Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2007/March

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Rogilla image

This original photo has been in family long time. Taken in 1932 Horse trained by granfather No copyright stamp on back of photo In Australia any images taken before 1955 not recognizsed for copyright

What classification should I select on upload further images future


Les Haigh —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LESHAIGH (talkcontribs) 00:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

{{PD-Australia}} Jkelly 00:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Again and 'coz unclear

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Image use policy --Iamunknown 02:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Can I remove possibly unfree deletion tag from an image if it's clearly wrong? Possibly unfree image tag, AFD and IFD all are falls in WP:CSD and WP:SD . There is a deletion tools in WP:CSD AND WP:SD. That means they fall in both WP:CSD and WP:SD. Then what's the difference beteween WP:CSD and WP:SD. An admin says that any user / uploader can remove any deletion template that's completely wrong and the user / uploader need to mention the reason .Is he right? Then what about it Wikipedia:Ignore all rules ! Shouldn't we follow it

P.S. I noticed some images are tagged for 1 or 2 months. Those images doesn't have any rational.Why are they still exist? The deletion tag [[{{subst:nrd}}]] says it may be deleted 7 days after it was uploaded. Shouldn't they be deleted?--NAHID 11:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S.2 If an user added [[{{{{subst:Ifd}}]] OR [[{{subst:Afd}}]] on an image or article then does he need to take that article / image in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and Wikipedia:Images for deletion. What if he doesn't do that?? (he just tagged the article / Image with [[{{subst:Ifd}}]] and [[{{subst:Afd}}]] but do nothing) --NAHID 11:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Changing license and removing deletion template

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Image use policy --Iamunknown 02:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If an user upload an image with wrong license hence it's tagged by deletion template (WP:CSD including [[{{{{subst:Ifd}}]] and other possible deletion template) then the another user/ uploader can remove that deletion template by replacing apropriate license and mention it in the edit summary??--NAHID 12:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if the sole reason an image is listed for deletion is the absense of the correct license tag, then it's ok to remove the "no license" tag after adding the correct one. But be very sure it's the correct one, don't just add for example {{GFDL}} without some kind of "proof" that this is the correct license). And if it's a fair use tag you add also be sure the use of the image actualy meet the Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. If it's listed on IFD don't remove that tag, instead fix the license problem, and then say so on the IFD page where the image is listed (follow link from image page), if there are no other problems with the image the closing admin will (most likely) close it as a keep. --Sherool (talk) 09:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Advertising Image

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Image use policy --Iamunknown 02:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If I take an picture of advertisement and upload it with free license then is it likely to be deleted in future? Some tagger (who tagged image continuosly) says that those type of images pose copyright problem And other says it is okay to upload in en.wikipedia, not in commons. Are they right??? (Since I took that advertisement picture)--NAHID 14:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

A link to the image might be helpful. Megapixie 12:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

IFD tag

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Image use policy --Iamunknown 02:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Suppose an Image is tagged by deletion tamplate (by any of them {{PUIdisputed}},{{PUInonfree}} {{subst:nsd}} {{subst:nld}} {{subst:nrd}}, {{subst:rfu}} {{subst:orfud}} and other possibly unfree image deletion template) But I want to put {{subst:ifd}} insted of other deletion template. Then can I remove other deletion template and put {{subst:ifd}} by providing reason in edit summary? --NAHID 15:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well you can, but I don't rely see why you would want to... if an image is tagged with PUIunfree it should alread be listed on WP:PUI where you can have a debate if that is what you wish. The other tags pretty much adress "show stopping" problems with the image, and IFD debate is moot unless source or copyright info is actualy added (no amount of keep "votes" will prevent a unsourced image from beeing deleted). Though if there are some "non standard" dispute regarding the source or copyright status I guess taking it to IFD can be apropriate sometimes... --Sherool (talk) 09:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Cartoon related question

My question is,I am a 58 year old disabled woman, and the only thing that I love doing is art. I love doing cartoon characters and would like to have permission to use some of the pictures in some of your books. Please may I have permission to do some of your pictures, for this would give me a little more for my income, and medications. Sincerely Rita Burns —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

Rita, it's not clear what you are asking. Are you asking for permission to use images from wikipedia in your personal projects ? Megapixie 06:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Advertising Image 2

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Image use policy --Iamunknown 02:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If I take an picture of advertisement and upload it with free license then is it likely to be deleted in future? Some tagger (who tagged image continuosly) says that those type of images pose copyright problem And other says it is okay to upload in en.wikipedia, not in commons. Are they right??? (Since I took that advertisement picture)--NAHID 14:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

A link to the image might be helpful. Megapixie 12:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

A link about what? That I'm the uploader, image name ?? --NAHID 18:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I imagine this is about Image:Ianking.jpg, which should probably be deleted for a number of reasons, including having no verifiable copyright holder information, and being tagged as coming from a press kit which it clearly didn't. Jkelly 18:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

phone number

do you guys have a phone number so we can interview or get more info. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Who are you wanting to contact? A specific user? If so, you can email users. Just go to their user page (like for me User:Nmajdan) and there is a link on the left that says E-mail this user. If you're wanting to contact somebody from the Wikimedia Foundation, go here: .↔NMajdantalk 23:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I need an Image Tag How Do I get one

How Do I get an Image Tag? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MC Bucky (talkcontribs)

Answering at users talk page. Megapixie 11:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Logo with rational But No SOURCE

I noticed hundreds of logo are being uploaded with rational but NO SOURCE? Oneday should they or must be deleted?? --NAHID 09:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. If I mention the source of the website (from where I found the logo / image), then will it be considered as Theft and then it will be deleted???--NAHID 09:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


Yes one day they will be deleted unless a good source can be found for them. Megapixie 11:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Which license is appropriate for self-created logo?? I noticed self-created logo has been tagged for deletion when their license is {{GFDL-self}} and {{PD-self}}, since the uploader were the creator then Why should it be deleted??--NAHID 09:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


That depends. If the logo is entirely your own design - based on an idea you had, the GFDL-self/PD-self is correct. If it's your own version of a real world logo (like a football teams logo) then it should be tagged with logo (since it's most likely a trademark) - but with an explaination that you drew it. Megapixie 11:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Self-created logo with dual license

Can I put dual license in self-created logo? I.g. {{GFDL-self}} with {{logo}}, {{PD-self}} with {{logo}} and {{Self}} with {{logo}}. As a reference you may this logo Image:RUETlogo.jpg. It has Duel license with {{GFDL-self}} with {{logo}}. Can I also put {{Self}} with {{logo}} and {{PD-self}} with {{logo}} in self-created image?


You could, but it wouldn't make much difference. The more restrictive of the two would apply - i.e. logo is always more restrictive than GFDL and effectively limits peoples ability to use it. Probably best not to confuse the situation and just tag it with the more restrictive. Megapixie 11:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Meaning of Image source

What can be the actual meaning of image source? If I take the image from web source, then the website link should be mentioned right. But can also it be considered as a theft? After uploading an image from website, then how can user keep that image . e.g Image:Selena.jpg Ans:

Image source is where you got the image from, and possibly where it came form before that. See an image I uploaded to commons: Image:Jenny Lind retouched.jpg I mention where I actually got the image from (the Library of congress website) and where the image came from before that (Mathew Brady's studio).
Can it be considered theft ? Well yes. That's what Copyright law is all about. Copyright doesn't last forever. In most countries copyright expires 70 years after the death of the creator, and the image becomes Public Domain. In the United States a reproduction of a copyright expired image (such as a photograph of a painting from 1600) doesn't qualify for re-newed copyright, so stays in the public domain (thus we can download jpgs of the photograph and upload them here).
For works that are still protected by copyright, US Copyright law has a provision entitled Fair use, that allows limited scope for copying an copyright image/document for the purposes of critical comment. So we can reproduce copyright images like Image:The Persistence of Memory.jpg because we are using them to comment on the work itself (and are reproducing them in away that doesn't hurt the original copyright holder). See WP:Fairuse for our policy regarding this. Megapixie 12:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
The image you link is somewhat questionable fair use - but since the person in question is dead, we are unlikely to find another image to replace that image. But that is a whole different debate. Megapixie 12:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Screeshot from website

Can I upload any tv / film screenshot with {{screenshot}} that's found in website? I noticed some of this kind of images have been tagged for deletion and other are still exist.


Yes - but only within the parameters of our WP:Fairuse policy. For example if you are uploading a screenshot from the film Mission Impossible to show what Tom Cruise looks like, then that wouldn't be fair use. However if you are uploading an image from the end of 2001 to show what the trippy special effects look like, that would be fair use. Megapixie 12:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If I take an screenshot by myself by using powerDVD (or equivalent software), then can I upload this screenshot? If so what can be the source? I also noticed this type of images have also been tagged for deletion? Why?--NAHID 11:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


Say "Own screenshot taken in PowerDVD of the film Mission Impossible from the French DVD release of the film. " then provide a detailed WP:Fair use rationale as to why we need the image. Megapixie 12:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Promotional and Promophoto

I noticed some {{Promotional}} and {{Promophoto}} licensed images are tagged for deletion and others are still exist? Why some images will be deleted, where as others as still exist? I think there is no need to keep these two templates ({{Promophoto}} and {{Promotional}}) if all the images under this license are deleted, then the templates should also be deleted. For what reasons, those images are deleted??? Please clarify it to me.--NAHID 11:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


Without a specific example it's hard to be specific. Largely images are deleted because they fall outside policy. In this case it would most likely be Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy. Some images have a valid fair use rationale and thus can be kept. Megapixie 12:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


Almost certainly deleted in future as replaceable fair use at some point, since we could quite possibly take a "free" photograph of him, since he's still alive. Megapixie 12:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Image from another Image

If I take an image from another image by using my own camera then can I release it under free license? For example if I take that image from a picture that's hanging on the wall, a logo from a signboared / billboard, a picture of book cover, poster etc. Then which license should I apply?


No. If you took a video camera into a movie theatre, would you own the copyright to the resulting video? See User:Megapixie/CopyrightFlowChart for some guidance. Megapixie 12:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources of fairuse image

some fair use image doesn't provide sources (except rational). Example, poster, book cover, dead people image. Are they likely to be deleted? As a reference:Image:Chaltikanaam.gif (book cover) doesn't mention the source. Then is it likely to be deleted?--NAHID 11:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


Yes - but within reason. A book cover that say's it's a book cover, being used to illustrate the article about the book in question will probably just get a source added. If it was being used to illustrate some other point then yes. Megapixie 12:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Here source comes again. Source means I'm the uploader(If I take the image) Mentioning copyright holder, (screenshot image often mention copyright holder without permission. Then will it be tagged for deletion??). When websource not considered to be the only source of image?? When mentioning websource considered to be as copyright violation (as a result the images are deleted).--NAHID 11:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


It depends on what the image is. If we don't understand the source, then we can't review it per our fair use policy - so how can we make a determination about it being fair use ? However it's a still frame from a movie - we understand what the source is, so it can be fair use (since we know where the image came from and who created it). Megapixie 12:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Scanned image

If I scan an image and hence upload it in wiki, then which license is appropriate?--NAHID 11:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Ans:

Depends on the source - Whatever corresponds to the source. Please try using User:Megapixie/CopyrightFlowChart to resolve your question. Without more information it's impossible to be specific. Bear in mind not all images can be used on wikipedia. Megapixie 12:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Can Logo be a Possibly unfree Image, If I download that from an website? --NAHID 12:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC) 12:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


Yes - if it's being used in a way incompatible with our Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy or some aspect of our Wikipedia:Image use policy. Specifics would be helpful. Megapixie 12:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

LOGO From a billboard

Then I can't take any picture of LOGO from organization billboard.Right? Does it mean the LOGO must have available in Internet?? Is there any way to get them from outside source??--NAHID 12:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


Yes you can take a picture of a billboard. No you can't upload it under a free license. It must be uploaded under one of the fair use licenses, and used in a way compatible with our Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy i.e. only in an article about the company whose logo it is. Megapixie 12:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  • If I mention the source of the website (from where I found the logo / image), then will it be considered as Theft and then it will be deleted??? (I've repeated it again and pls answer)--NAHID 12:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Not if it's uploaded with a fair use tag like {{logo}} and used in a way compatible with our Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy. Megapixie 12:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Logo from billboard

If I take the logo from billboard and release it under fair use, then what can be its source? That logo isn't available in Internet. --NAHID 13:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Ans:

Exactly what you say it is - i.e. "Own photo of a billboard advertising image, showing the Nike logo, used to discuss the logo in the Nike article." used under template {{logo}} Megapixie 13:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. If The logo is made by college staff and I got from them, then again what will be its source?


Again - exactly what you say it is - "Logo of university of hard knocks baseball team, provided direct by the team manager to (myself), used in the article about the team" using {{logo}} Megapixie 13:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S.2 If I made the logo based on college logo and release it under fair use, then howc can mention the source? Ans:

Exactly what you say it is - i.e. "Own drawing of univeristy of hard knocks logo based on the logo displayed on the side of the main faculty building." {{logo}} Megapixie 13:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Can I reales it under dual license (Since I took the image)?


It would likely only confuse matters, since the fact that it's based on copyright work makes it fair use. Just tag it as logo. Megapixie 13:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Logo with permission

If I upload a logo with permission then which license should I mention? (Since it falls in fairuse). --NAHID 13:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You need to get official permission per Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission this will then act as an official record of the permission (since we can't just take your word for it). Megapixie 13:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If I take an adevert image from Public place and release it under free license, then is it also likely to be deleted? As a reference Image:Brahma beer advertisement.JPG this image taken from public place and it's under free license. Uploader explain me It is not possible to say "advertisement image is fair use". It depends on the use. If it is to illustrate the subject of the advertisement (beer) then the answer is generallly yes. However, if the beer advertisement featured two women in bikinis it would be fair use for the brand of the beer, but not for our article on bikinis. But bit confused. Can you pls explain. And why public place advert image doesn't pose copyright violation? --NAHID 13:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This image is mistagged. It should be labeled as fair use - and even then it's somewhat shakey (i.e. a copyright violation). Read the rules - don't search for images that break the rules that are already uploaded (they will probably be cleaned up at some point in the future) and use them as case law. The copyright rules aren't very well understood by the vast majority of editors and as a result there are probably in excess of 50,000 misused images on wikipedia. Trying to clean them up is almost a full time job. Megapixie 13:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


As a example,Image:RUETlogo.jpg this self-created logo mention SOURCE: Author: Fahim Hasan Khan with dual-license. (Here comes dual-license again). Is that okay ? --NAHID 18:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No - should be single licensed as logo. Stop searching for counterexamples - there are tens of thousands of mistagged images. Megapixie 02:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Public Domain

I found some OLD public domain image mention web source.Then Is it really necessary to provide websource? What if those images aren't available in website. Then how can I mention its source? Example: Image:Alimullah.jpg, Image:Abdulghani.jpg as they don't have website. Is there any possible reason, that those image can be deleted. --NAHID 22:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

They must have come from somewhere. If a source can't be provided - how do we know it's public domain ? Without a source we can't verify it. They could be copyright. Megapixie 02:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S though PD license doesn't mention their source

It should. Megapixie 02:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • And why Public domain image get deleted--NAHID 22:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Without a source - how can we evaluate if the public domain claim is correct ? Megapixie 02:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • What about those public domain images that are not found in website?

How can I mention their source? --NAHID 22:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

By explaining where you got the image from. READ THE ANSWERS ABOVE. It's simple: "Scan from the book one thousand and one questions ISBN 132123123 author A.Nother page 73. Published 1901." Megapixie 02:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Your question doesn't make any sense. Public domain images are public domain either because the author/creator has released them as such or they are outside the terms of Copyright law. If an image is in the public domain then we don't need to worry about fair use. If an image is not in the public domain then only fair use applies. Images of people are pretty questionable under fair use law, since it doesn't involve any critical comment on the image itself. Megapixie 02:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Can permission link be the only link of image. If that image found in website do I need to also mention the weblink. What if that image isn't available in website. Then how can I mention its source? --NAHID 22:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Your question makes no sense. If you got it from a website then you must have a url. If you scanned it from a book, simply say that. If you cannot provide a source for an image then we can't evaluate any claim you make about the image (including fair use) - so we can't use the image. Megapixie 02:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Fair use#Deprecated

It says Replace this tag with either {{Fair use in}} or with another of the tags above, and also add {{Withpermission}}. Here above means all fair use tag with {{Withpermission}}. OR just the license mentioned in Deprecated section? If so then How can I mention logo license with {{Withpermission}} (Since no need to get the permission for logo )--NAHID 22:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

See answers above. With permission means permission to release as GFDL and thus fair use isn't an issue. Megapixie 02:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Changing license and removing deletion template 2

If an user upload an image with wrong license hence it's tagged by deletion template (WP:CSD including [[{{{{subst:Ifd}}]] and other possible deletion template) then the another user/ uploader can remove that deletion template by replacing apropriate license and mention it in the edit summary??--NAHID 22:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Note that I'm not saying about "no licensing" tag (that can be easily replaced by proper license)

  • If I take an picture of DVD camera, Poster, Book cover then what can be the source? How can I mention that--NAHID 22:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
If you take a picture, then state "I took this picture." That is the source. It might be helpful if you described where you got the item you are taking a picture of, especially if it may be controversial, but that's not generally required. Another user may remove no license/no source tag, but not IFD. IFD is like the other deletion processes, and only an admin may close it. You can certainly participate the IFD discussion though. You can change the license too, be bold!. Be sure to provide an explanation why you are changing the license though, and not just in the edit summary. --MECUtalk 23:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Book cover

A book cover that say's it's a book cover, being used to illustrate the article about the book in question will probably just get a source added. It's quite complicated. Can you please clarify it to me. Actually based on Source.--NAHID 22:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

i.e. If it's the cover of a book say House of Leaves, and it's being used in the article House of Leaves then even without an explicit (i.e. "Scan of the cover of the UK second edition paperback of the book. Publisher: Noble and Noble") source we can determine that it's the cover of a book, and we can therefore make a determination of fair use. Megapixie 02:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


Question No. 1 - The photograph I have uploaded was taken by me. A few years ago I purchased a copy of this engraving. It was originally published as a plate to 'History of the war with America, France, Spain and Holland' by John Andrews in 1786. I believe that The New York Public Library holds the copyright of the original, but since I have actually paid good money to own a commercially sold copy, does this not mean that I own the one which is hanging on the wall in my dining room? If I own that one, and take a photograph of it, can it be placed on my Asgill, 2nd Baronet page? I have already uploaded the photograph but need help to get it linked to the Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet page.

Should qualify as {{PD-art}} (the creator likely being dead for 100+ years). A slavish reproduction wouldn't qualify for renewed copyright see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. Megapixie 12:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


Question No. 2 - I have another jpeg photograph - this one is taken of a mezzotint by Charles Turner. Turner created this mezzotint after a painting by Tomas Phillips which was exhibited at the Royal Academy, London, in 1822. The sitter is Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet. Some years ago a cousin of mine sent me a copy of this picture, which she had purchased from the National Army Museum in London. Since I knew the picture had originally come from NAM I contacted them to ask if I could put this scan of a photograph of a mezzotint onto my Asgill page. They said that to do so I must pay them £45 and then permission would be granted. I can't afford this, so cannot upload the picture. I am really upset about this as not only is it a VASTLY better picture of Asgill than the one I have uploaded, but the original Phillips portrait cannot be found. I would like to find the portrait but cannot possibly do so unless I can post it on a website somewhere, starting here. For full details concerning this picture I have given as much information as I can about it on my Asgill, 2nd Baronet page.

More complicated, since the NAM are contesting the copyright (it's less clear in the UK) see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. I would say it's okay to upload as {{PD-art}} but make sure you read and understand the Bridgeman link before you do. Megapixie 12:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Question No. 3 - Westminster School, London, has got a portrait painting of Charles Asgill, 1st Baronet. This portrait of The Lord Mayor was donated to the school by the Colvile family who are descendants of the 1st Baronet. The Westminster School website has a copy of this picture, under Library (then go to Staircase). Does this mean that I am allowed to copy and paste it onto the Charles Asgil, 1st Baronet page? I have emailed the school to ask if they would take a photograph of the portrait which they would then allow me to use, but I have had no reply.

You'd need to work out when the painter died to understand the copyright (or when it was painted). If it's older than 1880, then it's likely public domain per the above. Megapixie 12:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I am very frustrated on many counts - mainly because Charles Asgill, 1st Baronet was my g-g-g-g-grandfather and I have researched his son, the 2nd Baronet for many years. To have this information on Wikipedia enhances the chance of more information coming to light, and ESPECIALLY enhances the chances of finding the Thomas Phillips portrait of the 2nd Baronet which was supposed to have remained in the Ogle family in perpetuity, had the 2nd Baronet's wishes in his will been respected.

Taking my questions one by one, can the picture I have uploaded be used? What can be done about the National Army Museum - do I really have to pay them £45 for a picture I already have and which was sent to me by a cousin, and thirdly, where do I stand with Westminster School - should I be allowed to use a picture of a portrait which was donated to the school by my now-deceased-cousins? The living Colvile family (distant cousins of mine) has a copy of this portrait, which I have seen and which I took a photograph of a few years ago. What happens if Westminster School refuse my request, will I then be allowed to go to my Colvile cousins and request that they take a photograph of THEIR copy of the portrait of the Lord Mayor? If I had a photograph from THEM, how would I be able to prove that it came from the Colvile copy of their portrait and not the Westminster School original?


--Arbil44 09:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I uploaded an image in Rajput article of wikipedia.This image belongs to me and I am the owner of this and it belongs to my family.Exactly in the centre is my father.I can allow fair use of this image and can allow free licence Do not put it under speedy deletion criteria.If wikipedia wants to delete it .It may do but inform me.

