Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2007/April

Question about fair use images

Question: I replaced an old headshot of Broadway actor Stephanie J. Block with a newer one that is clearly identified on her official website as an official headshot. It is available in several resolutions for both electronic and print use. The fair use of this image was disputed, and the image replaced (I didn't realize I might have messages on wikipedia and did not sign on for a long time). The dispute claimed that the photo was of a subject for whom there were other fair use images available.

Why was the photo (SJB Color 300dpi.jpg, probably deleted by now) removed? It, like the original photo, is intended by Ms. Block and her agents to promote her. Surely it is better for the users of this site that the entries--and the graphics that illustrate them--are kept up-to-date.

bardolator 3/31/2007

Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, this means that all our content should be licensed under a free content license. For more information about what that means follow the link above. Some examples of free licenses are GFDL and some Creative Commons licenses. There are some exceptions to this, which are under our fair use guidelines. Our policy only allows such images when "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." Since this person is still alive this does not apply to the subject. If you would like to ask for a freely licensed image feel free to use Wikipedia:Example requests for permission or make up your own. If you have any other questions, or any suggestions to help make this more clear for uploaders let us know. :) - cohesion 04:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Footballers wives tagging

ive just uploaded a few promotional images for characters on footballers wives but i dont know how to tag them. please help...much appreciated. maybe a list of appropriate tags?? thanks alot. -Bree113

These images probably fail our fair use criteria. Please read that policy before uploading any more images. Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, so images that you find online probably aren't usable here. If you have any other questions or suggestions about how this can be more clearly communicated let us know. - cohesion 20:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Air Maldives4.jpg what copyright?

This is my own image. I took it myself from a sticker with my own camera. I edited it myself. What copyright? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mohonu (talk • contribs) 14:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

Even though the image was taken by you, since it's a close up image of a copyrighted logo, it would probably fall under our fair use policy. I have tagged it as a logo, but it still needs a fair use rationale. - cohesion 20:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

question concerning proper copyright tags

I recently placed a picture Image:StaticShockGrounded.jpg in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Static_Shock_episodes because it was decidedly lacking in an informative image. It is a television screen shot and I believed I had included the proper licensing tag under fair use, yet it was flagged lacking such information. In the interest of respecting copyrighted material, I would greatly appreciate someone telling me what is wrong and/or missing so I may be able to correct this problem and know this knowledge for the future. Thank-you for listening to my request. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikian789 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

Originally there was no tag, for technical reasons we need to have an actual tag even if there is text information explaining the status. For example, since this is a fair use image we need that particular tag. How it is tagged now is a good example of how it should be, with both a source and license. Ideally it would also have a Wikipedia:Fair use rationale. - cohesion 20:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

MNOLG II

How can you tell Turaga Nokama to call the Ga-Koro Kohlii Match with the onu-koro team?--Davidcrim 21:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This page is for asking questions about image licensing. I'm not sure what your question is in regards to. - cohesion 00:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Help me I cannot delete even though i try and try

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:15678_london-demo-7-2-2006.jpg

I uploaded this picture but then I get a threatening I must take it down but I cannoT! Help me please to delete, it will not follow my commands.Aleksi Peltola 22:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• I tagged the image with {{db-authora}}, suggesting that it be deleted via speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G7. In the future, you may tag images that you would like to delete with {{db-author}}; that is, type { { d b - a u t h o r } } (without the spaces) on the image description page. Regards, Iamunknown 23:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Y Done - cohesion 23:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Help

I have just uploaded a picture of General Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet to be added to the article I have written on this army officer. I did not see the instructions to link the picture to the article so would appreciate help with this please. The image has been provided to me by the National Army Museum in London, to whom I paid £45 in order to have the picture added to my article on General Asgill (together with the picture which is already there). I also want to use this opportunity to try to locate the original oil on canvass portrait so added a note to this effect when I uploaded the picture. There are warning notices which have come up to say that I cannot upload this picture onto Wikipedia. I hope this is not the case since, having paid £45 for the privilege of doing so, and permission from NAM has been granted, I hope it will be possible for somebody to link it to my entry for me? The picture I am referring to is labelled Image:AI - From NAM-2.jpg Thanks to anybody who is able to assist me. --Arbil44 09:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added the {{holdon}} template for now to keep the image from being deleted. Since Asgill died in the 1800s, this image is likely in the public domain. Do you know who made the work (and most importantly, when he/she made it or when he/she died)? ShadowHalo 11:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for putting the holdon tag to the image. I know nothing about the timescale of the picture, other than that it is a mezzotint by Charles Turner, done as a reproduction of an oil on canvass by Sir Thomas Phillips - that oil was exhibited at the Royal Academy in London in 1822. The National Army Museum have granted me a license to use the scan of the mezzotint picture on Wikipedia, for which privilege I have already paid them £45. They have told me to get back to them if there are problems with uploading the image, but really, given that I have had to pay good money to put this picture on this site, then surely it can be uploaded to my Asgill, 2nd Baronet, page? NAM did say that there should be buried computer info. within the uploaded image which would be "recognised". God knows, I know I don't!--212.120.227.249 16:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe SH is mistaken about the image being public domain because of its age. The original painting certainly would be if it was done from life, but that simple reproductions of public domain -- such as this one -- are also public domain is a matter of U.S. Federal case law, not statutory law. In other words, it's based on a court's interpretation of existing law; it's not something the law says directly. It may not apply in the UK. Consult your local authorities.

However, the basic problem is that we cannot use images "by permission" here. Wikipedia is made available under the GFDL and all content must be either public domain, or available under some license compatible with the GFDL. An image that's licensed "for Wikipedia only" doesn't meet this criterion. When you tagged it "by permission" it was therefore automatically identified for deletion. I'm very sorry it cost you so much money. Perhaps on consideration they'd find the GFDL or one of the compatible Creative Commons licenses acceptable? TCC (talk) (contribs) 17:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I wrote the above without noting your reply. I hadn't realized this was a mezzotint copy. Normally a "slavish copy" isn't eligible for copyright, but I'm not sure if this qualifies since its in a different medium and I don't know how much creative work was required to make the plate by way of interpretation of the original. There's a good chance this is copyrighted, which explains the need to a license. Unfortunately, that doesn't change our situation with regard to what makes an acceptable license on Wikipedia. TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Before deleting the image please allow me time to get back to NAM. A Mr Jones at the Image Library (to whom I spoke on Friday) said they were dealing with Wikipedia all the time and that many of their images are on this site. He said that there were components buried within the image which would be "recognised" and accepted. I do not live in England but I shall have to make another overseas telephone call to NAM to see what can be done about this. After all, NAM has given permission and I have paid them. Personally, all I can say is, what's the problem? Please give me time to sort this out.--212.120.227.249 09:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC) Since NAM have absolutely no problem with me using this picture of Asgill on this site I have reloaded the picture (since it was deleted in spite of being on hold). I would be most grateful if someone would kindly add it to the appropriate site (link created at top of this message). I would like to have both pictures on Asgill's page please - one is already there of him as a young man. Thanks for your help.--Arbil44 12:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I ask for help to do this because I do not know how to do it myself. I am sorry not to be able to do it myself, but I just don't know how to.--212.120.227.249 23:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The data the museum is most likely talking about is the file metadata. The software that wikipedia uses lets you see this data. If you go to the image description page under the heading "Metadata", click show extended details. This will show that the copyright holder is "The National Army Museum Chelsea". The problem is that wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, which means we only include things that are licensed under free content licensed like GFDL and some Creative Commons licenses. Even if the museum did say that you had permission to use this image in wikipedia, we need them to actually license the image under some free content license. So, even though you may get specific permission to use an image in wikipedia, that doesn't mean we can use it. I know it seems weird, but we are trying to build a truly Free (as in speech, not just zero cost) encyclopedia which allows anyone to re-use the work as they need. Permission given this way impedes on that goal. If the museum does actually freely license things though that's great, and it is possible since they say they have dealt with wikipedia before.

On the description page you said you submit it under the creative commons license. Is that what the museum said? You cannot re-license images that you don't own the copyright for. You have also tagged the image as public domain. Please do not mis-tag images. I'll wait on this image and see what the response is. - cohesion 00:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

After talking to some people I think the image probably is public domain, so I'll fix it all as that. Sorry for all the confusion. Thanks for paying for the image and getting it, probably you weren't paying for the permission as much as the actual image. :) - cohesion 00:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If the image is public domain, then how did the museum sell the permission to use it on Wikipedia? Arbil44 should get the money back. –Pomte 01:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It's clearly PD in the US. But even then someone might sell such an image as copyrighted material since the principle involved isn't from statutory law but case law, with a precedent set no higher than the Federal District court level. (But if the reasoning is sound, it may well be acceptable to other courts.) However, the institution in question is in the UK, where the law may be different.

I was in error above. I tried looking up the artist of the mezzotint and came up with someone who died around 1970. On redoing the search I almost certainly had a different artist of the same name. So yes, it's {{PD-art}}. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the help given, but find the legal mumbo jumbo hard to follow! Please don't worry about this mezzotint - NAM are completely relaxed about it. They charged me for the use of it simply because the museum is a charity and has to raise money somehow.

Separately, whoever was kind enough to put the mezzotint at the top of the page has referred to it as the much earlier engraving (which is now located towards the end of the article). This is wrong and I don't know how to get into that section to correct it. The label under the new portrait should read "Mezzotint, after Phillips missing portrait - details below". Thanks again.--212.120.227.249 10:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being such a numbskull! I've done the correction myself now and I appreciate the help given, Thanks.--212.120.227.249 15:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Advice Please

This Image,thumb. Is over 50years old. I do not think copyright is an issue in Ireland (Eire). The number of choices offered in the selection, did not cover my needs. Advice/Information would be greatly appreciated, Regards--Domer48 20:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

In order for this to be out of copyright in Ireland, the illustrator would have had to die ten years before he or she created this image. You need to make a Wikipedia:Fair use claim if you need to discuss this image in an article. Jkelly 20:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

To explain further, the relevant Irish law here can be found in section 24 of the 2000 Copyright and Related Rights Act. Works enter the public domain seventy years after the death of the author. Jkelly 18:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Game Show Copyright

I have a new idea for a game show that is based on a movie. The movie of course was based on a book and the same individual holds the copyright to both the book and the movie. But what about the game show? Would the game show be considered to be a dirivative work that would require licensing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.29.164.28 (talk) 00:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

This page is for questions related to media that resides or may soon be uploaded to Wikipedia's servers, not for copyright questions in general. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for legal advice. Please see a lawyer for professional legal help. Seeking help from the internet could end up bad for your idea. MECU≈talk 15:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

By permission

Hello, I'm currently writing an article about Arthur Price, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_price.

I have permission from the company to use inmage from the website in the article, but each time I upload an image i get a 'this imagw may/will be deleted' message/warning.

the image is image:Jeanchristophenovellicutlery.jpg the url of the image is - http://www.arthurprice.com/arthurprice/media/pages/ZNRC2401-2.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dstymon (talk • contribs).

from what i read after uploading, it appears that i cannot use this (or any) image. But surely I can as I have permission from the Arthur Price company. So I'm not sure what to do.

The text of the tag explains the problem pretty clearly. The problem is not one of legality, but of the goal of this project, which is to provide a free content encyclopedia. Images uploaded "by permission for Wikipedia only" are contrary to that goal. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Help please! Batu Lintang camp

I have uploaded an image of two postcards written during WWII from Batu Lintang POW and civilian internee camp, in Kuching, Sarawak, but the page is marked as possibly for speedy deletion. I am unsure of the copyright situation. The authors were my grandparents (both now dead) and I am now the holder of the postcards. They were written on 5 May 1943. I am quite happy for these to be under some sort of public domain/free/fair use licence but none of the categories I looked at seemed to fit as I am not the creator of the works even though I suppose I hold the copyright. That's why I chose the tag I did - it seemed to be one of the few relevant ones that didn't imply authorship. Can anyone help on what an appropriate tag would be? I'm in the UK - don't know if that's relevant or not. The image is Image:Batu_lintang_postcards.jpg. Thanks Jasper33 10:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want to release the license of this image, which it appears that you clearly hold the license to, you need to license it freely for us. When you selected the license during upload, you selected "non-commercial use" or "Wikipedia use only" for which isn't free enough for us. We want to allow others to use our (and yours) work freely too! If you wish to allow this, including commercial use and derivatives, please see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses or Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Public domain and select the license you wish. Most likely, you will choose from PD-self, attribution, or one of the "Creative Commons" licenses (I use CC-BY-SA-2.5 on my images). When you select the license, go back to the image and click "edit this page" and put that license in there. You can then remove the speedy notice and other unrelated items (I put a tag to stop deletion until you select a better license). If you need help, please ask here. Thank you for your contribution. MECU≈talk 15:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that Mecu, but oh, I'm still just a bit confused. Why does Wikipedia give you the option of choosing 'non-commercial' if they don't want you to use it? It seems a bit odd to me! Anyhow - I want to have the image in the public domain and free for all, commercial or otherwise, to use, but none of the tags seemed to 'fit' the criteria of my image: I chose non-commercial as all the other licences seemed to imply authorship of the image. I didn't author or create the postcards. I made the jpeg but not the original postcards, so I was unsure about the copyright (as surely that refers to the author of a work?) - so is it with the Imperial Japanese Govt, who printed the postcards, with my grandparents, who wrote the text on the postcards, or with me as I now hold the postcards? I'm not at all bothered about attribution. Template:Attribution is no good as it says the copyright holder has authorship, which I don't; Template:PD-self says I'm the creator of the work, which I'm not. Help!! Jasper33 16:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I updated the license on Image:Batu lintang postcards.jpg. Please look at it and make sure that is acceptable to you. The questions about why we include things in the dropdown that we don't want people to use is a little weird. Before answering I should say, this case where you have the copyright to something you didn't create isn't that common in terms of our total uploads, and we have a lot of tags that aren't in the dropdown menu. That menu only represents the most common choices. It also represents common choices that are not acceptable. This is because we have found historically that if we don't include the drop down items people are looking for they will pick other things at random. We decided it's better to have things labeled accurately even if they are labeled as problems than have people label things randomly because they can't find the right tag. Thanks for uploading that amazing image by the way! - cohesion 03:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Unsure about which copyright to use? Jamie 17:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC) Jamie Ferrugiaro

Image:Sam2.JPG‎

This is the image I've uploaded recently. It is an completely original drawing done by me. However, I have no idea what copyright to assign to it. To be completly honest, I don't know anything about copyrights.

I know I don't want anyone editing the image at all. Period. I don't particulary want anyone *using* it at all, either, although I'm not sure if that is a possibility.

I have received an message saying I needed to provide what sort of copyright the image has, and seeing as I don't want it deleted, I'd appreciate any help someone could give with choosing this!

