Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hhfreund (talk | contribs) at 06:30, 11 September 2010 (→Photo of Jose Luis Orozco: 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)


    Identical images on Commons and Wikipedia with different sources

    File:Convention placement vues dessin technique (fixed).svg and File:Convention placement vues dessin technique.svg are local and Commons images respectively. It seems that they were independently created, even though they're identical. How do I go about deleting them under F8? Nyttend (talk) 12:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Well update all the pages using the local file to use the commons file. Then you can add the db-f8 template to the unwanted local file. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but that's not what I mean; since the en:wp is in the public domain, should I attempt to re-mark the Commons image as PD, since it's clearly just a copy of the (older) PD work here at en:wp? My problem is that the Commons image uploader may be falsely claiming copyright, since I have a hard time believing that these images could be pixel-by-pixel identical by accident. Nyttend (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Images taken from Facebook

    Hi, I go to Kean University, and I've realized that the school's wiki page doesn't have any images of the school. So I'm wondering if I can take images from the school's facebook page, and add it to it's wiki.

    Here's the url: http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=169317&id=33035876673

    The images were posted by Kean University on their facebook page. Since the images were taken by the school for promotion of the school, I don't see why the school wouldn't allow the images to be viewed on their wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerzey jon (talk • contribs) 19:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    But when it comes to copyright matters we cannot rely on such an assumption. We have to assume they are subject to copyright and without a specific release or a Wikipedia-appropriate license, we cannot use them. As you are a student there, why don't you take some pictures and upload them to Commons under an appropriate license so that they are available to all Wikimedia projects? – ukexpat (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Note a specific problem is that even if we assume the university will have no problem with their images being viewed on their wikipedia page, which is problematic in itself, it doesn't mean they are willing to release them under a license we would accept. We don't accept images simply released for wikipedia or allowed to be used for promotional purposes but require a free license which allows anyone to use them, in accordance of the terms of the license, including making derivatives and for commercial use. This means someone could sell their images, use them in a book, use them to criticise the university etc without requiring permission from the university or running afoul of copyright problems. Many people are in fact not willing to release an image under a free license even if they are technically willing to let us use them Nil Einne (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    fair use of artist's painting

    Can I upload an image of an artist's work if the image is very small (500 pixels) and low res and call it fair use? If yes, what is the limit to the number of images for a single artist? In all cases the images would be shown as representative examples of the artist's work. Also, if yes to above, I do not see a "fair use" copyright upload option?

    This could be fair use. The normal size though would be 300 pixels. The article would have to talk about that particular picture. You could use one or two, but more would look like excessive use. An artist could release a low res under a free license themselves, and thereby allow use of more images in an article. use the template:information and Template:Non-free use rationale templates. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Potential photos for Razer (robot) - can they only ever be fair use?

    I am in the process of extensively reworking the article for Razer (robot), a successful contestant from the British television series Robot Wars. In doing so, I have contacted the team captain of the trio who constructed and maintained Razer and asked if he has images of the robot that could be released under WP:CC-BY-SA. Discussions are positive; he's pleased there is an article on his machine and happily sent through a number of excellent photos. I've asked him to confirm the free licence under which he would be willing to release the photos (if any). However, I became aware yesterday afternoon that toys, sculptures, and so forth cannot be the subject of free licensed images on Wiki(p/m)edia because they are considered derivative works.

    My question, therefore, is whether I should continue in asking the robot's owner for a free licence to use his photo when it can, by nature, only ever be a derivative work and hence fair use? Forgive me, I am no legal expert. The machine is very much a mobile 3D-sculpture - here's an off-Wikipedia photo if you've never seen Razer/Robot Wars.

    Please let me know if there is anything else which I need to ask Razer's roboteer, or indeed further information I can supply myself.

    Thank you very much for your time. Best wishes, CountdownCrispy talk contributions 09:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The creator of the toy can grant a free license, so a blanket statement about toys and sculptures is incorrect. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I follow that. What would I need to ask the creator of the robot to grant in order to use his photos - a free licence for the images is a given, but what about the photo being a derivative work based on the robot itself? How does that work? Thanks for your help. :-) -- CountdownCrispy talk contributions 13:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no problem. A similar example is File:KeysToCommunity.jpg, a photograph of a statue that hasn't itself been released into the public domain or under a free license; this image is fine because the sculptor photographed it and posted it online with an explicit CC-by-3.0 release statement. Any copyright holder has the right to permit derivative works to be released under a free license; we don't need the subject of the photograph to be released. Nyttend (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wonderful! Thank you so much for clarifying. If I may ask a related question, I have contacted a user on Flickr who photographed Razer at a live event back in 2005. The photos with most encyclopaedic value were listed as 'All Rights Reserved'; I have contacted the photographer to ask if he is willing to release the photos in question as WP:CC-BY-SA, or similar. In this case, where the photographer is not one of the team behind the robot, is there anything I should be aware of in seeking the use of these images? Thanks once again, CountdownCrispy talk contributions 15:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is that photographs of toys, sculptures etc are derivative works and have the potential to infringe the copyright of the creator of the toy, sculpture etc. Assuming your photographer took pictures of Razer in the UK, s17.3 of the Copyright Designs And Patents Act 1988 would apply In relation to an artistic work copying includes the making of a copy in three dimensions of a two-dimensional work and the making of a copy in two dimensions of a three-dimensional work. (US legislation is very similar here). Hence, while your photographer could quite legitimately release a picture of Craig Charles taken at the event, he cannot release the image of Razer, as he does not hold the copyright. The Razer team can release photographs, because they hold the copyright in both the photo (assuming the creator of the robot took it, or had it taken as a work for hire by a pro photographer) and the robot itself.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I follow. Forgive me - I openly admit that whilst I know a lot about the subject of this article (and related articles which I hope to expand in due course), copyright is by no means an area of expertise. Thank you very much for your help. :-) CountdownCrispy ☎ ✎ 22:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No problems, copyright's not something most people have to deal with.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    FfD input request

