete, because the file contains not copyright. Thank you. --Jansma (talk) 08:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A few things:
    • If you copied this off something designed by your friend, then your friend has a copyright interest in it (depending on the closeness of the copy, you may not have such an interest). Accordingly, he would need to be the one to release it under a license.
    • The image doesn't currently specify a license. To be used on Wikipedia, an image must normally be released under a license that allows for unlimited reuse by any person for any purpose; an example of that is the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. If you wanted to license your image under that license, you would tag the image page with {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}.
    I hope this helps. Steve Smith (talk) 08:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Providing copywright Excuse repition. This time I signed my query

    Hello, the person who took the photograph of File:James_Thackara.jpg is happy to have it inserted inte the eponymous's article and have it downloaded and or reproduced for free with no attribution. Does that suffice for what is needed by Wikipedia? If so how do I get that information to you? If you need more can you tell me? Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumenlitt (talk • contribs) 11:44, 11 November 2009 (UTCLumenlitt (talk) 11:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Please ask the photographer to follow the process set out at WP:IOWN so that the permission can be recorded appropriately. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you should read the reply to your first topic, and if you have additional questions or concerns, ask them in that topic, as opposed to starting a new one. See your original post. -Andrew c [talk] 17:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Cincinnati Bearcats.svg

    What do you think of File:Cincinnati Bearcats.svg? I've been going through the overuse of non-free college logos, and replacing most of them with free, PDtext alternatives. I came across File:Cincinnati Bearcats.svg, and was about to replace it with a text only version, when I realized that the "claws" are possibly commas. If this is entirely made up of typographical elements, would it then qualify of PD-text? Or does the unique sizing and use of the comma (if it is a comma) qualify for copyright? I've been looking at logos for too long over the past couple days, so I need a second opinion on this. At this point, I'm almost positive this logo is comprised entirely of typographical and simple geometric elements. -Andrew c [talk] 18:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I disagree. If you flip the image around (I did) those claws do not look like any comma I've ever seen. Further, each one is different in proportion from the others. These are artistic elements. Not to mention the placement of the claws vs. the "C" in itself creates the image of a bear paw. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What should I do about a suspect image

    In the article Miranda Hart, there is an image File:Miranda 1.jpg (held on English Wikipedia, not Commons) which appears to be identical in appearance to one found on the subject's own website - the dimensions and file size are also identical. However, the Wikipedia uploader claims "I created this work entirely by myself.". How can we tell if the copy on Wikipedia is legal, and if not, what is the procedure for dealing with it?

    I left a message at the uploader's talk page concerning the missing description, which is apparently ignored; the user concerned has definitely logged in in the meantime, so has had opportunity to read & comment. I wanted that to be sorted before I proceeded to the poss copyvio. Opinions please? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    DVD Covers and Movie Posters?

    I was just wondering if it's all right to upload DVD cover art and Movie Poster images for articles about the movie? I've noticed it being done in other articles, but I just wanted to make sure if it's allowed before I do it. Thanks! Ibrflvs (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If the movie poster was first published in the U.S. before 1964, odds are that the copyright was never renewed (and no, movie posters are not covered as derivative works of the movie they advertise). If the poster was first published 1951-1963, its copyright renewal should be in the online U.S. Copyright Office database of registrations. If the poster was first published in the U.S. from 1964 to the present, with a proper copyright notice, it is still under copyright. — Walloon (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I am unable to understand why copyright issue is produced about these to images,while I have explained that this is entirely my own work?

    File:Grave_maududi.jpg‎ File:House maududi.jpg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhaur (talk • contribs) 08:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Because you created the photos, you had a copyright on them, and Wikipedia could not use them without your permission. The {{PD-self}} tags that you subsequently added gave the permission that was needed. —teb728 t c 10:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    add source

    where to add source of any image? —Preceding unsigned comment added by K1.saurabh (talk • contribs) 10:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    For File:P L DESHPANDE.jpg you add it to File:P L DESHPANDE.jpg, and for File:Bhalchandra Nemade.jpg you add it to File:Bhalchandra Nemade.jpg. I have added blank {{information}} templates to both. You also need to add image copyright tags to both; you could add the tags in the permission parameter of the templates. —teb728 t c 10:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Which license for a picture from the website http://www.sxc.hu under "standard license"?