Going by what you just said, that you don't want anybody using it or editing it, I would suggest you have the image removed from Wikipedia (place {{db-author}} on the image page). Nearly all images on Wikipedia are licensed so they can be used for commercial and non-commercial purposes and they allow derivative works to be based on them.↔NMajdan•talk 18:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Wikipedia user contributions are required to be licensed in such a way that anyone may modify, use and distribute them for free or for profit. If those conditions are not acceptable to you we have to delete the image. The purpose of Wikipedia is to create and spread free content not host "private" artworks and photos. Use services like deviantART, Flickr or MySpace for things like that instead. --Sherool (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Gmail and Image:DSCN2734small.jpg

I have drawn this image myself. Can I tag it {{GFDL-self}} and use it to describe Gmail logo?--Vaya 19:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

We can use the actual gmail logo under fair use for any discussion of the logo itself. Please see the fair use criteria. The description page mentions that this image should be deleted, and is being used "to resolve some matters concerning copyright". If you have a specific question go ahead and ask. Wikipedia does not give legal advice. - cohesion 03:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Usability question

I have been uploading quite a few photos and tag them as my own work. Occasionally something in the system seems to go astray and I end up with a "no copyright " message. On returning to the photo to change the copyright properties, it proves impossible to get in and change it. I have to delete what is there, re-upload the file under a different name, etc.

Very very very frustrating and not user friendly. I have an IT degree and feel sorry for genuine contributors who end up in a "geek jungle" trying to make sense of it all, and probably walk away from Wikipedia in total frustration. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MichaelGG (talk • contribs).

All you need to do is click the "edit this page" button at the top and insert the code for the correct template (there's a list of the templates at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags). ShadowHalo 13:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:NWO_vs_Vandals.JPG using Wikipedia logo

Is this OK or should it be tagged as a copyright violation?

I know this comes up for discussion a lot, but I'm not clear on what the "official" stance is on it. Thanks. -- Siobhan Hansa 06:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Right now it's a copyright violation. The Wikipedia logo is not licensed under the GFDL, so unless the creator of this image got explicit permission from the foundation neither can this image derived from it. --Sherool (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

And I see someone has already tagged it. Thanks for the help. -- Siobhan Hansa 14:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

And untagged, I left a comment on the talk page of the image. - cohesion 02:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

picture tag

read the pages as best as I could understand. Am working with the person to detirmine that he is good with publication 'free ware'. He sent it to me under solicitation of a E-mail as we both work in the fire service, but upon review, I am contacting him to insure he understands exactly what I am doing with it. The pic is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Chimney_Fire%2CMarlboro_Vt.jpg and my signature is --Surryroger 20:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Good work! Just make sure that he's willing for it to be used for any purpose, including non-educational and commercial. That's the important point. We can decide exactly how it should be tagged based on the details of what he tells you. Once he emails you permission, forward copies of it to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org" (substituting the appropriate symbols, of course) so that Wikipedia has an official record of it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

do i need a tag line?

My name is James Boyles. I just added three photos to Wikipedia. I'm not sure exactly what an image tag is, but i can assure you that I took all of the photos i uploaded to the site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by James bme (talk • contribs) 01:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Are you ok with people re-using the images under a free content license? Do you require attribution when/if people re-use them? Is it important that the re-users also allow for re-use of the derivative work? Let us know, and we can help decide on a license for you. :) - cohesion 02:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Image: Image:IH5WR.5g HR.jpg

Why is it that my image keeps getting deleted? An email was sent to me by the iHome company to give me permission to use that exact picture.

The image is Image:IH5WR.5g HR.jpgRockinfreakapotomi 02:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, which means that our content can be re-used by other people. Since the image in question is something only wikipedia is allowed to use it's not within the goals of the project. A note was left on your talk page User_talk:Rockinfreakapotomi explaining this also, we would very much like any feedback you have regarding that message's clarity. If you have any ideas for improvement let us know :) - cohesion 02:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Question about a work of art that is a photograph of an outdoor sculpture in the U.S.

100px|thumb|Image #1 100px|thumb|Image #2 Hello. I have read the rules on photographs of outdoor sculptures on the United States, and agreed with a Commons admin who decided to delete a violation at Image #1. I would like to be sure that I understand this correctly both for now and for the future. Is it true that A) The only case in which a photo of a U.S. sculpture still in copyright can be uploaded under a free license (or can be put into the public domain by the photographer) is when the photograph itself is a work of art and itself copyrightable? Also B) I believe there are conditions under which a photograph of a U.S. artwork (including sculptures) can be uploaded to Wikipedia and not to the Commons? As Tom Lehrer would have said, I have a modest example for you. Image #2 is among the rarest of rare things in the art world. Both Image #1 and Image #2 are sculptures located in the same outdoor publicly accessible sculpture garden in the U.S. The important difference between the two images is that Image #1 is a snapshot or photograph intended to show what the sculpture looks like, and Image #2 brings an entirely new idea to life. Can you confirm for me please that the photographer held copyright on #2, and when she chose to license her work under Creative Commons "cc-by-2.0" the image of the sculpture became uploadable? Pardon, Image #1 will turn into a red link shortly. Thank you for your help. -Susanlesch 19:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

A picture of a copyrighted U.S. sculpture is also under copyright by the artist who made the sculpture, so it cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. However, if there is an article about the sculpture, a low resolution picture of the sculpture can be used on the English Wikipedia if it meets our fair use criteria. ShadowHalo 20:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you, ShadowHalo. I have 1) replaced Image #2 with a slightly smaller (lower resolution) image, 2) added a copyright notice including date and the sculptor's name on the image description page, 3) added fairusein5 for the existing articles in which the image belongs, and 4) removed a link to the photo from a page that some might deem "decoration" and because there is no "fairusein6". Does Wikipedia require a separate article named Two-Way Mirror Punched Steel Hedge Labyrinth (one article apiece for every work of art by every artist whose work is in copyright)? Can you or someone here confirm that the correct steps have been taken? Thank you in advance and best wishes. -Susanlesch 21:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It looks like Image:Family-in-a-box-Minneapolis.jpg is being used in Dan Graham and Arts in Minneapolis, Minnesota. It looks like it does meet the fair use criteria in Arts in Minneapolis, Minnesota since there is discussion of the Minneapolis Sculpture Garden. Ironically enough, I don't think it meets the criteria for use in Dan Graham though. The article doesn't have any discussion of his work, so it really doesn't illustrate any discussion in the article. If you know enough about him, would you be able to add some discussion of his work to the article? ShadowHalo 21:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. It probably won't pass an art history test but I will try to add something this week. The solution in this thread makes sense. Thank you again for your help. -Susanlesch 22:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Creative Commons Specification Question

The Hamilton, Ontario request at WP:IFU has requested I upload an image which is headed with the following words "I would like this picture uploaded to wikipedia, released by me under a Creative Commons licence." on the original image page found here. Do you think I should upload the image even thought the website didn't specify under what Creative Commons license the image was released?--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 23:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hm, is there any way to display the image on Photobucket with comments from the Photobucket uploader (a la Flickr or Youtube)? That way we could verify that the image was indeed taken by the requester. ShadowHalo 00:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you got it wrong. The requester has already verified the image is his here because he put "I would like this picture uploaded to wikipedia, released by me under a Creative Commons licence." above the picture. The question is "Do you think I should upload the image even thought the website (he) didn't specify under what Creative Commons license the image was released?".--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 00:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Only two of the CC licences are usable here, and there is no indication that one of those was meant on the geocities page. We can’t use the image without a clarification from the photographer, unfortunately. —xyzzy_n 00:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyright acceptable to Wikipedia?

I would like to use images from [1] which encourages fair use (see bottom of page). The actual license is "Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike Creative Commons License" at [2]. Can you please give me guidance as to whether these images (& this licence) can be uploaded to Commons? GrahamBould 11:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia cannot make use of non-commercial images, and the images do not appear to meet our fair use criteria. ShadowHalo 11:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Image Help

How do I tag this image? I have to confirm it's copywrite or something, and I have no idea how. I have listed the two websites where it came from, but have no idea how to tag it. It is the official school logo, but I'm pretty sure it is not copywrited as it was made just for Forest Hills Northern. Please help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:FHNHuskyPic.gif - Kmann108 05:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I should use the K12-logo Template, but this image is not copywrited. Is there any other template that has the same effect, but for un-copywrited images? - Kmann108 06:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll go with that for now so as to avoid deletion, but if there is another template that should be used, feel free to suggest it. - Kmann108 06:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Photots submitted by James Boyles

It wouldn't bother me at all if people wish to use the photos. The only thing that I require is that I be given credit for the photos i've taken. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by James bme (talk • contribs) 15:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Consider tagging the pictures you took with {{Attribution|User:James bme|James Boyles}} then. ShadowHalo 18:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I did attribute them. I mentioned that I took the pictures. If you feel I should reword it then i will, but i think this is unnecessary.

                                                                                               James

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by James bme (talk • contribs) 19:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

You need to also use one of the templates listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags so that people know the conditions under which they can use your work. ShadowHalo 19:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm attributing them as you asked, however, i do not understand the (shadowhalo) part of your reply.

You need to use one of the templates listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Putting a note such as "Attribution: James Boyles" makes sure that Wikipedia is attributing you correctly, but keep in mind that many other sites reuse Wikipedia's content and need to know the conditions under which they can use your work. By copying {{Attribution|User:James bme|James Boyles}} or one of the other licenses at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags, other sites will know what conditions there are and out bots will be able to recognize the license. ShadowHalo 19:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I am asking for assistance on creating the the templates needed for the images i am trying to upload to your site. I thought all i had to do was just type that the attribution is from me. I have sent some of the pics twice, needless to say, i'm getting agravated having to keep going back & making corrections.

You know that i created the images, just please assist me. I would like everyone to be able to see (& if applicable, use) these pics.

James —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.167.228.203 (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

I've copied in the code for you. If you would like to license any future pictures similarly, please make sure to use that same code so that you do not get more {{Image copyright}} notifications. ShadowHalo 00:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I am glad that you copied the code for me, but when should i expect to see the pics (four in all) on the site?

Also, i am not trying to occupy so much of your time, but this is the first time i've tried to put images on any site. What is this code you're refering to? 

Wikipedia is a wiki, so the images won't appear on any articles until you add them to an article. If you need help adding an image to an article, there is a picture tutorial. ShadowHalo 04:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleting an uploaded image

This may seem elementary, but how do I delete an image after I uploaded it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bstrutz (talk • contribs) 19:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Deleting an uploaded image

This may seem elementary, but how do I delete an image after I uploaded it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bstrutz (talk • contribs) 19:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Just place the following tag on the image: {{db-self}}. An administrator will come along and delete it shortly thereafter.↔NMajdan•talk 19:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

How I attach an image tag after I've already uploaded the image?

I uploaded an image and then I got the message saying I needed to attach a tag to it, but I can't figure out how to attach a tag afterwards?

Here's the image: Image:Paramore2.JPG —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omg starburst (talk • contribs) 01:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

First you need to find how the image is licensed. Did you find this image on the web? If so, it is probably copyrighted, and not usable in wikipedia. The upload page itself explains this reasoning. If the image is licensed in some other way please update this question and we will help decide on the correct tag. - cohesion 00:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the page after Edit This Page

That you're supposed to click on to attach a tag?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omg starburst (talk • contribs) 01:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Answer in previous section. - cohesion 00:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

How to use GNU free document copyright on a document

So i got to the GNU website and got to the free document copyright link. I clicked on the plaintext format but all it gave was a big article about rules and violations and how to use it. I'm not quite sure i'm doing the right thing here, I got the signature signed but i cant see the file from another computer after i save it. Also, where are you supposed to put the little copyright paragraph from GNU when it says to put it after the titlepage? Eisenhower 02:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This page is for questions regarding media licensing issues for media stored on the wikipedia servers. If your question is related to that please restate it with more context so that we may better help you. - cohesion 01:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

When I have images from our copyright books

When I have images from our copyright books, what to select in the copyright menu. The copyright of the book is with us, and the images are taken from there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vagyoga (talk • contribs) 04:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

If you own the copyright for images that you would like to add to wikipedia you must license the images under a free content license. GFDL and some of the Creative Commons licenses are the most commonly used. These licenses do allow for other people to reproduce the images for commercial use. If that is acceptable, please look at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses. If you need any help selecting one, simply update this question with your requirements and someone will let you know which one is appropriate. - cohesion 01:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

photos in articles

the whole point of putting photos on the site is so that they are in the articles. I'll try to make sense of the info that helps you with this,however, if i have trouble with it, would someone please assist me with putting the pics i uploaded in the appropriate articles?

james_bme —The preceding unsigned comment was added by James bme (talk • contribs) 05:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Yes, someone will be glad to help. In the meantime Wikipedia:Images is fairly helpful with the image syntax. You may find that people will include your images without you even knowing. At the bottom of the image description page there is a section called "File links" which will show on what pages the image is used. :) - cohesion 01:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Which tag to use?

I don't know what tag to use. Can somebody else tag it for me? Image:MathShorthandChars.GIF —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Roc 1217 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

If it's your own creation just tag it with {{PD-self}} or something. That said I would suggest just getting the image deleted and create a "wikitable" instead like so:

→	Alt 26
↔	Alt 29

That way it can be edited and tweaked along with the article. --Sherool (talk) 11:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree a table is better than the image. MECU≈talk 18:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Image Tag

Im very bad with computers...How can I add a tag to my tallk page picture? --Gilisa 13:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia allows reuse of its content, you'll need to release it into the public domain (no rights reserved) or under a free license. To do this, click "edit this page" at the top of the image page and add the free license of your choice from Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. ShadowHalo 13:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Family photo

Hi,

I have family photos of my great aunt, image:Gracesepia.jpg. She is Grace Marguerite Hay Drummond-Hay. These photos have been inherited by me. What is the appropriate licensing tag?

Thanks MrMarmite 20:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

When was the photo taken and in what country?Geni 22:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

About 1912 in the UK MrMarmite 04:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

then the copyright would rest with whoever took the photo (or their desendants) unless they died before 1937. Do you know who that is?Geni 10:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes..it was taken by my great grand father who died 15 Oct 1935 MrMarmite 17:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

So what tag should I use? MrMarmite 13:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd go with {{PD-old-70}}. ShadowHalo 13:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Done, thanks for your help MrMarmite 07:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Photo in Newspaper

I've used this picture Image:StJBasilica.jpg from a newspaper (also available online). Is it subject to copyright or is it in the public domain? I can't seem to find any information regarding pictures from newspapers. In addition, it is not the original picture, but has been edited by myself. Does this make it an "original" creation then? Please respond on my talk page and thank you in advance for your help. --Matthew Cadrin 21:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

response on talk page. - cohesion 01:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

unreasonably strict image policy.

I obtained permission from image owner and uploaded it. Way too much overhead with this tag nonsense. What tag will get you to leave these types of images alone? --Gnatdroid 03:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a drop-down menu when one uploads an image, that allows one to select the proper copyright and license statement. Wikipedia:Copyrights discusses copyright and licensing on the project; if you didn't see the option you were looking for in the menu, we may not be able to use the image. "Permission from the copyright holder", for instance, is not an acceptable statement of licensing for us. Jkelly 04:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but of course it should be...--76.187.182.72 15:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

not really since it does not allow for reuse.Geni 17:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyrighting photos for Misumi, Shimane page

I tried to go in and tag the photos but it wouldn't let me. My name is Kenneth Griggs and I took all the pictures. Let me know what I have to do. krgriggs@gmail.com

Do you know how to get to your photos? Or did you sign in?, and include your signature next time you ask. Eisenhower 17:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible problem with Image:Nice treaty.jpg

{{EU image}} says

This image must have an accompanying "fair use" tag and criteria, or it may be deleted.

