Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

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

(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

Diagrams from a 1970 book

I am in the possession of this book:

• Ion Gudju, Gheorghe Iacobescu, Ovidiu Ionescu, Constructii Aeronautice Romanesti 1905-1970 (Romanian Aircraft 1905-1970), Editura Militara, 1970.

It lists every romanian aircraft from 1905 to 1970, with dimensions, some characteristics and 3-view line drawings (wikimedia line drawings category). Some aircraft are very rare, so much so, that no images are available. Some drawings, of more popular models (e.g. IAR 80), are available elsewhere too, yet not under a free license.

The illustrations were done by Ștefan Pârâu, of whom I have no further knowledge.

Is there enough reason to upload scans of the more rare plane drawings? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandru.rosu (talk • contribs) 17:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say not enough reason since you have the book and can archive it without needing to upload it. However, you might want to look at Jane's All the World's Aircraft and see what if anything is in there about these rare machines. You may well have already done that; just a suggestion. SimonTrew (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way you confused me for a minute for thinking plane drawing meant a plan or blueprint i.e. 2D drawing, until I realised you meant a drawing of an aeroplane (Br.)/airplane (US). It might be worth trying to keep that clear, I am not overly pedantic but if talking about plane plane drawings it could get confusing... SimonTrew (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is a 3 view line drawing of a Dornier 17, it's this kind of drawings/diagrams I'm referring too.

I can't access All the world's Aircraft without a subscription ($3160?!). In the meantime, I found some aircraft on the russian airwar.ru (e.g. IAR 24 via Google Translate). The drawings are suspiciously similar (I think they scanned a book in a worse condition).

I don't think we can use them (or can we :D ?!). - Alexandru.rosu (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This is an unresolved question. I believe these works are ineligible for copyright. U.S. courts have determined that simple line-maps of countries or rivers are not copyrightable, regardless of how complicated they are, since they are mere records of fact and not creative material. Similarly, new architectural diagrams of old (PD) buildings are not accepted by the U.S. Copyright Office, since there is no new creative content. In the case of maps, judges have specifically ruled that elements such as line thickness and map colors are not creative enough to qualify. For these reasons, I think that simple line drawings of aircraft should be tagged {{PD-ineligible}} so long as the underlying aircraft design is not copyrighted. (And most aircraft designs would be ruled functional and not decorative, unless major aspects of the design were chosen for aesthetic rather than utilitarian reasons.) – Quadell ^(talk) 15:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this question is resolved, thanks for the help. According to commons:Commons:Copyright_tags#Romania, technical drawings are exempt from copyright (these qaulify as technical drawings, right?!). Alexandru.rosu (talk) 04:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Old picture postcards at Newmarket Racecourses

There's a couple of lovely picture postcards I'd like to add from Newmarket Racecourses for the article on Railway stations in Newmarket (Easom, Sandra, Newmarket Sausages, Railways & Skulduggery, Newmarket Racecourses, retrieved 6 April 2009).

They are old enough to be PD, though the site is copyright (but no copyright claimed for the individual pictures); to make things interesting they are probably also in the Cambridgeshire Collection which is owned by the local government and hence essentially by the public (though they wouldn't have you believe it).

I'm not asking for people here to do all the work for me, but a quick glance to say yes no or maybe would be helpful. Another editor and I have essentially been working a lot around this area and done quite well; he said (this was around 7 April 2009) he would have thought they were in copyright, I am not so sure. Of course there is the reference there so it's no huge deal, but it would be nice if we could have them.

Thanks in advance for your advice. Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

If you can establish that the postcards were issued ("published") before 1923, you may upload them here and tag them with {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. Sv1xv (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Call me Mr Picky but why would I tag them PD-US when they are from the UK? SimonTrew (talk) 01:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess cos Wikipedia is in the state of Florida. But that makes no differnece to who owns copyright. SimonTrew (talk) 01:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly - the text of the template explains it. – ukexpat (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Help

I'm sorry but I can't understand how to do it could you help me? AlienX2009 (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

How to do what? We will need some more information before we assist you. – ukexpat (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

look at my talk page. AlienX2009 (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There are four image issues on your talk page. This page is for you to tell us what your specific problem is. Please do that and maybe one of us can advise you what to do next. ww2censor (talk) 11:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

OCK

Sorry but i dont understand whats the problem for the images? Unluckyly i dont understand english very good!

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vernito (talk • contribs) 13:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Tell us what images you mean, and we'll try to help. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The image which i add on the article of oceano club de kerkennah. It s name is Premier logo OCK.gif ‎ i take it from the officiel site of oceano club de kerkennah. I will make the history of the logo in his articel!

Thanks again —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vernito (talk • contribs) 14:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

See this diff. I fixed the non-free user rationale etc for you. You cannot claim an image as your own if you downloaded it from a website - it is a copyright image and can only used here under an appropriate non-free use rationale. – ukexpat (talk) 18:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello I have a problem with the picture of Stade_Ameur_Gargouri.jpg‎ . Please can you help me? There is something with discription problem. The complet problem is wrotten on my talks page!