Photo with no copyright detail

The following was notified to me as uploaded without copyright Image:Great Flats General.jpg. It was uploaded without the 'my own work' tag in error and may be deleted without any further problem Geotek 17:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you did not put a license on that image as you did with several other images you uploaded. On the other images you uploaded, you used {{PD-self}}. To correct the issue, just replace the warning on that image with the above tag and it will resolve the issue.↔NMajdantalk 17:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


What are these tags that are supposed to be with uploaded pictures, and how do you make them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BuffyBurns135 (talkcontribs)

--23:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

They're templates added to the image description page that describe the image's copyright status and licensing. You can add them automatically by selecting the appropriate license from the dropdown menu on the upload page or you can add them manually by editing the description page. (Navigate to the image page and click "edit this page".) You can find out more, and get lists of copyright tags, here. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

How do you delete an image?

Hey I am new to editing so can you help me on how to delete images you put up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Twisstednut92 (talkcontribs) 01:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

Tag it with {{db-author}}. ShadowHalo 01:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Blue Hummingbird

I got that image off a bird website, but don't know which one. Just thought a hummingbird would look good since I had an article about that species. If you have one, that's great as I have never done this before. Thank you for your help. Sharon Hubbard —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shubbard (talkcontribs) 01:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

As stated on the upload page, "do not upload images found on websites or on an image search engine." These images are copyrighted, and we do not have the right to use them. ShadowHalo 02:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Image:Hummingbird.jpg has better quality, anyway. I’ve tagged Image:Blue Hummingbird.jpg for speedy deletion. —xyzzyn 10:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Free image resources

In Above link, I found image resources about, People, Art, Geography, Sports etc. Some section remarks this license should be placed for these type images. Example: Geography section mention CC-BY-SA-2.0 and People section mention {{French Foreign Ministry}}. But other section doesn't mention any free license tag as a example. e.g. Sport section didn't mention, which free license tag should I choose when I upload image from that website. How can I rectify this?--NAHID 09:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Does all license tag of Free image resource is available in wikipedia. I found other resources of Public domain, Maps etc. As a example in Map source I found this url [factbook]. If I upload any image from that link then which license tag should I mention on the image?--NAHID 09:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want the information on Wikipedia:Free image resources to be presented differently, the best place to say so should be at the talk page, not here. It's possible that page is not being maintained currently, since I note that at least some of the links appeared to be out of date, but this isn't the place where you might expect to get something done about it.
I will say that the appropriate tag usually isn't difficult to determine. If someone requires attribution, for example, then {{Attribution}} would be called for. Just pick the tag from the free licenses page that conforms to the requirements imposed by the source. It's a common-sense process.
Material from the CIA Factbook is work of the US Government and should be tagged {{PD-USGov}}. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
{{PD-USGov-CIA}}, even. —xyzzyn 09:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Are these photos of everest fair-use?


I'm editing the articles on Everest - and on Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay who were the first people to reach its summit. I would like to include these two photos as they are particularly iconic and will add greatly to the articles:

  1. Tenzing on the summit
  2. Hillary and Norgay

The first is copyright to the Royal Geographic Society - who sell their photos on their main site at The second is copyright to Associated Press.

Is there any way I can use the Template:HistoricPhoto template on either of these? I can downsize them if necessary.

Thanks Andeggs 13:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The first is probably fair use in Everest and Tenzing Norgay; the second is likely fair use in all three articles, depending on which event it shows. If you decide to use either image, please upload a scaled version; the current consensus is that a width of ca. 300 pixels should be enough. Also, don’t forget to write rationales.
Also, if you upload the second, please replace and tag for deletion Image:Norgay.gif, which is a cropped version of it. —xyzzyn 14:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Old Public Domain

I found an old notable person's image hanging on the wall. He probably died 70 to 100 years ago. I want take an photo of him and upload it under PD old. will it be okay? How can I mention it's SOURCE? And how can I prove that it's copyright expired? Most of the Old public domain image doesn't mention any source. Is it really necessary to mention rational. Why? Please answer me--NAHID 12:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

With the exception of images created entirely by the uploader, it is always necessary to explain why the given copyright tag applies. In your case, it is not at all certain that the image is in the public domain, since the criterion for that is that the copyright holder, that is the painter, photographer etc., died more than 70 years ago. If the image is very old, this is a safe assumption, otherwise you need to do some more research. (By the way, if that person is notable, you really should be able to give the date of death more precisely than that…) —xyzzyn 13:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't understand. Pls explain in simple way. Should I also mention the informention of copyright holder and detailed rational (Though PD license doesn't say about rational) . Thanks --NAHID 13:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I don’t know whether it would be OK and, apparently, neither do you. So don’t upload it until you do know it’s OK. To find out if it’s OK, you have to know when the artist or photographer who made the image died (or, at least, whether this was before 1923). And, in general, any image not entirely created by the uploader should have a source and, where this is not clear, a reason why the given copyright tag applies. This is the case even where the tag itself does not require it. —xyzzyn 14:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

copyright tag for title page of 1813 book?

Regarding Image:Tales.jpg, in the case of a hardcover book that did not have any cover image, could the book cover tag be applied to an image of a book's title page? Or is something else needed for that? Шизомби 19:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the image description page with {{PD-old}}. If you hadn't made the scan, the correct template would have been {{PD-art}}. If the book was still under copyright protection, it's not obvious to me that we would use it at all, since a frontispiece wasn't what we were thinking about when we came up with {{bookcover}}. I hope that explains things. Jkelly 20:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Technically I think it's just a title page and a frontispiece is a decorative title page (or at least that's what WP says!). But if there were a more recent instance of a book lacking any text or art on the cover or dustjacket, what option would there be? Шизомби 23:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
In theory, since copyright protection requires originality, you could argue that a page which only mentions bibliographic details is {{PD-ineligible}} (but IANAL). However, it should be an option to omit any cover image altogether; after all, the publisher didn’t find making a cover worthwhile. —xyzzyn 13:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
True, although I think people like to see some sort of image relating to the book in an entry for it. Perhaps the publisher did have some sort of promotional image in a newspaper or something, but finding that for old books could be tricky. Шизомби 16:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit image

How do I edit my image. I am really knew to this, so can you tell me where to go to do this. thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Twisstednut92 (talkcontribs) 01:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

If you've already uploaded the image - you can simply upload a new version of the image over the top of the old image. You can do this from the image description page. Megapixie 20:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

New radiation symbol ISO 21482

The previous discussion about this is now in the archive, it seems. I got a reply from ISO about the copyright status on the new IAEA/ISO ionizing radiation warning symbol (Image:New_radiation_symbol_ISO_21482.svg). It says the symbol is copyrighted, but they do not oppose to the use of the symbol as mentioned in the e-mail (on Wikipedia in, for example, the Hazard symbol article) "as long as the following text is included next to the representation of the symbol":

"This symbol is included in ISO 21482:2007. ISO International Standards are protected by copyright and may be purchased from ISO or its members (please visit for more information). ISO has not reviewed the accuracy or veracity of this information."

Should the copyright information on the image change? If so, can anyone change it to an appropriate one, with the above text included?

Kricke 13:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for asking them. I suggest posting your question and their reply on Image talk:New radiation symbol ISO 21482.svg for future reference; other than that, while it’s good to know that they won’t object to our use of their images, there is no practical change for us because they remain non-free and per our policy, we still have to be conservative about their use. —xyzzyn 14:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I added the e-mail conversation. They want the paragraph above to be added. Perhaps it could be added above the rationale? Kricke 15:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, and done. —xyzzyn 18:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Perfect, thank you. :) Btw, I removed his e-mailadress and telephone from the e-mail because of the spam-risk. They can be found on Iso's homepage. 19:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Self taken screenshot

If I take an screenshot of Film by myself by using powerDVD (or equivalent software), then is there any chance to delete that image? What can be the possible reasons? --NAHID 13:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If it doesn't meet Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy. Megapixie 20:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Najimy MaryPatrick.jpg is this image replaceable? The image (screenshot) is using in Biography (Kathy Najimy). If not then why? Shoudn't it be used in biography? Please clarify it to me --NAHID 13:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

That - IMHO would be replaceable fair use. The image itself isn't being commented on criticially and it isn't essential to the article. BUT not everyone agrees on this interpretation of policy. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Chowbok for an example of such a dispute. Megapixie 20:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

How ?

But how can I understand whether they are Attrubuted or not ({{Attribution}}). This link represents [[1]] players image. If I upload an image from this link, then how do I know which tag is appropriate for that image? The link doesn't present any license tag. It's confusing--NAHID 13:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Do I also need to mention the source? In Wikipedia:Free image resources, Some section (For example:Art) mention source should be added and some not. Why?--NAHID 13:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If there is no "free license" (i.e. something saying "you may use this for any purpose") indicated at the webpage - then we can't use the image. You ALWAYS should mention the source of an image, so other people can verify you claims on copyright. Megapixie 20:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Image Stolen

The user FoxDOnut has uploaded a picture that I took, specifially Image:100_2119.JPG and tagged it as his own (stating that he created it and releases it to the public domain). I have already uploaded pictures similar to it, and used them in the Winnipeg Police Service Article. I can prove that the picture is mine because the metadata of the stolen photo is the identical to that of other similar photos that I have taken and uploaded. What can I do? Tblore 20:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The easiest way to remove the infringing image is to tag it with {{db-copyvio|http://foo…/bar}}, where http://foo…/bar is a URL where you had previously uploaded the image, which FoxDOnut then copied. This only works if the image was actually copied from your website or e. g. Flickr, although if you omit a URL and provide an alternative explanation, the reviewing administrator will probably delete the image anyway. For alternatives, see Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Copyright.
However, if you have released the image under a free licence or would like to do so, you can just add the appropriate licence tag in place of the current one. —xyzzyn 20:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

New York Public library vs Bridgeman

User:Arbil44 asked a question about the New York Public Libraries claim to still control out of copyright images. They make their claim here: [2] - quoting

As the physical rights holder of this material, most of which is in the public domain for copyright purposes, the Library charges a usage fee to license an image for commercial use (defined above). The usage fee is not a copyright fee. You are free to obtain a copy of these images from a source other than NYPL. Usage fees help ensure that the Library is able to continue to acquire, preserve and provide access to its collections.

This seems like post Bridgeman FUD. There was a debate on the commons a little while back (that resulted in a keep) here [3] Brad Patrick commented (but didn't actually say very much). It was also brought up here [4] [5] [6] and elsewhere [7] [8] [9]. Commons already has quite a few images uploaded from there [10]. My 2c is that Bridgeman applies, and they are just trying to muddy the water back to the days of Sweat of brow copyright. The foundations laywer appears to be unwilling to commit to a position on this. What do people think ? Megapixie 21:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that there is a lot that we can do or say about this that is going to make sense both in a real world context and in a Wikipedia context. Unlike many other copyright issues we deal with, we really don't have any reason to doubt that uploaders are making informed, reasonable decisions that the Bridgeman v Corel ruling backs up their claim of being able to publish the image here. Some people are going to feel more comfortable than others relying on the ruling, and those that aren't comfortable are, presumably, not going to upload media based on it. It does make sense for us to say "If you feel at all uncertain about this, don't make the claim.", but unlike unsourced or unfree images, I haven't seen anything that would make me think we need to look at this as a project that needs a lot of attention or as a cleanup job. That said, I do think it would be a benefit to take a real look at reusability issues here, but there's a level of expertise needed to do that which doesn't play to our strengths. Jkelly 21:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Follow up question please. Look, I'm a newbie here and finding all this stuff much too heavy for me - really. All I want to know is this - I purchased an engraving which I then photographed - this is the image which is on my Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet site. Now, the NYPL has this image too and I have given a link to it on my site, and if you click on that it takes you to how to buy it from them - their licencing fees etc. But should I be paying fees to them when my image did not come from them but from a commercial outlet? Do any of the people on this talk page have the kind of legal background needed to answer this question? The contributors, such as me, who have done research and are prepared to share their work appear to be simply thrown to the lions and could find themselves in a legal battle. I have no legal training and to be given a mass of legal cases to read and digest isn't part of what I was expecting here. All I wanted to do was to share my findings on a man I have been researching. Is there anybody out there who is prepared to tell me whether my photograph of my picture is allowed to stay on Wikipedia, or whether it should come off. If it has to come off somebody else is going to have to do this for me because I have not got a clue how to take it off. Sorry to be so utterly incompetent - but there it is. I'm a researcher, not a computer geek! For incompetents like me this site is nothing short of a nightmare. --Arbil44 23:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. This has nothing to do with whether or not you're a "computer geek". What you're doing here is publishing, not computing, and there are real-world concerns regarding publishing that we can try to help you with, but cannot resolve with perfect elegance. It seems clear to me that you're not entirely comfortable with having published the image that you did. I'll delete it for you. It's very possible someone else will upload it in the future, and there's no urgency here that means that you have to do something that you're uncomfortable with right this minute. Jkelly 23:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Although in this case, I think its fairly clear. Arbil44 bought the engraving -- an "original" I take it, and not a copy from the NYPL -- which is old enough to be in the public domain, made an electronic image of it himself, and uploaded it. Perfectly legal, whether or not the NYPL would charge a fee for using the same material from its collection. This particular copy of the engraving was not from their collection after all, and they have no legal footing to charge for every exhibition of every copy of it all over the world.
In any event, if you scroll up a bit on the page linked and quoted above where the NYPL talks about commercial use fees, the fee is mentioned specifically in connection with high-res TIFFs and prints. If these are not what anyone is using, I can see nothing objectionable about it.
I'm not a lawyer of course, and if I were it would not be proper for me to give definitive legal advice to a non-client, but my wife is a published writer and I am therefore reasonably up-to-date on copyright issues since they affect me directly. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


Screenshot and from website

If I upload an Film/TV screenshot (of person) from WEBSITE and use it in that Film/TV article (since the screenshot is using that article) then, is there any chance to get deleted that screenshot. Some User tag them with rfu and considered them as theft. Are they right OR mistakenly tagged them? (But most the time Admins keep them by removing rfu).

P.S. I found some screenshots, those were taken from website and still using in article (even in featured article).Then, should we consider them (screenshots) as theft?? I think no. Can you please clarify it to me?--NAHID 23:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

NAHID - as before, if they are being used for critical commentry then they are likely within Wikipedia:Fair use#policy. If you want a more general idea look at Wikipedia:Fair_use#Acceptable_uses and then check against Wikipedia:Fair_use#Counterexamples. Without specific examples it's impossible to comment because so much of Fair use is associated with the actual use the images are being put to. Megapixie 00:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
should be noted it is generaly better to make a screenshot yourself.Geni 00:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)



I was quite sure that this image was ok to use and now I am wondering. I always seek to improve wikipedia and if this image is copyvio then I definately would not be doing this. Is the use of this image a copyright violation? Thanx--Seraphim Whipp 22:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Who is the copyright holder? Do you want to claim Wikipedia:Fair use on this? Are you commenting on this particular part of the music video in some article, or do you just want to use it to illustrate an article about the subject of the shot? We would need a lot more information before telling you whether or not it meets Wikipedia:Fair use. Jkelly 23:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm very unsure. I got it from, assuming as they also have a wiki style for the band's descriptions and carefully monitor image use, that the image would be ok to use. The image was uploaded to show that Dallas Green (musician) was in the band City and Colour, as opposed to releasing music under his own name. I'm sorry I can't be more helpful--Seraphim Whipp 23:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Without knowing who the copyright holder is, we cannot use the image. It's best to avoid getting copyrighted images from third-party websites, as they often have policies not compatible with ours. Jkelly 23:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply to advice regarding Asgill's picture

Hi - sorry to sound stressed, but I really do find questions and answers difficult to deal with because I do not have a natural flair with computers! You seem to be relaxed about the picture, so lets just leave it. If I get cold feet I'll get back to you and request you remove it. Entries without pictures seem so bland and a picture enhances the general tone. Could you, by the way, do something about the way my Sources entry appears? Someone changed some information about Asgill, which he had taken from a book - the book was wrong! When transcripts from original documents are made the correctness of the information depends entirely on the ability of that person to read "old fashioned" handwriting. My information comes straight from the horses mouth - Asgill's own hand in his Service Records. End of, so far as I am concerned - and yes, I can read his writing!!!--Arbil44 00:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Images copyright

I have uploaded 2 images of people (current and desceased leaders of the Liberal Party Sri Lanka). One picture came off the Liberal Party website for which the current leader holds the copyright and has given permission to be used. The other picture comes from the current leader of the liberal party to be uploaded on to the section about him for which he has given permission. Both pictures are also available on goole images. I haven't a clue as to how to add copyright tags as when I was uploading them the drop down options did not have an option that was a suitable category. HELP!!! Skylark1 11:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)skylark1

It is not sufficient for us to have permission to use an image on Wikipedia. Wikipedia material is expected to be free, which means that anybody should have the right to display, copy, make derivative works of and sell it, for any purpose. For an existing image, you have to ask the copyright holder to release the image under a free licence. If the copyright holder agrees to that, you can tag the image with the tag corresponding to the licence which was agreed (see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses for the list). Unless the images are released under a free licence, we (probably) cannot use them on Wikipedia. —xyzzyn 12:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

what is electricity

what is elictricity'''tell me the answer' Bold text —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

This page is for questions about copyright. Your question belongs at Wikipedia:Reference desk. ShadowHalo 15:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I have images taken by me, with my digital camera. How do I add a copyright tag to them?

First you must upload them. --Iamunknown 04:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Vague sources

OK, team, I'm been fighting a battle single handedly with a user who is uploading billions of fair use rfu promo images. I wouldn't mind a second opinion please: the 'source' for these images is usually really vague, such as, or (huge sites, and, in the case of the latter, not press kits). Image:MMauzy.jpg is an example... We really need to crack down. I've left notes on his talk page. The JPStalk to me 05:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is Image:MMauzy.jpg replaceable? It looks like it's being used to illustrate a copyrighted character, which is fine. The sourcing and high resolution are problems, but I don't think it's replaceable. ShadowHalo 06:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
It is a publicity photo of the actor, not of the character. A screenshot of the character would be accurate. The fictional character did not get made up, attend a studio, be lit and look directly into the photographer's lens. The JPStalk to me 06:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
There are publicity photos of characters too. Take a look here, where the image is identified using the character's name, not the actor's. Taking publicity pictures of characters is common practice. ShadowHalo 06:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I've left the user a message clearly explaining why a link to the main page is unacceptable. Feel free to issue a block the next time the user uploads an improperly sourced image. In the meantime, it may be a good idea to go through the images and tag them with {{nsd}}. ShadowHalo 06:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments -- yes, that is why the vague source is a problem. Indeed, some of the file names have been named after the actor. If specific sources were provided then it might indcate that the owner intends to relate them to the character, such as in your example. Cheers. The JPStalk to me 06:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
So... now that a source has been provided to Image:EDavidsonAshley.jpg we can conclude that it is an image of the actor, not the character? The JPStalk to me 07:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
To the contrary. The caption at the source is "Eileen Davidson as Ashley Abbott Carlton CBS's 'The Young & The Restless'". It makes it pretty clear that this is a picture of the character Ashley Abbott as portrayed by the actress Eileen Davidson. ShadowHalo 07:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Mmm, yes, I see where you're coming from. It's open to interpretation. The JPStalk to me 07:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
If you think the image might be okay and just want a better source to help verify it (as opposed to you think it's a copyvio or a real problem, though you could certainly still use this for that), you can use {{bsr}} (aka, "Better Source Request) which even has a template to add to a user's talk page to request them directly to help provide a better source. This is not a CSD or any kind of deletion criteria, just a tool to try and get a better source description. I've used it with some success, but some images have gotten nowhere with it too. --MECUtalk 14:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
See it in action at Image:Hounddog poster.JPG. --MECUtalk 14:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Image:DDiamontBrad.jpg? It's all about the actor? The JPStalk to me 09:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Mistakenly tagged an image or Article by wrong deletion template 2

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Image use policy --Iamunknown 02:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If I don't find appropriate deletion template for an Article / Image that was wrongly tagged by an user (with completely wrong deletion template) who don't know using deletion template, then can I remove the tag and mention in edit summary that it is clearly wrong? For example: 1) logo and tv/film screenshot image (except other fair use image) are tagged by RFU template. But those images aren't replaceable. Than can uploader / other user remove it and mention the reason in edit summary? 2) If self created image is tagged by above way with also the wrong deletion template, then can uploader / user remove that one too (by mentioning the reason in edit summary)?--NAHID 11:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Depending on the context of the use, tv/film screenshots are replaceable. See Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples #7. In general, I would say, "Do not remove them." Administrators are plenty smart to do that themselves. --Iamunknown 04:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Image permission

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Image use policy --Iamunknown 02:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

After getting permission for using an image where I need to mention the permission link? Image talk page or my talk page? this image Image:Bashundhara city.jpg says that the photo is using with the permission of creator's and the uploader's waiting for another user's respond. I found successful requests for permission here Wikipedia:Successful requests for permission. An example: Wikipedia:Successful requests for permission/Sam's Exotic Travels. Is it okay If write the link Wikipedia:SRP/Sam's Exotic instead of full sentences. This image Image:Charsolomon TProskouriakoff.jpg description page says it got the permission and mail archieve is in wikimedia dot org (What's the web link of wikimedia dot org) If I post the successful permission link in Wikipedia:Successful requests for permission then should I also post it in wikimedia dot org. Or else Can I choose any one of them?--NAHID 15:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Recently, successful requests for permission generally go to permission-en AT wikimedia DOT org. Any place that is significantly noted on the image description page and is verifiable, however, would likely be okay. --Iamunknown 04:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


This image's rfu is disputed.someone pls give opinion regarding on it--NAHID 11:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place for this type of question. If you believe an image is not replaceable, mention that on the talk page and tag the image with {{replaceable fair use disputed}}. If someone disagrees with you, they'll say so there. There's no reason to bring this here though. ShadowHalo 08:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging

Got a question regarding a warning put on the image Image:Bodafon.jpg. It needs tagging but I have no idea how to do it. When I uploaded it I put that it was released under creative commons licenese and put a link to the page with the original photo and info about creative commons. As I use the site which the photo is from for a lot of pages on Wikipedia I would really appreciate it if someone sent me a personal message explaining how I tag images under a Creative Commons license (seeing that there seems to be about 8 different ones on the help page!). Thanks! Cls14 12:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

By clicking on the link on the page you got the photo from you can see that it's cc-by-sa, so add {{cc-by-sa}} to the image description. Megapixie 12:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Legend! Cls14 13:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

i need help on adding a image tag for my picture

Which picture? What is your username? --Iamunknown 04:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Information posted on free licensed image

Can I upload any image (Taken by myself) under free license that has a bit information posted on the image. For example, Date (at the bottom, top or middle in the image). 'Coz some camera has that type of quality.