Above mentioned image has the EU image tag, but does not have nether the fair use rationale nor the tag. Is it still acceptable? --Branislav Jovanovic 16:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

no.Geni 17:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Question about PD-old and Smithsonian

Hello. This photo of an individual who lived from 1820?-1863 taken by A. Zeno Shindler is credited to the Smithsonian via a U.S. National Parks Service history page. May I upload it to the commons as PD-old (life of the author plus 70 years), or does the Smithsonian {{Smithsonian}} claim some other copyright? Thank you. -Susanlesch 17:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

They may claim it but Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. indicates such claims lack validity.Geni 17:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Correction, Shindler is the collector. McClees or Vannerson is the photographer. I found a negative in the National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Museum Support Center # BAE GN 03505B 06587500. http://siris-archives.si.edu/ does have a copyright claim so I guess I will refrain. -Susanlesch 18:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're sure about the age of the author and it is PD based on that it's fine. A lot of museums/websites have blanket copyright claims that aren't actually tenable. It's alright to use an image, even if some website incorrectly claims copyright, if you have researched it, like it appears you have. The supreme court decision Geni links is very important also. People claim copyright a lot for 2d copies of PD works, but that is invalidated by the decision. - cohesion 18:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Not supream court. So far no museam or gallery has been stupid enough to take it to the supream court since that would remove any posible grey area for them to try and sit in (they were not exactly happy the case got as far as it did). The cloest supream court ruleing is Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service which isn't very close but does support the principle that some level of creativty is required in order for something to qualify for copyright under US law.Geni 23:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I always thought it was. Learn something new everyday :) - cohesion 01:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Something down the line will sway me one way or the other. Thanks again for your help. -Susanlesch 01:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

A clear example of copyfraud. Clearly PD-old. Kjetil r 00:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

CONFUSED

If I upload an image that is a custom-made computer generated image, wha tag does it get? please help! Thanx FrogTape 22:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are the creator and copyright holder of the image you are free to choose any of the acceptable free content licenses you want, depending on how you choose to license your work to wikipedia. This section of the copyright tag page explains the choices. If you have any questions about the specific licenses let us know. The image you have uploaded Image:FrogTapeindustries logo.png is being used under a fair use claim. There are a number of policies regarding user created fair use, fair use images in userspace etc. The short version is that you really need to license it under one of the above licenses to keep it in the way you're using it now. If you want to claim fair use the image has to follow these additional criteria. - cohesion 23:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank You!FrogTape 23:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Question about image Image:Letterpaper1.jpg

Please allow me an explanation about this image. I did not acquire a new image from elsewhere. All I did was take the previous image, (Letterpaper.jpg) and make changes to it on my own. I did this to correct a glaring error in the labelled dimensions.

The previous image (i.e., Letterpaper.jpg) was submitted by user Cpicon92. I decided that all I needed to do was to make some simple changes to the image which Cpicon92 submitted. The same image tags which applied to Cpicon92's image would also apply to my image (Letterpaper1.jpg), which is essentially his/her image with my alterations.

The dimensions were transposed. In the previous image, the length was indicated as 8.5 inches, and the width as 11 inches, an obvious error. I fixed this. Hope this makes sense. Pacific1982 02:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This isn't fair use. The original image is licensed under the GFDL, so this one is as well as long as you abide by the terms of the license. Part of doing that is that you must credit the original author. This could have been done automatically via the image history if you had simply uploaded your corrected version to the same name as the original. You wouldn't have to worry about tagging it then either. I suggest you do that, and then mark this new image {{db-author}}. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: IMAGE

What if I made it? Also, I asked permission from the site. www.michaelrosenbaum.com What do I do? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hastingsitech (talk • contribs) 07:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

I'm assuming the images you're talking about are Image:Kristin k.jpg and Image:MichaelRosenbaumCustom.jpg. Making the image yourself and getting permission to use them are two very different things. We're trying to accurately label the images, not just appease some rule set. Please update this question with the actual information and someone will be glad to help. - cohesion 20:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Image prob.

I took this photo by my self Image:Taher_on_the_road.jpg. I received a license problem regarding it. And failed to understand what I should do...

What would be my next step?--T010t 12:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you...

No problem, since you are the copyright holder you can choose which free content license you would like to use for wikipedia. This page includes the acceptable free content licenses that we can use on wikipedia. They are not all the same in terms of what they require re-users to do, so if you have any questions about particular ones don't hesitate to come back and ask :) - cohesion 20:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Use of text-only logos: fair use?

In cases where a logo is used that has no graphical elements except for the name of the organization (i.e. it's just black text on a white background), and is not commented on by the article, is it considered fair use of the image? I would think that in such circumstances the logo would be replaceable by text. As an example (although it would impact many other articles), consider the image Image:Newsboyslogo.png and its use in the article Newsboys. Is this fair use, or should it be replaced by text? --Ybbor^TalkSurvey! 13:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that a logo's font, letter spacing, and other layout can be trademarked, and so is treated as an item of specific information, in and of itself. So a fair use image of a logo conveys information that could not be conveyed with plaintext (that information being the layout of the logo). Treat text-only logos the way you would treat any other logo. — coelacan — 02:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use image of a living person tag

Hi I have uploaded a number of images which I want to tag as Fair use images of living persons, like in the upload drop down selection box. I cant find the correct tag - can someone advise? Thanks. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 23:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

{{rfu}} is the correct tag. Jkelly 23:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Peaches-PETAPlakat.jpg

Is current usage of this event poster as a replacement for image in contrast with fair use rationale on the {{eventposter}} tag? --Branislav Jovanovic 06:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No it is not. First, the poster doesn't look like it's advertising an event, but rather that the person is endorsing the position it advocates. Second, even if it did advertise an event, it needs to be placed in an article about the event itself and not merely to provide an image of the person depicted on it. (For the same reason, we cannot use a baseball card for an illustration in an article about a baseball player unless there's something remarkable about the card that's mentioned.) Third, the tag itself is insufficient rationale anyway, which must be supplied in the text of the image description. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, it appears that PETA releases their images as PD - see the various images in the article, complete with OTRS tickets (e.g. Image:TurlingtonPETA.jpg). --Davepape 01:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Two Images From A Company Website

I have two images that I got from the Orvis website. One is their logo right from their oficial siteand the other is an image of their flagship store right from here. How do I know if these images are able to be used? I want to include them in the article I am writing about The Orvis Company (the current one is deprecated and uninformative).

--Mwflyfisher 18:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that there is a note at the bottom of http://www.orvis.com/ that the website content is copyrighted. Thus, unless you have a note that the images are licensed under a free license, they are unlicensed and "fair use". Image:Orvis-logo.jpg is a logo so just tag the image with {{logo}}. Image:Orvis flagship store.jpg, however, is replaceable by a freely-licensed photograph, no? That is, you or I could go to Orvis's flagship store and take a photograph of it. If that is the case, though it is unlicensed, it does not qualify for fair use under Wikipedia's fair use policy. If you need some help tagging an image, just look down the page a few sections under the section titled "Change Copyright Tag" (link). Best, Iamunknown 01:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have received permission from Orvis to use photos on their website on their Wikipedia article that I am compiling. What copyright tag should I be using for that scenario? I tried uploading a new version of their logo that they sent to me and it keeps coming up as a red x. Image:Orvis-co-logo.jpg --Mwflyfisher 18:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Permission to use on Wikipedia isn't good enough. We want permission for anyone to use for any reason, including commercial. Unless you follow the directions at WP:COPYREQ and they state a specific free license, such as the GFDL or a CC license, then we can't use it. The logo of course we can use. The problem may be that they sent you a gif or png but you uploaded it under jpg? MECU≈talk 14:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok they agreed that anyone can use the images from their website on Wikipedia provided that the links point to and give credit to them. How do I "submit" their agreement so that Wikipedia knows I am using the free licensed images? I received the file as a jpg and I even tried opening the file and saving it as a new one and it still didn't work. ??? I'll keep trying.--Mwflyfisher 17:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I still don't think they've agreed to license the image freely enough. When you say "anyone can use ... on Wikipedia"... that doesn't mean anyone can use off Wikipedia, which is something we want as well. And what do they mean "links point to" them? In the article that is expressly forbidden. Credit and a link to their website on the image description page is perfectly acceptable however. You should just save the image as they sent it to you and upload it from there. I marked the image you had uploaded stating it was a "damaged image". Please don't freak out if it gets deleted, you can just reupload the image and hopefully get it to work this time. MECU≈talk 18:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

adding a copyright tag to an image

Im not sure which copyright tag to choose as the tag on the images ive uploaded. The people who copyrighted/took the photos have given me their permission to use them but im not sure what tag to add.

This is my first attempt at a Wikipedia page and I dont want the photos to be deleted --Purplepickledonions 20:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Answered at user's talk page. --Iamunknown 01:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"Public domain" on Image:Beovoz2.jpg

Image description page says Public domain rationale on description page is incorrect - nowhere is it said that railway table is public domain. And it doesn't list it's source, so you couldn't even be sure its correct. How should it be tagged? --Branislav Jovanovic 20:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

From the looks of it, it should be tagged with {{nsd}}. ShadowHalo 20:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Jean DeFlorette and Manon of the Springs copyright information

I am interested in creating a new adaptation of Jean DeFlorette and Manon of the Spring. I can't seem to find current owners (if indeed there are any65.1.104.47 20:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)) of copyrights to this work. I believe that the book, written by Pagnol, is within the public domain. And I know that the screenwriters for the motion picture, of course, own rights to that adaptation. But if I wanted to "start from scratch" from the book itself, where would I begin? Also.... My understanding of the storyline of the novel originated in a folk tale - am I correct?

Can someone PLEASE point me in the right direction?

Thank you,

probably owned by the estate of Marcel Pagnol.Geni 21:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Change Copyright Tag

How do I change a copyright tag?FrogTape 23:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a quick run-down:

1. Go to the "image description page" of the image you whose tag you want to change which should be at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ImageNameHere.ext (where ImageNameHere is the name of your image and ext is jpg, gif, etc.)
2. Click "edit this page" at the top of your internet browser
3. Type {{TagName}} where TagName is the name of the appropriate copyright tag (you can find a list of those at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags)
4. Click "Save page"

And you are done! --Iamunknown 01:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

FairUse claimed on images

Hello, I've noticed a user who has uploaded a great deal of copyright material. Mostly the subjects are living people and contemporary places/events/items which still existance. The images are being used as portraits although no case is made for why the copyrighted images cannot be replaced with free ones. In most cases the copyright is not credited, despite the images being taken from various websites.

Is this actually possible when the people in question are still alive and active in public life, the places still exist, the events still take place, and the items still commonly appear in public? Is there an easy way to have them all reported as copyvios and encourage their replacement with free images?

People: Image:Ringland Ulster photo.jpg Image:DavidHolmes.jpg Image:Hinds.jpg Image:Susan Lynch.jpg Image:Willard Grant Conspiracy.jpg Image:James Lavelle.jpg Image:Wainwrights and Thompson.jpg Image:Gerald Dawe.jpg Image:Nuala McKeever.jpg Image:Norman Whiteside.jpg Image:Oscar Pistorius2.jpg Image:Stifflittlefingers.jpg (article contains free image of band) Image:Heaney.jpg Image:Dave McAuley.jpg

Events/Places/Items: Image:Lammas Fair.jpg Image:Moat Park, Dundonald.jpg Image:Lambeg Drum.jpg Image:QFT, Belfast.jpg Image:Rath.jpg Image:Dunluce Castle2.jpg Image:Antrim Coast Road2.jpg Image:Full Moon Party March 2003.jpg

Thank you. YCV2007 14:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Pictures of living people or buildings that still exist nearly never meet the fair use criteria. These images should be tagged with {{subst:rfu}}. ShadowHalo 14:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming my suspicions. YCV2007 14:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Unlikely public domain claim on Image:Ismet Mujezinovic Ustanak.jpg

The public domain reason given (This image is freely available on the internet from various sources in the public domain. The same image was taken in the former (socialist) Yugoslavia and as such does not enjoy any copyright protection) is plain wrong - just because country was socialist, that does not mean it didn't recognize copyright; and btw, it did. What is the proper procedure for clearing up the copyright status of this image? --Branislav Jovanovic 20:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd tag it with {{nsd}} since there's no source provided to back up any of these claims. ShadowHalo 20:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Image Lisencing

I Added A couple of new pictures of products such as cds, drink packs, etc.. I bought these things and there are articles on wiki about them. I put them under public domain because I took these pictures myself and cut them down to appraprite sizes. Is this the right thing to do? I mean, I created these pictures of copyright things but the fact still remains, I created them. A quick response will very much appreciated. Can the response go to my talk page please. Here are the pics I was talking about: Quench Aid B'day Double Disc Purified CD Digicel Top-Up--Mikey 22:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I have replied at the user's talk page. MECU≈talk 18:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Images of Wikipedians, Copyright?

I have a general question... are non-commercial/derivative copyrights OK for images of Wikipedians for use on their userpage? I ask because I am considering doing so (putting a face with a name allows people to remember there is a human on the other end of the internet), but I have reservations about doing an open or free license on an image of myself. Clarification on this would be great, reply on talk page. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 02:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is first and foremost a free encyclopedia and does not devote its resources to hosting media strictly for use in userspace, which is ancillary to the project's goals. If anything, policy for userspace is more restrictive than in main space -- fair use images are not allowed there. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, which has been reverted throught wikipedia that "We're not a social networking site"... and this should be painfully clear to everyone. However, the encyclopeida is advanced by users, who have to collaborate on projects. Knowing something about whom your working with makes things much easier, which is why we have userpages and usertalk pages. I might also add that please don't give a response that makes people feel belittled and stupid, although not clearly your intent, but that is how it has come across. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 00:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. To clarify a little more: We do tend to permit users an image to put on their userspace to show what they look like, but it must be freely licensed. If you don't want to license the image freely, you could put it on a site like http://www.flickr.com and link to it from Wikipedia with something like: "Click here to see a picture of me" and set the license at flickr to your desires. They'll have to click to see it, but that's the best option I think you'll have. MECU≈talk 17:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If I was going to do that I would simply use one of my servers. Thanks for the advice though. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 00:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Various Simpsons' character illustrations

Various images of characters from The Simpsons (such as Image:Santa's Little Helper.gif or Image:Jackie.gif; probably most of the images from Category:The Simpsons Character Drawings) are tagged as {{Character-artwork}} or {{promophoto}} (some even as {{tv-screenshot}}, like Image:Rainier.jpg, which doesn't look like it is a screenshot), but no source for the images is provided (on a glance, only on three images). Is the source of images here unnecessary or is maybe the ©2000 TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. line enough? --Branislav Jovanovic 08:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think stating the copyright holder, in this case, is acceptable. It doesn't matter if we got it from "Joe's Super cool Simpsons Fansite" when it really belongs to Fox. But, really, a source should always be given because it's nice to know we at least got it from Joe's... Also, if the license doesn't seem to fit, like you say (and I agree) on the Rainier image, be BOLD! and correct it to a more appropriate license. As long as you're sure what you're doing is the right thing, nothing else matters. MECU≈talk 17:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Branislav Jovanovic, I think that a source is absolutely necessary but have been thwarted in attempts to suggest so. If the images are from http://www.thesimpsons.com/, which is, I strongly suspect due to an MD5 hash intersection, the origin of at least one image. According to the Fox.com Terms of Use, which covers thesimpsons.com:

• All materials contained in this Site are protected by international trademark and copyright laws and must only be used for personal, non-commercial purposes....
• The reproduction, duplication, distribution (including by way of email, facsimile or other electronic means), publication, modification, copying or transmission of material from this Site is strictly prohibited unless you have obtained the prior written consent of FOX or unless it is expressly permitted by this Site.
• The material covered by this prohibition includes, without limitation, any text, graphics, logos, photographs, audio or video material or stills from audiovisual material available on this Site.
• Requests for permission to reproduce or distribute materials found on this Site can be made by contacting FOX in writing at terms AT fox DOT com.