Thank you very much Vernito —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vernito (talk • contribs) 15:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

vintage poster

I have an original poster from the 30's. I believe I have the only originals left. Can I copyright this poster and make repros to sell? Can someone else copyright it if they have copy made from my original? there appears to be no copyright on the original poster. thanks for your help dt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.199.9.162 (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry we cannot give legal advice, please consult a lawyer. – ukexpat (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You cannot copyright the poster for the simple reason that you are not the author, nor was the author your employee, nor has the author assigned the copyright to you. — Walloon (talk) 23:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Company Logo upload

I am a communications specialist for my company with the task of updating and maintaining our Wikipedia page. I get a message saying that I am "Unauthorized" to upload photos (i.e. our Logo) with my current account status. How can I change this?

Also, how can I be authorized to post content that is on our website without it being deleted? Thanks.

WOCCU (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

1. You can probably use the {{Non-free logo}} on the image, if it's a logo used in the company's article to identify the company. Then, include a rationale for using it. Also, give a source for the image.
2. More significantly, there may be an article about your company, but it's NOT your company's Wikipedia page (in the sense of ownership), and you have not been given any special authority to edit it. Please read our policy on conflicts of interest. As for content from your web site, it could be allowed if it's licensed under GFDL. However, don't bother. Few companies would license their content under GFDL. Also, text copied from commercial web sites for promotion is almost always removed, since advertising and promotion are prohibited. It seems this is an example of what you're trying to add. Don't do it. It will be removed, and repeated attempts to re-add will result in being blocked. --Rob (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Your account has to be autoconfirmed (10 edits and at least 4 days old) before you can upload files. – ukexpat (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

User:WOCCU permablocked as a WP:SPAMNAME/WP:SPA. – ukexpat (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Family owned photos

I'm doing an article about a famous deceased WWII figure. His sons have agreed to help out with the article with regard to providing personal family collection photographs of their father for it. The son I deal with the most has said they are willing to release many of these photos to Wikipedia for use in the article, but he hopes there is a way to put restrictions on it so they can't be altered by just anyone passing along the site who wants to take the photo for themselves and use it elsewhere. Are there any caveats that can be attached to these photos as condition of release to Wikipedia to protect their integrity to some degree, or at least require a byline for them if they are used elsewhere, or is it an all-or-nothing bargain? The photos are released with anyone on earth allowed to do with them whatever they please for whatever reason, or not released at all? --ScreaminEagle (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a "free encyclopedia", which means that anyone can use the articles and images for any purpose, including making modifications and selling them for profit. We can't make an exception for an image here or there. There are licenses which allow anyone to use an image for free so long as they don't modify it -- this, for instance -- but Wikipedia does not accept such images. Sorry. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hm, OK thanks. So what paperwork would either he or I have to fill out to make these family photos public domain for use on Wikipedia (if that's the avenue he chooses to go)? --ScreaminEagle (talk) 00:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no specific paperwork; the copyright-holder would simply have to agree to license the photos under a free license. Two popular choices are:

• The Creative Commons Attribution license, called cc-by for short. This lets anyone use the image, so long as they credit the copyright holder.
• The Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license, called cc-by-sa for short. This lets anyone use the image, so long as they credit the copyright holder, and so long as they release any derivative work under the same license. (So if someone used the photo in a coffee-table book, the entire book would have to be free for anyone to copy and use.)

Either of these is fine for Wikipedia. When you upload the images, simply tag them with {{cc-by-3.0}} or {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} to indicate what license they are released under. If you need help, let me know. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

nausea and fibromyagia

I could not find any mention of these to topics in relation to each other. When I am in a fibro flare I have extreme nausea as well as the usual reported symptoms. Thanks, z —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.170.76 (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You're probably looking for Wikipedia:Reference desk. This page is for copyright concerns. (Incidentally, my wife has fibromyalgia, and she says that nausea is a typical symptom, along with fatigue and pain.) – Quadell ^(talk) 18:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the poster must see their doctor, we cannot give medical advice. – ukexpat (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I just added a non-free use rationale

Admins, please remove the STbot tag on File:IAC_holdings.PNG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samwb123 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem has not been corrected because the rationale does not name the article that the file is used on. If and when you add the article, you can remove the tag yourself. I could easily fill out the Article parameter myself, but that would be a waste of effort, because the use inherently fails WP:NFCC#3 for using more non-free images than are needed and WP:NFCC#8 because the use does not significantly increase reader’s understanding of the subject. I will nominate the image for deletion. —teb728 t c 21:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Where do I flag images with fake/ambiguous PD licensing?