    Could someone assist with an opinion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 September 3#File:Dagbladet 1995-09-02.png? __meco (talk) 13:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    1648 map

    old yellowing map of east Cambridgeshire showing Isle of Ely surrounded by water
    Joan Blaeu (1648) Regiones Inundatae - The Fens

    I have a map Blaeu, J (1648) Regiones Inundatae which I purchased for £1 from my local library. I would like to scan and upload this map into wikimedia commons. However, I suspect, despite its age, this modern facsimile of this old map has a modern copyright. Would I be correct? --Senra (Talk) 14:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • That depends. If it's a slavish reproduction of the original, with no new content added to the map, then the producer can't claim copyright any more than I could claim copyright on a map made today, just because I reproduced it. The copyright of the original long ago expired (if ever it really existed). A derivative work might be copyrightable, depending on how it was done. But, a slavish reproduction is not such a work, as no new material that could convey a copyright exists. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • as a result of the response above, the map (pictured) has been uploaded to wikimedia commons using {{PD-old-100}}{{PD-1923}} tags. For anyone interested, I may use this map for one or more of Aldreth, Hereward the Wake, Gesta Herewardi and maybe Little Thetford, as it shows the area flooded as it was in 1648 and possibly it would have been similarly flooded in the 12th century too. It also shows the course of the River Great Ouse further south-east of Ely from where it is now --Senra (Talk) 18:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Now seeing the map itself, it certainly appears very much as a slavish copy of the 1648 original. They can't claim copyright on it. They can certainly charge for it if they like; nothing stopping them from doing so. But (noting that I am not a lawyer), any attempt to defend their 'copyright' in court would most likely fail. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Claimed Fair Use

    300px

    This picture of the new iPod nano claims fair-use, however it is also claimed to be a direct copy from [1]. I don't see how a picture posted on Apple's web site here could be construed as a press kit. Is this really fair-use? Acps110 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Once the product is released it will not be fair use because the image could be replaced. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, Thanks! Acps110 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    How to licence

    I uploaded the file File:St. Matthew's Academy, Saltcoats.png which is a photo I took myself that I'm willing to release into the public domain. I'm new to uploading photos to wikipedia and I would like some advice on how I should license it. MWhite148 (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit the file description page and add {{PD-self}}. This sort of material could go on Wikimedia commons. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Google Maps or Wikimapia

    In order to give reference to a city or town on Wikipedia, I need to put a small portion taken from Google Maps of that town. Please help me if there are any restrictions to it and if not what should I select if I wanted to upload this image file. Thanks. Bariuk (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Google Map images are not free and cannot be used. Please use {{Location map}} or something similar instead. §hepTalk 23:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Is the File (File: KERN-AM.jpg) alright now, or is it still up for speedy deletion. To me, it should be o.k. now! (JoeCool950 (talk) 01:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

    “Happy Birthday” lyrics

    Is it allowed to use the “Happy Birthday” lyrics as a page title? --84.61.172.89 (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Whether a copyright applies is controversial. See Happy Birthday to You. In my opinion, copyright has expired based on its 1912 publication, but a false claim to copyright was made in 1935, so as long as courts in USA recognise that, it would not be appropriate to have the entire lyrics as a title. It would be excessively long and repetitious as a title anyway. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    NFS images

    I found a nice Antarctic Photo Library by the United States Antarctic Program. The library which consists of images credited to National Science Foundation states that No one may reproduce the photos for personal or commercial profit, use the photos on products for sale (i.e., t-shirts, coffee mugs) or use the photos for advertisement without express permission from the photographer. To obtain contact information for a photographer, contact the Photo Librarian. Are photographs credited to NSF in public domain? I'd like to know if we could port the library to the commons or Wikipedia.Smallman12q (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone?...Smallman12q (talk) 13:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Felipe de Souza Campos

    Hello

    Please re-image the former Brazilian player Felipe de Souza Campos

    Now there is a new image of the same name !