Fox.com makes profit by licensing promotaional material through their website and they expressly forbid any content on any of their sites, including thesimpsons.com, from being used for such promotional purposes. If the material meets the Wikipedia:Fair use criteria then we may, without regard to the Terms of Use, use the material, but we must realize that what we are doing is expressly forbidden by Fox.com and we must make note in the fair use rationale. In doing so, we insure that we are providing downstream users the necessary information to judge whether their use of any particular unlicensed image is a fair use or not. Unfortunately we are shortchanging downstream users and remaining ignorant regarding the source of and usage intent of the copyright owner for these images. Regards, Iamunknown 19:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Image upload

I have tried to upload the image under the "owner gave me the copyright for wikipedia" and so on. I upload the image under that and it saysto do it in fair use and contact the owner for free lisence (alredy did this). What do I do with the fair use part? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aotten (talk • contribs) 16:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

If you've contacted the owner for a free license, please wait until you hear back from them before going the fair use route. If, after several weeks or months you don't hear anything, you can then go through the fair use route. I hope you followed the directions at WP:COPYREQ as well. If not, please look it over and make sure when they reply they state explicitly what license they want and then forward that to the email address on that page. Then upload the image and state permission obtained and forwarded to Wikipedia and awaiting OTRS ticket/approval. If you need help with the fair use route, please ask at that time. Good luck! MECU≈talk 17:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"warning from Wiki" re: copyright

If Wikipedia weren't so literalized in it's ability to communicate, I would not be having to take my time for this. I have a copyright release from the owner of the image of Ingemar Johansson. It is released into the gpl with only a "request" that attribution go with it. As there are no images of Mr. Johansson in the wiki article about him, what gives? If there were a place at Wiki to have forwarded the copyright release, I would have sent it in the FIRST PLACE.

Humpphhh? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mark Preston (talk • contribs) 17:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

There is a place. See WP:COPYREQ for the email address to send the email to. Once they receive and process it, they will place a note on the image page saying permission confirmed per email with an OTRS ticket number. You might want to put on the image page until then that email permission was obtained and sent in and is awaiting OTRS ticket number. MECU≈talk 17:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Found it on a website

it would be helpfull if this pages were also avaiable in other languages...like portuguese (my native language).

My question is this: I uploaded a picture of an actor to wikipedia and I quoted the source of the image; however, i dont know who has the rights over that same picture (and honestly I have no idea if the site from where i took it is the one who owns it), so I am unable to say anything about the copyright of the item in debate.

Can you help me? Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Angelus boy (talk • contribs).

This must be the image: Image:HeathLedger.jpg. We must assume a copyright and that all rights are reserved unless we have a positive statement from the source that the image is available under a free license. And for living people, we can't make a very good case for fair use. I'm sorry, but the image is going to have to be deleted. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, for answers in Portuguese try the Portuguese helpdesk at the Commons. It's not specific to this subject, but it looks as if they do address this subject there. You also might want to poke around at the Portuguese Wikipedia and see if a similar page can be accessed from there. If not, try contacting the admins there and float the idea to them. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Picture Copyright

I'm trying to conclude that I found an image I uploaded on imageshack but wikipedia still says I have a bad confirmed copyright. What do I need to do to confirm it's copyright?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ilirik666 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

You need to identify the copyright holder and tag with an appropriate license, or as fair use with accompanying rationale. Images downloaded from a website are almost always copyrighted to someone else, and this one plainly is. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"Such and such" people images

What is the license for compound images like Image:Srbs_croatia.JPG? Specifically, are fair use images valid for this usage or not? --Branislav Jovanovic 12:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images should not be composited. We do not have any license to use these images, so we cannot make derivative images based on them. It has been nominated for deletion. - cohesion 03:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It's also possible to "compose" a set of images like this with some fancy CSS coding so that fair use material can be included. I've put an example up on my talk page. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's an addendum to the question. See my talk page for the method I describe above. (I use some images from the composition under discussion for illustrative purposes. Since some are fair use they should be taken down, and I'll do that shortly.) One would need to crop the images to get it to work properly. The question is, would cropping a fair use image be okay under Wikipedia guidelines? It seems to me that legally it would be, but the rules here are more restrictive. My opinion is that it should be, since it doesn't add any new work to the image and therefore doesn't create a derivative work, but I'm interested to know if anyone else agrees. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete these please

I loaded two Microsoft XP images - didn't understand the rules - new to this.

• Image:Darkblue hills.jpg
• Image:Sunset orange.jpg

Can someone please delete them? (Mark4679 18:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC))

Done. Jkelly 18:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:winters.jpg - thanks...this one too! (Mark's Dad)

Image:EdgeOnFlickr.jpg

I recived this Image from Flickr.com and I don't know how to make this page look similar to any of the other Fickr image pages on Wikipedia (For example Image:Eddie Guerrero Frog Splash.jpg or Image:ReyMysterio.jpg). If someone could please do or tell me how to do that for me I would GREATLY appreciate that. I would like someone to do that for me so that I could keep it up on Edge's Wikipedia page because it doesn't have a main Superstar image at this time.--Adam1090 05:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look like the Flickr uploader actually owns the copyright to that image. He links it to this site. If you do find a free image though, you can format the page using the {{Flickr}} template. ShadowHalo 16:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I was just gonna say this. It appears the flickr user got the image from the website ShadowHalo mentioned, or more specifically, here. So, unfortunately, that image will have to be deleted from Wikipedia.↔NMajdan•talk 16:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit) I just realized that I should probably at least answer your question in case you do come across another image in the future. Images with appropriate licenses you find on Flickr should be uploaded to the Commons. In the commons, there is a template called Flickr that you should use. Hope that helps.↔NMajdan•talk 16:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Questionably licensed images from a user

I came acros Petrosian63 (talk · contribs) who has uploaded six images of which two, Image:Wilander.jpg and Image:Zubeldia.jpg, I've tagged as possible copyvios. The other four - Image:Petrosian.jpg, Image:Davydenko.jpg, Image:Olazabal.jpg and Image:Kucera.jpg - look a lot like photos you might find "floating around the internet" or as press photos, but I haven't found any exact sources for them. Given that they're so small I highly doubt they are the work of the uploader (they've been uploaded as pd-self). What's the proper way to move forward here, since there's no hard-proof the images aren't his? Thanks. --Strangnet _{(t, c)} 15:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Try {{nsd}} since none of the images have any descriptions whatsoever. If they are indeed legit, Petrosian63 should be able to tell you where and when (s)he took the pictures. If that information is provided, but it still sounds sketchy, consider taking the images to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. ShadowHalo 15:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. --Strangnet _{(t, c)} 16:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Darby Crash Rides Again cover art

I was wondering what copy right it would go under. It's from a re-released demo tape. I don't know exactly who did the art, but since it was originally self released, I'm guessing it was the band itself.

Thanks,

Xtheblademaster 03:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

How I attach an image tag after I've already uploaded the image?

I uploaded an image and then I got the message saying I needed to attach a tag to it, but I can't figure out how to attach a tag afterwards?

Here's the image: Image:Paramore2.JPG —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omg starburst (talk • contribs) 01:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

First you need to find how the image is licensed. Did you find this image on the web? If so, it is probably copyrighted, and not usable in wikipedia. The upload page itself explains this reasoning. If the image is licensed in some other way please update this question and we will help decide on the correct tag. - cohesion 00:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the page after Edit This Page

That you're supposed to click on to attach a tag?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omg starburst (talk • contribs) 01:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Answer in previous section. - cohesion 00:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

How to use GNU free document copyright on a document

So i got to the GNU website and got to the free document copyright link. I clicked on the plaintext format but all it gave was a big article about rules and violations and how to use it. I'm not quite sure i'm doing the right thing here, I got the signature signed but i cant see the file from another computer after i save it. Also, where are you supposed to put the little copyright paragraph from GNU when it says to put it after the titlepage? Eisenhower 02:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This page is for questions regarding media licensing issues for media stored on the wikipedia servers. If your question is related to that please restate it with more context so that we may better help you. - cohesion 01:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

When I have images from our copyright books

When I have images from our copyright books, what to select in the copyright menu. The copyright of the book is with us, and the images are taken from there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vagyoga (talk • contribs) 04:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

If you own the copyright for images that you would like to add to wikipedia you must license the images under a free content license. GFDL and some of the Creative Commons licenses are the most commonly used. These licenses do allow for other people to reproduce the images for commercial use. If that is acceptable, please look at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses. If you need any help selecting one, simply update this question with your requirements and someone will let you know which one is appropriate. - cohesion 01:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

photos in articles

the whole point of putting photos on the site is so that they are in the articles. I'll try to make sense of the info that helps you with this,however, if i have trouble with it, would someone please assist me with putting the pics i uploaded in the appropriate articles?

james_bme —The preceding unsigned comment was added by James bme (talk • contribs) 05:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Yes, someone will be glad to help. In the meantime Wikipedia:Images is fairly helpful with the image syntax. You may find that people will include your images without you even knowing. At the bottom of the image description page there is a section called "File links" which will show on what pages the image is used. :) - cohesion 01:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Which tag to use?

I don't know what tag to use. Can somebody else tag it for me? Image:MathShorthandChars.GIF —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Roc 1217 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

If it's your own creation just tag it with {{PD-self}} or something. That said I would suggest just getting the image deleted and create a "wikitable" instead like so:

→	Alt 26
↔	Alt 29

That way it can be edited and tweaked along with the article. --Sherool (talk) 11:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree a table is better than the image. MECU≈talk 18:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Image Tag

Im very bad with computers...How can I add a tag to my tallk page picture? --Gilisa 13:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia allows reuse of its content, you'll need to release it into the public domain (no rights reserved) or under a free license. To do this, click "edit this page" at the top of the image page and add the free license of your choice from Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. ShadowHalo 13:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Family photo

Hi,

I have family photos of my great aunt, image:Gracesepia.jpg. She is Grace Marguerite Hay Drummond-Hay. These photos have been inherited by me. What is the appropriate licensing tag?

Thanks MrMarmite 20:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

When was the photo taken and in what country?Geni 22:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

About 1912 in the UK MrMarmite 04:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

then the copyright would rest with whoever took the photo (or their desendants) unless they died before 1937. Do you know who that is?Geni 10:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes..it was taken by my great grand father who died 15 Oct 1935 MrMarmite 17:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

So what tag should I use? MrMarmite 13:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd go with {{PD-old-70}}. ShadowHalo 13:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Done, thanks for your help MrMarmite 07:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Photo in Newspaper

I've used this picture Image:StJBasilica.jpg from a newspaper (also available online). Is it subject to copyright or is it in the public domain? I can't seem to find any information regarding pictures from newspapers. In addition, it is not the original picture, but has been edited by myself. Does this make it an "original" creation then? Please respond on my talk page and thank you in advance for your help. --Matthew Cadrin 21:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

response on talk page. - cohesion 01:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

unreasonably strict image policy.

I obtained permission from image owner and uploaded it. Way too much overhead with this tag nonsense. What tag will get you to leave these types of images alone? --Gnatdroid 03:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a drop-down menu when one uploads an image, that allows one to select the proper copyright and license statement. Wikipedia:Copyrights discusses copyright and licensing on the project; if you didn't see the option you were looking for in the menu, we may not be able to use the image. "Permission from the copyright holder", for instance, is not an acceptable statement of licensing for us. Jkelly 04:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but of course it should be...--76.187.182.72 15:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

not really since it does not allow for reuse.Geni 17:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyrighting photos for Misumi, Shimane page

I tried to go in and tag the photos but it wouldn't let me. My name is Kenneth Griggs and I took all the pictures. Let me know what I have to do. krgriggs@gmail.com

Do you know how to get to your photos? Or did you sign in?, and include your signature next time you ask. Eisenhower 17:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible problem with Image:Nice treaty.jpg

{{EU image}} says

This image must have an accompanying "fair use" tag and criteria, or it may be deleted.

Above mentioned image has the EU image tag, but does not have nether the fair use rationale nor the tag. Is it still acceptable? --Branislav Jovanovic 16:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

no.Geni 17:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Question about PD-old and Smithsonian

Hello. This photo of an individual who lived from 1820?-1863 taken by A. Zeno Shindler is credited to the Smithsonian via a U.S. National Parks Service history page. May I upload it to the commons as PD-old (life of the author plus 70 years), or does the Smithsonian {{Smithsonian}} claim some other copyright? Thank you. -Susanlesch 17:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

They may claim it but Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. indicates such claims lack validity.Geni 17:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Correction, Shindler is the collector. McClees or Vannerson is the photographer. I found a negative in the National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Museum Support Center # BAE GN 03505B 06587500. http://siris-archives.si.edu/ does have a copyright claim so I guess I will refrain. -Susanlesch 18:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're sure about the age of the author and it is PD based on that it's fine. A lot of museums/websites have blanket copyright claims that aren't actually tenable. It's alright to use an image, even if some website incorrectly claims copyright, if you have researched it, like it appears you have. The supreme court decision Geni links is very important also. People claim copyright a lot for 2d copies of PD works, but that is invalidated by the decision. - cohesion 18:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Not supream court. So far no museam or gallery has been stupid enough to take it to the supream court since that would remove any posible grey area for them to try and sit in (they were not exactly happy the case got as far as it did). The cloest supream court ruleing is Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service which isn't very close but does support the principle that some level of creativty is required in order for something to qualify for copyright under US law.Geni 23:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I always thought it was. Learn something new everyday :) - cohesion 01:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Something down the line will sway me one way or the other. Thanks again for your help. -Susanlesch 01:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

A clear example of copyfraud. Clearly PD-old. Kjetil r 00:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

CONFUSED

If I upload an image that is a custom-made computer generated image, wha tag does it get? please help! Thanx FrogTape 22:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are the creator and copyright holder of the image you are free to choose any of the acceptable free content licenses you want, depending on how you choose to license your work to wikipedia. This section of the copyright tag page explains the choices. If you have any questions about the specific licenses let us know. The image you have uploaded Image:FrogTapeindustries logo.png is being used under a fair use claim. There are a number of policies regarding user created fair use, fair use images in userspace etc. The short version is that you really need to license it under one of the above licenses to keep it in the way you're using it now. If you want to claim fair use the image has to follow these additional criteria. - cohesion 23:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank You!FrogTape 23:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Question about image Image:Letterpaper1.jpg

Please allow me an explanation about this image. I did not acquire a new image from elsewhere. All I did was take the previous image, (Letterpaper.jpg) and make changes to it on my own. I did this to correct a glaring error in the labelled dimensions.

The previous image (i.e., Letterpaper.jpg) was submitted by user Cpicon92. I decided that all I needed to do was to make some simple changes to the image which Cpicon92 submitted. The same image tags which applied to Cpicon92's image would also apply to my image (Letterpaper1.jpg), which is essentially his/her image with my alterations.