Hello.
Sorry to pester, but I'm not entirely sure where to mention images that listed as being public domain, but which probably really aren't (and certainly aren't attributed).
The first is File:SandUpYerAss.jpg.
It claims to be in the public domain because of lapsed copyright, but this is entirely unverifiable since no original source is provided. The closest to a provided source is the fact that the article in which it's being used says that tijuana bibles were produced from the 20's to the 60's (and, of course, the 20's included a few years before 1923).
More concerning is File:Wimpy_TJB.jpg, uploaded with the same claim. This one is of more concern because it's not only of a copyrighted character, but the same claim is made (prior to 1923), without listing a source and I don't even know that Wimpy existed before 1923. The earliest year mentioned in the Wimpy article is 1934. Even outside of that, in my own searches, I've been unable to find any solid evidence of his existence prior to 1931 (closest I've found to anything earlier is a single auction for a statue claimed to have been from 1929). If the character didn't exist prior to 1923, then obviously a 'parody' of him couldn't have, either.
Thing is, I have nooo clue how to actually, uh, report them? I mean, where do I post concerns about images? 209.90.133.69 (talk) 02:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Normally, you would want to list these at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files. In this case, though, the first image does not have a source listed, so I tagged it as not having a source. The second image exists on Commons, not here. I nominated it for deletion there. Thanks for bringing these to our attention. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I should note that they do not claim that they were made prior to 1923. It claims that it's public domain, and the tag then adds that that usually means pre-1923. Per the reasoning I gave at the Commons deletion debate, I can't imagine how that one could be anything but public domain, as the required copyright notices and renewal would have landed the creator in jail for indecency, etc. The first one, though, just is too unknown, as there's no way to make an educated guess at the origin at all without a source, and it could even be modern for all we know. I suspect it probably is PD, but there isn't enough solid info to make that call in that case. DreamGuy (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you can add your additional thoughts to my concerns (at the deletions discussion in commons). Most importantly: Is there anything a third party can do to make a definitely copyrighted character public domain? Even if one assumes that it was from a tijuana bible, and that the 'creator' didn't bother copyrighting it, the 'work' in question is essentially just a picture of Wimpy, a character from the Thimble Theater and Popeye comics (and cartoons). So, if someone else illegally makes an unauthorized work with a copyrighted character, but then doesn't protect his unauthorized work, does that mean that the character then falls into public domain? (If so, then just about every cartoon character, from Mickey Mouse to Goku, is arguably public domain now) 72.88.46.132 (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

QUESTION: Can We Use This Image At Wikipedia

Hi, there is a news story that is widely distributed about a Python pictured swallowing whole cockatoo. I believe the image copyright is available to anyone as long as it is properly cited, as described here. Can someone confirm this image meets Wikipedia's standards for use. Thank you. Green Squares (talk) 12:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it is copyrighted with a fee. Green Squares (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That would mean it's a violation of WP:NFCC#3, and we can't use it. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I meant WP:NFCC#2. Sorry for the confusion. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It says multiple images, are we allowed to use one image? Green Squares (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

No. DreamGuy (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It does meet the Wikipedia criterion, if we use one-image:

1. Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.

1. Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace.

Green Squares (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, but it doesn't meet the criterion before that, number 2. Stifle (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Images from defunct manufacturer's copyrighted spec sheets - fair use?

Resolved

 – ukexpat (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a catalog from a manufacturer that went belly-up in 1981. Another company bought the intellectual property rights, and continued manufacturing and marketing the products for a few years, then abandoned the product line. The catalog consists of individual copyrighted spec sheets, with photographs for each product.

Can the photos be used on Wikipedia under the Fair Use doctrine?

FWIW, the companies in question are ARP Instruments Inc., a manufacturer of music synthesizers, and CBS, Inc. Most of the ARP products presently have a Wikipedia page with no images.

Thanks for your help! Wobbith (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Even if the products have been discontinued someone (presumably the company) still owns all the intellectual property rights pertaining thereto, including copyrights. I don't think that the mere fact that the products have been discontinued affects their status under Wikipedia's free use rationales. – ukexpat (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact that they are discontinued doesn't matter. But it's possible that the image might not be copyrighted. Does the catalog have a copyright notice © anywhere on it? If it was published before 1978 without a copyright notice, then it's in the public domain. If it was published before 1989 without a copyright notice, then it might be PD, if it wasn't registered with the U.S. Copyright office. I can check, if you can provide details on who published it. But first: does it have a © notice? – Quadell ^(talk) 15:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, each individual spec sheet bears the copyright © 1979 Arp Instruments... so I guess it's no go.Wobbith (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Bummer. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Windows 7 image copyrighted

I believe the image "File:Windows_7.png" should be deleted as it does not stand for the microsoft guidelines for using screenshots; Microsoft does not allow the usage of screenshots of Beta (non commercial distribution) software. You may consult Use of Microsoft Copyrighted Content --Rojoeterno (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Our non-free content policy does not consider whether the copyright-holder would approve, nor should it. As long as a non-free image passes our WP:NFCC policy, we don't care whether Microsoft is willing to give permission or not. Our use is a "fair use" which doesn't rely on their terms of use. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, although I recall some similar image being deleted a while back for failing WP:NFCC#4. Stifle (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Toronado Article