    File:Felipe.jpg

    Thanks Slmcom Slmcom (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you saying you want this deleted, renamed? --I'ḏ♥One 00:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Use of Wikipedia images of Native AMerican basket makers in a book about California basketry

    I have tried to understand the copyright rules for use of Wiki images in a book, but failed. Specifically, Wiki has a number of images of Native ASmerican basket weavers such as Dat So La Lee, Lucy Telles, Carrie Bethel, etc., which we would like to use in a commercial book (with appropriate references). Exactly how do we go about doing this; are the images in Wikipedia free to be used for a book, or do I have to locate each and every original owner of the image and contact them? There are 6 or 7 such images of interest. Thanks Gene . —Preceding unsigned comment added by GXMeieran (talk • contribs) 19:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, if you click on each image you will get the description page, and a link to the full size. There is a section called licensing that explains it. For File:Datsolalee2.jpg it is on Wikimedia commons, and you can read it is public domain and why. This means that you can reuse and modify the image as much as you like, and not credit is necessary, however you may wish to explain where the picture came from to show authenticity. For File:Carrie Bethel.jpg copyright was from the US government, so you are free to reuse etc as well. You will almost always be able to use images from Wikipedia in a book, as that is the intention of Wikipedia the free encyclopedia. (the disclaimer here is to check that the license looks valid, as some upload incorrect licenses). Even if the image had a creative commons license, you should be able to attribute the photographer with a name given on the description page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Logo image

    I plan to use File:Damaged Chase logo.jpg in this essay, but I'm not quite 100% that I really have the choice to license the image. Is my photo focused on the logo? If it is, is still okay because the logo is damaged? It's okay if I have to take down the image but I'd still prefer not to. Jsayre64 (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Please ignore my above question. I have just gotten an answer (that fair use does not apply in userspace) on the help chat. Jsayre64 (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Reproduction of Australian Banknotes & Coins

    I've started a template Template:Non-free currency-AU-Note with information about a general permission for reproductions of Australian banknotes, using information from the Reserve Bank of Australia. I've placed it on File:100_Australian_dollars_front.jpg, but can't get to the commons banknotes File:AUS$20 Mary Reibey.jpg and File:AustraliaPNew-5Dollars-(20)05-donatedowl f-1-.jpg at the moment. I imagine there are many other images of Australian Banknotes on Wikipedia - we could start with Banknotes of the Australian dollar.

    I've also started one for Template:Non-free currency-AU-Coin with information about applying for permission to reproduce Australian coins. Since the Mint reserves permission, a free-use rationale is required. Some of the existing ones are incorrect as they assume that a photographic (2D) representation is not copyrighted by the Mint.

    I've tackled most of the coins on Coins of the Australian dollar, but I'm not sure about pre-1969 coins, which the Royal Australian Mint doesn't own the copyright on. Who does? twilsonb (talk) 04:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've moved this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics#Reproduction of Australian Banknotes & Coins twilsonb (talk) 05:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    A revisions deletion.

    Hi, I have a small request if someone can do. That is if is possible to delete in my contributions page three revisions. It was this, this and this. I am for a long time on Wikipedia so I really don't want to somebody tell me that we all make a mistakes and that revisions from actual articles can't be deleted. I know that can't be deleted all but I don't want to be deleted all, just these three. So if someone want to delete I will be very grateful, and I really don't think that this is a big thing for doing. Thanks in advance. - InfamousPrince (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Again/still, wrong place. As the header says "This page is for questions about copyright on images and media on Wikipedia. If you have a question about how to use Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Help desk". If you want any of your contributions deleted, check out Wikipedia:Help desk or somewhere else. In any case, I can tell you the chance your contributions will be deleted just because you made a mistake (baring cases like when that mistake is something that violates copyright where our intention is to remove the copyright violations or you revealed private information where our intention is to do our best to hide that information again) is basically zero. And yes, we do all make mistakes, people won't or shouldn't hold it against you if they're just minor things and you do your best to avoid repeating them. In fact if anything, your question here is more likely to negatively affect people's opinions of you then your mistakes. Just learn from your mistakes and move on. There's no need to change account or delete the revisions or whatever so people don't know you make mistakes. Nil Einne (talk) 20:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Big Dig#Origin

    Big Dig#Origin includes several continious paragraphs which are direct quotes from an interview. While these are clearly presented as quotes and sourced to the interview transcript, other then being a poor way of writing an article, do others feel this likely raises copyright concerns? Nil Einne (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Image problem

    Yesterday, I uploaded the following image:

    file:RDKeyes_Monterey_Coast.jpg

    There was an issue with the copyright status, which I resolved. The image will sill not appear on my user page:

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jevid

    I have several other images on the user page, and they show up fine. Can you tell me why the above image will not appear?

    Thanks!