The dimensions were transposed. In the previous image, the length was indicated as 8.5 inches, and the width as 11 inches, an obvious error. I fixed this. Hope this makes sense. Pacific1982 02:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This isn't fair use. The original image is licensed under the GFDL, so this one is as well as long as you abide by the terms of the license. Part of doing that is that you must credit the original author. This could have been done automatically via the image history if you had simply uploaded your corrected version to the same name as the original. You wouldn't have to worry about tagging it then either. I suggest you do that, and then mark this new image {{db-author}}. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: IMAGE

What if I made it? Also, I asked permission from the site. www.michaelrosenbaum.com What do I do? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hastingsitech (talk • contribs) 07:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

I'm assuming the images you're talking about are Image:Kristin k.jpg and Image:MichaelRosenbaumCustom.jpg. Making the image yourself and getting permission to use them are two very different things. We're trying to accurately label the images, not just appease some rule set. Please update this question with the actual information and someone will be glad to help. - cohesion 20:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Image prob.

I took this photo by my self Image:Taher_on_the_road.jpg. I received a license problem regarding it. And failed to understand what I should do...

What would be my next step?--T010t 12:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you...

No problem, since you are the copyright holder you can choose which free content license you would like to use for wikipedia. This page includes the acceptable free content licenses that we can use on wikipedia. They are not all the same in terms of what they require re-users to do, so if you have any questions about particular ones don't hesitate to come back and ask :) - cohesion 20:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Use of text-only logos: fair use?

In cases where a logo is used that has no graphical elements except for the name of the organization (i.e. it's just black text on a white background), and is not commented on by the article, is it considered fair use of the image? I would think that in such circumstances the logo would be replaceable by text. As an example (although it would impact many other articles), consider the image Image:Newsboyslogo.png and its use in the article Newsboys. Is this fair use, or should it be replaced by text? --Ybbor^TalkSurvey! 13:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that a logo's font, letter spacing, and other layout can be trademarked, and so is treated as an item of specific information, in and of itself. So a fair use image of a logo conveys information that could not be conveyed with plaintext (that information being the layout of the logo). Treat text-only logos the way you would treat any other logo. — coelacan — 02:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use image of a living person tag

Hi I have uploaded a number of images which I want to tag as Fair use images of living persons, like in the upload drop down selection box. I cant find the correct tag - can someone advise? Thanks. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 23:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

{{rfu}} is the correct tag. Jkelly 23:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Peaches-PETAPlakat.jpg

Is current usage of this event poster as a replacement for image in contrast with fair use rationale on the {{eventposter}} tag? --Branislav Jovanovic 06:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No it is not. First, the poster doesn't look like it's advertising an event, but rather that the person is endorsing the position it advocates. Second, even if it did advertise an event, it needs to be placed in an article about the event itself and not merely to provide an image of the person depicted on it. (For the same reason, we cannot use a baseball card for an illustration in an article about a baseball player unless there's something remarkable about the card that's mentioned.) Third, the tag itself is insufficient rationale anyway, which must be supplied in the text of the image description. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, it appears that PETA releases their images as PD - see the various images in the article, complete with OTRS tickets (e.g. Image:TurlingtonPETA.jpg). --Davepape 01:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Two Images From A Company Website

I have two images that I got from the Orvis website. One is their logo right from their oficial siteand the other is an image of their flagship store right from here. How do I know if these images are able to be used? I want to include them in the article I am writing about The Orvis Company (the current one is deprecated and uninformative).

--Mwflyfisher 18:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that there is a note at the bottom of http://www.orvis.com/ that the website content is copyrighted. Thus, unless you have a note that the images are licensed under a free license, they are unlicensed and "fair use". Image:Orvis-logo.jpg is a logo so just tag the image with {{logo}}. Image:Orvis flagship store.jpg, however, is replaceable by a freely-licensed photograph, no? That is, you or I could go to Orvis's flagship store and take a photograph of it. If that is the case, though it is unlicensed, it does not qualify for fair use under Wikipedia's fair use policy. If you need some help tagging an image, just look down the page a few sections under the section titled "Change Copyright Tag" (link). Best, Iamunknown 01:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have received permission from Orvis to use photos on their website on their Wikipedia article that I am compiling. What copyright tag should I be using for that scenario? I tried uploading a new version of their logo that they sent to me and it keeps coming up as a red x. Image:Orvis-co-logo.jpg --Mwflyfisher 18:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Permission to use on Wikipedia isn't good enough. We want permission for anyone to use for any reason, including commercial. Unless you follow the directions at WP:COPYREQ and they state a specific free license, such as the GFDL or a CC license, then we can't use it. The logo of course we can use. The problem may be that they sent you a gif or png but you uploaded it under jpg? MECU≈talk 14:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok they agreed that anyone can use the images from their website on Wikipedia provided that the links point to and give credit to them. How do I "submit" their agreement so that Wikipedia knows I am using the free licensed images? I received the file as a jpg and I even tried opening the file and saving it as a new one and it still didn't work. ??? I'll keep trying.--Mwflyfisher 17:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I still don't think they've agreed to license the image freely enough. When you say "anyone can use ... on Wikipedia"... that doesn't mean anyone can use off Wikipedia, which is something we want as well. And what do they mean "links point to" them? In the article that is expressly forbidden. Credit and a link to their website on the image description page is perfectly acceptable however. You should just save the image as they sent it to you and upload it from there. I marked the image you had uploaded stating it was a "damaged image". Please don't freak out if it gets deleted, you can just reupload the image and hopefully get it to work this time. MECU≈talk 18:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

adding a copyright tag to an image

Im not sure which copyright tag to choose as the tag on the images ive uploaded. The people who copyrighted/took the photos have given me their permission to use them but im not sure what tag to add.

This is my first attempt at a Wikipedia page and I dont want the photos to be deleted --Purplepickledonions 20:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Answered at user's talk page. --Iamunknown 01:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"Public domain" on Image:Beovoz2.jpg

Image description page says Public domain rationale on description page is incorrect - nowhere is it said that railway table is public domain. And it doesn't list it's source, so you couldn't even be sure its correct. How should it be tagged? --Branislav Jovanovic 20:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

From the looks of it, it should be tagged with {{nsd}}. ShadowHalo 20:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Jean DeFlorette and Manon of the Springs copyright information

I am interested in creating a new adaptation of Jean DeFlorette and Manon of the Spring. I can't seem to find current owners (if indeed there are any65.1.104.47 20:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)) of copyrights to this work. I believe that the book, written by Pagnol, is within the public domain. And I know that the screenwriters for the motion picture, of course, own rights to that adaptation. But if I wanted to "start from scratch" from the book itself, where would I begin? Also.... My understanding of the storyline of the novel originated in a folk tale - am I correct?

Can someone PLEASE point me in the right direction?

Thank you,

probably owned by the estate of Marcel Pagnol.Geni 21:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Change Copyright Tag

How do I change a copyright tag?FrogTape 23:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a quick run-down:

1. Go to the "image description page" of the image you whose tag you want to change which should be at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ImageNameHere.ext (where ImageNameHere is the name of your image and ext is jpg, gif, etc.)
2. Click "edit this page" at the top of your internet browser
3. Type {{TagName}} where TagName is the name of the appropriate copyright tag (you can find a list of those at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags)
4. Click "Save page"

And you are done! --Iamunknown 01:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

FairUse claimed on images

Hello, I've noticed a user who has uploaded a great deal of copyright material. Mostly the subjects are living people and contemporary places/events/items which still existance. The images are being used as portraits although no case is made for why the copyrighted images cannot be replaced with free ones. In most cases the copyright is not credited, despite the images being taken from various websites.

Is this actually possible when the people in question are still alive and active in public life, the places still exist, the events still take place, and the items still commonly appear in public? Is there an easy way to have them all reported as copyvios and encourage their replacement with free images?

People: Image:Ringland Ulster photo.jpg Image:DavidHolmes.jpg Image:Hinds.jpg Image:Susan Lynch.jpg Image:Willard Grant Conspiracy.jpg Image:James Lavelle.jpg Image:Wainwrights and Thompson.jpg Image:Gerald Dawe.jpg Image:Nuala McKeever.jpg Image:Norman Whiteside.jpg Image:Oscar Pistorius2.jpg Image:Stifflittlefingers.jpg (article contains free image of band) Image:Heaney.jpg Image:Dave McAuley.jpg

Events/Places/Items: Image:Lammas Fair.jpg Image:Moat Park, Dundonald.jpg Image:Lambeg Drum.jpg Image:QFT, Belfast.jpg Image:Rath.jpg Image:Dunluce Castle2.jpg Image:Antrim Coast Road2.jpg Image:Full Moon Party March 2003.jpg

Thank you. YCV2007 14:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Pictures of living people or buildings that still exist nearly never meet the fair use criteria. These images should be tagged with {{subst:rfu}}. ShadowHalo 14:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming my suspicions. YCV2007 14:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Unlikely public domain claim on Image:Ismet Mujezinovic Ustanak.jpg

The public domain reason given (This image is freely available on the internet from various sources in the public domain. The same image was taken in the former (socialist) Yugoslavia and as such does not enjoy any copyright protection) is plain wrong - just because country was socialist, that does not mean it didn't recognize copyright; and btw, it did. What is the proper procedure for clearing up the copyright status of this image? --Branislav Jovanovic 20:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd tag it with {{nsd}} since there's no source provided to back up any of these claims. ShadowHalo 20:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Image Lisencing

I Added A couple of new pictures of products such as cds, drink packs, etc.. I bought these things and there are articles on wiki about them. I put them under public domain because I took these pictures myself and cut them down to appraprite sizes. Is this the right thing to do? I mean, I created these pictures of copyright things but the fact still remains, I created them. A quick response will very much appreciated. Can the response go to my talk page please. Here are the pics I was talking about: Quench Aid B'day Double Disc Purified CD Digicel Top-Up--Mikey 22:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I have replied at the user's talk page. MECU≈talk 18:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Images of Wikipedians, Copyright?

I have a general question... are non-commercial/derivative copyrights OK for images of Wikipedians for use on their userpage? I ask because I am considering doing so (putting a face with a name allows people to remember there is a human on the other end of the internet), but I have reservations about doing an open or free license on an image of myself. Clarification on this would be great, reply on talk page. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 02:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is first and foremost a free encyclopedia and does not devote its resources to hosting media strictly for use in userspace, which is ancillary to the project's goals. If anything, policy for userspace is more restrictive than in main space -- fair use images are not allowed there. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, which has been reverted throught wikipedia that "We're not a social networking site"... and this should be painfully clear to everyone. However, the encyclopeida is advanced by users, who have to collaborate on projects. Knowing something about whom your working with makes things much easier, which is why we have userpages and usertalk pages. I might also add that please don't give a response that makes people feel belittled and stupid, although not clearly your intent, but that is how it has come across. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 00:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. To clarify a little more: We do tend to permit users an image to put on their userspace to show what they look like, but it must be freely licensed. If you don't want to license the image freely, you could put it on a site like http://www.flickr.com and link to it from Wikipedia with something like: "Click here to see a picture of me" and set the license at flickr to your desires. They'll have to click to see it, but that's the best option I think you'll have. MECU≈talk 17:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If I was going to do that I would simply use one of my servers. Thanks for the advice though. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 00:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Various Simpsons' character illustrations

Various images of characters from The Simpsons (such as Image:Santa's Little Helper.gif or Image:Jackie.gif; probably most of the images from Category:The Simpsons Character Drawings) are tagged as {{Character-artwork}} or {{promophoto}} (some even as {{tv-screenshot}}, like Image:Rainier.jpg, which doesn't look like it is a screenshot), but no source for the images is provided (on a glance, only on three images). Is the source of images here unnecessary or is maybe the ©2000 TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. line enough? --Branislav Jovanovic 08:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think stating the copyright holder, in this case, is acceptable. It doesn't matter if we got it from "Joe's Super cool Simpsons Fansite" when it really belongs to Fox. But, really, a source should always be given because it's nice to know we at least got it from Joe's... Also, if the license doesn't seem to fit, like you say (and I agree) on the Rainier image, be BOLD! and correct it to a more appropriate license. As long as you're sure what you're doing is the right thing, nothing else matters. MECU≈talk 17:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Branislav Jovanovic, I think that a source is absolutely necessary but have been thwarted in attempts to suggest so. If the images are from http://www.thesimpsons.com/, which is, I strongly suspect due to an MD5 hash intersection, the origin of at least one image. According to the Fox.com Terms of Use, which covers thesimpsons.com:

• All materials contained in this Site are protected by international trademark and copyright laws and must only be used for personal, non-commercial purposes....
• The reproduction, duplication, distribution (including by way of email, facsimile or other electronic means), publication, modification, copying or transmission of material from this Site is strictly prohibited unless you have obtained the prior written consent of FOX or unless it is expressly permitted by this Site.
• The material covered by this prohibition includes, without limitation, any text, graphics, logos, photographs, audio or video material or stills from audiovisual material available on this Site.
• Requests for permission to reproduce or distribute materials found on this Site can be made by contacting FOX in writing at terms AT fox DOT com.

Fox.com makes profit by licensing promotaional material through their website and they expressly forbid any content on any of their sites, including thesimpsons.com, from being used for such promotional purposes. If the material meets the Wikipedia:Fair use criteria then we may, without regard to the Terms of Use, use the material, but we must realize that what we are doing is expressly forbidden by Fox.com and we must make note in the fair use rationale. In doing so, we insure that we are providing downstream users the necessary information to judge whether their use of any particular unlicensed image is a fair use or not. Unfortunately we are shortchanging downstream users and remaining ignorant regarding the source of and usage intent of the copyright owner for these images. Regards, Iamunknown 19:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Image upload

I have tried to upload the image under the "owner gave me the copyright for wikipedia" and so on. I upload the image under that and it saysto do it in fair use and contact the owner for free lisence (alredy did this). What do I do with the fair use part? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aotten (talk • contribs) 16:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

If you've contacted the owner for a free license, please wait until you hear back from them before going the fair use route. If, after several weeks or months you don't hear anything, you can then go through the fair use route. I hope you followed the directions at WP:COPYREQ as well. If not, please look it over and make sure when they reply they state explicitly what license they want and then forward that to the email address on that page. Then upload the image and state permission obtained and forwarded to Wikipedia and awaiting OTRS ticket/approval. If you need help with the fair use route, please ask at that time. Good luck! MECU≈talk 17:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"warning from Wiki" re: copyright

If Wikipedia weren't so literalized in it's ability to communicate, I would not be having to take my time for this. I have a copyright release from the owner of the image of Ingemar Johansson. It is released into the gpl with only a "request" that attribution go with it. As there are no images of Mr. Johansson in the wiki article about him, what gives? If there were a place at Wiki to have forwarded the copyright release, I would have sent it in the FIRST PLACE.

Humpphhh? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mark Preston (talk • contribs) 17:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

There is a place. See WP:COPYREQ for the email address to send the email to. Once they receive and process it, they will place a note on the image page saying permission confirmed per email with an OTRS ticket number. You might want to put on the image page until then that email permission was obtained and sent in and is awaiting OTRS ticket number. MECU≈talk 17:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Found it on a website

it would be helpfull if this pages were also avaiable in other languages...like portuguese (my native language).