Generally, per the image use policy, watermarking is discouraged. If the watermark in this case, however, is only the time stamp, it would probably be okay. --Iamunknown 04:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think there's no need to get the permission for logo as per WP:Logo, right. Please clarify --NAHID 22:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If you get permission to release the logo as GFDL then tag it with {{GFDL}}. Permission means permission to release the image under GFDL. If it wasn't fair use before, simply getting permission for just wikipedia to use the image won't make it fair use. Megapixie 02:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Brahma beer advertisement.JPG

If this image considered to be fair use then which fair use license is apprpriate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NAHID (talkcontribs) 22:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

N.B. The image is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images --Iamunknown 04:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Logo 3

At last, If the logo source found in website, then it can be provided on the logo description page, right?--NAHID 22:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Nahid, it's simple: write the source that you get the image from. If the source is a website, write it on the image description page; if the source is a billboard, write that on the image description page; if you took a photograph, write that on the image description page; if it is a scan of a book, write that it is a scan of a book (and give the title). --Iamunknown 04:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Scanned image source

Waht can be the scanned image source?--NAHID 23:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Nahid, it's simple: write the source that you get the image from. If the source is a website, write it on the image description page; if the source is a billboard, write that on the image description page; if you took a photograph, write that on the image description page; if it is a scan of a book, write that it is a scan of a book (and give the title). --Iamunknown 04:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Rulon Jeffs image

Sorry I have no idea whether this image Image:Rulonfull.jpg qualifies as fair use or not. If it, and the other image Image:Rulon Jeffs.jpg, which was probably tagged inaccurately, don't qualify as fair use, please remove them. Like I said, I don't know how the fair use rules relate to websites or images of deceased persons, both of which are applicable here. John Carter 22:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If no freely-licensed image can be found or created, then it likely qualifies for use without permission under fair use. --Iamunknown 04:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I just want to put a picture I own.

What's the code for the most used fair use license? the picture is GA1_posture.jpg or GA1 posture.jpg and the page is glutaric acidemia type 1.

Thanks a lot.

Pierre-Alain —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pierre-Alain Gouanvic (talkcontribs) 06:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

What is the source of the image? --Iamunknown 04:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


   Should qualify as {{PD-art}} (the creator likely being dead for
   100+ years). A slavish reproduction wouldn't qualify for renewed
   copyright see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. Megapixie 12:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


Here's the link to your image: Image:BD - Photo of MY picture of Asgill.jpg. That dash in the middle is a hyphen - not an ndash – as you somehow typed. (They look alike in a monospaced font.) You are absolutely free to do what you will to this electronic copy you made of an image in the public domain. The NYPL can only control the engraving in their physical possession, not one in yours. They even acknowledge this -- I point out that at [11] they say, "The usage fee is not a copyright fee. You are free to obtain a copy of these images from a source other than NYPL." In other words, they're charging for use of their collection, and aren't trying to charge for the use of someone else's such as yours. There is no need whatsoever to remove this image. (Although I'll point out that you might want to replace it. You can achieve better results with a scanner. A scanner should be available for use at any Kinko's, or similar establishment. The employees can provide assistance if you feel you need it.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

--Arbil44 12:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Thank you. You have really put my mind at rest over this. I take it Kinko's is in America? I'm on the other side of the pond 3,200 miles away! In Gibraltar! The picture I have, and which I photographed and put onto this site, is framed in glass. Since it cost more to frame it than buy it I don't want to take it out of its frame to scan it! Anyway, enough of this picture of Captain Asgill - I'm relaxed on that now. I have a much more pressing need for advice now, if you will bear with me please.

1)I have got a jpg. image of a photograph of a mezzotint taken from a portrait of Asgill the year before he died. It would be FAR better to have that on instead. Now, the National Army Museum in London holds the copyright, as is stated clearly on my entry on Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet. I have been in touch with them and they want £45 from me to use this picture. It might not be a totally exorbitant fee, but I have already spent thousands of pounds over the past five years researching Asgill and my entry on him corrects errors which have crept into other versions in other books. I don't want to pay this money and have told them so. I'm awaiting a response from them. The fact is, I didn't get the photograph I have from the NAM - although the person who gave me the picture did. Where do I stand in this scenario? I guess the onus of blame would fall onto the person who gave me the picture? I wouldn't want them to be in trouble. I guess I am stuck with the fact that I pay up or don't use the image - right?

given the likely lisence terms you would have to agree to even if you do pay up there is little point in makeing the purchase.

2) I have quoted liberally from Asgill's Service Records. I have just got out the original again and see that there is a warning on this document which reads: "supplied by the Public Records Office (Kew, UK) subject to terms and conditions and that your use of it may be subject to copyright restrictions. Further information is given in the enclosed Terms and Conditions of supply of Public Records leaflet." - well, I don't have the leaflet, so don't know where I stand on this at all. Is it OK to quote from this primary source? The fact is that this information I have quoted on Asgill is written by Asgill himself and cannot get more primary source than that. Other biographies have perpetuated inaccuracies about him because the original is pretty hard to read and mistakes have crept in elsewhere. I want to set the record straight, but am possibly breaking copyright rules here? What do you think? If there is a problem it will mean I am really left with no option but to remove my entry on Asgill since it is almost entirely based on his Service Records.

Dates? UK goverment material enters the public domain 50 years after publication.Geni 13:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

3) I want to get a picture of a portrait of his father, Sir Charles Asgill, 1st Baronet. This entry has been written by my cousin, but he is very nervous concerning Wikipedia's stringent copyright rules and doesn't want to get into any kind of trouble. In time I may delete his entry and re-enter it as my work (he and I are in discussion over this possibility). Now, there are 2 portraits out there of the 1st Baronet - one is held at Westminster School and the second is held by the Colvile family, who are descendants of the 1st Baronet's daughter, Amelia Asgill who married a Colvile. One portrait is a copy of the other, with Westminster School almost certainly holding the original. I have emailed Westminster School about all this, but if Westminster School either refuse to allow the picture of the portrait they hold to be used, or if they want money for permission to be granted, where do I stand with regard to getting a copy of the portrait held by the Colvile family? If I succeed with the latter option, could Westminster School sue me for breach of copyright since they hold the original portrait? While this is all in abeyance at the moment, given that Westminster School have not yet replied to me, it would help greatly to know where I stand before they do reply.

given the dates invovled copyright is unlikely to be an issue. However the Colvile family could put limits on acess that would prevent you releaseing any images under the GFDL or other free lisence.Geni 13:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for the length of my questions, and that there are so many of them, but at the end of the day all I am trying to do is to get 2 good, legal and well researched entries onto Wikipedia. Thank you in advance for your assistance. --Arbil44 12:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

album art

A while ago I uploaded Image:Payable_on_death_Demo.jpg, and I got a message today saying I needed to add copyright information.

This tape, however was just a garage recording, and the band hadn't signed on to any label yet. As far as I know, no one has rights to the tape, and it is practically non-existent anymore. If there is any copyright information, it would only be printed on the insert, and it is impossible to find a copy of the tape anymore. So how do I add information that probably doesn't exist?

Please notify me of an update on my talk page.

Jahchild101 04:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

(Will cross post to user's talk page per request.) Due to the current copyright situation in the United States, unless the artist who created the cover sticker explicitly disclaimed any and all copyright, it is likely copyrighted by someone: most likely the artist who created it. A more pressing question is, however, what the source of the image is. Do you know? — Iamunknown 03:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Petar Houbchev

Hi, folks! I created the Image:Hubchev.jpg taking it from including the whole rationale. Now I received a demand from a bot to clearify the rationale. Actually I'm not really into the whole law stuff and in the several Wikis something's aren't allowed. Hope someone can help in that matter adding the rationale.Regards -Lemmy- 11:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is policy not to use fair use material where free material can be found (besides the tenuousness of any potential fair use rationale in this case). The person in that image is still alive and has a reasonably high profile; please try to find a free image, make one yourself (or ask somebody else) or ask him or his organisation to release an image of him under a free licence. —xyzzyn 11:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
But I took it from the Bulgarian Wiki page.[[12]] For the fair use rationale please click on edit. I'm sorry but I don't know why a Bulgarian image should be forbidden on the English version. -Lemmy- 19:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Different projects have different policies. I am not familiar with the one on bg (actually, according to the tag, it lacks a rationale there; the tag itself is not a rationale). Here, however, the image isn’t usable. —xyzzyn 20:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

image:Govindan Aravindan.jpg

i have just uploaded the picture image:Govindan Aravindan.jpg that was taken from Wikipedia Malayalam pages, that is, ml.Wikipedia. the link is: i have been asked to add a copyright tag. what tag and how to? Weblogan 12:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The Mayalam image description page at does not indicate what license the image is under. Do you know what the source of the image is? If not, you may be able to ask the image uploader,, who has an "en-3" Babel box on his/her user page. --Iamunknown 03:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

how do I edit a picture I want to add a copyright tag too? --Polishrock 16:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Polishrock

First go to the article the image is in, then click the image with your mouse, then click the "edit" button at the top of the screen, and then add the copyright tag. By "add the copyright tag," I mean that you must type two curly brackets — {{ — a phrase (like "pd-self," "gfdl," or whatever the appropriate tag is) and two more curly brackets — }} — Iamunknown 03:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


Hello, this is my first time writing an article for Wikipedia, and I don't know how to get the copyright information that I need for this image:! Where do I find that information in the first place? and How do I post it up to go with my article? Thanks --Larodrig6 16:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Larodrig6

A link directly to the image is not entirely helpful; please also provide a link to the page that has the image. That would be Unfortunately, no information about the status of the copyright of that image is provided. You may consider, however, contacting UC tours at uctours AT uctours DOT com. Some unresolved questions that need to be answered are: when was the painting the image represents painted? By whom was it painted? When did s/he die? When was the painting published? --Iamunknown 04:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Recently Uploaded Images

Hi, I have recently uploaded three images, and I though I better check to see if I am doing it right: Image:Ruth Chikasa.jpg Image:Asia06.jpg Africa06.jpg I know the author well, and was wondering if the copyright status was correct for what I had done. If not what should I be putting? I can speak to the author of the images if necessary. Thanks, Asics talk Editor review! 17:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed on all three images you wrote, "Permission has been given to me by the author ... to use this on Wikipedia, in the Girls' Brigade article only." Image licenses that stiuplate that the image may only be used on Wikipedia are unacceptable for Wikipedia. You may consider asking Dawn Webster if she would license these images under the GFDL (or a compatible) license. --Iamunknown 04:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Misatkenly tagged

If an image is mistakenly (Complete mistaken) tagged by RFU or other possibly unfree image tag (except IFD tag). Than uploader / user can revert / remove the tag by placing appropriate license tag??--NAHID 21:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not refering 'no license tag'.

Nahid, you've asked this same questions previously. The answer is, again, "No." Administrators are perfectly competent and will not delete the image if it is tagged incorrectly. --Iamunknown 04:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Revert or Remove

Is it okay to revert something from in image page than removing the content? Here, Revert and remove is same concept? (especially in image matter)--NAHID 21:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a wiki, you are able to do whatever you want, though you may reverted if your behavior is unacceptable. --Iamunknown 04:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


After getting permission for using image in wiki[me]pedia, then is it to necessary mention the websource? (If the image is found in website)--NAHID 21:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask you, first of all, to stop making so many sections on this page? Many of the things you are asking are answered on Wikipedia:Image use policy, Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Copyrights. To answer your question, please send the license release to permissions AT wikimedia DOT org. Note that permission for Wikipedia only is not enough, the media must be released under a free license. Jkelly 00:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Applying image copyright tag

I uploaded an image a made myself, but forgot to apply the image copyright tag in the initial upload process. I received an email from the OrphanBot telling me this, and would like to go back and add the copyright tag for that image. How do I do this? --DanielYamins 05:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you make the images yourself? --Iamunknown 05:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyright Tag Issues

I have uploaded a picuture a half dozen times trying to add a copyright tag to it, but every time I think I did it right the image still gives the warning that it has no tag. Could you please tell me how to properly add a copyright tag to an existing image?


To tag an image you edit the image page and add the appropriate template from WP:ICT. To know which to use we need to know who owns the copyright (that is, who the photographer was) and what license it's being released under. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

how do i add a copyright tag on my photo--Youngsitymusic 14:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I assume that you are referring to the album covers you uploaded. The correct image copyright tag would be Template:Albumcover. To tag the image, go to the "image description page" (the title of your internet browser will say, "Image:From my block to yo block.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia," the page will have a picture of the image, the size in kilobytes, the size in pixels, your username, etc.), click the "edit this page" button at the top of the page, type { { a l b u m c o v e r } } (without any of the spaces), and you should be okay. --Iamunknown 18:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I just copy and pasted the copyright information - my picture was a single comic book panel - will that serve? I, too, had a problem getting the copyright box. But all the info contained within the box is there. Admin, please feel free to correct and add the proper copyright box. -"John M."

I assume that you were using Template:Comicpanel. Make sure that you do not select, copy and paste the text from that template. To "tag" an image in Wikipedian terms, you must first click go to the "image description page" (where the image is displayed, the size in kilobytes, size in pixels, etc.), click the "edit" button at the top of the page, and then type { { c o m i c p a n e l } } (without any of the spaces). That is what we mean when we say "tag an image." BTW, which image are you referring to? --Iamunknown 18:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Advertising Image 2

If I take an picture of advertisement and upload it with free license then is it likely to be deleted in future? Some tagger (who tagged image continuosly) says that those type of images pose copyright problem And other says it is okay to upload in en.wikipedia, not in commons. Are they right??? (Since I took that advertisement picture)--NAHID 14:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

A link to the image might be helpful. Megapixie 12:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

A link about what? That I'm the uploader, image name ?? --NAHID 18:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I imagine this is about Image:Ianking.jpg, which should probably be deleted for a number of reasons, including having no verifiable copyright holder information, and being tagged as coming from a press kit which it clearly didn't. Jkelly 18:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

My point was not about Ian King.Link about what? Please read again: If I take an picture of advertisement and upload it with free license then is it likely to be deleted in future? Some tagger (who tagged image continuosly) says that those type of images pose copyright problem And other says it is okay to upload in en.wikipedia, not in commons. Are they right??? (Since I took that advertisement picture

Ans: If I take an picture of advertisement and upload it with free license then is it likely to be deleted in future? Yes. And if you persist in doing so you may get banned. Megapixie 12:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  • You may be wrong. This image Image:Pizzahutpanpizza.JPGis being used in pizza hurt's article.I should've mentioned promotional license instead of free license.--NAHID 20:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • If by "upload it with free license" you meant "upload it with promotional copyright tag" then no, it will likely not be deleted, because right now very few people are even touching the promotional images. Iamunknown 20:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


And, If I take a picture of company billboard, its Product (cocacola bottle, sweetmeat and other products) and some books or magazines and multiple DVD covers in the shelf, then will it considered to be a fair use or not???

Can I realse them under the free license (Since I took those images) Please clarify it to me. I'm thinkig to upload this type of image in future and want ot reales it under free license. For example, Image:Zeitschriften.JPG. --NAHID 12:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


Impossible to answer on a blanket basis (copyright law is complicated - that's why lawyers make so much money). In general: all the cases who cite would probably only be usable as fair use. Multiple DVD covers on a shelf might be permissable as free use if the covers were tiny and not the subject of the image - i.e. "Look at my huge DVD collection!". As fair use, it depends on the use. See Wikipedia:Fair use#policy.
The example you cite is probably showing little bit too much detail to be entirely free use. Megapixie 12:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyright holder

Who is the copyright holder of copyrighted image, If the image belongs to an Organization? Any Staff of Organization--NAHID 21:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

What type of image? --Iamunknown 04:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

How do I add a copyright permission to a picture?

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Do you mean, "How do I add an image copyright tag to an image?" --Iamunknown 04:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I mean who'll be the copyright holder, if that image belongs to the company or organization. Copyright holder means any kind of company staffs--NAHID 20:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It could be either the author or the company, depending on the nature and details of the contract between the author and the company. Under U.S. law the owner of a copyright in a work is, by default, the author, not the author's employer. However, the copyright may be owned by the author's employer if the work was done under the terms of a work for hire contract, explicitly transfered to the employer by contract, or possibly even under the terms in an employee employment handbook. If you don't know, it is always best to ask the author if they or their employer owns the copyright. —RP88 08:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyright question

I took this image, which is widely used in all sales literature related to the fixture, from ETC's website. Since it is so widely distributed with sales literature, I'm not sure if I would need to apply for special permission to use it on Wikipedia. Please advise. Thanks. --starX 16:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


If you took the image, then you own the copyright and can license it however you wish. That is unless you took it while on duty at your job and thus anything you took on your company's time may be owned by the company. So do you know if you own the image or does the company?↔NMajdantalk 16:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood: starX says that they took the photo from the website, not for the website. We can not use an image unless the copyright holder (probably either the original photographer or the company) releases the image under a free license such as the GFDL. That they have widely distributed the image does not matter. If we are to have an image of this lamp, we will either need to have a contributer take their own photo, or we will have to request that the company license one of their images. ×Meegs 16:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
You're right, I did misread and misunderstand. Thank you for clarifying and providing an answer.↔NMajdantalk 17:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, but why delete the article with the photo? --starX 18:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
User:Sasquatch deleted the article and the image under speedy deletion criterion G11, "Blatant Advertising". [13] I suggest you ask their opinion before putting any more work into the article. ×Meegs 20:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Rare photos

I own an original collection of rare photos of historically important 19th Century European figures that are unique and one of a kind. I have scanned them and at the bottom of each I placed the Registered name of to my collection, along with a copyright, and the statement, "All Rights Reserved". Many of these individuals are listed in Wikipedia, but have no known photos. I am willing to post these photos in Wikipedia with the stated understanding that they may be copied and used for educational and non-profit use only. However when one was posted with that statement it was deleted by Wikipedia. Are only totally free use images with out restrictions allowed on Wikipedia?

These would greatly enhance many of Wikipedia's histories that lack photos, that even the Encyclopedia Britannica does not have. My only concern is that these photos not be taken and published in 'For Profit' publications. What is the copyright notice that best makes this clear, and is acceptable to Wikipedia, to allow them to be posted?

It should be emphasized that I own the copyrights to these images, and would NOT hold Wikipedia responsible in any way if I should discover that someone misused the image.Risorgimento 17:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is the case that we only accept media that is free for any use, including non-educational or commercial use. If you are uncomfortable licensing your work under those terms, you might want to consider hosting them somewhere else, and inviting article editors to link to them. That said, there is an additional complication in doing that. Your message is discussing "nineteenth century photographs". If you publish them anywhere on the web, it is unlikely that everyone will accept your claim to copyright, due to the expiration of copyright seventy years after the death of the author in both the United States and in the European Union. The situation may not be this straightforward in your jurisdiction, but many people will argue that it is in theirs. If you wish to maintain control over the usage of these photographs, the only way to absolutely ensure that is to not publish them at all. Jkelly 18:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Jkelly’s caveat in mind—once these photographs are copied on the WWW, you will have no control over them—, but please reconsider your position on their use. You will probably not be able to control the use of that material if you publish it, but if you don’t, it will be of no use to everybody, including those who would use it for educational purposes or without thinking of profit. —xyzzyn 20:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Tolstoy and Public Domain

Is Leo Tolstoy's "Death of Ivan Ilych" in the public domain? If not, whom do I contact to get permission to use bits and pieces of that story? I am writing a play based loosely on "The Death of Ivan Ilych," and want to be sure I give proper acknowledgement. Currently, I say on the title page, "Inspired by Leo Tolstoy's 'Death of Ivan Ilych.'" Is this good enough?

Tolstoy died in 1910, so all of his work should be in the public domain. You may have to acknowledge that it was based on his work to avoid plagiarism, but as far as copyright goes, you're fine. ShadowHalo 21:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
This page is for questions related to media hosted on Wikipedia's servers, not copyright questions in general. However, I'll answer you because I'm such a mensch. Since Leo Tolstoy died in 1910 his work is in the public domain and you may use it freely. But be careful not to directly quote a recent translation of it that's still under copyright. I believe this one is public domain, though. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
We seem to be confident that this translation by Louise and Aylmer Maude is. Jkelly 21:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Picture Tag Question...