    Hi,

    I would like to know which license shall I mention for a picture a found in the website: http://www.sxc.hu/photo/1234386 The picture is under "standard restrictions" and can be used for all purposes except for sell and redistribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LoveraA (talk • contribs) 14:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Clearly this is a copyright image and not freely licenced per this page, which is what we require. You could ask the photographer to relicence it into the public domain or under an acceptable Creative Commons licence, but right now we can't accept it. That should be an easy photo to take a replacement of. Did you search commons:Category:Laptops for similar images? ww2censor (talk) 14:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Image uploaded by mistake

    Hi,

    I have uploaded an image by mistake: how can I delete it? It is shown in the image history...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Multiple_laptops-2009-12-11.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by LoveraA (talk • contribs) 14:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What is licence for in this situation please File:Thatcher-ross.jpg

    I scanned the head shot of this politician from a larger photo. The photo was in the effects of a deceased person whose effects I possess. The photo was taken in 1969. No idea of who took the photo. Both the subject and the original photo owner are dead. My second question is whether I can/should upload the signature that is also on the photo to the article W. Ross Thatcher and the licencing for it as well. Thanks for any help. --Fremte (talk) 14:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Signature is fine; {{PD-ineligible}} applies. As for the image, it's almost certainly still copyrighted. Who took the photo? Stifle (talk) 15:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Since Fremte states, "No idea of who took the photo," does this not fall into the area of orphaned works? —Aladdin Sane (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The photo has "Sept, 1969" on the back in pen ink. Signature of the subject on the front. Nothing else known, no other writing. Black and white as scanned and signed on the front. I thought it might have been a promotional item - a meet and greet the politician thing, but that's just my speculation. I read the orphan thing and that does make sense I think. Thanks for your interest and help! --Fremte (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Postcards

    I would like to upload a copy of a postcard (which includes a copyright 1905 located on the image.)

    Has the copyright expired?

    Buckyboot (talk) 19:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What country was the postcard produced in? If the US, then most likely, yes. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 19:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes I beleive it was printed in New York USA. Thank youBuckyboot (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    page language

    i want to upload my information in Malay language. can i use this link <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Upload>? if can't, where should it i do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cilib0h (talk • contribs) 03:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you trying to insert User:Cilib0h/Sekolah Kebangsaan Sungai Tua Baharu (SKSTB) as an article in the Malay-language Wikipedia? If so, go here and follow their procedures for creating a page. The form you linked to is for uploading images, and won't work for text.
    If you'd like to translate that article into English, and publish it on the English Wikipedia, go ahead and complete the translation on the existing page. Follow the steps at the new article wizard, to produce a high-quality article. Then use the move function to move it to an appropriate title. Finally, if that article was originally from the Malay Wikipedia, use {{translated page}} on the article's discussion page. TheFeds 05:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello , I apologise for all the questions about this matter, but I have to have permissions in by the 17th for this photo so would appreciate hearing a final ok back from you. Ukexpat graciously said it looked ok but also said he was not an expert in the matter. I have prepared a text for the photographer of the photo of file:James_Thackara.jpg to sign. If it acomplishes the task I will forward it, have it signed and they will send it to permissions. So that I not waste your time, the purpose is to :

    give permission for the photo of file:James_Thackara.jpg to be copied, downloaded or used by anyone with no attribution to the photographer but rather to have the name of the subject and the date 2009 attached to the photo. No fee will be required for reproduction. So essentially the photo is being given to wikipedia.

    My Questions are: 1. Is the text below what the photographer should use and then sent to Wikipedia 2. Should I then tag the photo with PD-release? 3. Can a scan of this document with signature suffice for the Wikipedia requirements?