I wish to upload two screenshots to the Toronado_(Zorro_horse) article to illustrate my comments in the last paragraph regarding Toronado and Chico wearing the same harness ten years apart. One would be of Zorro on Toronado and the second of the Queen of Swords on Chico. What objections would there be?REVUpminster (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Are the screenshots copyrighted? If so, you'd need to show that they are not replaceable by free images and that there is a solid reason why both images should be used rather than just one or neither. Stifle (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I removed the statement itself, which was nothing but original research, so the images are moot. DreamGuy (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

If you say it is original research then that means the whole of wikipedia is merely a copy of something else. so it must continually violate the copyright of someone else. I found the items on the internet and thought they would be of interest. What is a reference if it's not to someone else's work/research. ps I since found the same harness was used in the Alain Delon ZorroREVUpminster (talk) 07:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)07:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by REVUpminster (talk • contribs)

bots keep deleting Arnold Tremere

To Whom it may concern,

Two separate bots have deleted my Arnold Tremere image. The reason sent in the first delete was that no permissions were sent in. This was simply not accurate as I was required to send in a special e-mail to specify this permission as well as updating the info in commons. (This occurred due to problems in formatting the image and displaying the image correctly). The second bot deleted the image because there was no source. When I checked the details it read that "I created this image and own this image (or something to this effect). I do own this image so this source statment is accurate. How do I remedy this situation in a way that is final?

Thanks for any and all advice. --Amazona01 (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The image is still here, but may be deleted in a week if the problems aren't resolved. The trouble is, it isn't clear who created the image. When you first uploaded it, you said "I created this work entirely by myself." But then you said "common internet use image", which makes one think you simply found the image on the internet. It was tagged by a person as needing deletion for this reason. (A bot notified you, but a person made the decision to tag the image for deletion.) You then said "donated by Liisa Tremere owned by Tremere family". Are you "Lisa Tremere"? Is Lisa Tremere the photographer? Is the photographer willing to allow anyone to use the image for any reason, including modifications and commercial use? – Quadell ^(talk) 01:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Two Questions

First how do you add information too uploaded images? And if you have a cite to a website can you copy the words off it as long as you make it your own words but still have the information needed, the reason is cause a user told me I couldn't add the information for Miley Cyrus that was on two websites and I even put my own words into it and they blocked it off so what cna I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprite7868 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

material from US gov't

I have two pieces I was thinking about scanning and uploading for use in WP, but I'm not sure what the copyright status might be. When JFK was assassinated, my aunt (then a teenager) sent a letter of condolence to Jackie Kennedy. The response she got was a photograph (about 8" x 10") of JFK, Jackie, and (I presume) Caroline and John Jr. and a short form letter from Nancy Tuckerman (in her capacity as Secretary to Mrs Kennedy), thanking her. I thought they might make nice additions to one of the JFK assassination articles, such as Reaction to the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Since Ms. Tuckerman was acting in her capacity as a US government employee, can I assume it is now public domain? The picture doesn't have any identification on it, but came from the same office. Is it likely to be public domain as well? Matt Deres (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

While although she was acting in her capacity of a government employee, that doesn't necessarily mean that the picture itself was produced by the government. For example, if Kennedy had simply had some pictures done for christmas cards or something and had those made up, then they wouldn't be government works (unless the government paid for it, of course). Since you only know how you got them, but don't know how/why they were made, there's really no way to know whether or not they were produced by the government. 72.88.46.132 (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, what about the letter? Matt Deres (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me like the letter is certainly in the public domain. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

CC-BY and CC-BY-SA compatibility with GFDL (text, not images)

Is it OK to add CC-BY and CC-BY-SA text to Wikipedia? Thanks --PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 15:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

CC-BY yes, and I think CC-BY-SA and GFDL 1.3 are compatible now, but you'll want someone else to confirm that. howcheng {chat} 20:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I've always been told I couldn't add CC-by text, and I thought that was one of the problems that they're trying to fix with the relicensing. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the answer is "not yet... but soon." – Quadell ^(talk) 22:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Barletta.jpg

Amadeo Barletta Barletta

I uploaded an image yesterday from Ambar Motors site,which has no notice of copyright. I don´t have the information about who took the picture. the picture is from a person who died 34 years ago. Can I still use it. Please help tag it with the proper information.--Juliaaltagracia (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. The image may well be copyrighted. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Creative Commons

Have several questions. First is [Fort Wiki] part of Wikipedia--it appears to use same page format. If so, how can I locate Fort Wiki images for use in Wikipedia articles. If not, are Fort Wiki images available to transfer to Wikipedia? They have Creative Commons tag in lower right corner (e.g. [CC logo]).--Orygun (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