I have uploaded a Picture called. I do not know what tag to use with the picture. It is a picture he owns and took himself on his personal camera. I do not want to give it "Public Domain" or use in any other way, but I do want it to remain on his website. He gave it to me to put on the website. What tag can i put with it so I don't give up his rights, but so it doesn't get deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MdnnaJay (talkcontribs)

I assume that you're discussing Image:DanSchneider.jpg. You don't have to place images that you want to publish on Wikipedia into the public domain, but they do need to be under a license that allows free reuse, such as the Gnu Free Document License, or something very similar. If you're not comfortable with the image being published anywhere but Wikipedia, I am afraid that we cannot accept it. Jkelly 01:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Phenazepam pack.JPG (copied from here)

Thank you for uploading Image:Phenazepam pack.JPG. As a work of the Swiss government, it is inappropriately licensed with {{PD-SwedGov-attribution}}. I have removed that tag and replaced it with {{no license}}. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. --Iamunknown 23:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I am unsure why the {{PD-SwedGov-attribution}} is inappropriate for the image. Please explain. Also, the source of the image was/is listed in the Summary. -- Jreferee 03:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The {{PD-SwedGov-attribution}} tag is for images done by the Swedish government. It doesn't look like works by the Swiss government are public domain. ShadowHalo 06:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, some are. See commons:Template:PD-Switzerland-official. Somebody probably should ask[14] this particular agency about this particular document. —xyzzyn 10:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Paintings by living artists

Is there any legit way of including an image of a painting by a living artist in an article? I am assuming that taking a photo of the painting, or a print of the painting, hanging on the wall would be no good. Would a photo of a gallery wall with, say, three paintings visible be any good? TerriersFan 23:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

A low-res image of a painting can be included as fair use, in articles containing analysis and critical commentary about the painting itself. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. TerriersFan 03:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyright tagging

I don't know how to Copyright tag... how do you do it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Loop-de-luke (talkcontribs) 2007-03-06 22:12 (UTC)

That’s a copyrighted image. Unless you can prove that it has been released under a free licence (or you are the copyright holder and want to release it under a free licence), we cannot use the image on Wikipedia. —xyzzyn 21:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I assume that you are referring to Image:Les6Frl.jpg that you uploaded. The source you provided was Note that information related to the copyright is generally indicated at the bottom of web pages. At the bottom of that web page, text indicated that "All content and images, unless otherwise stated, © 2001 Carl Thompson/Aaron Beharelle." Thus the image you uploaded could only be used on Wikipedia under fair use unless the owner of the copyright was contacted and agree to license it under a free license. Remember, however, that our mission at Wikipedia is to provide a free content digital encyclopedia. If an image is used here under fair use, it is not freely licensed. With regards to your specific image, it is easily replaceable: just photograph a friend playing bass, go to a concert, etc. When you get a freely licensed image, say, one licensed under the GFDL, you would go to the image description page, click "edit this page" at the top of the page, and type (without the spaces) { { G F D L } } and then click "Save page." Hope this helps! --Iamunknown 01:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyright tags

Well, i want to upload a comic cover, but i don't understand what are the posibilities for the copyright tags.

I think that an example would be very usefull.

Can you tell me, what kind of copyright tag can I use¿?

Please, try to give me a simple example...

I was trying to upload one image all the afternoon.

Thanks!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bio citric (talkcontribs).

Comic book covers are copyrighted, and so can only be used under fair use in an article containing analysis or critical commentary about the book or the cover itself. See WP:FAIR for the relevant policy. The appropriate tag is {{Comiccover}}, which you will have to add manually after uploading the image by editing the image page. Be sure to supply rationale as the policy requires. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

caspian sea comments

ummmmmmmm, i'm a student at crestwood highschool in mtn. top, pennsylvania and i was wondering about some of your information on the caspian sea. i think some of your information my be false about the caspian sea. The caspian sea is the largest lake by size, but not by volume. In fact, the largest lake in volume is lake baikel in Russia --Sincerly, matt

Thanks for point that out! Note, however, that this page is for questions related to copyrights of images and media. You may wish to go to go directly to the talk page for the "Caspian Sea" article at Talk:Caspian Sea or to the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. Thanks! --Iamunknown 01:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Appropriate tag

Before uploading the photo, I made a request to the Swedish Armed Forces HQ for using photos/other graphical contents from their publications in Wikipedia articles. The simple and informal reply I got reads (translated from swedish) "Hi! We don't mind you're using the images as long as the source of them are cited"

original reply, for those interested... (in swedish)
Hej! Vi har inget emot att ni använder bilderna så länge det framgår var bilderna är hämtade.
Marie Tisäter
Försvarsmaktens Informationsavdelning

Now to my question; which tag is appropriate? The closest I could find is {{PD-link}}, but the difference is that the link is not optional. They require the source to be cited.

And I'm not sure wether it should be considered as Fair use, rather than public domain. I'm not so familiar with U.S. legal terms (or swedish law for that matter).

Image Discussed Image:La02 v441 mp2.jpg

--Faffia 03:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the appropriate tag would be {{PD-SwedGov-attribution}}. ShadowHalo 03:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that PD-SwedGov-attribution is correct. I've been trying to deprecate that tag; it was only developed, as far as I know, for using on (freely-licensed) promotional images of Swedish politicans located at That said, they permission they give is limited and vague: they say "All the photographs may be freely used during the period of office, that is to say up to the 2010 general elections. Always give the name of the photographer when publishing." but they say nothing about commercial reuse or derivative works.
If the Swedish Armed Forces HQ's response was really that vague, more correspondence is needed to decide what the actual license is. They need to explicitly agree to license their content under a free license like the GFDL or a free version of the CC. Also note that with such a large organization, their e-mail should really be forwarded to permission-en AT wikimedia DOT org.
Finally, thanks for taking the initiative to e-mail them. I know that it can be frustrating, because I've tried to make correspondence with other organizations too. Just remember, they must explicitly release their content under a free license. --Iamunknown 04:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Though if I send them another email along with a list of all the possible licenses, I fear I'll end up with nothing. A selection of recommended licenses for them to choose would be appriciated I belive. I'd personnally reccommend them a Creative Commons 2.5 attribution license. But I'm not sure wether or not I'd reccommend them a non-derative license or not. The only reason I could think of to allow derative works is if the re-sizing of the images is considered to be "derative works". (I belive it's in their interest to otherwise restrict derative works). Is it so?
Of course, when I have a final answer ("explicit agree to a license"), I'll forward my correspondance to wikipedia. But as the "permission" would be in swedish, should I add a translation myself or send it to something like permission-sv at wikipedia dot org ? --Faffia 05:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Scan of newspaper advert

What would be the position, please, if I were to scan an advert, placed by Tesco in many newspapers to apologise for the 2007 UK petrol contamination, to add to that article? TerriersFan 03:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  • It might qualify as fair use in the article. There is not a specific tag for such advertisements. You could tag the image, however, with {{Non-free fair use in|Tesco}} and provide a source and fair use rationale. --Iamunknown 04:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    TerriersFa, do you want to use it in 2007 UK petrol contamination or in Tesco? If it is the first, then the appropriate tag would be {{Non-free fair use in|2007 UK petrol contamination}}. In either case, to qualify for fair use make sure your image is low-res and that the article specifically comments on and analyzes the ad itself. See here for how to write a fair use rationale. —RP88 04:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Which Tag should I use?

Sorry, new to Wikipedia and wondering which tag I should be using to copyright my image Image:Proof.PNG

Thank you!

Shelbyyoung 04:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If it is an photograph you snapped of yourself then, to remain on Wikipedia, it must be licensed under a free license. Note that a "freely-licensed" image on Wikipedia means that the image license must permit commercial reuse and derivative works. That said, if you decide to freely-license your media, anyone in the world may modify the image, for inappropriate or appropriate uses, and may reuse, for profit by selling it or otherwise.
If you want to license it under such a license, you should familiarize yourself with the GFDL and CC licenses listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses. Note that when you actually "tag" your image, you should click on the image link (that you posted just above), click the "edit this page" button at the top of the page, type the name of whichever license you choose between two curly brackets. So if you choose the GFDL license, you would type { { G F D L - s e l f } } (without any of the spaces of course). Hope this helps. --Iamunknown 04:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Copyright normally belongs to the photographer, so if you took this photograph of yourself, you own the copyright and are free to mark it with any of the free license copyright tags (assuming that you agree with the terms of the license, of course). I'd recommend either {{GFDL-self}} or {{cc-by-sa-2.5|Shelby Young}}, they're very commonly used by photographers who don't mind their photo being used by others, but want the photo to remain free. —RP88 04:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

What if I don't want others to redistribute/alter/do anything with my photo? Then which copyright tag would I use? Sorry for all the questions, just new to the site :]

- Shelby 05:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

In that case, you don't upload it. Wikipedia cannot host such media; they're contrary to the purpose of the project. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


Image:Ananthabhadram Riya.jpg, this film screenshot is being used in biography Riya Sen#Career article. But there's no such film section in that article. The screenshot contains two persons and quite confusing. Is it replaceable image? --NAHID 12:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Screenshot image in both film article and biography

If An screenshot image used in both film article and biography, then is it likely to be tagged by {{subst:Replaceable fair use}}? If so, then, how can I keep that image? By removing that screenshot image from biography? After doing so, can I remove {{subst:Replaceable fair use}}. As a reference,Image:Pumping Iron Cover.jpg is being used in 3 articles but it has been tagged by {{subst:Replaceable fair use}}. How can I keep that image?--NAHID 12:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Own image of celebrity

Can I use self-taken celebrity image in both his/her TV/FILM and biography related article Or in any article written about him/herself.--NAHID 12:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean an image you took yourself, or the celebrity? If you took it, then yes, as long as you release it under a free license. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use

Is there any problem to use {{subst:Fairusein}} in logo image page instead of {{subst:logo}}?--NAHID 12:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Neither Template:Fairusein nor Template:Logo should be substituted. It breaks the categorizational scheme by adding the image to an image tag category. That said, I no see reason to use Non-free fair use in in place of logo. Instead, use logo and then write a fair use rationale. --Iamunknown 21:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Old image

If I used old public domain image in an article that is irrelevant to article, then is it likely to be removed from the article.Is that image also likely to be deleted if it's not used in any article?--NAHID 13:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's public domain, then it won't be deleted since it may yet be useful. I would suggest that a better place for it might be the commons: though, which is intended to be a repository of free media. See Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons for how to do that. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Rational for PD OLD image

Is it necessary to add rational in PD Old image's description page? I found lot of PD Old image with rational and without rational. Though PD Old image License doesn't mention to provide rational in image description page. --NAHID 11:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No, a fair use rationale is not necessary if an image isn't being used under fair use. If it's not obvious that the image is public domain (for example, a photo of Abraham Lincoln is obviously public domain since he died in 1865), then there should be a source for the image to make sure that it is indeed in the public domain. ShadowHalo 20:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


2 more images Image:STU-siddeswari_.jpg and Image:STU-dhanmondi.jpg are also tagged as possibly unfree image. Here another image (Image:Bashundhara city.jpg that has same license but uploaded by someonelse. Do you think, is it also likely to be tagged? If not then why? (I don't want to get that image deleted, just want to be clear about the matter) What's the difference between these three images ( Image:STU-siddeswari_.jpg, Image:STU-siddeswari_.jpg and Image:Bashundhara city.jpg) regarding on tagging process? I'm hoping you'll answer me --NAHID 11:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bashundhara city.jpg is a photograph taken by the person who uploaded it. Where as the other two images were merely found on the internet. I've actually created an (experimental) flow chart to help people understand image tagging give it a try User:Megapixie/CopyrightFlowChart to see if it helps you understand the process. Megapixie 13:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • WRONG.It's not taken by the uploader. Read Image description page.--NAHID 11:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. But the uploader does seem to assert that he has permission to upload the image, and looking at the photograph it seems reasonable. Ideally he should go through the permissions process but without evidence to the contrary I would WP:AGF and not worry about it. If you have questions about the image itself - you should address them to the uploader (as he suggests on the image description page). Megapixie 01:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Piece of a picture on wikimedia commons

I uploaded a piece of a picture off of wikimedia commons, Image:LocationEurope.png for use in a userbox User:The freddinator/Userboxes/Diplomacy. How should I tag this? The file is located at Image:Diplomacylogo.gif The freddinator 00:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

{{PD-USGov-CIA-WF}} Jkelly 00:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The original is tagged {{PD-USGov-CIA-WF}}. If you had added significant creative elements to the image you'd own the copyright on the portion that was your work, and so could use any free license. However, merely cropping the image doesn't qualify in my opinion, and it should therefore be tagged the same as the original. And please look at the changes that were made to your original post to see how to do what you were trying to do. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm a new user of wikipedia so what can i learn more from it  ? And how do i specify the information of image ?garnett86 02:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, can you clarify the question? If you really don't know where to start, go to the help page and start clicking. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Photo of old furniture

I would like to edit a page with a few sentences (2 or 3) and post a photo example supporting the few sentence edit. I did this on a page which I "thought" had not been saved but apparently it was although my additions do not show in the online article (good) and expect the experimental work to be deleted. I will use the sandbox in the future for such things.

I thought I was reasonably literate but am finding it difficult technically to accomplish what I would like to do but I will keep trying, in the sandbox. Question: the photo I wish to post is a photo taken by me of a table my grandfather constructed in the 1930s. My grandfather passed away in the 1960's. He hasn't been dead for the required time frame that I thought I read elsewhere in help that would prevent a licensing issue. Can I use a public domain tag? If not, what would you suggest as to the tag? Rjwalterusa 13:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm uncertain whether such things as tables (as opposed to designs for them) could have been copyrighted at the time, but even if it could have been your grandfather would have had to formally register it. If to your certain knowledge he did not, we're safe in assuming the table itself is not a copyright problem. As far as the photo goes, you took it, so it's yours to license as you wish, although if its to be used on Wikipedia you need to use a free license.
The image in question is Image:Parquetry.jpg, I assume. Gorgeous! Your grandfather was an extraordinary craftsman. To insert it into the article, add this code to the article text about where you'd like the top of the photo to be: [[Image:Parquetry.jpg|thumb|right|250px|caption text]] Change "right" to "left" to place it on the left side of the page instead. "250px" is the width of the thumbnail image. You can make it larger or smaller if you wish, but this is about as wide as we usually use. Replace "caption text" with the caption you'd like to add. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to answer the copyright question, but it is going to be kind of complex. There are two possible copyright holders here - you and either the heir to your grandfather's estate or the current owner of the tables. For the purposes of this discussion I'll assume these tables qualify for copyright as works of art. As the photographer, you own the copyright to the photo, but since the photo is a derivative work of the tables the heir to your grandfather's estate or the current owner of the tables could, in theory, also hold rights to the photo. Is this the first time the tables have ever been published? The reason I ask is that unpublished works created before 1978 that are published after 31 December 2002 have a copyright term of life of the author + 70 years. However, if the tables have been previously published prior to 1 March 1989 without notice, and without subsequent registration, then the tables are in the public domain. So, in theory, you might also need permission of either the heir to your grandfather's estate or the current owner of the tables (if the heir sold or gave away the tables the copyright may, or may not, still reside with the heir depending on the circumstances). If you are all three possible copyright holders (photographer, heir, owner) then you are free to mark it with any of the free license copyright tags (assuming that you agree with the terms of the license, of course). I'd recommend either {{GFDL-self}} or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}, they're very commonly used by photographers who don't mind their photo being used by others, but want the photo to remain free. Otherwise, you might first need to first secure permission from the other rights holders. If you can supply more facts, I'll try to help you untangle the question of copyright. —RP88 03:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I considered approaching it from this direction, but I believed it did not apply. I was uncertain when I wrote before, but now I'm less so having looked a few things up and thought the matter over.
Would a piece of furniture have been considered a work of art at the time? Probably not. There were always at least a few pieces of furniture roughly that old around when I was a kid, and even now I have a couple of chairs that were made around then. Not once have I ever seen a copyright notice, such as was required at the time, on any of them. They surely would have been there if it had been thought that you could copyright a functional piece of furniture. People were once sensible about such things.
Has anyone ever been sued for publishing a photograph of their own living room couch? TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know, but according to Furniture Today, in 2006 the furniture industry opposed the Orphan Works Act, concerned that it "could put much of the furniture and fabric industry’s copyright archives into the public domain" and that it "promises to strip us of our archival property rights and permit offshore vendors to appropriate our work.” The Orphan Works Act was primarily crafted by museums and libraries, seeking the right to create exhibits from works whose copyright owners could not be identified with a reasonable search. The industry representatives appear to have been concerned that, because their works traditionally don’t identify the author, finding the author would be difficult, and thus the bill would, in their words “essentially legalizes infringement. This is a terrible piece of legislation for our industry and anybody who creates or commissions designs will be affected.” The Orphan Works Act hasn't passed, the last I heard it was stuck in committee. Who knew the furniture industry had copyright archives? :-) —RP88 06:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
No doubt they do. Fabric designs are certainly copyrightable, and I have seen copyright notices on fabric. Furniture designs -- that is, the drawings a designer would make that are then used to construct the piece -- are also subject to copyright, even under the 1903 law in some circumstances, when state law governed IP rights of unpublished work. And furniture made since 1978 is probably protected by copyright too. But I just thoroughly examined a chair from a kitchen table set made in the 1920s or 30s, obviously mass produced and therefore not a craftsman's custom work. There's no copyright notice on it whatsoever. In those days a work was not protected if it didn't carry a notice. The only reason I can think of why something would left unprotected like that was if it couldn't be protected in the first place. Not even all literary works were copyrightable at the time. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but even works made prior to 1978 don't necessarily need a copyright notice, since notice is only required when the work is published. A work of art can transfer through many hands without being published. Once one starts making many copies of a piece of furniture it might be reasonable to assume its been published, but unique works of art are definitely not published until reproductions are publicly distributed. This might be the case with the original poster's table - if it's a unique work of art that has never been published, it doesn't need notice for copyright to hold, despite being made before 1978. —RP88 09:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
In the examples in my possession, these were not "works of art", but as I said, mass-produced items offered for sale to the public. That constitutes "publication" within the meaning of the law. They must have carried a copyright notice if they were copyrighted at all at the time. But they do not. That would have been imprudent, to say the least, if they could have been protected in that way. Therefore, as a class of objects, furniture was probably not seen as copyrightable.
Although I don't have the original text of the law available, it's not difficult to find as it stood when last in force. It's nevertheless evident that even some published works were not eligible for copyright at the time the table was made, because the law was amended later to be more expansive. Product labels required additional legislation to be copyrighted. Some published works by writers were once ineligible. Which ones I can't say, but the section talking about it was amended to include all of a writer's work. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Another complexity, which I touched on in my earlier note, but did not expand upon is, if the tables are copyrighted, who now owns the copyright? It could be one of the grandfather's heirs, it could be someone else. If you buy an original piece of art, you do not automatically become owner of the copyright on the artwork, even if you are owner of the sole existing copy. In fact, in the U.S., unless a written contract provides otherwise, no transfer of copyright will result from the acquisition of a work (even if the work is unique). So, in this particular case, if the grandfather's will gave the physical tables to one heir, but had no specific provision that also transferred the intellectual property rights to that heir, then the copyright might now belong to another heir (the will might have contained an "all other assets" clause that willed everything not specifically mentioned to a particular heir). —RP88 07:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the feedback. I am the current owner of the tables, photos have never before been published and so will use a free license tag as suggested. Thanks too for the input on how to edit the page. I do appreciate the help. Rjwalterusa 13:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad we could help, I apologize for getting a bit windy. If you update the image description for Image:Parquetry.jpg, I'd remove the sentence "Grandfather of source of recent edit to include parquetry" and replace it with something like "Isaac Leonard Wise is my grandfather, I am the owner of these tables, and I hold the copyright. I hereby release this image under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 License." Then append a {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} tag to the page (I'm just using the Creative Commons license as an example, pick one you like). —RP88 13:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

World history

what innovatoins have people made in tools in recent years that make life easier?

This page is for questions about copyright. Your question belongs at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. ShadowHalo 23:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sandy cheeks.PNG

Apparently, this picture has been released into the PD. I however, believe that this is stolen from "Squiddi"'s deviantART page. The problem is, Squiddi nativly speaks Italian. Is there anyone here that knows Italian well enough so that s/he can be contacted to see if s/he asked permission for it's use here? TheLH 16:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Inserting a picture

HOW DO YOU INSERT A PICTURE?!?!? I've uploaded one, and can include the link to it, but i want to put the actual picture in, not just the link.

This page is for copyright-related questions, not general technical questions on images. But you can find a tutorial at WP:PIC and a more concise reference at WP:EIS. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

pacific ring of fire

hi was wondering how did the pacific ring of fire get its name


Literally. For more information, please ask at the Reference desk. This page is meant for questions about the copyright of images on Wikipedia. —xyzzyn 14:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Picture of a cartooon character

As it turns out, this morning, I'd uploaded a picture of the sloth from the "Ice Age" films (The image: Image:Sid the Sloth.jpg) and was told that I must send cpyright information on it. But how? I took this picture in a screenshot with my computer. Do copyright rules apply here? What do I do? --KnowledgeLord 22:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I assume that the image is from the film Ice Age, correct? If so, you need to provide information on the image description page indicating just that. Include some keywords like "source," "this image is from," etc. And make sure to provide a detailed, unique and relevant Fair use rationale. You may consider looking at the image description page, Image:Campbells Soup Cans MOMA.jpg, for, in my opinion, aparticularly excellent example. Make sure, however, to make the information on your image unique and relevant. --Iamunknown 23:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Nishizawa Image

I recently added an image Image:Michio_Nishizawa.jpg., but was warned that it needs an image tag. I am uncertain which tag is appropriate. the image comes from This is part of the English version Japanese Baseball Hall of Fame site ( which states 'Please take photographs freely' in the right hand column. What tag would apply? Thank you.