    SUGGESTED TEXT

    I hereby affirm that I hold the copyright for File:James thackara.jpg on the English Wikipedia, and hereby release it, under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License{{PD-release}} allowing for unlimited re-use by any person for any purpose, including derivative works, subject only to the requirement that it be accompanied with the text "James Thackara 2009" and the requirement that any derivative works be released under a similar license.

    I agree to publish that work under the free license {{PD-release}}.

    Name and details of copyright holder G Poulden 69 Bramfield Road London SW116PZ England Signature to be provided Date of signing lumenlittLumenlitt (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    The above will be signed, scanned and sent to: permissions-en@wikimedia.org an e-mail

    I (lulemlitt will tag the image file:James_Thackara.jpg with {{PD-release}}.

    I believe I have understood the instructions but there is always a chance for error and I have very little time (form has to be accepted by the 17th) So if I have anything wrong, I would really really appreciate your adding the exact words that should be used. Thanks very much.

    I responded on your talk page to the similar question you asked on my talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sculptures and murals on a cathedral

    Two images are being used for the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels#Design article feature two public artworks, a sculpture File:The Virgin Mary by Robert Graham.jpg and a tapestry File:Los Angeles Cathedral Tapestry.jpg. Am I correct in thinking these two images should be marked as non-free with accompanying criteria and shrinking? Since both pieces of art are mentioned in the discussion section I'm guessing they could be used, although they should probably have their contextual significance reasoning strenthened, correct? -Optigan13 (talk) 06:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The sculpture photo is fine: a photograph of a copyrighted, three-dimensional work is itself considered a copyrighted work - the copyright being owned by the photographer - provided the sculpture is permanently on view in a public place. So the license on that is correct. The tapestry photo, however, is not properly licensed. The rules apply differently to what in law would be considered a two dimensional work: photographs of such works retain the same copyright status as the original, so that image needs to be licensed as a copyrighted work, with a non-free use rationale. In the case of the tapestry photo, you're right that the contextual significance needs to be better than it currently is. -- Hux (talk) 07:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a supplementary to that: in L. T. C. Rolt#Biography it mentions a canal bridge named after the article's subject. There is a plaque attached to the bridge explaining this; I have taken a photo of that plaque, and would like to add it to the article. The plaque is cast iron with raised lettering, dated 27 July 1999, mostly text but with two logos (those of the Inland Waterways Association and British Waterways). I'm not sure whether this counts as two-dimensional or three-dimensional art, or something else. I (verbally, off-wiki) asked User:Geni, who knows about canals but wasn't at all sure about suitable licensing. I understand that the rules differ significantly, so I would like to know what licensing would be suitable, please; further, would it be suitable for Commons, or just English wikipedia? --Redrose64 (talk) 12:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Images at Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

    The article is currently using File:Khalid Sheikh Mohammed image widely published in September 2009 -a.jpg, a non-free fair use image. Am I correct in thinking that this is problematic as a) the subject is a living person, and b) a free image of the subject already exists on Commons at File:Khalid Shaikh Mohammed after capture.jpg? I made the substitution, but another editor reverted, and I don't feel like edit-warring over the matter, so I leave further action, if warranted, to people who watch this board. RayTalk 06:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, your reasoning is sound: if a free image of a living person is available then we need to use that over a copyrighted image. The only reasonable way we could make use of File:Khalid Sheikh Mohammed image widely published in September 2009 -a.jpg is if the article was discussing that photo specifically, such that displaying the photo would add to the discussion in a way that words alone could not. But if the purpose of the photo is simply to illustrate the subject then we have to use the free one. -- Hux (talk) 07:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, when the "other image" is clearly footnoted as having been a propaganda image rather than a true representation, then the Fair Use merits are met to show a true depiction of KSM. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 15:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding Information Tag for Photo

    Hello, The photographer of James_Thackara.jpg has sent his permission to e-Permissions. He is releasing the photo under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License

    . On the image information page, I do not see where this information should be added. I would greatly appreciate your help since the photo will be deleted on the 17th if I do not enter this information. Thanks very much LumenlittLumenlitt (talk) 12:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I did it for you (that's not the right licence tag by the way). All you need to do is change "photographer's name" to, well, the photographer's name, including how they expect to be attributed. Jarry1250 12:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