    Jevid (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the wrong place next time try, WP:Help desk as the header recommends. Also do remember do give a header to your question, I've added one for you. It may be better to use the 'new section' tab rather then adding your question to the end of an existing discussion. But I fixed your problem with the image which was due to you linking to the wrong image name in your user page. The image is called "RDKeyes Monterey Coast.jpg" not "RDKeyes Monterey Coast.JPG". Case does matter, except for the first character. Nil Einne (talk) 11:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    German government images during World War II

    I vaguely remember seeing somewhere that images produced by the German government during World War II are now in the public domain, both in Germany and in the USA. Is this correct, or are they still under copyright? I wonder because I came across this image, which was taken by a German military officer and which may be deleted because of an insufficient fair use rationale. Nyttend (talk) 01:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This has been discussed in various places over the years. In general, these images are not public domain in Germany (there was confusion on this point for a while, over a misunderstanding of the difference between a "photograph" and a "photographic work"). Images from the German government archives seized by the Allies have historically been treated as public domain in the seizing country, but I don't know if that's still the case. --Carnildo (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We've looked into this question in a lot of depth, and with the help of our colleagues on dewiki, and the answer is basically no: these photos are not in the public domain. German law has a very restrictive view of what is an "official document", and it is almost impossible to see that any image would pass that test: the German courts have ruled in the past that the copyright of photographs taken by servicemen on duty belongs to the photographer, not the state. Obviously, enwiki has been quite understanding towards non-free use claims that such images are irreproduceable, so long as other non-free content criteria are met. Physchim62 (talk) 01:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    In looking at the information for "Darnley stage 3.jpg", the assertion is raised that the copyright on the original two-dimensional portrait has expired. Because the painting is believed to be from ca. 1575, before the creation of copyright, how can this be?

    Van —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanhorn (talk • contribs) 04:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    In the USA taking a photo of a two-dimensional portrait is not considered a creative act so the copyright on the photo expires the same time as the original portrait (or if the work was already too old for copyright protection when the first copyright law was passed, then both the photo and portrait were always in the public domain). Jc3s5h (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Use of image from website

    Hello there, I wanted to use these images on the page Baloch people since images are hard to get from that region. Can I use these images? and how do I reference them?

    http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/Middle_East/Iran/East/Sistan_va_Baluchestan/Zabol/photo971396.htm http://iranbaluch.4t.com/photo.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by BalochMedia (talk • contribs) 05:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC) BalochMedia (talk) 06:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The first website has a clear copyright notice of the photographer and on the second website there are no statements regarding copyright but the images look like a collection of different style photos taken from other websites; some even have watermarks. None of the images found on these pages are clearly freely licenced so I am sorry but we cannot use them unless you get permission from the copyright holder. ww2censor (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just wanted to add on a couple of things - at face value the first image would not be acceptable for use anyway because according to the website's TOU all images are to be used for non-commercial use only. Beyond that it also states that You may not modify, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit, publicly display, prepare derivative works based on, or distribute in any way the images located on the site (or anything else). The website has a nonexclusive global license to publish the content and global nonexclusive adaptation rights over any content. The use of "nonexclusive" implies you could still contact the photographer and have them send an email to OTRS.
    The next part is just information to think about - the photographer lives in Iran. Given that than this may be relevant: According to Circular 38a of the U.S. Copyright Office (Download PDF from the US Copyright office), Iran has no copyright relations with the United States. In plain English, anything that has originated in Iran is not under any copyright in the United States. It is important to note that if it was unpublished it is under copyright here - but if it were unpublished we would not be having this discussion. According to Section 104 of title 17 of the United States Code if, on the date of first publication, one or more of the authors is a national or domiciliary of the United States, or is a national, domiciliary, or sovereign authority of a treaty party, or is a stateless person, wherever that person may be domiciled than the image would be under copyright. That does not seem to be the case with this image. However the next section may apply - If the work is first published in the United States or in a foreign nation that, on the date of first publication, is a treaty party than the United States honors a copyright. As the TrekEarth.com website is registered to a company in El Segundo, CA it would appear the image is now protected by a copyright.
    As an add on - the second link does not contain that much information, but if all the images were first published in Iran than the above would apply as there would be no copyright. The problem is there is not much information about the source of the images.
    I guess this was more of an FYI than anything. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Forgive me, but I've never understood details of the fair use criteria

    Having written James L. Swauger, I'm tempted to upload this image of him; it's not free, but he's been dead for several years, and I don't believe that this will harm commercial opportunities. However, I've never exactly understood — to what use must I put this portrait of Swauger in order to fulfill criterion #8? I can't produce any sourced commentary on the image itself (it's just a portrait that I would add to his article exclusively to demonstrate his appearance), so I have a nagging feeling that it would be nominated for deletion (regardless of the fair use rationale) because it will never be the subject of sourced commentary. Nyttend (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I wouldn't worry about 8. There's been a lot of debate about it's wording in the past (WP:NFCC8). My personal favorite template to use with these types of images is the one at File:Elmer Gedeon.jpg, but File:Jack warner.jpg passed an FAC with its rationale so that form should work as well. §hepTalk 20:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, thanks; I've uploaded as File:James L. Swauger.jpg with a slightly modified version of the Gedeon description page. Nyttend (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    American town flags/symbols/insignia