FortWiki is not a part of Wikipedia, they just use the same MediaWiki software that we do. The images don't have explicit license tags and are credited to John Stanton (administrator there) so I think its fine to assume that the images are CC-BY-SA too; but you might want to contact him just to make sure in case you are planning to do a mass upload. All these images should go to commons as they are free. PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 12:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Is {{cc-by-sa-3.0} the correct tag to use if I upload one of the Fort Wiki images to Wiki-Commons or is there another tag that would specifically cite John Stanton as original source? Maybe {{attribution|John Stanton}? There are so many tags, it hard to figure out which one to use when your do something new.--Orygun (talk) 01:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, {{cc-by-sa-3.0} is the right tag. You should also link to the page on FortWiki you got the image from and source it to John in the summary field. PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 04:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Drew Peterson mugshot.jpg

This copyright doesn't seem correct. Isn't this the work of a state government, not federal? I don't think that necessarily means its free, does it? 98.227.168.34 (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It depends whether he was booked by state police or federal agents. I can't tell from the article. Either way, the image is on Commons, not here. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

In practice there's no actual difference. They're all public domain, despite some people making claims to the contrary. DreamGuy (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy, do you have some reason behind your claim that state mugshots are still public domain? Certainly state works generally are not PD. What is special about mugshots? —teb728 t c 00:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't seem right. According to this, "State and local governments usually do retain a copyright on their works. 17 USC §105 only places federal documents in the public domain." 98.227.168.34 (talk) 00:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

waylon jennings

the article on waylon never mentioned his first marriage to anita carter or that he and j cash were brothers in law also i seem to remember waylon stating somewhere about he and buddy holly being from the same town namely lubbock texas kevin ireland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.217.104 (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

That is not a media copyright question; so this is not the place for your post. You should post at the article discussion page. —teb728 t c 00:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I've some images and permission to use on Commons but not sure how to step forward

Hello my friends

My good friend recently went to Antwerp and took some beautiful pictures there. I'd like to include them on a couple of articles. I have her permission to use them, written as an email. I'll have all the dates etc off the camera and they are published on her blog. I'm just not quite sure how I can do this and not just get a delete bot removing them, as I have tried my best to get permission and she is happy for me to put them on Commmons (and she publishes them herself on her blog). They are essentially PD. Any advice please? SimonTrew (talk) 00:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Has she actually released them to the public domain? If not, is her permission for use on Wikipedia only, or does she allow reuse by anyone for anything? See WP:COPYREQ. —teb728 t c 00:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

A method that may be less tedious is to have her write on her blog a short notice below the images, using the wording of {{Cc-by-3.0}}, or {{PD-self}} or similar. decltype (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions about Commons image with questionable copyright status

Yesterday, the image File:HMS Shropshire (73) in 1935.JPG was added to the article HMS Shropshire (73). On looking at the image page (which is hosted on Commons), I noted two things:

1. The image is scanned from a book. Jane's Fighting Ships 1938 is claimed as the work the image came from
2. The image has been tagged as {{Copyrighted free use}}. However, there is no accompanying statement showing that Jane's Information Group (a) retains copyright over the image (unless somebody else, unidentified, is the copyright holder), and (b) gives permission for the image to be used for any purpose.

Now, this is probably my lack of copyright knowlege speaking, and I am probably asking in the wrong place (I don't know enough about Commons to locate the equivalent page there), but this whole situation strikes me as somewhat odd and maybe possibly illegal. Can someone enlighten me? -- saberwyn 10:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's tagged incorrectly, but I believe the work is in the public domain. Jane's Information Group is based in London, and copyright in the UK lasts 70 years after the death of the author. This book was obviously not written by Fred T. Jane, who died in 1916, and I believe it's a work of corporate authorship. I believe works of corporate authorship in the UK are copyrighted for 70 years after publication (though I'd appreciate it if someone could confirm this), which would make the work PD as of January 1, 2009. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Factual information from the recent scientific article

Hello! Is factual data protected by copyright? For example, I see an article in a scientific journal. There is a table that shows how psychotropic meds affect the expression of different molecules. I want to reproduce the table in the Wikipedia article. Under the table in the PDF I see that authors write "data on mRNA expression reprinted with kind permission from publisher so-and-so, copyright 2006". The article itself is also non-"CreativeCommons". But the data is quite simple: "goes down", "goes up", "no change". Does it mean that I cannot reproduce this simple table or even say in the article "This medication leads to higher\lower mRNA [molecule so-and-so] expression in rats"? Best regards, --CopperKettle 13:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Factual information cannot be copyrighted, but the presentation of that information can be. You can certainly include a table of that information, but make it as different as you can. Potentially copyrightable aspects of a factual list may include: the selection of which items to include, the order in which they are listed, the specific wording involved, and the layout of the table in general. See Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service for more info. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I just was baffled why the authors mentioned copyright and "reprinted with permission" under the simple table.. The table included their own results, just printed earlier by a publishing company. I will try to think how to make it different.. I'll take a look at that link you mention, thanks again. --CopperKettle 17:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Co-operative Championship

I found these two maps on the Co-operative Championship article that show the locations of the teams that will play in that league. Both maps appear to be taken from commercial mapping websites with the locations drawn on top. The first one seems to be taken from Google Maps and the second probably is also. The uploader claims to own copyright of both and has released them for use. I don't know much about the subject but is this allowed? File:Clubs_Championship_2009.jpg File:Toulouse_location.jpg