    Baire image

    I have a picture of French mathematician René Baire. However, I am uncertain if it is in the public domain, protected under fair use, or unusable. The picture can be seen at [2]. The picture is not owned by the site; it is seen throughout bios on the internet. I was unable to find the maker of the photograph, or anything about them, but (if important), Baire died in 1932. What do you think? Indeed123 (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fair use image using in multilanguage wikipedias

    Hello. I was translating the article about Boston Celtics from the English to the Lithuanian Wikipedia. And I ran into this problem: File:Boston Celtics alternate logo.svg (by the Team Logos section) is not displayed in the Lithuanian article. I've asked the Lithuanian administrator to check what's wrong and he uploaded the picture to the Lithuanian Wiki (before that the image address was in red). But he doesn't understand either, why this file isn't shown. Plese help. Thank you Shakurazz (talk) 07:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    For that to have worked, the image would have had to have been from Wikimedia Commons, the shared media repository. However, commons only accepts free-licensed files, and so all non-free files are hosted locally. Thus, to get a non-free file to show on a different project, you would need to upload it there, just like you did. (Note, though, that not all projects accept fair use images; indeed, many of the biggest Wikipedias outside of ENglish explicitly don't.) - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 10:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure if this is the right place for this question. I am under an impression that according to Indian Copyright Law a photograph enters public domain after 60 years. I'm not an expert and hence a bit confused with the legalities. Can these images be works of anonymous author or should the author details be known? I don't see why we should need author information for something that is obviously in a public domain. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 10:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The reason that I asked the above question is to know if these [3] [4] taggings are necessary. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 11:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    According to this, anonymous photographs are counted starting with the publication date. -Andrew c [talk] 15:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Question about photos/maps in an old book

    I have a copy of Sir John Alexander Hammerton's "A Popular History of the Great War", published in 1933 by The Amalgamated Press - as far as I can see, it was never re-published.

    There are 6 volumes of this, going into a lot of detail about the First World War. Also, there are about 800 photos of people, ships, battle sites, etc - as well as maps of various battles.

    Would it be possible to use these photos on Wikipedia? I've not looked indepth, so I don't know how many I would like to use, but I don't want to go to the effort of scanning and uploading them if they'd just be deleted anyway!

    Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 16:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe they are all copyrighted if the author is known. See Commons:Commons:Licensing#United Kingdom The applicable standard if the author is know is life of the author of the works, plus seventy years. However, if the author is unknown, then it's 70 years after creation. So if there's an author, unless you can determine that they died before 1939, they're not public domain, and if no author is known, they apparently are public domain (if they are PD, upload them to the Wikimedia Commons, not here, so that all projects have access to the image [sign up]). You might be able to upload a few locally even if copyrighted if they meet fair use standards (maps would rarely qualify, because they're replaceable), but you would need to determine this separately for each photograph on a one-to-one basis for a particular article, whether is qualified as fair use. So this would not be proper as any sort of mass upload of numerous scans. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks - I thought that might be the case (the author died in 1949, so we've got another 10 years to wait!) I'll look through the photos in case there are some for individuals that aren't already on Wikipedia, as fair-use - but the maps are no problems. It might be that there are no suitable photos, so there's no problems here anyway! I only asked, as I knew that the text of the books would be under copyright, but wasn't sure about photos! Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome. I do hope you will do me the courtesy of giving me a status update on November 15, 2019:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You won't have to wait quite that long - the author died on 12 May 1949, so I'll update you on the 13th of that month! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Supplementary - if it's a magazine, which shows the editor at the front, and some articles are credited with an author but some are not, do the uncredited ones count as "authored by editor" or "anonymous"? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not positive, but I think the uncredited ones count as "authored by the magazine", which would mean that the copyright expires 70 years after the demise of the magazine! However, if you could find the actual author of the article (contact the magazine if it still exists), then it'd be 70 years after the author's death. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    From ar.wikisource - problem?