My question is this: I uploaded a picture of an actor to wikipedia and I quoted the source of the image; however, i dont know who has the rights over that same picture (and honestly I have no idea if the site from where i took it is the one who owns it), so I am unable to say anything about the copyright of the item in debate.

Can you help me? Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Angelus boy (talk • contribs).

This must be the image: Image:HeathLedger.jpg. We must assume a copyright and that all rights are reserved unless we have a positive statement from the source that the image is available under a free license. And for living people, we can't make a very good case for fair use. I'm sorry, but the image is going to have to be deleted. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, for answers in Portuguese try the Portuguese helpdesk at the Commons. It's not specific to this subject, but it looks as if they do address this subject there. You also might want to poke around at the Portuguese Wikipedia and see if a similar page can be accessed from there. If not, try contacting the admins there and float the idea to them. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Picture Copyright

I'm trying to conclude that I found an image I uploaded on imageshack but wikipedia still says I have a bad confirmed copyright. What do I need to do to confirm it's copyright?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ilirik666 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

You need to identify the copyright holder and tag with an appropriate license, or as fair use with accompanying rationale. Images downloaded from a website are almost always copyrighted to someone else, and this one plainly is. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"Such and such" people images

What is the license for compound images like Image:Srbs_croatia.JPG? Specifically, are fair use images valid for this usage or not? --Branislav Jovanovic 12:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images should not be composited. We do not have any license to use these images, so we cannot make derivative images based on them. It has been nominated for deletion. - cohesion 03:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It's also possible to "compose" a set of images like this with some fancy CSS coding so that fair use material can be included. I've put an example up on my talk page. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's an addendum to the question. See my talk page for the method I describe above. (I use some images from the composition under discussion for illustrative purposes. Since some are fair use they should be taken down, and I'll do that shortly.) One would need to crop the images to get it to work properly. The question is, would cropping a fair use image be okay under Wikipedia guidelines? It seems to me that legally it would be, but the rules here are more restrictive. My opinion is that it should be, since it doesn't add any new work to the image and therefore doesn't create a derivative work, but I'm interested to know if anyone else agrees. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete these please

I loaded two Microsoft XP images - didn't understand the rules - new to this.

• Image:Darkblue hills.jpg
• Image:Sunset orange.jpg

Can someone please delete them? (Mark4679 18:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC))

Done. Jkelly 18:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:winters.jpg - thanks...this one too! (Mark's Dad)

Why does Sherool keep deleting my uploaded photos? I took them myself & I gave myself permission to use them.

Same for Image:AlexSolis.jpg, Image:AJCroce.jpg, Image:ActorLeslieJordan.jpg, Image:AlisonWaite.jpg, Image:DaveWinfield.jpg, Image:DonalLogue.jpg, Image:DonnyOsmond.jpg, Image:GESmith.jpg, Image:GetBackLoretta.jpg, Image:FrankieJ.jpg, Image:JoanCollins.jpg, Image:JudgeJoeBrown.jpg, Image:JoeTheismannRings.jpg, Image:JoeyPearson.jpg, Image:JohnButler.jpg, Image:JubileeDancers.jpg, Image:JulieKrone.jpg, Image:KendraTodd.jpg, Image:LeslieJordan.jpg, Image:LornaLuft.jpg --Sherool (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philkon (talk • contribs)

You gave yourself permission, but you didn't state how others have permission. They must be free for everyone to use. Please selected an appropriate free license at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses. I recommend CC-BY-SA-2.5. Also, you should upload these free image to Commons so that many more can use them. MECU≈talk 23:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with MECU but would ask that, if you tag your image with CC-BY-SA-2.5, you double license it under the GFDL so that it can be published with Wikipedia or another GFDL text. --Iamunknown 03:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait, wait, what is this? Last I checked, cc-by-sa is compatible with the GFDL. ShadowHalo 16:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The GFDL allows you to distribute derivative works "provided that you release the Modified Version under precisely this License", while the CC-BY-SA-2.5 says, "You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License, or a Creative Commons Commons license that contains the same License Elements as this License". They do not, however, allow you to distribute it in terms of the other license. It is unfortunate that many images are tagged solely with Creative Commons licenses, as the ShareAlike licenses are incompatible with GFDL. An easy solution is to double license under GFDL (to be used if Wikipedia is published in part or in whole) and CC-X (where X is whatever license you want; to be used by others who cannot use it under the GFDL, which is too restrictive for some cases). --Iamunknown 19:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:EdgeOnFlickr.jpg

I recived this Image from Flickr.com and I don't know how to make this page look similar to any of the other Fickr image pages on Wikipedia (For example Image:Eddie Guerrero Frog Splash.jpg or Image:ReyMysterio.jpg). If someone could please do or tell me how to do that for me I would GREATLY appreciate that. I would like someone to do that for me so that I could keep it up on Edge's Wikipedia page because it doesn't have a main Superstar image at this time.--Adam1090 05:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look like the Flickr uploader actually owns the copyright to that image. He links it to this site. If you do find a free image though, you can format the page using the {{Flickr}} template. ShadowHalo 16:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I was just gonna say this. It appears the flickr user got the image from the website ShadowHalo mentioned, or more specifically, here. So, unfortunately, that image will have to be deleted from Wikipedia.↔NMajdan•talk 16:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit) I just realized that I should probably at least answer your question in case you do come across another image in the future. Images with appropriate licenses you find on Flickr should be uploaded to the Commons. In the commons, there is a template called Flickr that you should use. Hope that helps.↔NMajdan•talk 16:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Questionably licensed images from a user

I came acros Petrosian63 (talk · contribs) who has uploaded six images of which two, Image:Wilander.jpg and Image:Zubeldia.jpg, I've tagged as possible copyvios. The other four - Image:Petrosian.jpg, Image:Davydenko.jpg, Image:Olazabal.jpg and Image:Kucera.jpg - look a lot like photos you might find "floating around the internet" or as press photos, but I haven't found any exact sources for them. Given that they're so small I highly doubt they are the work of the uploader (they've been uploaded as pd-self). What's the proper way to move forward here, since there's no hard-proof the images aren't his? Thanks. --Strangnet _{(t, c)} 15:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Try {{nsd}} since none of the images have any descriptions whatsoever. If they are indeed legit, Petrosian63 should be able to tell you where and when (s)he took the pictures. If that information is provided, but it still sounds sketchy, consider taking the images to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. ShadowHalo 15:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. --Strangnet _{(t, c)} 16:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyright Info

Where exactly can In find this information on image licensing? Like with album art does each band have different limits on licensing of album art? Woul Epic Records website have a page with copyright information on use of album Art, or would I go to a certain bands website for that information? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Heppy (talk • contribs) 19:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC). How would I apply Copyright tags also? --Heppy 19:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Because the image is album art, you only need to apply {{Albumcover}} to the image description page. To do that

1. Go to the "image description page" of the image you whose tag you want to change which should be at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ImageNameHere.ext (where ImageNameHere is the name of your image and ext is jpg, gif, etc.)
2. Click "edit this page" at the top of your internet browser
3. Type {{Albumcover}}
4. Click "Save page"

And you are done! Regards, Iamunknown 19:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. One must also include a fair use rationale. —xyzzy_n 20:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

My whole statement is wrong? Or my statement that "you only need to apply {{Albumcover}} to the image description page"? Have you ever tried getting album covers without fair use rationales deleted? It doesn't work. --Iamunknown 00:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ideally this page could provide people with best practices. Our policies do require all fair use images to have a rationale. For more information check out the fair use criteria, and the fair use rationale guideline. - cohesion 03:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess I have too much experience in the field and too many people jumping down my throats elsewhere and, coincidentally, now here. I guess that is why idealism is necessary. --Iamunknown 05:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Your omission of the rationale requirement was wrong. I’m sorry I wasn’t sufficiently precise. —xyzzy_n 13:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Military Images

Have utilized U.S. government images in two articles that have been tagged for deletion because they have no source listed. If the copyright is held by a government agency (in this case the National Archives and the USAF) and have been tagged as such, do they also need a source? Would the source be the published government documents from which they were taken? It seems kind of redundant to list the U.S. government twice. RM Gillespie 17:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

We have to be able to check to see if the copyright really is held by a US government agency. Like Image:CamSup.jpg, how do we know if this picture is not taken by a press agency working in Cambodia at the time? Garion96 (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, posting anyway :) ) Yes, you need both a source and a license. For example, the license may be public domain due to being published and created by the US government, but the source may be a NASA report, or an Air Force website etc. The source should be much more specific so that other people can verify it. This is very important because not all images on government websites are public domain. If, for example, the Dept. of Agriculture gets rights to something for their own use and publishes it, that does not mean it is now public domain. The US government is not required to use only public domain works, it's just that anything they create is public domain. You may already know this, but many people don't, so we need a way to verify where the image actually came from. - cohesion 17:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Image as text

I am in the process of rewriting the article on Quad (play). This play includes two diagrams to explain complicated stage movements and I would like to upload one of these to add to a clearer understanding of the article. The diagrams are effectively a part of the text of the play and, as such, I would normally simply enter a reference, which in this case would be: Beckett, S., Collected Shorter Plays of Samuel Beckett, Faber and Faber, 1984, p 293. Obviously I can't do this for an drawing.

What tag should I use when uploading the image? Jimmy4559 01:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say that you should use {{fair use in|Quad (play)}} and a Wikipedia:Fair use rationale explaining where the image comes from, what its purpose it serves in the article, etc. --Iamunknown 02:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible problem with public domain claim on Image:Ismet Mujezinovic Djeca nose ranjenika.jpg

According to WIPO, former Yugoslavia was a member of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works; WIPO entry for Serbia showing continuity with Yugoslavia can be seen here. So, is The image was taken in the former (socialist) Yugoslavia and as such does not enjoy any copyright protection. PD reason viable? --Branislav Jovanovic 07:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Same as with Image:Ismet Mujezinovic Ustanak.jpg, just tag it with {{nsd}}. If tf the public domain claim is valid (which is unlikely), then the source will be able to confirm that. ShadowHalo 08:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I did - another user (not the original sender) removed it, and he wrote on my talk page - The reason given in the note sounds fairly satisfactory (you may disagree): it is available from many PD sources and as a pic from x-Yu it probably does not enjoy copyright protection. I don't believe his reasoning is valid - as I stated above, Yugoslavia was a member of Berne Convention, and I believe that means it had to honor copyright as stated by that agreement, but i wanted to get another opinion. Me reverting him & vice versa on image description page won't solve anything. --Branislav Jovanovic 18:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources are not public domain or not, works are. This person may be confused regarding the term "public domain". Many people mistakenly understand that term to relate to the ease of which the image can be obtained. For example, things online must be "public domain". This is incorrect. I left a note on the talk page, but Wikipedia:Basic copyright issues may be helpful to them if you interact in the future. The image has already been retagged as no source, with a good explanation by User:Csernica. - cohesion 16:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Image source

In the ATB's article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Tanneberger I uploaded a CD cover image without a specific source. I already specify the source with a link to a website.

But in the same article, there is a similar image without a specific source... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Trilogy_ATB.jpg

What about that image's source? There is no a specific source anywhere, so why you asked me to specify a source while this guy didn't do that?

Thanks for your time,

Ronald26 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ronald26 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Both images require a source. We try to remain aware of what images have the necessary information and which images do not and, indeed, have bots to help us do so. Since the images you point out are duplicates, I'll replace the one in Trilogy (ATB) with the one you uploaded (it is better quality) and remove the image you uploaded from André Tanneberger.

Additionally, per our fair use guideline at Wikipedia:Fair use, we almost never accept images under "fair use" that are, for example, "An image of a rose, cropped from an image of a record album jacket, used to illustrate an article on roses" or "An image of a living person that merely shows what they look like." That is, we do not generally accept copyrighted album covers that merely show what the person on front of the cover looks like.

Additionally, I will reduce the size of the image (per WP:FAIR). Be aware that the image you uploaded should also have a Wikipedia:Fair use rationale and will be deleted unless it does not. Sorry for the lengthy reply. If you have any questions, feel free to ask additional questions here. Regards, Iamunknown 22:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use agreement is enough?

I'm working on a very-low-res screen capture from a web broadcast. The validity of the current fair-use justification is being questioned, and I'm in the process of writing to the copyright holder. Is this correct: if the copyright holder says "we agree that use of the image is Fair Use", then we can keep using it? Or is it essential that the copyright holder actually releases the image under a free licence? Thanks, Zero^talk 02:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

We need the free license. Fair use isn't something where permission is required, or where it even makes a difference, but a legal provision that allows copyrighted material to be used under certain limited circumstances. Wikipedia errs on the side of caution (for reasons having more to do with its goal of providing free content rather than legalities) and has more restrictive policies than the law requires. See WP:FAIR. Unless the text it accompanies is criticism or commentary on the piece itself, it's not valid fair use. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

On reflection, I'm not sure which image you meant here. If it's Image:Hass1.jpg, then as a general rule Wikipedia does not allow fair use images of living persons, since it's presumed that a free version is obtainable. See WP:FAIR#Counterexamples. So yes, we'd need the license. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Port credit mississauga T2254.jpg

How do I get a licence or copyright tag? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brindan.b (talk • contribs) 21:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Free is better! MECU≈talk 19:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

License for images from other language wikipedias?

What license do I give to images which are moved from other language wikipedias? Mayank Abhishek 13:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The same license as there most likely. But if they're free, they should be moved to Commons so we don't have to keep multiple copies of the same work. One image on Commons can be used on every project like it was uploaded to it. Saves hard drive space and multiple efforts and more. MECU≈talk 19:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What if they do not have a license there? Like this one, http://hi.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%9A%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0:Firayalal.jpg

Mayank Abhishek 03:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

We can only accept images for which both the copyright holder (usually the photographer or their employer) and the licensing details are known. In this case, the best thing to do is to leave a message for the uploader requesting more information. It is possible that they are the photographer and will agree to a free license like the GFDL. If they can not provide any more info, though, the image should really be deleted from Hindi Wikipedia too. ×Meegs 06:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Image of Unity Logo at Socialist Worker Aotearoa

Hi guys

I filled in a form authenticating our logo' use (we have a copyleft position as long as people refer back to our website at www.unityaotearoa.blogspot.com), but I am not sure if this is technically what you are looking for? New to uploading images, so please let me know.

Kia kaha RuaNua —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ruanua (talk • contribs).

Yes, this is a good license for us. Two things remain for you to do. First, you need to tag the image with the exact license so that it's unambiguous. From what you have said above, the tag can be either {{Attribution}}, {{FAL}}, {{GFDL}}, or one of the Creative Commons licenses requiring attribution such as {{cc-by-2.5}}. The CC license is somewhat more restrictive than the others. With Attribution and CC-by-2.5 you can specify the form which the attribution is to take; the GFDL and FAL require a link to the source of the original image. Second, we need something authoritative that allows us to verify the license. You can either send an email to the address listed at WP:COPYREQ#When permission is confirmed, preferably from an email address associated with the website, naming the license under which the image is released -- or you can place such a statement somewhere on the site itself where it can be linked to.

I don't think you're asking about Image:SolidarityFist.jpg, but we need a similar email or statement on the website for that image identifying you as its actual creator, just to confirm that the PD-self tag was properly placed. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging

I recently uploaded two images on wikipedia, that i have made myself. I wrote that i made the images myself in the license tagging area while i was uploading the image, but even after that i got a message for a license tag for the image. What am i supposed to do?