JimRDJones (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

No, these are derivative works, and are not allowed. Someone could recreate them from scratch, or using a public domain map as a base. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Consistent Use of Copyrighted Washington Metro Logo by User:SchuminWeb

File:WMATA_Metro_Logo.svg‎

Mr Schumin has repeatedly put up a registered and copyrighted Washington Metro Logo on the Washington Metro Wikipedia page. He has been asked on numerous occasions to remove it and does such. After a few weeks though he consistently puts it back up illegally. I ask if you can please address this issue so no further actions need to be taken in this illegal copyright infringement. Thank You. 129.2.16.143 (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, question: What does this have to do with me? My name's not on any of the logs for this image, and I've never placed this image. Do your research before you make an accusation. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly the IP of a user SchuminWeb blocked. His concerns are not only false but irrelevant. --Golbez (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep... thought as much after a little further research, finding this diff. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

That logo is not eligible for copyright. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Old postcards

Hi, sorry if this was covered before, but I can't seem to find it on the list. I want to include in my article on Tower City, PA a picture of the East Brookside Colliery, where a significant local disaster occurred in 1913. I came across an image of an old postcard placed on someone else's website, but there is no licensing information, or anything on where he got it, what date it was produced, or anything like that. I tried to find it someplace else using google search, but no luck. My assumption is that the image is from the early 20's by the look of it, but I'm not completely sure. Can you help? The image is at http://www.redwolfcs.com/landweride/index_clip_image004.jpg. Thanks! Bowie60 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC).

Is this photo a record of the 1913 disaster? Is it safe to say that the photo was created around 1913 or soon thereafter? – Quadell ^(talk) 21:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in answering. After doing some research, I do believe the photo is from somewhere between 1892 and 1913, given the construction and comparisons to other photos I have seen, but I have no actual written proof. So, this would have pre-dated the disaster. Bowie60 (talk)

regarding this file...Statesman-journal july 23rd 1986

File:Statesman-journal_july_23rd_1986..jpg I have taken this photo of an artcle from the newspaper mentioned that I want to use as a reliable source and couldn't find on the internet . I apparently tagged it wrong and it has been retagged as an orphaned fair use speedy delete, is there any thing else, a correct tag that would allow it to stay so I can quote from the article? Or perhaps If I can't find it anywhere else can it stay to support using the comments as a reliable source? I would be grateful for a simple comment on this , ta (Off2riorob (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC))

We can't keep the image on Wikipedia, but you can certainly use it as a reliable source anyway. Like:

• Davies, Janet (July 23, 1986). "Plea Bargains Save, AG Says". The Statesman. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

It's okay if it's not online; you can still quote from it, and it's just as reliable. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

right thank you. I will ad a delete tag now . (Off2riorob (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC))

It does not have to be online to be reliable, but it would be most helpful for WP:V if we could confirm the article by having its page number and verification through some sort of database archives like LexisNexis. Cirt (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is archived in the Statesman-Journal archives in Oregon. They can be contacted on-line.(Off2riorob (talk) 08:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC))

Michael Bublé Meets Madison Square Garden

File:Meets Madison Square Garden.jpg and

File:Michael_Buble_Meets_MSG.jpg I found these picture in his official website at michaelbuble.com. I uploaded the pictures to wikipedia, but I have no idea about the copyright issues and tags and all the other stuff that comes with uploading a picture. I'd be glad if somebody could shed some light on this. I wish to upload it to Michael Bublé Meets Madison Square Garden. The blue one is the special edition, and the orange one is the standard edition. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverfriends0730 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, those images lack fair use rationale. Since this is an album cover, you can use Template:album cover fur, as long as you fill out all the information that you can. I'm not sure both images are necessary as they are basically the same, only a slight tint adjustment. File:With Love 1.jpg is an example of a Michael Bublé album image that has the template in use. Good luck. -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

letters from a public office

I have a letter sent froma public office by a public employee on official paper, If I uploaded it what would be its copyright status. I have been told that it would be public domain. Is this correct? I have as yet not uploaded it as I am unsure about its copyright status. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC))

In some countries, some works by some public employees are automatically public domain. For example, works produced by the US federal government are not subject to copyright. However, in most countries this is not the case. What public office produced this letter? Algebraist 21:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Even if this is in the United States, the USPS has been an independent corporation since 1970, and can hold copyright. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Why would we upload this? If it has never been published by a reliable source then it wouldn't be suitable as a source. If it's just to show the text then that could be transcribed. Is there something about the appearance of the letter that would be on interest in an article?   Will Beback  talk  22:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

yes it is American. United states department of justice. United states attourney, District of Oregon. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC))

looking at that page..works produced by the US federal government

I would say it comes under that catagory. Could I upload it under public domain for people to look at?(Off2riorob (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC))

Only if you think it could be used on one of the Wikimedia Foundation's projects, not just for your personal satisfaction. Physchim62 (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

no of course not .. i want to use some of the text or the whole thing in an article (Off2riorob (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC))