Please notify me on my talk page (Avocado butters)

--Avocado butters 02:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying too find out too get a copy of the TV report onthe man who say's he's Jesus

Hi I'm writing you because I'm trying too use the tape that you just did a TV show on the so call pastor that call himself ====Jesus==== so if I can order that tape or CD you may contack me my name is John Jacobs call me at 320-252-5649 or email me at the show was just on in Mn. this pass thank you for your time and looking forwarded to hearing from you soon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 03:57, 11 Mar 2007 (UTC)

  • This page is for questions related to copyright with respect to media uploads on the English-language Wikipedia. You may be able to receive an answer more quickly at the reference desk. --Iamunknown 04:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia only permission

I posted a picture saying the picture is copyrighted but was given permission by the creator to use it on Wikipedia, and now the picture is up for speedy deletion. why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Serb123 (talkcontribs).

I don't see that you uploaded any images in your contributions page, so it must have been deleted already. The reason would have been because we cannot use images here where permission has been given "for Wikipedia only". Such restricted licenses are contrary to the goals of the project. See Wikipedia's image use policy. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Permission link

After getting permission from family memebers or friends for using their image in wikipedia then do I need to mention their Written permission link in image description page? It seems to me quite funny. How do I mention the source? --NAHID 11:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Forward the email to ShadowHalo 20:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • What if they just say You can use the picture. Then How can I mention the source and as well as license?--NAHID 22:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


The image is under fair use. A group of people available in the image.Is it replaceable? If not then why? It is quite confusing.--NAHID 00:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Replaceablity is often something of a judgment call, as in this case. Here we have a cast photo of a TV show that is no longer in production. Is it reasonable to expect that a user will be able to reassemble this cast so as to make a similar photo to release under a free license? Since these people are all still public figures, individual photos of them ought to be replaceable, but opportunities for an ensemble picture would be orders of magnitude more difficult to find. This show has furthermore been out of production for several years, and many of these people's appearances have changed somewhat. A current picture of them would not depict them as they appeared in the show it's illustrating. It is not therefore replaceable in such a way as to serve the same purpose, if at all, and we can therefore use it under fair use for analysis and criticism of the show in question. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
This seems to fly in the face of the "We don't use fair use to identify living people" orthodoxy that I've seen plastered across the RFU pages. (For one thing, it's rational.) Does anyone who believes "we don't use fair use to identify living people" want to take a shot at explaining why we shouldn't delete the Buffy cast photo, and hope someone on Flikr goes to a Buffy convention, where, against all evidence and hope, Sarah Michelle Gellar decides to appear for an on-stage reunion with her cast mates? After all, it's possible that could happen...("Likelyhood of it happening" being an unwelcome consideration in similar debates...) Jenolen speak it! 00:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion moved to WP:FU talk page. Jenolen speak it! 04:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

How do I do add copyright?

I have managed to up-load a picture of a coin Image:An Yang Spade.jpg. It is a picture of my own coin and there is no question of any copyright.

Although I can understand ancient Chinese coinage very weel I cannot see from your "helps" how I "not copy right" my picture"

A step by step guide for a poor old confised man please! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davidhartill (talkcontribs) 16:10, 10 Mar 2007 (UTC)

How old is the coin? --Iamunknown 21:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
[15] puts it somewhere in BCE, which means it’s public domain. —xyzzyn 03:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


Surely this is in the public domain? It was created before 1923, and the fact that some author used it doesn't grant a copyright over the image itself. Hbdragon88 07:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If there was some information on the image description page that gave a pre-1923 source for this, the it can be tagged {{PD-US}} instead. (Not {{PD-art}} since it's not old enough for that.) If the book from which it was taken is that old, it's not good enough for the article to say so; it must say so on the image page. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, according to the article Charlotte Brontë, it was...something (I can't tell if it's a painting or a photograph) by George Richmond in 1850, and he died in 1896, so I think that the 100+ year requirement would be satisfied. Hbdragon88 10:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Painting. Source is UK so life +70. PD due to age.Geni 10:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I found the origin - it's a chalk sketch currently in the National Portrait Gallery in the UK. It was done by George Richmond in 1850, who died in 1896. However, since we don't know when this photo of the picture was first published, we can't claim PD-old or PD-US. However, since the underlying sketch is PD-old it does quality as PD-art. I've updated the source and license information. —RP88 15:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

picture licensing type?

I’m uploading a picture of living persons (politicians, prime minister and minister) ‎which was published in news papers and TV.‎ What type of licensing should I use ?‎ --Zoozth 01:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You should not be uploading those images. They would be copyrighted by the publisher of the image, and they would not release it under a free image. Such pictures can't be used under "fair use", as they're considered "replaceable" (e.g. somebody could go take a picture, and release under a free license). What concerns me, is it seems you've retagged what you uploaded to {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}. I think we can assume a "picture taken by the ministry of oil photographer for public distribution..." is not under the free license you claimed. --Rob 02:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

But i'm sure the picture is free licenses because i got it from my father which the article about him. --Zoozth 01:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the images are likely not freely licensed. I cannot provide exact legal citations, but I am confident that, in United States copyright law, the copyright does not remain in the ownership of the subject of a photograph (your father) but with the photographer. To freely license the images, the photographer would have to license them freely. I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. --Iamunknown 01:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Depends on who took the photo. Was it a private photo that was given to the papers and TV or was it taken by some reporter? The photographer (or his employer) own the copyright to the photo, not the person pictured. --Sherool (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Flickr question

Hello. Do Wikipedia users ask Flickr users permission to use their photos when they are released on free with attribution? For example Image:Prince_(musician)-2006-06.jpg has a Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike License v. 2.0 at the source (and others I uploaded are Attribution 2.0). I wouldn't think so as long as the attribution is made, but I found an image of another subject linked to "Category:Images with permission confirmed" so thought to ask here. Sorry in advance if this is a FAQ. I did try to find the answer in Google inurl:wikipedia and had no luck. Best wishes. -Susanlesch 03:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Photos on Flickr that are tagged as Creative Commons without NC (non-commercial) or ND (no derivatives) are considered free and we can use them without asking for permission (since the Flickr licence already grants us that permission). However, I see no reason why it would be not acceptable to compliment the photographer on a good image and mention that we’re going to use it.
The issue of verification reduces to checking whether the licence tag on our copy matches the licence at the Flickr source. Commons has a process for that; see commons:Commons:Flickr images for the details. In general, free images that are generally usable should be uploaded there, especially if they are from Flickr. (If you do upload there, use the Template:Flickr infobox for Flickr images.) —xyzzyn 03:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
xyzzy, that is good news. Good idea, I will try to thank the photographers. Many thanks for your help. -Susanlesch 14:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

GPL, GFDL, and aggregation

Does using a GPL-licensed image in an article count as "mere aggregation" as defined by that license, or does it create a "derivative work" as defined by that license? (Note that §0 of the GPL specifically defines "derivative work" as a work "containing" the GPL-licensed work.) My reading of the license seems to indicate that the latter interpretation is correct, but then again, IANAL. If I am correct, then it is a copyright violation to use any GPL-licensed image in a Wikipedia article, unless the use also falls under the fair use provisions. (This is because Wikipedia articles are licensed under the GFDL, which is incompatible with the GPL.) Please tell me I'm not correct, because otherwise we will have to delete most of the images in Category:GPL images. —Psychonaut 04:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You can't just rely on definitions in the license, terms like "aggregation" and "derivative work" have specific meanings and interpretations under copyright case law. The issue of whether "editorial" use of an image, i.e. displaying an unmodified image in an article alongside some editorially linked text, causes the article to be a derivative work of the image has been discussed before. The drafters of the Creative Commons licenses, who are lawyers, have stated that they believe such use is "mere aggregation." However, as far as I know, this hasn't been tested in court with any of the free, but "sticky", licenses such as GFDL, CC-BY-SA, or GPL. The {{GPL}} tag appears on the list at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses#GNU, so such images are currently acceptable on Wikipedia. They are also acceptable on Commons. If you truly believe this is a problem, I suppose somebody can suggest an appropriate location where you can propose deprecating the GPL license for images. I'm not quite sure where the best place would be, perhaps Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights? That is the general location for copyright policy discussion. —RP88 11:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


I've read your guidelines for applying copyright tags to my image. However I'm still not clear on how to include one of your listed copyrights to my logo. Could someone from this organization please help aid me in resolving this issue. I can be reached at thank you for your cooperation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Suntari78 (talkcontribs) 15:52, 12 March 2007.

I assume you are asking about Image:Suntarigold logo.jpg? Do you know who owns the copyright to the image? As a guideline, make sure that one of the following is true:
  • you own the all of the rights to the image (usually meaning that you created the image yourself and it doesn't depict the work of someone else), or
  • you can prove that the copyright holder has licensed the image under a free license, or
  • you can prove that the image is in the public domain, or
  • you believe it is fair use and have included on the image's description page a fair use rationale for the specific use of the image that you intend.
If none of the above are true, you'll need to ask the copyright holder to release the image under the GFDL or other free license. Wikipedia has a page at WP:COPYREQ that helps to explain how to go about requesting permission to use other people's work in Wikipedia. In particular, if they don't specifically agree to the GFDL or one of the other standard free licenses, they must agree to allow modification, redistribution, and use for any purpose, including commercial purposes. Finally, the image description page must contain an appropriate and accurate image copyright tag. If you like, I am more than willing to attempt to answer any question you might have. Just post them here, in response to this note, and I'll try to get back to you quickly. —RP88 16:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


Image:Nway.jpg Image:nwaylogo.jpg

How do i get the copyrights for these logos. These are self created. Also tell me as to how to make it public, which can be seen by users who search for it.

Thank you Jubith

If you own these images, which you claim to, you can license the images under a free license. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses to select a license that suits you. I recommend "GFDL-self" and "cc-by-sa-2.5", but select for yourself. However, it appears you uploaded these images to Wikipedia as your first contributions to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a free file host. Unless we can use these images on Wikipedia, we won't host the files for you. There are many free file/image/webhosts out there that you can use. If this is the case, please put {{db-author}} on each image and then save the page. No harm done and you are more than welcome to stay and contribute and help us out. --MECUtalk 20:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What do I do now?

Explain again, (I have done so before, probably using the wrong tags) and shall I upload it again? when I click on the missing image, the page is to upload a photo page. Does that mean I'm supposed to upload it again? Is it a living person, or the bot that delets the photo?

Explanation one more time:

The photo is of a now living person, at the same time illustrating the place where he did what's the major event of the article, it's from Chang Tang. There does not exist any copyrightfree photos.

What more is needed, in order to keep the photo in the page?


LolliLolli 19:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If you look at [16], it will tell you why the image was deleted. It appears this image was deletion for violating our fair use policy #1: Replaceable. We don't want images if they could be replaced, such as for living people (there are exceptions). Even if you can't find a free image right now, the possibility exists that a free image could be created, so we still won't accept a fair use image. Please do not re-upload this image unless something changes (like the person dies). Also, please read the fair use policy. You can search for free images, or even seek out the author of images to request them to license the image freely. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for help with that. Good luck! --MECUtalk 20:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


when was the party formed

This page is for questions related to copyrights of images and media. Try asking your question at the Humanities reference desk. —RP88 22:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This image is my own

I have an image ,image:008xtreme.JPG , but that image is mine. How should I put it in? Something like: "This image is not specificly copyrighted." ? --Au revoir! 09:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If by that you mean that you don't want to reserve any rights to the image, then add {{PD-self}}. Otherwise, there are suggestions at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. ShadowHalo 10:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

eeg electrode placement for the 10-20 system

Does anyone have complete instructions for placing eeg electrodes utilizing the 10-20 system? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 13:06, 13 March 2007.

This page is for questions related to copyrights of images and media. Try asking your question at the Science reference desk. —RP88 13:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


Correct labelling seems highly unlikely given the uploaders talk page, no? How should such a case be delt with?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

{{imagevio|}} Jkelly 16:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


I reverted to the current image today (since the one used before this one is totally unrelated to the topic (Walls of Jericho). It was originally uploaded by User:Roguestate, so I don't know anything about the who and what. By the way: There is an error in the name of the image, should be Candace, is this editable? Syrion 16:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the history the photo of Candace Kucsulain comes from Unfortunately, there is no indication at the source that the photo has been released under a free license - it's use here is probably a copyright violation. If you'd like, you could try contacting the source and request that they release their image under a free license. Wikipedia has a page at WP:COPYREQ that helps to explain how to go about requesting permission to use other people's work in Wikipedia. Oh, and the easiest way to move an image is to upload it under the new name and then mark the obsolete image for deletion. —RP88 17:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


Orphan bot sended me this message:

Thanks for uploading Image:Jaqueline owners' wife.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont understand this. The source is from user Yume no Kishi, and I'm confused about the image tag thing. All the image that are from the TV show Tokyo Mew Mew, It gave them all TV screenshot, and never had an issue with it. IS this an error with orphan bot?? "THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED!" 20:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Angelofdeath276, according to the image's history the lack of copyright tag on your image was fixed for you by Yume no Kishi earlier today, after OrphanBot notified you of the problem. —RP88 20:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

ohh. Around that time I was uploading images one after another, so I must have made an error. "THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED!" 03:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is an image tag and wehre am I supposed to put it?

I was notified that i need an image tag for the following picture: Image:KerrFront.jpg

What exactly is an image tag and wehre am I supposed to put it? Thank you for your help.

--Asim01 04:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The image description page must contain an appropriate and accurate image copyright tag (also see the list of all the tags). In your case, since you didn't create the image yourself you have to use a tag that corresponds to the license from the photographer. I notice that you mention you got permission from the source website's webmaster. That's good. Unfortunately, because Wikipedia's content is made available for others to use, it is not enough for them to agree that the image be used on Wikipedia. If they don't specifically agree to the GFDL or one of the other standard free licenses, they must agree to allow modification, redistribution, and use for any purpose, including commercial purposes. Wikipedia has a page at WP:COPYREQ that helps to explain how to go about requesting permission to use other people's work in Wikipedia. —RP88 10:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Event image

After taking an event image, can I release it under free license instead of (tls|promophoto}} (Since I was the creator). And also can I use this image in any section of article or in my userpage?--NAHID 11:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Jkelly 17:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

use of public-domain images

Hello! If I want to use old historical Public Domain photograph images, for use on a label of a commercial product, do I need to include on the label a notice that the source was Wikipedia and, if so, what exactly would be the format/wording for doing so? THANK YOU! AMY —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 17:08, 14 March 2007

Wikipedia is not for legal advice. Please see Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer and then contact your own lawyer. But, if the image is truly in the public domain, your use of it would be legal. But, I am not a lawyer, and to protect yourself and/or company, you should seek professional advice. --MECUtalk 17:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Which image? Content marked as public domain is material believed to be out of copyright, either because of expiration of the original copyright, or because the material has been explicitly released into the public domain by its creator(s). You don't need to identify Wikipedia as the source of your image. Furthermore, even if it were not public domain, the Wikimedia Foundation owns almost none of the content on Wikimedia sites — it is owned by the individual creators. However, listen to Mecu, I don't think it would be wise of you to stake your commercial enterprise on the word of the anonymous editor of Wikipedia who uploaded the image and marked it as being in the public domain. I'd highly recommend you independently confirm that image is in the public domain before using it in a commercial product. —RP88 17:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright of P3100102.JPG

how to add copyright tag to an image? Image:P3100102.JPG Is it now right??

Please sign your comments on talk pages by putting ~~~~. Unforunately, the source for that image on flickr has this license which is not free enough for us because of the "no commercial" restriction on it. If you wish to search for images on flickr, go under advanced search and check all three checkboxes under "Creative Commons". Anything you then find we can use. And you should upload those images to commons, which has a system to automatically verify the license to protect the image in the future. You could ask the owner of this image to change the license, I've some some success with that. Also, please use better filenames than "P3100102" which isn't descriptive at all. When you upload images in the future, please see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags to select the correct license. --MECUtalk 18:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Photographs of concerts, plays, etc.

I have a question that's both general and specific. People upload pictures such as Image:Alpine.jpg, releasing them -- as the photographer -- into the public domain. However, this picture (and dozens more like it) is of a copyrighted performance, making the photograph a derivative work, and, therefore (as I understand it) ineligible for PD. Shouldn't WP have either a fair use/performance tag or something along the lines of a screenshot/concert?
Furthermore, most bands don't allow cameras into the venues, and those little old lady matrons at Broadway shows will not hesitate to tackle you if you snap a picture.
How can we justify these pictures? —  MusicMaker5376 19:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyright comes into existence when a work is "fixed", that is, written or recorded on some physical medium. Under U.S. law an owner's derivative rights are violated when his copyrighted work is used without consent as the basis for a second work that is substantially similar to the owner's work. I think its pretty clear that a photograph doesn't infringe upon the copyright of a musical work such a concert. On the other hand, photographs of dramatic works might conceivably be considered to be derivative works and as such unauthorized photographs would be a copyright violation - although whose copyright might be difficult to determine (i.e. is it violating the playwright's, the choreographer's, or the stage director's?). It's my understanding that this isn't a completely settled area in case law. —RP88 21:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
What about the concert lighting designer? The image I referenced is currently being used to illustrate how the lighting designer lit the concerts in question -- to show what concerts looked like. That's his art. He does it on the fly during a concert; nothing was ever programmed into a computer or "recorded on some physical medium". The photograph is definitely derivative.
Your logic would seem to suggest that anything done improvisationally is not subject to copyright. A play is copyrighted because it was written down. Music is copyrighted because it was written down or recorded. When an improv troupe does a skit on a stage without cameras or recording devices present, don't they hold some copyright on what they've done? (Well, I guess that really doesn't matter for WP -- unless someone posts a verbatim script in an article for a particular troupe.)
I'm thinking that something like Image:Alpine.jpg that shows the whole stage for a concert is different from something that just shows a closeup of the band or artist in question.
—  MusicMaker5376 22:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, works that have not been fixed in a "tangible medium of expression" are not covered by copyright - "Examples would include choreography that has never been filmed or notated, an extemporaneous speech, original works of authorship communicated solely through conversations or live broadcasts, a dramatic sketch or musical composition improvised or developed from memory and without being recorded or written down." (S. Rpt. 94-473). If a lighting designer works "on the fly during a concert" and never fixed in some medium than his efforts are not eligible for copyright protection. However, what he does may be eligible for other methods of protecting intellectual property - perhaps a utility patent, design patent, or even a trademark. —RP88 03:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
With regard to lighting and stage design of a concert, a photograph would violate any potential copyright because it is not a recreation of the arrangement - that is, it is not a derivative work. (There is only one case where a lighting arrangement's copyright was explicitely stated and enforced, see Eiffel Tower) In any case, our task here is not to dilly-dally in the hypothetical legal ramifications of photography, as intellectual property law is a complex field and we are not lawyers. There's a strong precedent, at least on Commons, for accepting concert photographs under free licenses. If you think that this precedent is somehow flawed, picking out a single image for inquisition is not necessarily the way to go. You would get a more definitive response at commons:Commons talk:Licensing. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Permission link (Paragraph from middle section)

After getting permission from family memebers or friends for using their image in wikipedia then do I need to mention their Written permission link in image description page? It seems to me quite funny. How do I mention the source? --NAHID 11:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Forward the email to ShadowHalo 20:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

(Below the question wasn't answered)--NAHID 21:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

  • What if they just say You can use the picture. Then How can I mention the source and as well as license? Thanks in advance--NAHID 22:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
If that's all you have, then you can't use the picture on Wikipedia. Sorry. —RP88 21:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll expand a bit - Wikipedia has a page at WP:COPYREQ that helps to explain how to go about requesting permission to use other people's work in Wikipedia. In particular, Wikipedia needs them to agree to either license their photo using the GFDL or one of the other standard free licenses or they must agree to allow modification, redistribution, and use for any purpose, including commercial purposes. Furthermore, it's not sufficient for you to just say they told you that - you have to be able to prove they gave you permission. —RP88 21:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What to do when uploading a record/cd artwork Image:LhfdKiani.jpg

Hi, I am trying to expand articles of singers and also uploading images of their cds, but trying to figure out how to (almost got there) and how to tag them is proving a real problem. So far I have understood that you can upload covers with no problem. After uploading the image I got a message saying that the image is missing an image tag, and I thought I had put one, however, how can I go back to check? I cannot seem to go to the image page or edit it.--Dollvalley 10:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You need to add the code {{albumcover}}. Make sure to also include a detailed fair use rationale. For an example of one, see Image:HGG.jpg, which is used in the featured article Hollaback Girl. ShadowHalo 10:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi ShadowHalo and thanks for the tip, I went back to the pages and found a way to do it. I do have another question. Can I use a picture in the album booklet to add on the main singer's page? I am able to add the author of the picture as it is listed in the credits. (Of course I don't have his permission, though). --Dollvalley 10:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It depends how it's used. If you take a look at Lindsay Lohan, there is an album cover used there. Note that it's being used in the section about her music career to illustrate the album itself. It's fine to do something like that, so long as there is appropriate commentary about the album. However, it would not be appropriate to use the cover in the infobox or anywhere else where it would be illustrating her (as a person). ShadowHalo 10:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks SH, makes sense. However at this point I wonder, the singer in question, Mary Kiani's status in the business is singer so, a picture from the album booklet might be considered ok to represent her page? That would be debatable I am sure :) However, what are your views on the legal use of the picture, since it is not the cover or back cover of the album? Thanks for your time by the way --Dollvalley 11:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know what you mean. Image:LhfdKiani.jpg states that the picture is the cover of the album. (Assuming it is the cover, it'd be appropriate to put in the section about the album, but not at the top of the page.) ShadowHalo 11:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Initially I thought I would not have any picture on her main page, at least not one that is not an album or single cover, however INSIDE the album booklet (so, not the album cover) there is an additional picture that could be used and is a good representation of the singer's image.