    Would uploading an image from [5] be a copyright issue? I am under the impression that because it is on Wikimedia it is ok? Supertouch (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That isn't necessarily true. Just like how anyone can upload, say, copyrighted content to the English wikipedia, people can do the same thing to other language Wikipedias as well. Because of that, we cannot assume that anything you find is free. You should just be able to verify the copyright/licensing status. If you can verify that the work is freely licensed (or if the copyright has expired), then the best thing to do would be to move it to the Commons so everyone can use it (as opposed to just moving it to en.wiki). I cannot help you identify the copyright status because I cannot read Arabic (and it looks like that image doesn't even have a copyright tag in the first place). -Andrew c [talk] 15:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    photographer's name for file:James_Thackara.jpg

    Herllo, I really sorry to come back to you who were so nice about placing the right tag for permission use the photo of James Thackara. I cannot recall how I entered the photo and hence cannot enter it the photographer's name. The photographer's name is Gervase Poulden. He does not wish to be credited unless he has to and then by his initials GGP.He would however like to stipulate that the author's name "James Thackara 2009" goes under the photo when it is used Thanks for your help if you can put this in. Lumenlitt (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I updated the attribution as: cc-by-sa-3.0|James Thackara 2009. See the history of File:James Thackara.jpg to see what changes have been made. Hopefully your email will confirm what you have said. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Uploading Non-Free Image For Use In Test Article In Userspace

    Is is OK to use a non free image (a book cover) to work on an article I'm currently working on in my sandbox? Eventually, it will be placed in the mainspace, but for now the only place the image will be used will be in my userspace. --Michaelkourlas (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    For a short time you should be able to get away with it, but for no more than a week. Otherwise you would use a different bu free place holder image to fill the space. So it is not really OK, but the image will not be deleted immediately. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I go after such fair use violations in userspace, but am considerably more lenient when it comes to work in the userspace where it is obvious it is an article in development. If the page just got created, or has been so in the last few days, I tend to leave it alone. If it's gathering cobwebs, I'll usually comment out the image rather than remove it outright. Your mileage with different editors may vary. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Doubt

    How can I get the copyright tag? I have got the pics I uploaded at a couple of websites, I have given the sources, and yet I don't know how I get the copyright tag. Thanks for the help. Grenzer22 (talk) Grenzer22

    None of the three image you uploaded are clearly identifiable as being freely licenced. You found them on copyright websites and while the images themselves may not have had a copyright notice that does not mean they are not copyright to someone. You cannot just give an image a copyright tag unless you know it exact status. You may have to do more research to find out who took the photos and what their status is. Two of these people are dead so it might be possible to use them under a fair-use claim so long as each image complies with all 10 of the non-free content criteria. ww2censor (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    At the very top of this page, we have "How to add a copyright tag to an existing image". Please read that, and if you have specific questions about doing it, please ask. Thanks! Good luck. -Andrew c [talk] 15:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Source info for image?

    Do we know anything about the source of this image? File:India_CG3.jpg I am wondering, because I'd like to know exactly what the image shows and where it came from. I have queried the user User:Vastu, who added the file to the Chandragupta Maurya article in 2006, but he hasn't made an edit since July 2009, so I don't know whether or how quickly he'll respond. I am not used to working with images. I see that there is a "public domain" template in the image file. I wonder whether that file has information, somewhere, on the source of the image. I am suspicious as to whether the image really is public domain. The colors seem a bit too vibrant to come from a historic painting whose copyright has expired. Furthermore, I am no expert, but the painting is not in a recognizable historic Indian painting style, at least not one that I recognize. It looks much more to me like a 20th-century illustration, which might not be in the public domain. Can anyone enlighten me? I'd appreciate a response to my user page, if possible. Thank you. Marco polo (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello I am pretty new to Wikipedia and I was just learning how to add value to the website. I was browsing through the Article Sultan Kosen and found that the image was missing. So, I thought to upload the best image. And I found a good image from a Mongolian Website which I do not know the language and so I have uploaded the Image.

    My Question is How to know the Copyright laws for different language websites?

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions&oldid=326297889"