The "tag" is a template call. You filled in the image description, but you didn't select a license from the dropdown menu when you uploaded them, specifying under what terms Wikipedia may use them. That would have added the tag automatically, but now you have to do it manually.

Or rather, you shouldn't tag them at all; but let them get deleted. You didn't create these images, you just composited them. They are copyrighted to someone else, and you can't claim ownership of them. TCC (talk) (contribs) 16:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this image now acceptable?

Hi, I've been alerted that I needed to properly state copyright information and state a Fair Use Rationale for this image Image:Vicvance.png. I have followed these requests, is this now acceptable? Is there anything I should add or change or is it now acceptable for use on Wikipedia? I just wish to not encounter anymore problems with this image. --.:Alex:. 16:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You provided the source that was needed, but you haven't used the image anywhere. We cannot keep fair use images if they are not being used. MECU≈talk 17:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The image is going to be used. It was automatically removed because of lack of source. So I take it I can use it again? .:Alex:. 19:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You should use it again, but you also should add a fair use rationale. See WP:FURG for help with that. MECU≈talk 19:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

CorbinHarney.jpg

I do not understand what is printed for the "speedy deletion" of http://www.wildernessthx.com/ntsreunionwcorbin/art/corbinprofile.jpg

I assert have permission to use this image for wikipedia. rkmlai 21:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If you follow the links in the "speedy deletion" section you will find a fuller explanation. If you could say what's confusing you here we can be more helpful.

The main problem is that using images with permission for Wikipedia only, or for non-commercial use only, is contrary to the goal of the project, which is to create a free content encyclopedia. We therefore do not accept images with this kind of license. Again, follow the links on the page for more details. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Google Images

I have uploaded a picture i found on Google Images and its saying i need a copyright status. Google Earth has public photos. Image:Monolith.jpg. Please help!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheMonolith (talk • contribs).

No, Google Earth content is copyrighted and not freely licensed. That has nothing to do with Google Images anyway, which is an image search engine and not a content provider. Most material you find on the Web is neither public domain nor freely licensed unless there is an explicit statement to that effect. The creator of that image has not issued such a statement that I could find on his site. If you know of one, link to it. Otherwise, this image is a copyright violation and should be removed. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyright help

I recently uploaded a photograph Image:William H Sewell.JPG, and I am unsure what kind of licensing it requires, or if it can even legally be on Wikipedia. I don't have much understanding of the Fair Use, Free Use, and copyright rules. As for the picture, it comes from the University of Wisconsin-Madison Archives, where I do believe it has a copyright. I contacted the Director of the Archives about the copyright status, and he replied that he has "no problem with [me] using the photos". I have included the letter here for all to see and enjoy :). This photograph is the first of many that I wish to add to wikipedia from the UW-Madison Archives. Any help and additional information that you could give would be greatly appreciated. – Lordmontu _{(talk) • (contribs)} 03:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Although the reply you received is encouraging, it is unfortunately too vague to be helpful. The archivist did not indicate what license to use for the image, or even that he was aware of the implications of the licensing you suggested. Any letter asking for permission must be crystal-clear in that regard, since the whole issue of copyleft isn't in the forefront of most people's minds. (For instance, he said "If you need to attribute them..." The point isn't what we need to do, it's what they want us to do.)

I suggest contacting him again, composing your message according to the suggestions at WP:COPYREQ or using one of the examples at WP:ERP. However you do it, he must be clear that whatever use he permits to us, he must also permit to anyone else, even commercial users, if the image is to be usable. Once he replies, COPYREQ has the address to which you need to forward the email so that Wikipedia has a record of the license from the copyright holder.

In the meantime, since this is a photo of a deceased person, we can use it as fair use. You only need to supply a detailed rationale on the image page, in addition to the {{fair use in}} tag, and to specify the copyright holder as "The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System". TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Self-copyright

The image,.pdf file as requested, i posted yesterday "about me..." is bio information about the Author-Rea-Silvia Costin, P.E. I am the Author, Rea-Silvia Costin. I have the copyright to all my writings. Please let me know if i need to do sothing else to have amy profile considered for inclusion by Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rea-Silvia Costin (talk • contribs).

Although the file was marked because it was not properly identified and no acceptable license for Wikipedia's use was given, the real issue is that this is not appropriate material for Wikipedia to be hosting. This is not the place to be hosting your autobiography. See WP:AUTO. PDF is not, in any event, an image format and cannot be used as an image in articles. TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Question on deletion

File:Minusstory.jpg was deleted but the user did not state which criteria it violated. Band image that is fair use from a media kit. I'd like revert but want to make sure I'm not in violation first. Thanks NapalmSunday 04:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason given was, "This image or media has a clearly invalid fair-use tag, or fails some part of the non-free content criteria. Tagged for > 7 days. (CSD:I7)".[3] "CSD" means "criteria for speedy deletion", and I7 indicates the criterion used in this case, which is an invalid fair use claim. Whether it comes from a presskit or not, you have to meet the standard of fair use as defined in Wikipedia policy, and the admin apparently believed that you did not. Since the image is no longer there I can't be more specific than that. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The image had no fair use rationale, for more information about what should be in one please see the fair use rationale guideline. - cohesion 03:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Screenshot usage of Image:Natasamicic1.jpg

Does this usage of Image:Natasamicic1.jpg still fall under "fair use"? License tag says: "for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents", and this image is used to show how that person looks like.--Branislav Jovanovic 14:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

no since it would be posible to create a free image to perform the same function.Geni 03:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Frog

I found this image in The National Geographic website but I couldnt find the copyright.Can some one help me .

File:Strawberry-poison-dart-frog.jpg

http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/animals/wallpaper/strawberry-poison-dart-frog.html

Well is says geogre grall on the bottem left so it is fairly likely that he holds the copyright.Geni 04:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Gellar in Handbra

Why was the screen capture image Gellar on SNL.jpg, formerly used in the article for Handbra, deleted after being on WP for over 6 months? I've uploaded a smaller version of this image Image:Gellar_on_SNL2.jpg as a comparison, but it will also be deleted unless I supply the rationale for the earlier image's FU. Thanks. -- H Bruthzoo 13:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read the non-free content criteria, especially the first one. Non-free content cannot be used in this way. Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, and while we do have some non-free content it is limited. - cohesion 23:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

photo credit

the image I pasted in was from the neighborhood association and I don't know who to see about permission...the best thing to do is delete the pic and I'll arrnage to take a new one which I'll send later. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnRenesch (talk • contribs).

To request a deletion for an image you uploaded tag it with {{db-author}}, if you need any help let us know. - cohesion 23:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

How to delete uploaded images

Can I delete an image I uploaded myself? If not, then please delete this for me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:66canadadry.jpg I used it to play in the sandbox, but then I couldn't figure out how to delete it from Wikipedia (as I have no idea what the copyright is on this picture).

Thanks! PADutchman 20:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Found my answer on discussion page

   There are three main methods of deleting an image.

  1. Become an administrator.
  2. Beg an administrator to do it for you.
  3. Place a speedy-deletion tag on the image - I recommend the {Db-noncom} tag.

I guess that means I need to beg an admin to delete it for me. Pretty Please! Thanks PADutchman

the image has already been deleted, in the future though you should use {{db-author}}, noncom means the image is not allowed for commercial use. :) - cohesion 23:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

How to acquire copyright

Hi thanks for writing to me to let me know. How can I get a copyright for Kendall Gaveck? Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lindsaybabay (talk • contribs).

Please restate your question, you have uploaded 2 images, Image:Dmfanlist1.JPG, and Image:Dpaanabker.jpg. Also, you have created an article Kendall gaveck. I'm not sure exactly what the issue is, but based on a quick look at those things the following pages may be helpful:

Wikipedia:Image use policy

Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria

Wikipedia:Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Proper names

Wikipedia:Naming conventions

I know that's a lot, and probably not specific to your question, if you update this though someone will be able to help you more specifically. - cohesion 23:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Can this image be included in wikipedia

I just posted the following image (Image:Ustilago_hordei_padil01_.jpg) and it was automatically marked for speedy deletion.

The image is from a government organization and they appear to be promoting/allowing the use of their images for non-commercial use (see http://www.padil.gov.au/copyright.aspx). thanks. Somanypeople 18:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, so we don't allow non-commercial licensed content. All of our works, with a few exceptions are freely licensed. For more information about freedom in this context see freedomdefined.org. - cohesion 19:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Pope

The folowing image Image:Gpii index.jpg I found it in the vatican website but I found the copyright but cant understand it. https://www.photo.va/index.php is where the copyright is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bewareofdog (talk • contribs)

Vatican, image use policy isn't compatible with wikipedia. Megapixie 02:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyright for paintings

Who is the copyright holder for a painting? The artist, his heirs, or the current owner of the painting? What happens if I own a painting, put a picture of it on Wikipedia, and then someone buys it and claims that the picture must be removed? — Sebastian 21:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The artist who created the painting owns the copyright of the image, unless they explicitly sells/gives away the copyright. This is normally not the case. Same principle as buying a copy of a DVD - it doesn't give you the right to distribute the movie contained on the DVD. After the artist has been dead for 70 years, then the copyright lapsese into the public domain. Megapixie 01:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

So, if the artist died 10 years ago, the copyright is with their heirs? — Sebastian 20:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)    (I stopped watching this page. If you would like to continue the talk, please do so here and ping me.)

start of airline services from kingston jamaica to london

when was first airline flight between kingston jamaica and london —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.155.234.44 (talk) 11:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Try Wikipedia:Reference desk. This page is for questions about media copyrights. :) - cohesion 19:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Tech Tragedy

Ask Prof. Zimbardo his opinion of the Virgina Tech tragedy!

This page is for questions about media copyright. - cohesion 19:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyright

Hi

I would like to use:

{{pd-self}}

on all my images. How do i add this to my photos ?

by adding {{pd-self}} to the image page.Geni 18:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problems

Dear Sirs,

I need help with tagging a picture, I am trying to upload. This is called [Bud Hare Bonneville 1952] Can you tell how to tag this picture properly?

Thanks DrBarry2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drbarry2007 (talk • contribs).

On the image description page you mentioned that the image was copyrighted Cycle magazine 1952. Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, which means all of our material is freely licensed. For a definition of freedom in this context see freedomdefined.org. We only use copyrighted material in very limited circumstances as defined by our non-free content criteria. This image probably can't be used on wikipedia unless it can satisfy those conditions. - cohesion 23:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Author and editor

I would like to find out the author, and editro of this website.

This is an interesting question. Wikipedia is written collaboratively by volunteers; its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the encyclopedia. In fact you are an author of this website now :) If you would like to get started learning more I would suggest checking out Wikipedia:Introduction. If you need to contact someone about a particular problem feel free to update this question with that problem. Many things can probably be handled immediately. If your issue doesn't fall into that category please see Wikipedia:Contact us. - cohesion 23:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Mundana

I have successfully loaded that image, but I cannot find the right tag. The big question is:

What copyright/licence tag should I use? May I use a {{GFDL-self}} tag? I have beeen practically issued a transfer of copyright from the author of the website in the email, but in Polish. I can take responsibility. See below my explanation I sent to

Description: "Mundana Quartet" Author: Jan Romanowski Source: http://www.mundana.pl Copyright tag: I don't know how to tag this image. One needs a lawyer to do that. I got written consent from the author of the page to publish this image on Polish and English wikipedia without any other restrictions. The image is a picture of the band - Mundana Quartet - it'a a part of the cover of the home page (address of the page stated above). I personally cut the rest of the cover using the program "Paint" on XP Windows. Used by permission by the above Polish website owner - Jan Romanowski. Email forwarded to permissions@wikimedia.org on April 11, reforwarded again today

Sincerely yours, whoever you are

Greg --greg park avenue 17:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, permission to use the image is NOT sufficient. The copyright owner needs to release the image under a free license - for example, either under the GFDL or into the public domain. For Wikipedia to use an image, it must be completely free of restrictions on use - in other words, not only can Wikipedia use it, but anyone can use it, including commercial interests. Please see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for more information and a sample letter that you can use. --BigDT (416) 19:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

images

My image was made using a cell phone photo---no copyrights but now how can I get it put back onto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jacque1952

Jacque —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.210.186.171 (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Did you, personally, take the photograph? If so, see Wikipedia:Fromowner for the easy form. The short answer is that you need to release the image under a free license, like the GFDL or simply release it into the public domain. Wikipedia:Fromowner simplifies the process. --BigDT (416) 02:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Photo

I don't quite understand how to tag a photo properly. I have permission to use and have quoted the photographers name... what do I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cracka79 (talk • contribs) 2007-04-24:06:13:04

I assume you're talking about Image:Tars2.highres.jpg. You didn't say in the image description that you had permission, or what the permission was for exactly. Wikipedia only accepts media available under a free license such as the GFDL. See WP:COPY for details on copyrights and licensing. If you can get permission for that from him, preferably via email, forward that email to the address given toward the end of WP:COPYREQ. Then you can remove the tag that's there, and add one for the granted license from Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Photo

Hi. I recently uploaded a photo and the website gives permission to do so. Here is the photo. Image:WTNR Tower.jpg My concern is that the following message is posted within it. Licensing (Cut verbatim insertion of {{Non-commercial from license selector}} -- TCC (talk) (contribs))

However, on the website, it says this:

All pictures are copyrighted by Tom Bosscher, 2005 But, they may be used without 
prior approval provided Tom Bosscher is given credit for the photograph(s).

Curran (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S., please view the Summary heading where I specified this info. Thanks, Curran (talk)

You put this text there yourself when you uploaded the image and specified the license was for non-commercial use only. Since the permission given on the website contains no such restriction, you should not have selected that license. Just cut it out of the image page and add {{Attribution}} instead, making sure to preserve the website link, photographer's name, and copyright information. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Which copyright status to use and how? Image:Dukla6364.jpg

I have uploaded a picture on Wikipedia. I had an original photo at home and I scanned it to place it online. Which tag to use? Note that this picture wasn't taken from any book, I just bought the original photo myself.

--Vallejo06 12:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

copyright status of PRC propaganda posters

Hi there, I am trying to determine the copyright status of political propaganda posters created in the People's Republic of China during the 1950's. This collection of posters and the site's copyright information and attribution policy seem to say that they would fall under GFDL and that{{Attribution}} would apply, but images from the same site, which are currently being used in Criticize Lin, Criticize Confucius, Propaganda in the People's Republic of China and other Wikipedia articles are used under {{politicalposter}} as fair use. Any ideas on the actual status of these images? Thanks!--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 16:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

how do i add a copyright tag?

i have asked my friend to to do this new ersion of my mom's pic. his site is densemodesto.multiply.com if you check its under his pictures area and it's addressed to me. If i need to do the tag, how do i do tht. Im not much of a computer whiz. kindly help me thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angeldwbm (talk • contribs) 2007-04-25:20:10

It's not so important who edited the picture. What is important is that the copyright is probably owned by the original photographer, and odd as it may seem you don't have rights to release it to the public domain or under a free license like the GFDL. If the photographer is a family member, you can probably obtain permission from them. Otherwise we can probably apply fair use since your mother has unfortunately passed away and no new photos of her can be made. See WP:NONFREE for guidelines.