Oh, I see what you mean. No, it wouldn't be appropriate to use that. The first fair use criterion says that if it is possible to create a free picture, then a copyrighted one shouldn't be used. Since Kiani is still alive and making public appearances/performances, it's possible for a Wikipedian to take a picture of her. I'll add a photo request to the talk page though. ShadowHalo 12:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


What is the capital of Oregan.

Salem, Oregon. In the future, your question belongs at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. ShadowHalo 13:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


i've been doing my school for about 2 hours now and I need help onthis question!

(in the double helix shape of DNA, what series of nucleotides would match the nucleotide series G-A-C-T? I would appreciate it if anyone can help me thank's!

This page is for questions about copyright with relation to wikipedia but see Base pair.Geni 19:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Closing Discussion

After closing discussion of an image (KEEP), is it likely to be tagged again with any deletion template (any kind of del. template including RFU and AFD)? If someone tag the image again, then can any user / uploader remove that deletion template (since the closing discussion was keep)? --NAHID 18:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Things can be relisted for deletion. Happens with articles from time to time and isn't completely unknow with images.Geni 19:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I should have mentioned IFD instead of AFD. However, after closing discussion (KEEP) of an image and If it's tagged again then can other user has the right to remove the tag (since the the closing discussion was keep). Thanks--NAHID 19:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
No. If an image is renominated for deletion, even after a previous nomination ended in Keep, it has to go through the same process again. However, an editor who repeatedly nominates an image that previously passed could be considered to be acting in bad faith and might get a warning or face other sanction. —RP88 20:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

How do i edit my image to enter the copyright info?

Hi, I recently uploaded a picture onto wikipedia...under this topic..

it has come to my attention that i haven't supplied the copyright information, so I was wondering, how do I edit the picture so as to enter the correct copyright information? thanks. --Krakaet 00:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately, because this a wiki, almost any page can be edited by anyone. To add the copyright information to you image, click on the link that you've supplied. It will take you to what is called the "image description page" (this is the image description page; this is the image). Then click the button at the top of the page that says "edit this page."
I see you've added a link to where you got the image. That's great! What would be especially helpful is another link to the page where you got the image. For example, if the image you uploaded were, the page where you got it from might be Then indicate the copyright status by tagging the image with an image copyright tag. If you need any additional help, please come back and I or another user will be happy to help. --Iamunknown 00:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

PDF help

Tech Support -

How do I post that the PDF I posted --

It's copyrighted to me as of DEC 2006. What do I need to do to 'tag' this on the wiki page?

Thanks, MRF 03.16

Tech Support -

Please help me post a copyright tag for my article posted on...

Thanks, Soma Boy 07:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Mark R. Filippi, DC

Hello. In order for uploaded content to remain on Wikipedia it must be useful to us and freely licensed. While you will always retain the copyright on this work, you must license it freely so that others can use it. Please select a license from Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses and edit the page of this PDF to include that tag. Also, please include the item in an article on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a free file host. If you had intended to use us for that purpose, no harm done, do nothing and the file will be deleted within a week. There are many websites that will host your PDF for free, just search for them. If you had intended to write this as an article, we cannot accept PDF input for an article. You will have to start the article (or edit an existing one) and cut/paste the information into the article. You are still certainly welcome to stay and help us build a free encyclopedia. Good luck! --MECUtalk 17:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Image from two years ago help

I recently posted a picture and I got that message about copyright, but it is just a picture I took two years ago so I am not sure what I should do about this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccer_trekkie (talkcontribs)

If you took the image, then you are free to license it as you wish. Please see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses and select the one that is appropriate. I like CC-BY-SA-2.5, but you may like another. Once you select the license, just go back to Image:DSCN0564.jpg and edit the page to add it. That's it! In the future, please select better filenames for your images. You should also specify the source of the image on the image page. In this case, stating something like "I took this image two years ago." would be appropriate. Good luck! --MECUtalk 17:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

How to tag an already uploaded image

Hi, I got a message saying the image is untagged. Please tell me in a step by step way how to get the image tagged. Thanks Nitin—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitinwork (talkcontribs)

Please sign your comments on talk pages with ~~~~. You can find image licenses at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. The appropriate license will depend on the source of the image. You can add source information and a license tag by editing the image you uploaded, just like any other page here, by clicking "edit this page" at the top of the page. However, the image you are asking about you have already uploaded twice before and the first time has a suitable license on it already: Image:Bhopal road.JPG. Please do not upload an item more than once. --MECUtalk 17:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Randy Quaid photos

In the past few months I had added 2 seperate photos of Randy Quaid to his page randyquaidvespa.jpg and randy quaidphoto.jpg. Both are free images to be used as directed per standard copyright laws. They have been since been deleted and I can't figure out why. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the criteria for free usage however I suppose i just don't understand how a screen grab is okay to use but an official headshot is not? I look forward to hearing from someone. Boston24 17:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This was explained quite well on your talk page. Please re-read it User talk:Boston24. Screenshots are only acceptable in some instances. Taking a screenshot of an actor to show what they look like would not be one of them. The main problem however is that we want free content, not just for our use, but for everyone else who re-uses our work. Any image that we must use under the fair use law limits this ability. Please re-read your talk page about this and the fair use policy here which should answer most of your questions, if not, please ask more specifically what your concerns are. Thank you and good luck! --MECUtalk 17:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess my question is - How more explicitly can I write the the images are free? Free for wikipedia, free for whoever needs to use them or "borrow" them from Wikipedia? No photo credit is needed, no photographer permission is needed, no additional licensing is needed..... Boston24 18:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Boston24, if the images are truly "free" their license should allow commercial reuse and derivative works. That is, any image I upload to Wikipedia under a "free" license can be used commercial by any large corporation without any compensation for my work. Fair use images, however, are not like that. You tagged your images with fair use templates, didn't you? (I don't know, I'm just interpreting from your user talk page.) Thus they are not free in terms of Wikipedia. --Iamunknown 18:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

so the images would just be deleted if they aren't free in terms of commercial usage by a large corporation? argh I'm so confused - I was under the impression that publcity photos could be used and would not be deleted if they met the criteria. would the additional photos have been deleted because there is already a screen grab on the intended page? the explanations and descriptions just seem to run me around in circles - any additional explanation would be greatly appreciated - Boston24 18:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we require free images to be able to used for commercial images. Promotional images aren't licensed under any free-enough-for-us license that we can use. You can attempt to email the owner(s) of the image(s) and ask them to license an image under a free license. The screen grab is okay because it's from 1989. We can't recreate what he looked like in that important part of his career. Please don't be frustrated. Understanding what is acceptable for use under fair use and what images we even allow is very complicated and you aren't the first or will be the last to have problems understanding or have questions. Keep trying and keep asking questions and eventually you will get it. --MECUtalk 20:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi, pardon an aside but this is confusingly inconsistent with my experience. Mecu wrote: "The screen grab is okay because it's from 1989. We can't recreate what he looked like in that important part of his career." Why was the official portrait photo of the mayor of Minneapolis that you deleted twice, who is no longer mayor and whose appearance in that role we cannot ever recreate, not okay with you? Thank you in advance for your comments. -Susanlesch 21:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
One good reason is that a politician's appearance isn't an important aspect of their function most of the time, but it is for an actor. Politicians aren't playing "roles"; they're just doing their jobs. Actors do play roles, of which their appearance is a significant aspect. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Professional Ice Hockey

Hello! In creating the article, I added several fair use images to the article. Those images are logos of various leagues in each country. That choice has spawned more debate than I'd dream could happen. Can we have a third or fourth or seventy-seventh party take a look please? The Evil Clown Please review me! 01:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyright Tags

How do I add a Copyright Tag? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexRampaul (talkcontribs) 02:22, 17 March 2007

To add the copyright information to an image, visit the image's description and click the button at the top of the page that says "edit this page." Make sure the description indicates the source of the image and who owns the copyright to the image. Then indicate the copyright status by appending an image copyright tag to the description (for example, add the text "{{GFDL}}" (but not the quotes) to indicate that an image is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. As a guideline, make sure that one of the following is true:
  • you own the all of the rights to the image (usually meaning that you created the image yourself and it doesn't depict the work of someone else), or
  • you can prove that the copyright holder has licensed the image under a free license, or
  • you can prove that the image is in the public domain, or
  • you believe it is fair use and have included on the image's description page a fair use rationale for the specific use of the image that you intend.
If none of the above are true, you'll need to ask the copyright holder to release the image under the GFDL or other free license. Wikipedia has a page at WP:COPYREQ that helps to explain how to go about requesting permission to use other people's work in Wikipedia. In particular, if they don't specifically agree to the GFDL or one of the other standard free licenses, they must agree to allow modification, redistribution, and use for any purpose, including commercial purposes. —RP88 12:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Photos of Latifa's page

I am trying to edit the photo's copyrights but for some reason i can't and they are going to be deleted in 2 days if i didn't fix it. The photos are owned by Latifa and her official website

Image:Latifa.jpg ImageLatifaAndCelineDionWMA2004.jpg radiant guy 10:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not working because the image Image:Latifa.jpg is not from Wikipedia, it's from Commons. See the note at the top that says "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. The description on its description page there is shown below." If you click the "description page there" link, you'll be redirected to the image at Commons (i.e. to commons:Image:Latifa.jpg). To edit it on Commons you'll need to create a Commons account, just like you created here on Wikipedia. —RP88 12:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyright infringement on my article from The Telegraph, Calcutta

For Wikipedia's entry on Jadavpur, Kolkata, the paragraph "At 12 noon...its maids" has been lifted verbatim from my (Sudeep Paul) oped article "Things fall apart at midday",published in The Telegraph, Calcutta on 22.01.07.This post is to inform you that the copyright of the article is owned by The Telegraph. Besides, lifting a paragraph from someone's article published in a newspaper and assimilating it with the rest of your entry is plagiarism.You are expected to delete the paragraph from your entry with immediate effect. 10:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)SUDEEP PAUL Kolkata(Calcutta), 17.03.07

I've removed it]. For future reference please note that this page is intended for Wikipedia users seeking help properly atributing uploaded images. To ensure that issues like this is acted upon in a timely fashon it's better to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Copyright. In this case I was eable to find the Telegraph article myself and verify your claim, but for more complex issues an e-mail will be more effective than an "anonymous" post on a page like this. --Sherool (talk) 13:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Blue Streak launch

I've uploaded a picture of a Blue Streak launch to which I failed to add a copyright tag. I cannot for the life of me see how I can go back and do that. Can you help, please?

Image:BSF1 Standard e-mail view.jpg

--Drg40 12:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Go to the image page, and click "edit this page". See the #Copyright Tags section above for more details. --Sherool (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Fortunately, because this a wiki, almost any page can be edited by anyone. To add the copyright information to your image, click on a link to your image (i.e. Image:BSF1 Standard e-mail view.jpg). This will take you to what is called the "image description page". Then click the button at the top of the page that says "edit this page." Make sure the description indicates the source of the image (including URL, if you have one) and who owns the copyright to the image. Then indicate the copyright status by appending an image copyright tag to the description. For example, add the text "{{GFDL}}" (but not the quotes) if you know the image is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. After you've done so, feel free to remove the "{{untagged|month=March|day=17|year=2007}}" tag. As a guideline, make sure that one of the following is true:
  • you own the all of the rights to the image (usually meaning that you created the image yourself and it doesn't depict the work of someone else), or
  • you can prove that the copyright holder has licensed the image under a free license, or
  • you can prove that the image is in the public domain, or
  • you believe it is fair use and have included on the image's description page a fair use rationale for the specific use of the image that you intend.
If none of the above are true, you'll need to ask the copyright holder to release the image under the GFDL or other free license. Wikipedia has a page at WP:COPYREQ that helps to explain how to go about requesting permission to use other people's work in Wikipedia. In particular, if they don't specifically agree to the GFDL or one of the other standard free licenses, they must agree to allow modification, redistribution, and use for any purpose, including commercial purposes. If you need any additional help, please come back and I or another user will be happy to help. —RP88 13:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Vinyl Art by kingofthefield.jpg

This image seems to have been released into the PD, but denotes that it is by "kingofthefield". I have no idea if "kingofthefield" asked permission for such an image to be posted. Besides, there's no real source data. TheLH 12:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Kingofthefield is a photographer who posts his work under that name on DeviantArt, which appears to have been the source for these images. I have contacted the photographer there about this, and will take care of it if he says this was done without his permission. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
For the record, Kingofthefield replied to me on DA and confirmed that he was indeed the uploader of these images. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Can these things even be released into the public domain? The album covers don't seem to be non-trivial parts of the work, so doesn't much of the copyright belong to the record label? ShadowHalo 03:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


How do I prove that my image is not replaceable (039.jpg) and how do I attach my reason to the picture? Please help!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reggie27 (talkcontribs).

Read Fair use. Then read Wikipedia:Fair use. Then, if you are still convinced the image is replaceable, follow the instructions in the tag currently on the image description page to explain what the image shows and why what it shows cannot be conveyed by a free image or by text. —xyzzyn 00:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Problem with adding copyright info

I have created an image myself and are happy to put it into the public domain. I thought I'd put the correct tags and have added licence info, but there are still warnings about it not be correct. Can anyone add a suitable tag for me: Image:ChessDB-on-Solaris.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drkirkby (talkcontribs) 01:25, 18 March 2007

Dr. Kirkby, since you're online right now, I'll answer your question on your talk page. —RP88 01:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


Image talk:Samus's cameo in Galactic Pinball screenshot.png - There is a disagreement over whether stating what video game this is from constitutes adequate source information, or whether the name of the person that took the screenshot is also needed. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyright to game screenshots belong to the people who developed the game. If it has been modified into a new creative work the author of this may be entitled to copyright to his changes, but this will not overrule the original copyright to the visuals used (and I believe there are court cases where the copyright to unauthorosed derivative works have been awarded to the owner of the source material anyway). In this case it seems like a straight gameplay screenshot of a unmodded game so while IANAL I'd say whoever took the screenshot is completely irrelevant. --Sherool (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyright tags?

How do I use a copyright tag to indicate that an image is public domain? I received two messages about images I've uploaded Image:Fashionclass3.jpg and Image:Fashionclass3.jpg on my talk page from OrphanBot. I included the disclaimer on the website where I found them which reads:

"Copyright Notice

Unless specifically stated otherwise, all information on the High School of Fashion Industries website at and is in the public domain, and may be reproduced, published or otherwise used without HSFI's permission. This statement does not pertain to information at web sites other than and, whether funded by HSFI or not."

However, I haven't been able to figure out what I need to do. The various help articles must be to advanced for my simple mind. I would appreciate if someone responded to my question on my talk page. Thanks!

--ArtsyNani 16:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You can use the {{PD-because}} template to tag images from the site (I've gone ahead and added it to the two images). ShadowHalo 16:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much!
--ArtsyNani 17:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

How do I tag my image that I placed?

Please get back to me, Robrodo

how do I tag my picture? Robrodo 21:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


Image:Joe Hill signature.JPG - copyright status? Is it creative enough to have some kind of copyright on it? if not, shouldn't it be tagged {{PD-ineligible}}? Hbdragon88 22:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

City Goverment Copyright?

I was under the assumption that all Government, weather it be city, state, or federal was exempt from copyright.

The reason I ask is I was trying to create the current Mayors page for my city. I did some Google searching and found that there was a prior attempt but the page info was copied directly from the bio from the city's home page as was the image of the mayor.


---Andrew 00:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You were under a mistaken impression. It's only works of the Federal government that are automatically public domain. Works of state and local governments are in general protected by copyright. So any article you write here, images included, must be your own work. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyright of own photos

Okay, so what did I do wrong? I put some pictures onine that I took myself and added the {pd_self} tag just like Wikipedia told me to do. And now Orphanbot is telling me I don't have the copyright information added. What am I missing? The photos are:

image:Arapahoe TownHall.JPG and Image:Neuse River Arapahoe.JPG

Can someone explain to me what I am missing? Kacey 00:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I got it. orphanBot wasn't recognizing the template. You need to put the template within two curly brackets - {{pd-self}} for it to show up. I just did it for you. You're good. Hbdragon88 01:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleting image that was uploaded by mistake

By accident, I selected the wrong image (one that I didn't have copyright to) to upload. When I realized my mistake I replaced it with the correct image, one I created. I tried to delete the old image but it said I didn't have permission to remove it. " The action you have requested is limited to users in the group Administrators."

"# (del) (rev) 04:27, 19 March 2007 . . Yahuzs (Talk | contribs) . . 250×254 (29,764 bytes) (I took this picture at the Breeders' Cup at Churchill Downs. The sign is above the paddock. ) "

This is wrong, I didn't create this & want to remove it so I don't get removed.

To have an image that you mistakenly uploaded speedy deleted, add the code {{db-author}} to the page. ShadowHalo 05:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleting Orphaned/Unlinked images

I'd like to delete some images that I didn't link to pages. One is this: "License tagging for Image:Sacred Light.jpg" They are public domain/free images that I took myself. --Yahuzs 03:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If you really want to delete them, edit the image description pages and add {{db-author}}. But if you've released them to PD, please do consider uploading them to the Commons. They may well be useful to someone, and that's the place to deposit free media. TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Image Uploading

How do you upload an image? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Takaja (talkcontribs).

This page is not for technical questions like this. See WP:UPIMAGE for instructions. Be sure to familiarize yourself with policy, particularly on the subject of licenses and copyrights. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Changing the size of a picture

Hi, can anynone help me about changing the size of one of my uploaded picture? I mean, I want to reduce the size because it takes lot of space of the article. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Curunvir (talkcontribs).

Done. Tyrenius 11:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Fan Art

I recently noticed the Fan art article, which was not supported by an image. As I had found a -typical- example of fan art depicting the Simpsons from deviantART, I uploaded it. However, I did not know which copyright tag would be appropriate, as I had not contacted the author, but he/she stated explicitly on her user page that he/she allowed his/her work to be used on condition that he/she was mentioned as the original creator. Afterwards, I chose the non-commercial use tag, and I found that the file had been listed for speedy deletion. Should I have placed the tag which indicates that I contacted the author and place links to the pages where he states that he waives all copyrights? If so, can I replace the tag on the image now, or do I have to wait for it to be deleted and upload it again?--Orthologist 15:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that the author is able to freely release it. The characters of The Simpsons are copyrighted by Fox, so I'm pretty sure that Fox owns part of the copyright to fan art of the show. ShadowHalo 19:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems that fanart is a gray area, as someone replaced the tag on the image, so it is acceptable. Moreover, the author was offered a job position by the Simpsons due to the quality of his work [17], so I think the creators approve of it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orthologist (talkcontribs) 19:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC).


is there a section on a manga series called Chaosic Rune?-- 20:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the diffences between A moral and B moral ?

how do I tag a photo I just uploaded

The photo I uploaded has a comment that says I need to add a copyright tag. How do I do this? It's a photo I shot myself, and I'm happy to let others use it.

-DHS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doontass (talkcontribs) 04:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

You have to decide what free license you want to make it available under, or perhaps to release it to the public domain. Once you do that, find the appropriate tag here Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses, or use {{PD-self}} for public domain. Then go to the image page and click the "edit" link. Add the tag -- which is the bits with the curly braces -- to the text there, removing the template for the warning message (another thing with curly braces) and save it. You might also want to add {{ImageSummary}} or {{CommonsImageSummary}} so that an automated bot won't mistakenly re-tag it as lacking source information. Be sure to fill in the summary with all the applicable parameters. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


how i put my picture in other page

is there a section on a manga series called Chaosic Rune

And apparently not. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Process & Procedure Definitions

Business Process is defined as:A set of linked activities that create value by transforming an input into a more valuable output. Both input and output can be artifacts and/or information and the transformation can be performed by human actors, machines, or both.

Procedure is defined as A specification of the series of actions, acts or operations which have to be executed in the same manner in order to obtain always the same result in the same circumstances (for example, emergency procedures). Less precisely speaking, this word can indicate a sequence of activities, tasks, steps, decisions, calculations and processes, that when undertaken in the sequence laid down produces the described result, product or outcome. A procedure usually induces a change.

Unfortunatelly, I cannot undertand the difference between the process and the procedure (or even better the relationship between them).

As far as BPM (Business Process Management) is concerned, I knew that Process as a definition refers to an overall view (high level) and Procedure is a part of a process, which is more detailed.

For example: Process: Sell X Product

            Procedure: Find target group, Contact to this group the product, Advertise the product..... etc.

That's what I knew, but now I am quite confused.... Please help me (and forgive my English, because I am not a native speaker)!

This page is for questions about copyright issues relating to media hosted on Wikipedia's servers. Please direct your question to the appropriate category of the Reference Desk. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Says my image doesn't have tag, but it does. help

Image:Escudo1Ira.jpg I used a template I found on wikipedia for government seals. I added a description and source of where the image was obtained as well as date. What's missing? Davelapo555 06:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You had substed the template. Copyright templates shouldn't be substed; they often end up improperly categorized that way, and the bots don't recognize it. ShadowHalo 07:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! much appreciated. Davelapo555 07:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


since the copyright thing on herring2.jpg says permission is given to modify it and stuff, does that mean i should use {{GDFL}}? --Piemanmoo 08:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, assuming that you made the modification, it should be tagged with {{GFDL}}. ShadowHalo 08:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thanks a bunch! --Piemanmoo 11:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)



Can you please get copyright from Google earth and upload the same file for me as I am not able to understand. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mshafqat (talkcontribs) 10:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Images from Google Earth are copyrighted and should generally not be used here. ShadowHalo 10:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Problem with (C) tag on Xpress_cover.jpg

Please advise what I have done wrong with Image:Xpress_cover.jpg - I have written as much as I can, followed as many guidelines as I could find and still I get a warning saying I have not given enough info! Many thanks, S —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lockes (talkcontribs) 13:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC).Please notify me of any replies on my talk page --Lockes 13:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

clear as mud...

re. Image:jon-donaldson-color.jpg There does not seem to be any copyright category that fits the simple, surely very common form: 'this is a family photograph, whose owner has given permission for its use in any context'

How am I supposed to categorise this without threats of its imminent destruction? Sorry to get overheated about it, but it is frustrating...--Ndaisley 16:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ndaisley (talkcontribs) 16:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Since you know the owner of the image, it is up to them how to release it. If she releases it into the public domain, you could use {{PD-because}} and state that the owner of the image released it into PD.↔NMajdantalk 16:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Right, thank you very much! --Ndaisley 16:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


How do I obey the copyright law?