    How can a flag not be free-use? They're meant to be seen and used, the idea of a flag not being free-use seems unreasonable, especially in the US where almost everything made by or for government-related usage is free. Any way I was asked on my talk page about these files. Are town symbols free? --I'ḏ♥One 23:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    US Federal government has free works, local and state governments typically exert control over their images. In this instance it does not appear that these symbols are free. §hepTalk 01:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any real rule that says a flag isn't free? If the flag was created, approved and claimed by the town then the image replicator can't claim much ownership of these uploads. --I'ḏ♥One 03:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rule? No. Law? Yes. Copyright law. Within the U.S., whether you display a flag only indoors in a private office our outdoors on a flag pole makes no difference. Copyright is, for many years now, conferred on creation of an original work. A flag qualifies. There's no special application required to gain copyright. It's automatic. Until such time as we have proof of release under a free license or public domain, then a local or state government can claim rights. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • These flags weren't released to Wikimedia by the town. One is from a travel site, the other apparently an advertising company, therefore they're not even apart of the government that is using these flags. --I'ḏ♥One 13:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • And in that case how are either of those above websites eligible to decide what the copyright of the flags are? And why are we just assuming that insignia is under a copyright if its "owners," presumably the town, don't seem to make any effort to demonstrate that they have, claim or even want their logos copywritten? For instance, no one seems to have dome so on a big city's flag like New York's and if it was under copyright it should require fair use, shouldn't it? And that would severely cut the number of pages linking to it, as it would the USA's flag. The concept of a flag being copywritten also makes me wonder about the subject of flag burning. And isn't the usage of a flag, since it's a represenative symbol the same as giving credit of that flag; For instance, if a US flag is placed somewhere, isn't that essentially as though the flag itself contains the USA's "signature" since the flag is meant to represent the USA? --I'ḏ♥One 15:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regardless of where the images were grabbed from, the original creators (usually) is the actual source and rights holder. The place where the images were grabbed might have permission to use the images from the rights holder. Doesn't matter in any case. We assume things are copyrighted because in the U.S. things are automatically copyrighted at the moment of creation. That's law. Any given web site doesn't have to explicitly state their material is copyrighted in order to enjoy the protections of copyright. If you want to ask the rights holder for release of an image under a free licenses, follow the directions at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Note that getting permission to use on Wikipedia is insufficient, and such images are routinely deleted (see Wikipedia:CSD#F3). As for the Flag of NYC, it is public domain by way of age. Things created prior to 1923 are generally (not always, but generally) in the public domain by way of law with respect to age. That's the case with this flag. See Government_of_New_York_City#Official_seal_and_flag. The licensing on Commons is actually incorrect, but still a free license nonetheless. The remaining issues in your post do not pertain to copyrights, though I will say that whether something is copyrighted or not does not affect whether it can be burned or not under law. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • "We assume things are copyrighted because in the U.S. things are automatically copyrighted at the moment of creation. That's law." Not quite, almost anything made by a US federal government agency, ex: The white house, NASA, Department of Agricultural, a branch of the military is instantly public domain unless stated otherwise, which is what makes me wonder if things created by more local government areas are free, in fact THIS seems to prove that the flag and seal of the town I was asked about is in the public domain. --I'ḏ♥One 16:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It varies from state to state and the ky words you used are unless stated otherwise. That can amount to an awful lot. For example in Florida state university are allowed to obtain, and retain, trademarked logos. As are any state agency that needs a logo in connection with the sale within this state of goods or services. A state police department may also be able to due to the misuse or deceptive use of state agency seals or logos. In specif regards to California - Trademarks and Service Marks suggests trademarks are allowed - The Secretary of State’s office maintains registration and all updates of California state trademarks and service marks. For more on that, the California Business and Professions Code, in particular the Model State Trademark Law, has details.
    Also I think a lot of people get confused in regards to a trademark/logo and copyright. According to the US Copyright office copyright protection may be available for logo artwork that contains sufficient authorship. In some circumstances, an artistic logo may also be protected as a trademark. A lot of the boiler plate gov temples in use go off the broader "It's PD" concept without bothering to specify there may be exceptions in regards to logos/trademarks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • IdLoveOne; I was speaking to the abstract not the specific, attempting to educate you on the matter. Of course there are exceptions. There's exceptions to just about every law under the sun. That's not the point. You were apparently of the belief that we need to find proof of copyright before we can assert something is non-free. That's backwards. I hope you understand that now. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • To above - I'm still not convinced. Firstly, does a flag qualify as a logo? That seems to me to come close to comparing a government to a business. According to the SOS page a "registration" only lasts 10 years max, so if this is older than that does that clear everything up? Nextly, yeah, if you want to join a WikiProject to relabel each and every license template, go ahead, but I think most people know the exception/loophole thing about most laws. I'm gonna have to try and get some real clarification. And no, I listed a bunch of reasons above for my feelings. If it was a photograph a person has a right to decide what happens with their image or work, privacy.. Or a piece of recently created artwork I could understand, but the design of a government flag is made to be public and I would assume the artist(s) release the design to the community in question. --I'ḏ♥One 19:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • All I can tell you, as I've said above, is that your assertions regarding things intended to be put into the public eye are false. LOTS of things are intended to be displayed in front of the public, yet carry copyright. Just because something is to be public doesn't mean people automatically waive their copyrights. For example, sculptures displayed in public places in this country can maintain copyright, even on photographs taken of them. See {{Non-free 3D art}}. Whether or not something is displayed publicly has absolutely NO effect on whether it is copyrighted or copyrightable. A particular thing might be free of copyright due to other considerations, but not in any sense because it happens to be in a public place (the exception here being in the U.S.; architectural works, but that's not the case in every country). Flags are no special exception to copyright law. An entity that otherwise is not required to vacate copyright on works they create can create a flag and maintain copyright on it. I'm sorry we have failed you in conveying to you that this is the case. Feel free to explore other options for having this explained to you. However, I can assure you that such efforts will not result in a different result than the one being explained to you here. Many flags can and are copyrighted. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Does this site follow your sharing policy?