As for what a tag is, if you edit this section you can see where I placed a notation that your original post was unsigned. It's the bit between two pairs of curly braces. This is called a template, and it's a kind of shorthand for standard text and formatting. A "tag" here is a kind of template that indicates the copyright and licensing status of the image. You can find a list of them here. To place one, you go to the image page and click on the "edit this page" link. You won't see the image, but you'll see the accompanying text. Place the template in its own section ==Licensing== along with any explanation needed. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Bibliography

For the making of a Bibliography, what is th city of publication,and the copyright? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.142.196 (talk • contribs) 2007-04-25:21:00

This page is not for general questions on copyright. On the off-chance you're asking so you can cite a source for a Wikipedia article, you'll find the copyright information and city of publication on the copyright page, which immediately follows the title page. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Taping a High School Play

My childs drama department performs plays and some of them are copywrited. The drama teacher says that you can't take pictures or tape the performance. My child acts in these plays and why is it "illegal" to take pictures or tape the performance for personal use? --Evac172 23:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This page is intended for questions about copyright as it applies to Wikipedia. To answer your question, IANAL but I would guess that many schools will purchase the rights to perform a play but have restrictions against taping it. ShadowHalo 01:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Missionbeach1.jpg

I do not know how to add a tag to this photo. I added one, but it was deleted anyway, so I'm at a total loss. I have permission from Joe Ewing, the copyright owner and the person who took the photo and owns it. I've put that on the image talk page. What else is it that I need to do to get this photo up? It's very confusing. Permission was granted, which, according to the Library of Congress, is what's needed for a photo to be used. I don't have a clue, even from the instructions, how or where to post a tag. I thought I was doing it right when I posted one, then you deleted the photo anyway. Help! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Writertoo (talk • contribs) 23:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC). The above was written by me, and now signed:

You need more than just permission to use on wikipedia. You need permission for anyone to use for any perpose includeing comercial use and make modifications. Getting the Photo released under the GFDL is probably the best simplest way to do this.Geni 19:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Dixie High

I Uploaded my school enblem but I don't know whether or not it is copyrighted maybe you know about things like that the file is Dixiehighseal.gif and it can be found at www.dixiehigh.org. --Aporras22 04:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

pretty much everthing is protected by copyright.Geni 18:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a question about Image:Feagin-1stphoto.jpg. I entered in the source of the photo, but the photo was still deleted. I was wondering what other information is needed in order to maintain this photo?Louwanda 17:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It's copyright status.Geni 18:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyrighting

I just wanted to change the picture of Ben Wallace from being in a Pistons jersey, to him being in a Bulls jersey.

I found the image on the web, and then changed it to a .gif file in Photoshop.

I am unsure what type of copyrighting i need to do.

Thanks.

since you don't hold the copyright and the image is unlikely to be under a free lisence you can't use the image on wikipedia.Geni 20:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

How can I add a photo to a page?

Hi-- I am trying to add a photo of the founders of Radical Women to the organization's wikipedia page. I have the permission of Radical Women to use the photo--the actual photographer is unknown. I don't know how to phrase this permission. And I don't know how to place the photo or add a caption describing. it.

Thanks.

HGat82ndSt 20:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You need more than permission to use on wikipedia you would need permission from the copyright holder for the image to be released under a free lisence such as the GFDL.Geni 20:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Appropriate image size for fair use

Hello. I have been going through and cleaning up 'Screenshots of television'. A number of the images claim fair use based on being low-resolution images but they are 640 x 480 or even bigger in some cases. It seems to me that those screen-shots are too big to be considered fair use. The fair use tag uses the term 'web resolution'.

What is an appropriate size for a fair use image? Are different sizes appropriate for different sources (eg a TV Screenshot vs. a book cover)?

Iain 06:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

640x480px is not low resolution. Generally, anything under 400x400px is considered low enough resolution. The size of a fair use image should generally not vary based on the type of image (there's not really any need to have a TV screenshot at a higher/lower resolution than a book cover). It's important to keep in mind that there's always an exception. For example, Image:Citizen Kane deep focus.jpg is being used to illustrate the camera technique of having everything in focus, which cannot be illustrated at a lower resolution. ShadowHalo 07:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

How do I contest deletion of a mug shot?

Where and how do I contest the deletion of a mug shot? Nicmart 03:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:DRV.Geni 14:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Depends. Has the image been deleted already, or will it be deleted sometime in the future? --Carnildo 00:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Picture of a deceased person.

I'm hoping someone here can help me out here - I've got a picture of a deceased wrestler Jonathan Boyd that would help illustrate the article and improve the quality of it. it's a picture from some time in the 1980s so I have no clear indicator of who holds the copyright to this picture Image:JonathanBoydBW.jpg and now I’ve been told that it’ll be deleted within 7 days if an appropriate copyright tag hasn’t been provided.

My question is – what sort of tag would be appropriate or should I just go ahead and get it deleted if it violates all wikipedia rules? Thanks in advance MPJ-DK 06:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

normaly {{Fair use in}}.Geni 21:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Normally, yes. But we also normally need to know who the copyright holder is in order to justify a fair use claim. That we don't have this information here is of no practical moment in this particular case (IMO) but someone may see it as a problem at some point. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Permission to use a photo

. My photo was recently deleted. How do I go back and add information to the current picture instead of uploading a new one. Also, the photo being used was given to me personally Dr. Joe Feagin. How do I ensure that my photo will not be deleted again? The photo is Image: Feagin-1stphoto.jpgLouwanda 21:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

the photo was given to you but there is not evidence the copyright was (and it probably wasn't) so you can't release it under a free lisence so you can't use it on wikipedia.Geni 21:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Complex image-licensing question

Hi, I uploaded Image:ICEWM_Screenshot.png for use on Active window. The image itself is a screenshot of my desktop running the IceWM window manager (LGPL), with the applications rxvt-unicode (GPL) and Firefox (Mozilla Public License), with Firefox showing the Wikipedia homepage. The particular arrangements of the windows on the screen was put together and screenshot by me. Also visible are the taskbar buttons for The GIMP (GPL) but not its icon (rather, the generic X Window icon).

I have no idea what kind of licensing mess this creates. Can someone help? Thanks.

Hawk777 22:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

non free since it includes the wikipedia (and firefox) logo.Geni 00:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.

The page on the Image:Flowerfairiesjpg.jpg claims:

Image probably copied from: http://www.walldecorshops.com/WA13412.html but Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. means that that source cannot object. Since the artist died in 1973, this work is still in copyright and that copyright is enforced by Frederick Warne - see the Flower Fairies official website.

As I posted on the talk page of this image, the first claim is clearly bogus by merit of the second.

IANAL, however, the claim that the image source cannot object seems to be false, and fails as a fair use rationale.

Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. states that this case "ruled that exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright". But from the copyright notice on the same page, the image isn't in the public domain: if it's copyrighted, then by definition all copies of it, licensed or unlicensed, absolutely ARE "protected by copyright". Making unlicensed "copies of copies" of a copyrighted work is simply not permitted. Someone who's made a licensed derivative work from a copyrighted work (as appears to be the case here) absolutely *can* object to copies being made of their derivative work, even where it is closely similar to the original. So the copyright listed may also be incorrect or incomplete, since this appears a copy of a derivative work, with copyright belonging to the cited source, Sure, the use of the image may still be "fair use" (is using the entirety of a work EVER "fair use"?), but this citation certainly fails as a fair use rationale for that use. Also, I'm unsure about the claim that US copyright law applies, since they're the IP of a UK company, and the internet *does* extend beyond the borders of the US. Wikipedia does appear to serve content to UK IPs, so you are publishing this copyrighted image in the UK. Also I'm unsure if the claim that "it's fair use because it's used on the Cicely Mary Barker page" is valid: I found the image featured on its own page, following a link from a discussion of the image, on a user page. I never even read the name "Cecily Marie Barker" until I started writing the above. Clearly, any image which has its own page (all images, so far as I can tell) is not just being used "in context", it's also directly linkable: I feel that Wikipedia's claim that the images are only being viewed or used "in context" is flawed in this respect, and that images where the "fair use" relies on the context for should probably not show the image, but should instead provide a link to the context where the image is shown. But like I said, IANAL. --DewiMorgan 00:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

DewiMorgan

I could be reading all this wrong ... but I think they are saying this:

• Frederick Warne owns the copyright.
• Walldecorshops.com is using the image owned by Frederick Warne
• The copy of the image that Walldecorshops.com is using is a slavish copy
• Because Walldecorshops.com's use of the image is a slavish copy, they have no standing to object

We use amazon.com copies of DVD and CD covers under the same reasoning - Amazon doesn't own the images, so any permission they would give is irrelevant. We still have to either have the permission from the actual copyright holder or a fair use claim to use the image ... but, according to that image description page, Walldecorshops.com's permission or lack thereof is irrelevant.

I can't speak to the underlying facts of the matter (in other words, I have no idea who owns the copyright), but I think the conclusions are right. --BigDT (416) 02:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. This is not analogous to using Amazon's scan of an album cover, which is a "slavish copy". In this case we have a clearly derivative work. Elements of the original image have been cropped out and arranged in a new manner. Both the selection of elements and the new arrangement are new creative work. Since this is a derivative work authorized by the copyright holder on the original, the added creative elements are separately copyrighted.

I don't think we have a fair use claim that holds up here. The copyrighted elements of the derivative work are irrelevant to any valid fair use claim and will be copyvios regardless. The image isn't being used for criticism or analysis anyway, but merely to illustrate the artist's work. And it doesn't even do that adequately, since it's just bits and pieces cropped out of the whole. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

":*Because Walldecorshops.com's use of the image is a slavish copy, they have no standing to object" - My point was that this is not true under Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp, since the judgement only applies to public domain works. It has no bearing here. Nothing about this work, whether in the original, or the modified-by-walldecorshops form, is in any way public domain. Incidentally, I only pointed this out because the blatant falsity about Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp got to me: personally I think copyright is evil in all its forms, anyway, and it's no skin off my nose if the image is used. DewiMorgan 22:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

the critical part of the ruleing was the part about slaveish copyright not qualifying for copyright. the copyright status of the undelineing work should not impact this. On the other hand it would be harder to make a fair use case for someone else's slavish copy (since they would have a fair case that you are directly competeing with their use).Geni 22:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the critical part of the ruling was that slavish copyright of a Public Domain image did not become magically imbued with copyright purely by the act of making a copy of something that had no copyright. The ruling said that the act of copying was not a creative act. It was made very clear (just read the links I gave) that the ruling did NOT remove copyright that was already there. Any copy of a copyrighted thing has that same copyright applied, especially if the copy is made accurately. For a deeper understanding of this topic, see Bridgeman Art Library Ltd. v. Corel Corporation DewiMorgan 10:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Coat of arms

Image:K-L-Lindau wappen.jpg not sure how to tag it. It's a village coat-of-armsNankai 22:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't tag it; you allow it to be deleted. It's a copyright violation. It appears to be a scan of a patch or insignia. As such, the individual details that go into making the actual patch are copyright to whomever made it.

Note that the blazon itself probably is not copyrighted, assuming it's not of recent origin and it's not copyrighted to the city under local laws. If that's the case, then you can always create an image of the coat of arms yourself and upload it here under a free license. (It's for this reason that we can't apply fair use. Wikipedia policy restricts fair use when a free alternative can be reasonably created.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Given that there are rules which govern who may display certain coats-of-arms, does Wikipedia attempt to regulate that as well? I'm talking now about heraldic rules of use rather than copyright on a specific image of an emblazon. Thanks. Jackytar 19:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

File:Gerri_Santoro_with_sister_Leona.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This was originally uploaded with the tag {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} and a restriction against using the image to promote anti-abortion causes. After an IFD, this was switched to a fair use template by the closing admin. A companion image was uploaded with the same tag, but was not listed at WP:IFD, but I changed the tag in accord with the IFD close. Question: Can a free license prohibit fraudulent uses of an image? Gerri Santoro died from a self-administered abortion, and it would be pretty fraudulent (not to mention disrespecting her memory and her family's wishes) to use it in any kind of abortion POV pushing. Is this license free enough for Wikipedia? Nardman1 02:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No.Geni 12:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There is some debate about this outside wikipedia however. Some of the new creative commons licenses do disallow disparaging the copyright holder for example. These licenses are not seen by the wikipedia community as being free, and are not usable on wikipedia. Wikipedia uses the definition of free located at freedomdefined.org The first essential freedom is:

"The freedom to use and perform the work: The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work. For kinds of works where it is relevant, this freedom should include all derived uses ("related rights") such as performing or interpreting the work. There must be no exception regarding, for example, political or religious considerations."

- cohesion 19:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I need to delete images I uploaded

How do I delete images I uploaded? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neasyorc (talk • contribs) 16:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Add {{db-author}} to the images. ShadowHalo 18:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyright?

I need suggestions for adding a copyright to Image:ShelbyFooteSignature.PNG. I explained how I created the image when I uploaded it and I'm confused as to which copyright selection to make. Thanks! BeeDub65 05:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably {{db-copyvio}} since the image will stil be under copyright.Geni 12:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe most signatures are pd-ineligible. Signatures are protected by fraud law, not copyright. Nardman1 19:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

what is URL

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.187.87.243 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

See URL. howcheng {chat} 02:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Another indecipherable speedy-delete message, on Image:MOST_with_Jaymie_Matthews.jpg

I recently received yet another form letter about an image I spent days getting onto the wikipedia. First I got one of these for a perfectly valid image I took myself that was going to be speedied because the tags changed, and now I'm getting a non-conform on an image that will be impossible to replace. If someone can suggest how we can get a free version of the MOST satellite, WHICH IS IN ORBIT, I'm all ears! Every image is licensed by the CSA like this, and try as I might, they simply don't "get" licensing -- no one does. So now what? Maury 12:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The message on the page states that the image cannot be used for commercial purposes. Wikipedia allows commercial reuse of its content, so we cannot make use of an image with this restriction. ShadowHalo 18:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

A couple of suggestions for how to get a free image of it:

1. Try contacting the copyright holder to see if they will release the image under a free license.
2. Most satellites in orbit have spares or mock-ups which are still on Earth. You could try to get a photo of one of those.

Hope this helps. --Carnildo 23:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

For clarification, the copyright holder for this image will be the CSA if the person who took the picture was doing so as part of his/her job (and is a paid employee). If the person was not paid, he/she holds the copyright. ShadowHalo 23:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no backup for the satellite. The CSA holds the copyrights. The VAST majority of companies I have contacted do no know or understand copyright law, and have absolutely no interest in doing any work on figuring it out, as is the case here. We need to do something about this, something other than just quoting rules that might bad ones to begin with.

Academic now, since someone speedy deleted it anyway. What a pointless waste of my time. Maury 19:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

http://www.astro.ubc.ca/MOST/galleries.html includes several photos credited to the PI Jaymie Matthews, in addition to the CSA ones. Since he's a UBC professor, rather than CSA employee, you could ask him about releasing his own photos under a free license. --Davepape 14:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Common Law Copyright

Can a person copyright his TRADE/NAME TRADE?MARK e.g., TIMOTHY DANE COOPER(c)1974, ENS LEGIS,

and get paid if someone uses it without that persons consent? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.202.36.227 (talk) 05:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Yes (IANAL). --Iamunknown 12:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Generally, NO, you cannot copyright a name - see http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html (for the U.S.; most other countries are likely to be similar). --Davepape 14:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)