I want to include a paragraph from a reference book on a Home Page.

One paragraph quoted from a much larger work for the purpose of criticism or commentary is fair use. However, if by "home page" you meant a Wikipedia user page, it's contrary to Wikipedia policy to place fair use material there even if it's otherwise legal. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

copyright imaging for a music video screenshot

i've edited my file >>> Image:Ayumi1&4.jpg <<<four times now and i HAVE put this up...


BUT, it still says i havent put up my copyright and will be deleted.. but i have put copyright up!


I checked and you forgot to provide either the license or the detailed fair-use rationale. I also can't find the critical commentary on Step you/is this Love? that you would be using to justify using this screenshot so as it stands, the image violates that license. --Yamla 17:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
You have to click "edit this page" while looking at the image description page. You can't re-uploading an image to replace/modify the text for the original image. --MECUtalk 18:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, both of you! [o: (do I delete this section now?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Auzzzzz (talkcontribs) 18:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

avatar episodes

Why don't you ever save my Avatar: The Last Airbender episode changes to wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jimblack (talkcontribs) 21:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

This is the wrong place for this question. Please direct it to Talk:List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes. It's evident from the page history that other editors reverted your changes. You'll have to ask them why there. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dr. S Z Hasan -- Col-jpg.jpg

This image is taken from the family-owned photograph meant for use with publications. There is no objection from the family for its use if used properly, decently. What should now be done to make this image acceptable/usable with the WIKIPEDIA article now posted/Salizaf 05:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)SALIZAF

Image:Neelie Kroes.jpg

I recently uploaded Image:Neelie Kroes.jpg, the source states: "Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged, save where otherwise stated.". So can I use cc-by-sa-2.5 for this image? - Ilse@ 15:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say probably not. They don't say anything about allowing people to use it for commercial purposes or allowing derivative works. ShadowHalo 15:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I decided to mark the image as fair use, and included the statement above in the fair use rationale. - Ilse@ 13:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Tagging an image.


The image has been uploaded already. How do we assign a tag to an image? And how do we delete an image. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freedom Project Jump Off (talkcontribs) 05:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

You can tag an image by finding the appropriate tag at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and adding the appropriate code to the page. Make sure to add the source of the image and, when using copyrighted material, a detailed fair use rationale. ShadowHalo 07:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Jean Baudin - Copyright's problem

Same text in this article (under GFDL) & in the artist's MySpace (under copyright) [18]. I guess there is something wrong.

(Same problem on Wp in french, whose text translates one of above's.)

Hope you can solve this. Chaoborus 12:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

For instructions on how to report a suspected copyright infringement, please see WP:CP. —RP88 17:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The fact is... I look at WP:CP and I don't understand what I should do. List the problem there ? Chaoborus 00:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Old Photos

I am would like to use some old photos in an article that appear in a book published in 1972. One is of a minister who lived in the 19th Century. I don't know the precise date of his death, but it is unlikely he lived until 1910, and the photo would have been taken circa 1889. It has been published in at least two other documents since then. The other is a painting in the same book dating from 1891. Am I at liberty to make a copy of them and post them to Commons on the grounds that the original works of art are well past their copyright date? Ben MacDui (Talk) 21:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If you're in the US, then yes. The appropriate tag is {{PD-US}}. The issue isn't the subject of the photos, but the photographer. You therefore cannot use {{PD-old}} since its perfectly possible he died less than 100 years ago. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Sadly I am not in the US, which I should have mentioned. Ben MacDui (Talk) 22:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh crap. UK copyright law. What a mess. Sorry, but I'm not going to even try to work this out. It depends on the publication history of the photo and whether the photo was commissioned or taken by the photographer on his own. (Back in those days, in the former case the commissioner owned the copyright and in the latter the photographer.) So I think that if you can work out for a fact that the photo was first published before 1957, you're safe in assuming its PD. Otherwise it might be, but not necessarily. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks for your help. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the appropriate copyright tag for an image of an album cover scanned by the owner of the album.

I have uploaded an image of an album cover


The image was produced by myself scanning the cover of my own album. I am now asked to provide a copyright tag. I would like to do so, but the problem is: I have no idea what the appropriate tag should be in this case. Could someone please help? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Caracolx (talkcontribs) 18:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

{{albumcover}}. Please be sure to include a detailed rationale as to why the image meets our fair use criteria. ShadowHalo 01:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Picture Copyright

I did Upload Alot of Al Ittihad Football Player And i Have all rights from the Photographer " Mohamed Al Deeb & Samir Al Taweel" to use this picturesImage:Makhlof.jpg in wikipedia Al-Ittihad

What should i do to Approve to you that they gave me this right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bentaher (talkcontribs) 19:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

You can forward the email to so that an administrator with OTRS access can verify the image's copyright status. ShadowHalo 01:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

1) What is Wolf's condition? 2) What is Humphrey and Maud's plan? 3)Why does Humphrey now think he can kill Wolf ?


I emailed the owners of [19] and they said all images are in public domain, the only thing I cant find is the public domain tag.

{{PD-author}}. Make sure to forward a copy of the email to so the permission can be verified and archived. ShadowHalo 01:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I forgot something

I accidentally forgot to put a copyright on the image: How can i possibly undo this --Sakimichi 02:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

when did the author release it under a creative commons licsense?Geni 03:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Scheda.jpg

The uploaded image was copied from US Palermo official website, can anyone help me to arrange the image become useful? Thank you! --Antony Lam 03:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That’s a copyrighted non-free image of a living person. We cannot use it on Wikipedia. Please try to find a free image of the same person instead. —xyzzyn 03:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

How to tag an Image?

I am trying to get the GFDL or GNU tag for this image, but am very confused. Can someone help? Here is the imageImage:Rakeop2patch.jpg- Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robbotis (talkcontribs) 16:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Are you sure that's licensed under the GFDL or GNU? It looks like creating derivative works is prohibited. ShadowHalo 16:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I created the original, and this one. How do I get it licensed? These instructions on here are Greek to me. Thanks --Otis 17:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What you you mean by "created the original"? It may seem like a silly question and easy answer, but your answer could mean a big difference in the license allowed. --MECUtalk 18:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyright issue with image

The image I'm working with I've been given permission by the photographer, and the copyright holder to place on Wikipedia. It is to serve as a reference to the product on the Wikipedia page. How do I make it so it is not listed for speedy deletion?



Permission for Wikipedia only is not an agreement we want, because of our mission to produce free, reusable content. You should forward any Wikipedia:Copyright-compliant releases to permissions AT wikimedia DOT org, where they will be archived. Jkelly 20:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction on Image:Middle-earth.jpg

If Wikipedia as a hole is GFDL, isn't this a contradiction - either you can copy that image under the conditions of the GFDL, or you are 'fair using' it - we can't have both at the same time. Or am I missing something? --Branislav Jovanovic 08:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say that fair use would be correct, until I looked at the image talk page where last July a source was given and quoted as saying it's under the GFDL, by a user whose sole contribution was to upload that image and with a username simliar to the website source. Another user saw that last July and put the license under GFDL on the image page. However, current versions of that source do not support that GFDL license. Asking the user who "verified" this license at the time would probably be the best step, though AGF means we just have to take the license and image as is, though it does need to be cleaned up as I can see a scroll bar from the screen capture. But yes, you were right in seeing that a fair use template and a GFDL template should not belong on the same page. --MECUtalk 11:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

project charter

I have an assignment to compile a project charter for publishing a project management book.

So I would like to get some guidlines on how I can go about starting this assignment,from initiation to close out, identifying the stakeholders and objectives,deliverables and 15:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC) so on.

My e-mail: forward to hearing anything that could be of assistance.

KP cele material

I am a HomeCooking follower on, and was recently informed that Wiki and About have differences of opinion. Wiki editors are removing About material [text not images]. True? and what is happening?? --Dumarest 11:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that there has been some kind of miscommunication here. Wikipedia editors edit articles on Wikipdeia., which reuses Wikipedia content, update their pages regularly. If an article is deleted here, for instance, will have the article one day, but not the next. This is precisely how things are supposed to work. Jkelly 20:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
But but but - what might cause an article to be deleted here?? usually a Wiki article continues on. I will try to find out what articles might be involved.--Dumarest 21:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
You can read about how deletion works at Wikipedia:Deletion. Common reasons to delete articles include a lack of sources for us to create a verifiable article from, content not being encyclopedic (such as dictionary definitions, or recipes), or copyright infringement, but there are many others. Jkelly 21:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

no copyright?

So what do you pick if an image just doesn't have a copyright? If there's copyright info, then that's available, but if there's no copyright info, there's no info STATING that it's not copyrighted, correct? So what type of tag would you apply to an image like that? --SSMatt 16:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If you're referring to a picture, every photograph taken since 1978 is automatically copyrighted. Unless there is an explicit statement that allows free use of the picture, the image is copyrighted. ShadowHalo 16:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
What if the image is that of something that is in the public domain? In particular, a US Gov't tax stamp from 1945. In which case, there should not even be a category for "public domain because it is a US stamp from before year XXXX" since we can never have the actual stamps but only the images. Image:Producer_of_marihuana.jpg --drauh 21:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
{{PD-USGov-Treasury}}? —xyzzyn 21:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Publicity shot of TV character

Hi, I attempted to use an publicity shot from IMDB for the page I created for Brenda Leigh Johnson. If this is not allowable, how do people get permission to use images of TV characters? I know a lot of pages have pictures like what I tried to use... e.g. Robert Goren. What so I do? But making it a publicity shot, isn't it allowable? Otherwise, I wouldn't know whether to contact IMDB, TNT, or the actress herself... Thanks for any advice or help! --ktoonen 19:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't need permission to use images of TV characters; however, you do need to make sure that the image meets every criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. Make sure to tag the image with {{Fair use in}}; for example the image of Brenda Leigh Johnson should be tagged with {{Fair use in|Brenda Leigh Johnson}}. Make sure to also include the source of the image and a detailed fair use rationale that explains why the image meets the fair use criteria. ShadowHalo 23:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

non-profit/educational use only

If I'm given the option of uploading my artwork/photography as "for non-profit/educatioanal use only", why do I not really have that option? Why not simply not make that an option when I upload my work?

Also, if I upload a photograph I made, does the permission for any purpose apply only to the image file uploaded? That is, if I upload a small file, will a commercial user be allowed to use a larger version, say, by interpolating the image, etc? Of course, I'm not going to send a full-sized image file to anyone who requests it.Dfcully 20:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia content, images and text, is released under the GFDL so any image uploaded has to meet at least these standards. So, any image uploaded to Wikipedia must be licensed for any purpose, including commercial uses, and derivative works must be allowed.↔NMajdantalk 20:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The reason it is an option in the drop-down menu is that many users simply do not believe that they cannot upload such content to Wikipedia, and then choose another option, which creates a mess. Jkelly 21:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
About your second question, I wanna make sure I know what you mean. Suppose you take a picture at 2400x1800px. You want to contribute to the article but you don't want others to be redistributing high resolution versions of your work, so you upload the picture under a free license at only 400x300px and add it to the article. If you did this, then the small version would be freely licensed, but so far as I can tell, you would still maintain your copyright to the original. ShadowHalo 23:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes. That is a perfectly legitemate way to do it. Releasing something under a free license does not mean you give up any of your rights to it. Just that you grant others the (irrevokable) right to use the copy you released freely per the terms of the license. So if you for example want to only release a "low resolution" copy under a free license you are fully within your rights to do so and it does not violate any Wikipedia rules either (so long as the images does not contain any visible watermarking or photo credits in the image itself). --Sherool (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


I have added an image of the caracter of Chewie from the Star Wars because somebody deleted the previous image I fought that there should have been an image of him. I have added a new Image Image:Chewie.jpg and put the source but don't know which tag too put. Can you help thanks.Top Gun 01:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

We will have to use this image under fair use. Please read our fair use policy and then use the appropriate tag from Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Fair use and write a fair use rationale in accordance with the policy. Thank you. --MECUtalk 15:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

How To get an image on the page?

  • I clicked Edit.
  • Than add picture.
  • Then Example picture came up!
  • Then I clicked That!
  • Then Upload!

And I don't know why it is opening an new link for the picture,when I want to add it to a place with other pictures and words(etc). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Accarino995 (talkcontribs) 14:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Have you gone though WP:IMAGE? I'm going to guess that you are talking about this image for List of Ben 10 episodes? It appears you figured out how to add the image to the page. However, you also uploaded the same image 3 other times and never provided a source for any of the images. Please provide the source of the image and a fair use rationale for use of this image to comply with our fair use policy. --MECUtalk 15:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

How to add a tag?

How do I add a copyright tag? This image is mine and would like to have it as a free of copyright. Thinkfilmwest 18:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to use the same license as you put on this image you uploaded, go to the other two images you uploaded, click "edit this page" and put {{PD-self}}. --MECUtalk 22:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Public Domain

Why has the criteria all of a suddent changed from: PD-old = This applies to the United States, Canada, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years.


"This applies to the United States, Canada, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years." ?? Milliot 26 March, 2007

Template:PD-old has been 100 years for a year now. See Template talk:PD-old#100 v. 70. You may want to use Template:PD-old-70. --MECUtalk 22:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of image Image:Kate Ceberano.jpg


I have had the image Kate Ceberano.jpg deleted this image from the page Kate Ceberano - I am the webmaster for Kate Ceberano and we are would like to have an image of Kate published on Wikipedia from her website. What comments / licence should I use to ensure the image does not get deleted?


enzymes 22:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

When you upload the image, you need to use one of the licenses at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses. I recommend {{cc-by-sa-2.0}}, but you can select your own. You can only release an image under these free licenses if you hold the copyright to the image. Be sure to specify the source, even if it's "I took this image". If you are using it on your website as well, you may wish to state that the image can also be found at [url], but as the webmaster for the site and copyright holder, you are allowed to release the image under this license. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials#Granting us permission to copy material already on line for more information in that case. Good luck, and come back if you need more help. --MECUtalk 22:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


Please could you check if i have changed the copyright ...etc...correctly to this image. Thank you

Image:Drachten gig.jpg --Debbywebby2006 23:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the {{untagged}} template since you have {{attribution}} on there. However, the {{cc-by-2.5}} template isn't quite right. Actually it's {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} that requires that any derivative works are under the same license; it's possible for someone to modify a cc-by-2.5 image and put a more restrictive copyright on it (though they still have to acknowledge you as an author). Also, the parameter for both templates should be the way you want to be attributed (your name, username, website, etc.) instead of a summary of the license. ShadowHalo 23:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

how do I tag this image? It needs to be tagged


expiry of copyright

(copied here from the general help desk)

I've gotten into a (so far good-natured) disagreement over copyright expiry with a potential copyright holder, and would like to verify that I don't misunderstand the copyright regulations as well as to get help for a dispute resolution that will leave everyone feeling okay.

The story: I've uploaded several images whose authors have clearly died more than 70 years ago (e.g., architectural sketches by Thomas Jefferson: example). Now someone from one of the Special Collections of the University of Virginia Library has asked me to add "Copyright, Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia" to the images. (I had contacted them with a question about the authorship of further images and had indicated which article I wished to use them for; in this article he saw the images that I'm talking about.)

My opinion: I replied that there seemed to be a misunderstanding--to my knowledge, copyright expires 70 years after the death of the author (at the end of the year); copies of two-dimensional works don't represent copyrightable material and thus are not copyrighted beyond the 70 years either; and derivative work of those copies (i.e. my edited, uploaded images) cannot be copyrighted either. Bottomline: I can't attribute copyright to the Library because the works are not copyrighted.

Status quo: I got a friendly reply, saying that the person writing to me was no copyright attorney and could not "confirm or deny with any hope of accuracy [my] interpretation of the copyright laws". And he reiterated his request that I add the line about the Library's copyright to the pictures.

My problem: I don't know where best to go from here and would appreciate any help and suggestions: Am I grossly misunderstanding something about copyrights? (I've even started looking up some legal texts, but don't see what I may be misinterpreting; and the interpretation seems to be common on Wikipedia.) If not, how do I find a good solution with the Library? I definitely don't want to alienate them (esp. not as Wikipedia is seen as part of this--the UVa Library is a great library, they have nice online resources and could still be a valuable resource for other Wikipedians). On the other hand, I've even heard something about it being illegal (?) to claim a copyright that doesn't exist [could someone fill me in with the correct facts and the terminology?], so Wikipedia obviously shouldn't claim something like that if it's not true. Besides, if the works are copyrighted, we're of course getting into trouble with the licensing...

My request: Again, any recommendations, explanations (are there controversies about the interpretation of the copyright laws which could explain the Library's stand?), anything would be very appreciated. Relatedly, I'd love to know the exact meaning of "Courtesy of..." - I've seen several authors used the Library's materials with that line underneath the images. Does it have any legal implication? Would it be "okay" to write that into the description of the images even if they were not (!) downloaded from the resp. Library? etc. etc. Thanks!!! --Ibn Battuta 23:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll start off by stating IANAL. However, the copyright on any images made by Thomas Jefferson has expired. According to Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., if a museum (or anyone) makes faithful reproductions of these works, the reproductions are also public domain. So far as I know, there is nothing that requires you to state "Courtesy of"; however, you may choose to do so if you want. ShadowHalo 02:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
On this issue, Wikipedia relies on an element of United States case law; in this case the court's decision in Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. Although this is not binding on courts outside the jurisdiction where it was issued, it creates a precedent that other judges might be inclined to follow. The commonly used {{PD-art}} tag relies on it to assert that a simple reproduction of public domain 2-dimensional art is not itself copyrightable. Also see WP:PD# Non-creative works. This is a guideline, not policy, but it's universally followed here. Note however that this only applies in the US at best. Unless other countries have statutory laws saying essentially the same thing, we can't say for sure that this would be PD anywhere else. And since it's not binding on courts throughout the country as a Supreme Court decision would be -- or a Circuit Court of Appeals, which would carry more weight over a larger area than a district court would -- there will be cases where people will claim copyright where we here do not believe it exists.
We should not apply their copyright notice, which would complicate things for us here under Wikipedia policy anyway. (We could probably use a low-resolution version of it under fair use though, since it's unique.) Write them back and direct them to here. Staff will evaluate their copyright claim and remove the media if it is valid. But it most likely isn't.
"Courtesy of..." is nothing more than an identification of the image source, expressed in a polite way. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Source of claim in Template:Military-Insignia

The template claims that:

"Copyrighting combatant identification and/or rank insignia violates international law; hence this image cannot be copyrighted and belongs to the public domain. This applies worldwide"