    I was looking on the web and I found this web site mirrored your information and I did not see attribution to Wiki. It looked copied.


    http://closefocusresearch.com/22-long-rifle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.229.112 (talk) 03:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It says "Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" at the bottom of the page.Smallman12q (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Uploading an image to Wikipedia page

    Hi,

    I would like to upload an updated image of thin film to the Wikipedia page entitled 'Thin Film Drug Delivery.' I do not own the image, but I work on behalf of the company that does. What approval / credentials do I need to produce in order for Wikipedia to allow me to upload this image of thin film?

    Also, can you provide me with a simplified explanation of the steps required to upload the image once I obtain the necessary permissions / licenses / credentials for the image?

    Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ereiss (talk • contribs) 15:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Go to Wikipedia:Upload to upload an image to this Wiki, or you can go to the main page to see links on your left to other language Wikis where you can upload it or you can upload it to Commons which is inter-lingual (the link to the upload page should be in the second >carrot marked 'Toolbox', Commons might not be best in the cases of some images due to different copyright laws in different countries, though Commons is usually the preferred route, that link will be in >Participate also on your left. You'll see that most images on Wikipedia are uploaded or have been moved to Commons - Note the statement "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons..."). That and an account is all you need to upload the image, though, yes, you will have to state ownership and possibly prove you're allowed to upload it or it could be nominated for deletion. When you upload a file there's a form you fill out that'll show the name, author, source etc. Here are some English Wikipedia copyright tags, here are some for Commons (because they're different projects they generally don't work interchangeably, but the tags will be shown on any language Wiki page of the image). I hope I explained that well enough, let me know if I didn't. --I'ḏ♥One 15:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Based on your comment (I do not own the image, but I work on behalf of the company that does.) the answer to your question is, before you upload the image, have the copyright holder send an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org (if you are uploading it here) using the sample template found at Declaration of consent for all enquiries. Make sure you list the name of the file, as it will be uploaded. Use a unique name - not just "Filexyz_123.jpg"ot the like. *After* this email is sent, upload the image and place a {{OTRS pending}} tag on the image page. I advise you to use the template found at the "Mini how-to" and than place the tag next to "Permission". When an OTRS team member reads it you will get a reply with a ticket number. If you upload the image after this reply you can tag the image with {{PermissionOTRS}}. If there are any questions please drop me a not on my talk page. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The Pax cultura symbol

    The description page for File:Pax cultura.svg states that the image is "a logo of an organization, item, or event, and is protected by copyright", but I can find no evidence that this is the case. I think this is most likely an ancient and un-copyrightable symbol, and the warning can be removed. --Doradus (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like a ∴ --I'ḏ♥One 20:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Without question this logo is ineligible for copyright being composed of a simple circle and three dots, so should be licenced as {{PD-ineligible}}, {{PD-shape}} or even {{PD-textlogo}} but in respect of its use by an organisation should be tagged with the {{trademark}} template and the fair-use rationale can be changes for a simple information template. ww2censor (talk) 21:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok thanks for your opinion. I'll make the changes you suggest. I'm also dubious that this is a trademark, but it can't hurt to err on the side of caution. --Doradus (talk) 13:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    However there is no source information, etc., so please fill in as best you can, the missing data. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 12:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. I did a Google search for "pax cultura", browsed the resulting pictures, and then drew our image file from scratch, making it look like a kind of "average" of the images I found. Not very scientific. Do I need to do something more than what I've already done on the file's page? --Doradus (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So just say that you made the image based on other images found online. ww2censor (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, done. Thanks again. --Doradus (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have just been informed that the pictures used on the entry for Wolfra Aichele page are at risk of deletion because I neglected to put a copyright tag on them. Help! Wolfram Aichele owns the copyright for all images that begin WOLFRAM-AICHELE. Please can someone add a copyright tag to these so that they do NOT get deleted. Thanks. MisterHistory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterhistory (talk • contribs) 13:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    I just noticed this on my watchlist and it appears from the above that Misterhistory isn't clear what the situation is (or maybe is clear as he reverted it just after he wrote it, and I'm putting it back). It looks as though the files he uploaded, eg File:WOLFRAM-AICHELE-PARIS.jpg are copyright. So perhaps they should be deleted until and if someone releases the copyright? Dougweller (talk) 12:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Have I done this right?