For what encyclopedic purpose? I.e. how would it improve the article? See Will Beback's post above. —teb728 t c 23:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

to present additional information. (Off2riorob (talk) 07:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC))

If it was created by United States attorney as part of his duties, there is no copyright problem with the letter. If it were something of visual interest, you would tag it with {{PD-USGov}}. It appears, however, that the letter has no encyclopedic use, and as such the letter as a whole is not appropriate for Wikipedia: Wikipedia is not a repository of original documents. If you want to quote some of the text, you could transcribe it. But unless it has been published in a reliable source, you cannot use it as a source (which I suspect is your intended purpose). —teb728 t c 08:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes... teb728 t As it is an official document on goverment paper and exposes a strategy by the person in question totally opposite to 'reliably sourced' comments published here I would indeed like to use it as a source. I personally would say that an official document lke this has more encyclopediac value than the one sided reporting of local newspapers. I would also like to note that as per the help and discussion here I realise to use the text I would have to find the letter in a reliable source but as is seems almost certain there is no copyright problem with the letter I can see no problem with uploading it, there are many many images of free use that are not as yet in use on wikipedia are are kind of sat there waiting for the opportunity to be useful somewhere. I myself have uploaded images that have become part of the repository and as yet are unused but are part of the database available for use and may I also say that these free use images also attract a lot of people here looking for images that they can use on other sites. I would also dissagree that the letter has no encyclopediac use as it is public domain and is written by a person that is central to a couple of articles here , and who knows... once it is uploaded it may indeed have a use. I have been informed that it has been published but I have no idea where , yet! best regards.(Off2riorob (talk) 09:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC))

You say you can see no problem with uploading it. Take a look at yesterday’s Files for deletion nominations; 2/3 of them PD images nominated as “unencyclopedic orphans.” —teb728 t c 10:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, if an image is not ever going to be used in an encyclopedia article, it'll probably get deleted. WikiMedia Commons may be a better forum. But in general, it's a bad idea to use an image on Wikipedia (or Commons) as a source. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks teb728 t and Quadell ^(talk) I feel the outcome here is that if I upload it to commons as P-domain there is no problem with the copyright but it may get nominated for deletion as orphaned unencyclopediac and unless I can find it in a wikipedia reliable source then it's a bad idea to attempt to use it as a WP:RS . Ok thats cool , thanks for your time. (Off2riorob (talk) 13:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC))

Image of a medal

Hi there

Would there be any issues with uploading an image of a winner's medal from one of England's professional football (soccer) competitions? I notice that Commons has files like this one which are tagged as "uploader's own work", but was wondering if it might be claimed that copyright on the design rested with the sport's governing body or anything like that........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The design could very well be copyrighted. Do you have a link to the medal in question, so we could examine whether it meets the minimal create requirements for copyright or not? – Quadell ^(talk) 13:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately not, as I haven't taken the picture of it yet. I'll report back when I have...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The medal you pointed to on the commons has been deleted as a copyright violation and the same may well apply to a similar new medal you intend to upload. ww2censor (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Out of interest, would a medal be treated differently to something like this? I'm guessing the NFL would have copyrighted the design of that trophy, and the league's logo, which is visible in two places in the image, is certainly copyrighted, so surely that image is unacceptable too..........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

File:SEHS-austin seal.jpg

This graphic is a partial scan of the cover of a St. Ed's High School yearbook that is in my possession. The school closed 42 years ago. Does that make it public domain ? What type of tag would be appropriate ? Oconnem4502 (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't necessarily make it public domain. Was that seal around before 1923? If so, the seal itself is definitely in the public domain, and I would say the scan is too. Since the school was founded in 1872, I think it's very likely that the seal itself is old enough to qualify. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Seal dates from at least 1885. Don't know about before that. Will use PD for that image.Oconnem4502 (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

File:SEHS Old Main.jpg

I have permission from the photographer to use any of his work as it pertains to SEHS. What tag do I use ? Oconnem4502 (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The copyright owner should follow the instructions at WP:IOWN to confirm release of copyright. – ukexpat (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright owner? There is no copyright that I am aware of. Photographer a fellow classmate at St. Ed's, is not particularly cyber savvy. All of his SEHS photos were sent to me on CD as a gift, and are disk resident on my computer. I will assume that make me the current owner, even though I acknowledge that he originally shot the pix  ? Oconnem4502 (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The original photographer owns the copyright and unless he has legally assigned them to you, he still owns them. He will have to release the images for use on Wikipedia or you will have to provide evidence via the process at WP:IOWN that you have his permission to use them. – ukexpat (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Contacted Jeff to ask he what he wants to do. Waiting for his answer.Oconnem4502 (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Photographs by Romanian Defense Ministry in Public Domain?

Are pictures taken by employees of the Romanian Defense Ministry (Ministerul Apararii Nationale) in the public domain, similar to those by the U.S. Department of Defense? I am looking to replace this copyrighted image of the IAR 99 with one by the Romanian Air Force (one of these). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandru.rosu (talk • contribs) 15:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently not, see the copyright notice at the foot of that page: Copyright © 2005 - Romanian Air Force. – ukexpat (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as this plane was designed in 1975 you might be able to find a pre-1991 photo that, according to commons:Commons:Copyright_tags#Romania are in the Romanian public domain. ww2censor (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ukexpat, there are other images on wikipedia (e.g. File:Fregata_Regele_Ferdinand.jpg) from the Defense Ministry site which are licensed public domain, hence my question & uncertainty. Furthermore, it is common practice in Romania to put copyright notices everywhere, even on already (c) items. Ww2censor, thanks a lot for the hint, will look into that. Alexandru.rosu (talk) 19:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Just because that image from the Ministry is PD, I don't think we can assume these are. And how can we confirm that the other image is indeed PD - it's not clear from the image info page and the template isn't that helpful. – ukexpat (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I very much doubt the original image Fregata image is in the public domain because the main page clearly shows a copyright notice as do many other pages and I cannot find any PD release on the website, so unless you have some evidence their images are in the public domain we must assume they are all copyright unless taken before 1991. ww2censor (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

All true and well. Yet, they don't state 'all rights reserved' and you do have to own the copyright for an image to be able to release it. I've contacted the romanian chapter of CC, maybe they know something for sure. Alexandru.rosu (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

How do you keep a picture for more than 7 days?

How do you get the copyright for the image so that it can last for more than a week? User:Looney Guy —Preceding undated comment added 18:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC).

If you create the image yourself, you hold the copyright, and the image can stay as long as you like. If it's a copyright infringement, we can't use it. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you're trying to upload a fair use image. Policies for that are at Wikipedia:Non-free_content. If you provide us with the information about what you're trying to do, we'll try to help. We'll need information on the source of the image to help with it though. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If you are asking about File:250px-E102gamma.png, it needs a source (telling where you got it from), an image copyright tag (telling what right Wikipedia has to use it), and if the tag is for non-free use, a non-free use rationale (telling how the use conforms with the highly restrictive Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria). —teb728 t c 23:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Licensing

Dear Sir/Madam,

Further to your queries relating to the following illustrations: "An Ethereal Encounter", "Leap into Legend" and "My Ftaher. My King", You have been approached some time ago with questions regards the licensing but no reply was ever forthcoming. The images are the works of Arthur Benjamins, who is happy for them to be used for the Wiki entrance and is satisfied that the quality is not good enough for illegal copying and distribution.

Could you therefore please advise what kind of licensing is required as per above comments.

Thank you,

Rotterdam1953 (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The copyright owner has to release them for use on Wikipedia via the process set out at WP:IOWN. Then the appropriate licensing information can be added. – ukexpat (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Statistics Canada

Is statistics canada considered to be public domain? I'm mainly looking at the graphs and data in this discouraged workers pdf.Smallman12q (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's not a PD source. But the data is not copyrighted; only the way the data is presented is copyrighted. You can't copy the graphs as images, but you can recreate them using the underlying data. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

File:EUREKA TOWN HALL.jpg

Could someone please tell me how to change the copyright status of an image? I have written permission to use this image.--Moland freak (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The copyright owner has to release it for use on Wikipedia via the process set out at WP:IOWN. Then the appropriate licensing information can be added. – ukexpat (talk) 02:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Large non-free images

Hi. WP:ALBUM says with respect to covers: "The width of the image should ideally be no less than 200px (the default display size of the infobox), but it should be no more than 300px on at least one side (to satisfy fair use criteria)." I was just notified that an image I uploaded, File:BestofEarthWind&Fire.jpg, was orphaned, and I discovered that it had been replaced with File:Earth Wind and Fire Symbol.jpg, which is 500 px. on each side, well above that limit. For the moment, I've restored the one I uploaded to the article, but was hoping to get feedback here (not knowing where else to ask) on how to handle the matter. Ordinarily, when I run into a large image, I tag it {{Non-free reduce}}. But this seems pointless when there is already a reduced image. What to do? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you did the right thing. The smaller image complies with policy, and should be used. The larger image should be tagged for deletion as a non-free orphan, or possibly deleted outright as a duplicate image. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Time/Life photo question

Resolved

 – ukexpat (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

For use in an article on Jimmy Savo, can I can upload this 1942 photo by Gjon Mili? It says "for non-commercial use only".

If so, what tag do I use? J. Van Meter (talk) 13:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a non-free image, and can only be used in compliance with our non-free content criteria. The fact that it allows non-commercial use isn't relevant; we need to treat it like any other non-free image. That said, I think we can use it, if there are no free images of this person. Simply upload the work and tag it {{Non-free fair use in}} and {{Non-free use rationale}}. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the help. upload to here or commons -is one preferred? J. Van Meter (talk) 14:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It will have to be here, since non-free images aren't allowed on Commons. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

of course. (what a stupid question.) J. Van Meter (talk) 14:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)