    File:Dernier-mohican-giffeu-delagrave_1937.jpg The person who uploaded it claims to be the creator of the image, which seems highly unlikely as it's the cover of a 1937 French copy of the Last of the Mohicans, and I don't think he's a nonagenarian. I think it's a good faith error in that I believe he photographed the book cover, although it's unlikely to be PD unless the creator died shortly after the book was published. The image is on Commons - I've warned the uploader that he needs to have another look, and maybe move it to en.wiki where it may be possible to use it under our non-free content rules. Have I tagged it correctly - I don't understand Commons tagging at all? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, yes and no - as the file is not at Wikipedia but Commons the deletion tag here doesn't really do anything. The deletion process there is very different than here as well. You are correct however in that the uploader is most likely *not* the author of the artwork, nor representing the books publisher. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Urk. That figures. I kind of hoped if you tagged it here it would transclude there. Do you know what tag I need to add to the Commons image? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already done it. You can read about the Commons deletion process here: Commons:Deletion Policy. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't understand why there is a problem with the copywrite for my image

    I recently uploaded File:LogoBrumHums.jpg to Wikipedia Commons and clearly stated that I created the logo and own the copywrite and that I am happy for other people to use it. I can't understand what else I need to do. Can somebody help please?

    John Edwards signyred —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.105.249 (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You would need to being that question to Commons if you also uploaded it there. (Although I cannot find any image with that name at Commons) The version here was deleted August 14 as F4: Lack of licensing information. You may want to read the Mini how-to guide and use the suggested template next time you upload an image. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, checking on the presence of a paiting I have seen this morning in the Prado Museum in Madrid I have confirmed it is available in a rather blurry version here https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/wiki/File:Cornelius_van_Dalem_001.jpg. I found a much better version here http://www.kalipedia.com/literatura-universal/tema/prosa-renacentista-ficcion.html?x=20070418klplylliu_80.Kes . Would it be ok for me to replace the present verion with this one or would I be breaking some sacred copyright law written at the time of Moses? The painting itself must be in the public domain as the author died in the 16th century...--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The painting itself may be in PD but whoever took the image may not have placed their image of it into PD. A quick look at the second link has © Prisacom S.L.- Gran Vía, 32 - 28013 Madrid [España] Tel. 91 353 79 00 at the bottom of the page. I would contact them to see what the image license is before uploading it here. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, if the photo is a "slavish reproduction" of the painting, then the photo is not sufficiently creative to be copyrightable on its own, and would therefore be PD just like the painting. --Doradus (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what you are saying - last time I checked Madrid was in Spain and the website this image in on is in Spain, and a photographer in Spain, or from Spain, holds the copyright to the images they take anywhere in the world. It doesn't matter if the the picture is of a reproduction of a PD painting - the picture of it is still available for copyright in Spain. My suggestion to Rowanwindwhistler is still valid - contact the person/business in the copyright notice. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And Wikipedia's servers are in the US. Generally speaking, for images that are simply reproductions of 2 dimensional PD works of art, we allow them to be uploaded and tagged {{PD-Art}} or the equivalent tag on the Commons. Commons has a page about that, and calls out Spain and the UK for their attacks on the general notion of a "public domain". [2] This is a special rule, because in most other PD cases, to be hosted on the Commons they must be PD in the US and the originating country (otherwise, they must only be uploaded to en.wiki). However, reproductions of otherwise PD works of 2D art are a special case that Wikipedia has decided to take a stand on. -Andrew c [talk] 22:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Andrew I think you are missing something - the image being talked about is not yet at Wikipedia - that is the whole question. We can't take photographs form the internet and upload it here using the reason that "Well, it's now located in the US so therefore it is PD-Art". By the same token I can't take a photograph of, say, a TV that has American Idol on it and claim it as my own - the photo, yes, the subject matter of the photo - no. A new painting of Mickey Mouse that the artist says releases to PD does not change the fact that if a photo of it is taken that photos copyright is owned by the photographer and that the subject matter - Mickey Mouse - is still owned by Disney. We don't go "No it's {{PD-Art}}" simply because, as the tag says, The official position of the Wikimedia Foundation is that all reproductions of public domain works should be considered to be in the public domain regardless of their country of origin. As with many of the other PD tags in use it takes too broad of a stroke. PD = PD, yes. I am not saying it isn't. But there would be a huge difference between, say, File:Mona-lisa-through-glass.jpg, File:Mona Lisa Louvre.jpg, File:Mona Lisa versão .JPG, File:Carnival Rio Mona Lisa costume.jpg and File:Mona_Lisa.jpeg. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In the US, everyone can agree that Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp found that "a photograph which is no more than a copy of a work of another" does not contain "originality" and thus a slavish photographic reproduction of a 2D piece of art that is in the public domain would also be in the public domain. This would not apply to any of your Mona Lisa examples except one, because none, except the one, are slavish reproductions. We acknowledge that in some jurisdictions (Spain, UK, etc), there laws allow new copyrights to be claimed on such slavish photographic reproductions. However, it is our guidelines that Nevertheless, under Commons rules the {{PD-Art}} tag can be used for "faithful reproduction" photographs of 2D public domain works of art even where copyright might be asserted under local law in the source country. This is a rare case were we are taking a stand (and perhaps throwing in a little civil disobedience). Is there a question on whether the image in question is a "faithful reproduction" or not? Otherwise, it is fine to upload, even if it may be technically a copyright violation in Spain. -Andrew c [talk] 00:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Soundvisions1 is generally correct here. It is a regular misunderstanding that if something cannot be copyrighted under US law it is therefore PD because Wikipedia's servers are in the US. This is not the case if the image actually IS copyright in another country. However, in the particular case of "slavish reproductions of 2d artwork" (ie a photo just of the painting, that doesn't show the frame, the wall it's hanging on etc), the WMF itself seems to have elected to follow US law and oppose attempts by organisations such as the National Gallery in England to claim copyright on photographs of paintings in their collections. So in this case, Andrewc is correct that the image can be uploaded as PD.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for offering a 3O. I want to apologize if I wasn't clear. I wasn't trying to imply that we only follow US laws being on US soil. We explicitly do not allow content on the Commons which may be out of copyright in the US, but not in other countries (outside of the 2D art thing mentioned above). Some cases, it's ok to upload to en.wiki, but not Commons. Some cases, its not OK, unless it's a fair use claim. -Andrew c [talk] 15:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies equally if I misunderstood what you were saying and put the wrong words at your fingertips (it happens, it happens). At least we agree on the outcome in this case and gain a better image thereby :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Territories_1850_alt.jpg really pd-old?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Territories_1850_alt.jpg looks like a Hammond map from the 1970s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.237.231.4 (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Look under the map. It says 1967 and Hammond on it, then revised by USGeoSurv in 1970, so you are correct that it is not pd-old. Maybe the copyright wasn't renewed, maybe it was a work of the US government, and thus it may still be PD. But, unless you have further information regarding the original copyright, I'd recommend nominating it for deletion on the Commons. Since the file is hosted there, there is nothing we can do here (otherwise, I would have recommended taking it to WP:PUI). -Andrew c [talk] 00:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A fresh issue by US GeoSurvey might make it PD, as I believe that is a federal organisation, but only if Hammond was not claiming copyright also as a derivative work. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Help with find non-free images

    (Moved from help desk)

    I'd like to add images to the article Murder of Victoria Climbié but I'm not sure on the rules and how to go about it. There's a bunch of images here but am I allowed to just upload them under the free use criteria? I'd like to add pictures of Victoria (the child, now dead), more than one if possible, her two former guardians (both in prison), her parents, and Lord Laming, the person in charge of the inquiry following her death. Can someone advise on which are allowed and which aren't and what the best way of obtaining these images is? Christopher Connor (talk) 13:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    NO, you are not allowed to upload them all under Wikipedia's non-free content policy. First you need to check to see if there are free images of the imprisoned parents or Lord Laming. If there are, you should use them. If you can find no free images, you may not use non-free ones. You can upload one non-free image of the child, as it is unlikely that a free image exists (although you still must check first) - you could possibly also get away with the photograph of her injuries, if the photograph formed part of the discussion of those injuries.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the reply. Can I ask how do you check for free images? Christopher Connor (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have searched Commons for you and cannot find anything useful. Your best bet is to search upload sites such as Flikr, also in this case check sites associated with the case, as they may have pd images. Note that the image must actually have been released on a pd license, not just appear on a site without any attribution. Others will probably have more suggestions as to good places to search.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've uploaded an image. Can someone check this is acceptable? Would also like this. Christopher Connor (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    File:Victoria Climbié.jpg needs a fair-use rationale (see WP:FURG) otherwise it will be deleted. The BBC image is easily replaceable by a simple drawing someone can make, so you can even claim it under fair use. ww2censor (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean can't? I've now provided a "FUR". Please have a look to see if it satisfies the policies. Christopher Connor (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't realize this was being discussed here as well. I answered your quesiton on my talk page. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    License status - Help!

    Hi there I have received a message regarding the recently uploaded file: Holly Kenyon at The Cannes Film Festival 2010.JPG Apparently I have not indicated the license status of the image, which I probably have done in error as I find the whole process kinda confusing! I have tried and failed to follow the instructions given but am none the wiser on how to do it. Can you please instruct me through this? I took the photo of the actress myself and am giving full permission for it to be used on Wikipedia. If it is still not appropriate, can you tell me how anyone ever gets a photo of actors onto Wikipedia??? Thank you 5litres —Preceding unsigned comment added by 5litres (talk • contribs) 18:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The most common would be the {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} license. I suggest reading the overview as well as the full legal code so you understand what rights you have under the license. Also just a few suggestions - for "source" I would put down some informaiton about the camera rather than "I created this work entirely by myself." With a lot of pre-published images the "source" might be the magazine, paper or website it came from. In your case it appears to come straight form your camera. And for "Author" I would put down your full name. This goes along with the license which allows you to specify attribution (Photo credit). On the other hand if you only want "5litres" as the credit that is fine as well. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you very much for all your help. I really appreciate it. I will have another go at this!! 5litres —Preceding unsigned comment added by 5litres (talk • contribs) 18:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Photo of Jose Luis Orozco

    I would like to use the photo of Jose Luis Orozco from the link/page below the wiki page i created about Jose Luis Orozco.

    http://www.blaineschools.org/Userfiles/Schools/Bellevue/News/SVCA%20%20Event.jpg

    Would this be considered a free photo? What steps would I need to take to put in on article.

    Hhfreund (talk) 06:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions&oldid=384157196"