Has anyone heard of such a law?DGtal 10:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was part of the Geneva convention - but upon researching it - I can't find it referenced. It should really be documented on the template in some way. I'll try chasing the templates creator. Megapixie 00:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The insignia are licence free (ask in the next military shop around the corner). Wandalstouring 01:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
In the US that would be true of US insignia regardless of international law, as a matter of Federal law. But is the same true for, say, France? If so, what law makes it so? If the guy in the military shop around the corner knows the answer to that one, come tell us. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I suspect that the reasoning here is as follows: the Hague Convention requires that combatants be identified by fixed, recognizable insignia. For this to be practical, it would obviously be necessary that these insignia be documentable by other parties; hence, copying them cannot be prohibited.
(But obviously I'm neither an attorney nor someone with any real expertise in international law; so take that with a large grain of salt.) Kirill Lokshin 05:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I see the logic, but that can only justify registering ranks in military and intelligence manuals etc. Geneva convention doesn't say one relinquishes the legal rights to his insignia (i think).
If I would commercially mass produce ranks and insignia of any country, even abroad, I would expect them to sue me (unless local law is different) or otherwise try to stop me (which might be dangerous...). DGtal 09:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I can't see why. Military personnel all over the world hire independent creators to manufacture insignia for themselves and their units. If it looks like the military-approved insignia, they're usually allowed to wear it, which I would think says something about the government's attitude towards outsiders using their creations. --ScreaminEagle 21:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether any government would seriously act to protect its copyright to military insignia, if governments do hold such copyrights, the claim in {{Military-Insignia}} and {{Military Insignia}} really merits substantiation. (By the way, shouldn’t one of those templates be enough?) We provide a minimal rationale for the copyright status of other images (more than minimal in the case of {{PD-Russia}}) and this should be no exception, especially considering questions like [20] and [21]. Regarding requirements under the laws of warfare to identify combatants, my impression from reading the Hague and Geneva documents is that each side should provide the documentation on its forces to the other side, anyway, eliminating our problem for them. Unfortunately we can’t quite yet declare war on the rest of the world for the purpose of resolving the problem here. —xyzzyn 14:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Since there doesn't seem yet to be a rational, is the next step deletion of the template? If so, what is to be done with the images already using it? DGtal 22:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Some could remain as fair use, but it would be a lot of work. I’ve noted this discussion on WP:RFC/POLICY in the hope that somebody there knows more than we do, but if there is no definitive answer, WP:TFD is probably the way to go. —xyzzyn 01:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I have put the "unit insignia copyright question" to the administrator of the wiki. Hopefully a speedy answer will point us in a useful direction. Although, if I'll I read [Crown_Copyright] correctly, its in serious doubt. I read it (IANAL) to mean that only the Crown has the right to (re)produce it, where ever it wants... either in print or on a uniform. And that is NOT what I was hoping to read from it.
I'll keep you updated on the reply. exit2dos2000 08:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I did get a reply back; but not the one I had hoped for. The Dept. Of National Defence (DND) holds the copyright to unit Emblems & Insignia. Although nobody has ever heard of anyone recieving a phone call from Military Lawyers, I wouldnt want to be the one to push the envelope and be the first. Whom would we have to ask permission from ? Anyone have any leads ? exit2dos2000 03:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Since every army is (hopefully) controlled by the local government, one needs to ask permission from the Ministry of Defence/War/Army etc. One can probably assume "fair use" permission by the various armies, but I still seriously doubt the "no copyright" assumption of the template. It may be true in the US and a few other countries, but I doubt it to be a general rule. DGtal 19:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a ‘"fair use" permission’. If there is no legal basis for the public domain claim, the two choices are to make fair use claims wherever appropriate and to remove all other uses or to ask the copyright holders to release the works under the GFDL or CC–BY(–SA), as permission to use on Wikipedia is insufficient under our policy. I find it unlikely that governments are going to consider such requests in sufficient detail to agree; unless somebody wants to spam^Wcontact lots of them and ask anyway, we should concentrate on figuring out which material is in the public domain. The best criterion is the date of publication—we should be able to use all insignia from World War I and earlier. Figuring out public domain by government is trickier; for example, while works of the US government are in the public domain, this needs not be true for works created by contractors of the same government—we would need to know by whom exactly the US armed forces insignia we use as public domain have been created. I suspect the criteria in other countries where there is a chance of public domain status are equally tricky or worse (not to mention that we then need to establish whether those works are also public domain in the US…).
To reiterate, unless we’re missing something obvious, any attempt to be thorough in this issue will be arduous. —xyzzyn 20:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Exactly - official badges of rank and unit insignia in Canada are "Copyright by Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada"; this I got from my local base imaging services office. Non-official insigia, such as say, a deployment t-shirt, would presumably be the copyrighted property of the creator. Not sure what the status of unofficial designs incorporating official elements such as a royal or naval crown, etc. As far as permission goes, I believe DND's Directorate of History and Heritage are the ones who actually regulate the use and display of Canadian military insignia; I'd start with them. However, given Wikipedia's policy of prefering no reproduction restrictions on graphic material, I doubt very much any sort of usable permission will be forthcoming. Jackytar 08:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Further reflection - I don't know for sure, but strongly suspect that most governments will actively protect their nation's military insigna and badges. However, the nature and extent of that protection will vary. I do not know if there is any international law on the subject, but I would suspect the Geneva Conventions on Prisoners of War would be one possibility. Jackytar 19:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Follow-up - here's the Government of Canada website dealing with Crown Copyright - what is covered under it, penalties, etc. Government of Canada - Crown Copyright. FYI. Jackytar 22:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
If I understand the disscussion up to this point, the conclusion is that the Template is indeed incorrect and should be deleted. It is also apparent that each country has it's own copyright policy (most retain their rights). DGtal 10:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
It might be an idea move this discussion to Template_talk:Military-Insignia. In the mean time, I think it would be preferable to make this template a fair-use template like logo. CS Miller 15:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

use of photo

using image for author Jeff Lindsay photo is from a county government web site but has no attribution as to owner I meant to say that I wanted to use it, it is not posted on Wikipedia, yet.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ovrd (talkcontribs) 15:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Where is that photo being used? I looked at Jeff Lindsay (writer) but didn't see a photo being used, and Image:hilary.gif doesn't exist. Could you point to where it is being used on Wikipedia or the image that was uploaded to Wikipedia please? --MECUtalk 16:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay then, we cannot use this image, because it is not free enough for us. We would have to use this image under our fair use policy which it would fail the first requirement: replaceable. Since this author is still alive, and there is nothing special about this image, we do not want to use it: We want free images. You could try e-mailing the county folks or this author and asking for a picture to be licensed free enough for our use. Please see WP:COPYREQ for help with this. Good luck! --MECUtalk 16:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

--Ovrd 16:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)thanks!

You may find my recent FL gov't agency related image situation interesting as it would seem to apply HERE. Be sure to read through all of the replies! --Jasap 06:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

About Image:SaddamGrave.jpg

I've copied the Fair Use Rationale explanations from Image talk:SaddamGrave.jpg and put it onto its image description page, so do you think it's okay if I delete the warning template? --Angeldeb82 04:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It is from Reuters, so no. Jkelly 04:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
If I can't delete the warning template, then how do I save the picture from deletion? Do I have to change it from a "fair use" picture to a "public domain" picture? --Angeldeb82 19:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
No, because the image is not in the public domain, so that would be very dishonest. The copyright to that picture is held by Reuters, who offer their customers information provided over the web, illustrated with professional quality photography. We can only claim Wikipedia:Fair use on those images for which our use has no commercial impact on the copyright holder. Images from Reuters, AP, stock photography sellers, etc. are off limits with very few exceptions. Jkelly 19:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Then how do I save the picture? If I can't, then I might as well remove it from the two articles which I posted that picture on, unless you help me. --Angeldeb82 19:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Tagging my image

Very confused. I'm trying to tag our companies logo. I don't see anywhere how to do this? Logo is LAGLOGO.GIF —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chuckharrell (talkcontribs) 18:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Image:IAGlogo.jpg is already correctly licensed. However, you did not provide a fair use rationale per our fair use criteria. Please write a rationale. Further, that image is currently an orphan, meaning it is not used in an article on Wikipedia. Please insert the image into an appropriate article. The same applies to Image:Eautomationpro.gif. Thank you, and welcome to Wikipedia! --MECUtalk 19:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Horwich in Greater Manchester

I recently uploaded Image:Horwich in Greater Manchester.png. I didn't answer the "Licensing" question and left it "None selected". Instead in the "Summary" box I've given a good explaination that it is a public domain image which was created by one of Wikipedia's contributors, User:Jhamez84. I'm still quite new to uploading and find the "Licensing" question doesn't really explain clearly. On Wikipedia page Image:Horwich in Greater Manchester.png there is a red-lined box stating that the image doesn't have a copyright tag and that it may be deleted. Will my summary explaination surfice? Cwb61 (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I've nommed this for deletion as it is inaccurate and inconsitent with every other Greater Manchester settlement article. Jhamez84 02:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Images originating from Florida public service agencies

Just want to be sure I am following the rules for images obtained from Florida state and local government Web sites. I have emailed the Webmasters for several of the aforementioned sites and received virtually identical replies: "Since we are a public agency supported by your tax dollars, everything we publish on our public website is in the public domain. Therefore you are free to use anything you wish." Given that blanket release the only related template I could find that seemed to fit was PD-Because|Reason. An example of my resulting interpretation can be found here: [22]. Please educate me further if needed! Thank you!!

Jasap 00:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

So far as I know, only the works by the federal government are automatically public domain. Individual states may choose to make their works public domain or maintain copyright. I would recommend forwarding the email from the webmaster to so that the permission can be archived. ShadowHalo 00:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I will certainly be forwarding the email ASAP! During my 20+ years of residence in Florida (not to mention recent news reports) our state seems to be at the forefront of open-records regulation, most notably the much revered Government in the Sunshine [23] law. Looking forward to ultimate approval and much thanks for your speedy reply! Jasap 01:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if these webmasters are correct. The relevant statute and section of the State Constitution provide for nothing more than open inspection and copying of public records under the supervision of the custodian of the records. They nothing about copyrights, and nothing about republication. On the other hand, if you search through the statues for the word copyright you find all kinds of provisions for state agencies to secure copyrights on work eligible for it. So I'd say that it's not a safe assumption that the webmasters are correct here. Their reasoning is specious in any event. Being a public agency and supported by tax dollars is not relevant to copyright law unless that law says so.

I would furthermore draw attention to the copyright notice at the bottom of every page on the official state legislature website. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well then maybe I went too far in my reasonable assumptions (e.g. the state level)?? Admittedly I have thus far only communicated with local county agencies who have been quite supportive in my efforts. The fact that they are Law Enforcement agencies provided me with considerable confidence. As I am personally not one to directly challenge a retired U.S. Army Colonel (author of the first/primary reply and Special Projects Coordinator, Webmaster and Public Access Systems Coordinator for Seminole County Sheriff's Office) I will respectfully await a final decision from the folks at In the mean time I have forwarded my email to my state senator Lee Constantine and congressman Tom Feeney (correction: Mr. Feeney is my former state congress rep now my U.S. representative; my current state congress rep is Sandra Adams--Jasap 16:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)) for their thoughts on the matter. Yeah it's quite a stretch to believe they will actually respond but this is pretty important to me so am ready to see what happens... Interestingly I could not help but notice suspiciously similar images on the latter's article(?). Hopefully I will be vindicated here but if not then let this be an oh so humble lesson to me as I am wholly supportive of constructive feedback. Jasap 07:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC) (UPDATED signature; original was 06:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC))
Just as a quick note, the image at Tom Feeney is sourced from the website for the House of Representatives. Since the House of Representatives is a federal body, works there are generally public domain. ShadowHalo 06:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I am truly mortified... Please envision me kicking myself severely and repeatedly for neglecting the much mentioned federal gov't exception. Despite my ripe old age of 33 and a network engineer if you can believe it I am somewhat new to this wonderful Wiki world and genuinely want to/have been adding to and improving articles I have encountered which I happen to know something about. I like to think I am not a know-it-all but rather someone who is merely more informed than most?! Thank you sir for keeping me honest as well as your continuing positive feedback! Jasap 06:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, it's no problem at all. Just look above; most of the questions here are about how to add a template or image X, found from a random website through Google, can't be used. Not enough people take the initiative to email the copyright holders. Thanks for doing that, by the way. ShadowHalo 06:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
UPDATE!! The following day another user modified my article in question to include several of the same disputed photos. However, his images included a specific licensing reference to FL Statute 119.01 (1) which reads "It is the policy of this state that all state, county, and municipal records shall be open for personal inspection by any person." Paragraph (2) is also interesting at it refers to "advancements in technology". In conducting further research I found the FL Attorney General interprets this statute to include "All documents, papers, letters, maps, books, tapes, photographs, films, sound recordings, data processing, software, or other material, regardless of the physical form, characteristics, or means of transmission, made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business by any agency". Given these agencies are conducting official business by operating their public Web sites it would seem to apply here?? I am updating the associated image tags accordingly and forwarding this info to the permissions folks. An updated example can be found HERE. Thanks again ShadowHalo for your assistance in guiding me through this process and providing me with an excellent education opportunity in copyright law, although I suppose it's not really over until the permission lady sings... Jasap 03:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I feel really stupid right now. I discovered that we actually have a template for this. Tag any of these images with {{PD-FLGov}}. ShadowHalo 13:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Shadow, that template redirects to {{No license}}.↔NMajdantalk 17:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use & Replaceability wrt Publicity Photos of Living People

Recently I uploaded THIS IMAGE to illustrate a bio article for a prominent musician. It's a publicity shot taken from the website of the artist's PR firm. At first I just had the generic {{promophoto}} up there; I've since supplied a more specific "rationale," which I hope is more satisfactory. But I also almost immediately got a tag from an admin saying the pic "illustrates a subject for which a free image might reasonably be found or created that adequately provides the same information."

In general I don't understand the assertion that because a subject is a living person, a "free license" image of them is easily obtainable. Certainly freely viewable images can be found, & I did try both through Google and through several of the links offered at WP:PDIMG, but for the pictures I did find it is almost always impossible to determine even the origin of the image, much less the copyright status.

There does exist another image of this subject at Image:Spano-Robert.jpg. It was uploaded in 2005, by a user with 3 total edits in their history, The image page baldly claims that the copyright holder has "irrevocably released all rights" to the image, but this claim is not explained or documented in any way. [disregard this part, as that image has since been tagged for deletion. Turangalila 3/28]

Given all this I decided to use the first image, which is both attributable and explicitly offered for reproduction. Am I way off base here?

Please respond either on my talk page or on the image's talk page, as my watchlist is overloaded already. thanks much,
--Turangalila (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Use of either of those images wouldn't be a good idea. They both would be replaceable fair use. It doesn't matter if they release the image for promotional purposes, it still has to comply with our fair use criteria, of which #1 is replaceable, and this clearly is. --MECUtalk 12:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Sports logos of amateur teams


I am trying really hard to help lay some groundwork on the education front by documenting the American Football teams in the Netherlands. Yet every time I upload a logo or helmet it gets deleted.

I cannot understand why this happens, as it is clear that under the following rules the logo should be accepted:

This is a logo of an organization, item, or event, and is protected by copyright and/or trademark. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of logos

   * to illustrate the organization, item, or event in question
   * on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. Certain commercial use of this image may also be trademark infringement. See Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Logos.

Why, even when I quote this, does it continue to be marked for deletion ? I don't have all day to spend on the site, and it's a real shame for our sport which I am heavily involved in that our pages look ugly due to this over-moderation.

This applies to:

It's starting to get very irritating.

Steve —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SteveCru (talkcontribs) 19:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

In what articles have you used them? Fair use depends on the context in which the image appears. If you haven't actually placed them into an article, they indeed need to be deleted.
You also have to supply a fair use rationale apart from the text in the tag. See Help:Image page#Fair use rationale. And just for the sake of precision, consider using {{sports uniform}} instead of {{logo}}.
It might also be worth the time to contact the person who did the deletion according to the log (for instance, [24]) to ask him why he thought the image was tagged with an invalid license. He could no doubt be very specific about what he's looking for in a proper fair use upload. It may have had something to do with the upload summary, as we cannot use "by permission" media there. Don't say that -- just upload it, tag it, and provide a valid fair use rationale and it should stick. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

User:The Big PowerMacBoy

This user has uploaded several images from the Tango Project (which are Creative-Commons-licensed), but has placed them under odd licenses, such as being a screenshot of Mac software, or pulbic domain. Also, he has a very high-resolution image of the old rainbow apple logo. I already brought this up in the IRC channel, but I figured I'd put it here, too. See his log file for other images he has uploaded (and I suspect copyvio on some of those, too.) Stale Fries taste better 22:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If the Tango Project images are mistagged, you can just be bold and apply the correct tags yourself. Make sure you link to the source if that hasn't been done already, and also to where the license is indicated. Note that not all CC licenses are appropriate for Wikipedia, so putting the correct tag may result in their being deleted. I'm sure neither of us will weep overmuch.
I don't know that I'd call the Apple logo "very high res", but it's also an orphaned fair use image. Fair use only applies in an article that provides an appropriate context; an orphaned image doesn't have one. So we have a copyright violation here. Feel free to list it at WP:CP or tag it with {{db-copyvio}} unless it gets used in an appropriate article. If you do the latter, be sure to make the uploader aware of policy in case you have not already done so.
For other images you know are copyright violations, list them at WP:CP to, or add {{db-copyvio}} if you can find where they came from and the violation is blatant. In particular, a lot of those Apple icons he claims are his own work he seems to have simply recolored. They're obviously mistagged. They'd be fair use at best -- except that recoloring them doesn't serve that purpose, and he seems to use them only on his user page. There is no fair use justification for user pages.
If this is user is a continual a problem this way, and you've tried to inform him that what he's doing is incorrect and he persists, you might also want to bring this up at WP:ANB for administrator intervention, which you can't necessarily get here. I don't think the normal dispute resolution process is applicable; this isn't a content issue. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

How do I make a tag for my image?

How do you make a copyright tag for an image that you have made by yourself? --Asdfghq

Luckily, you do not need to make a copyright tag for your image, they have already been made and you just simply need to add one to your image. First off, check out this list of image copyright tags. Then, its just a matter of picking one best suits your image and copyright preference. For an image you made, I would suggest using either {{PD-self}} or {{GFDL-self}} but you could also use a Creative Commons license.↔NMajdantalk 15:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Copying an entire Wikipediatext

Is it ok for another encyklopedia to copy the text here on Wikipedia about Janne Corax, word by word, without altering anything? They claim copyright too, they have a form, which people are supposed to fill in, before using anything from their site, even though they stole the text in the first place.

LolliLolli 19:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they can copy it word for word, as long as they follow the GFDL license terms (see the bottom of every Wikipedia page), for which this site does. At the bottom of that page, they state the text is from Wikipedia and that site is available under the GNU license. They don't claim copyright (at least, not on that page). This is the awesomeness of Wikipedia: Free information for everyone! --MECUtalk 20:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok, then they must have added that statement, it wasn't there when I complained about it. Then it's ok. Lolli 12:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it O.K. to copy user page source code? Can I copy the source code from a Wikipedian's user page and add it to my user page? I want to add content and wizzies to my new user page, but I feel like I don't have the skills, time, or talent to do it by myself. Are there any short cuts like that which are O.K.? Bearian 01:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No matter what page you edit on Wikipedia, you'll see a notice at the bottom stating, "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL," which is footnoted, "GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts." That goes for user pages as well. So as long as you abide by the terms of the license, anything you find on any Wikipedia page can be used freely. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Screens at live performances

I saw an image yesterday (I can't remember which) that got me thinking... Many concerts will have people filming and broadcasting what's happening onstage on screens behind or to either side of the stage. Since someone else is taking the original footage, is it copyrighted if someone takes a picture of the screen rather than what's actually happening onstage? ShadowHalo 03:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

IANL, but I would say such images are copyrighted, and should be treated as unfree by default. One has to assume the image is recorded, even if its shown live. Incidently, an example, which I've asked about before is Image:Kate Walsh Ted Global 2.JPG, which somehow, has been allowed. So, my opinion may not be the prevaling one, on this issue. --Rob 08:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
hmm the two questions are does the screen count as a fixed form and is it creative enough to qualify for copyright. For the the second I would go for yes in the first I really don't know I'm not sure there has been a relivant court ruleing personaly I would tend to play safe an assume copyright but I'm not sure one way or the other.Geni 18:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is the copyright tag edit option?

The image I uploaded Image:Unger1.jpg has been marked with a "This image does not have a copyright tag..." warning, but I have spent days trying to work out how to add a copyright tag. Sorry, but I am totally confused! Where is the 'edit' option? Should I delete the image and re-upload it with more information on why we believe it to be Fair Use? --Miryam bella 07:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You can click "edit this page" at the top of the page and add the appropriate code (see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags if you're not sure what code to use to tag it). I noticed that it's described as public domain. To verify this, you'll need to add the specific year in which it was made since only images from 1922 and before are automatically in the public domain (there are some other ways it might be PD listed at Template talk:PD-US). ShadowHalo 07:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply - I don't know how I missed the "edit this page"! This is looking too complicated so I have removed the link to this image, and am now trying to work out how to delete the image altogether. As far as I am aware it is not possible to state exactly when the photograph was taken and/or first published; all I know is that it was taken in Germany in the 1920s, and has since (i.e. for approximately 80 plus years) been published in Germany and England by different newspapers, journals and books relating to Dr Unger. The image I uploaded was a low resolution, cleaned up (by me) version of a scan of a copy of the image. --Miryam bella 07:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If you're asking how to delete the image, you can add {{db-author}} to the image. ShadowHalo 07:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


Could someone please identify the correct tag for this image? It's taken from Wilkinson and Kitzinger's website, which states "you are free to use any of the images of us on this site." Exploding Boy 04:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a little too vague for us. It might be {{NoRightsReserved}} or it might be {{PD-release}} or {{PD-author}}, or there might be restrictions. The best approach would be to email them and ask if they place any restrictions on how their images might be used, and if they're retaining the copyrights. The correct tag depends on their answer. Save the reply. If their answer means the image is usable here, forward it to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org for archiving.
Don't get discouraged if the image is deleted. If it turns out we can use is, you can always upload it again and add the correct tag. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Vague? "You are free to use any of the images of us on this site" seems pretty clear. A very brief Google search reveals that this same image is used on at least 3 other sites (including and, and other images from their site appear on even more sites. Exploding Boy 15:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is vague. We need to know how we can use these images. Saying they are "free" isn't enough. Do they mean that they just don't want to be paid for it but require attribution? Or do they mean "in the public domain" free? A quick email to clarify which you should send into Wikipedia so it gets logged via OTRS would be a good idea too. --MECUtalk 18:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Air Force Roundel copyright question

I recoloured the image USAAC_Roundel.svg‎ to make it have the correct colours, but I do not know how to "freely replace" an image as the copyright warning advises, I think. How do I "freely replace" an image? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

I don't know what you mean by "freely replace"? Also, Image:USAAC_Roundel.svg is on commons. If you corrected a problem with the image, you should reupload under the same filename and overwrite the existing file. You'll get an error during uploading stating such, but click "Save as-is" (or something like that) and it will overwrite the existing file. Otherwise, please try to explain more what you mean or need help with. MECUtalk 18:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

About SIM

Hi, this is a student working on a project related to mobile technology. I want to know the process in a mobile from user dialing a number; start conversation till he ends the call.From where to where and how the data flows in this process. What is the job of SIM in a mobile phone and what it stores.......

Can any one help me..... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boddeti (talkcontribs) 14:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Please ask this question at: Wikipedia:Reference desk. MECUtalk 18:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


This is just a copy of the Chicago Bulls logo (Image:Chicago Bulls logo.png) except someone erased "Chicago" and put "Byford" to make their "own" logo. I can't see how this might be acceptable, but I don't really know. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 15:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This was done by a new user, who uploaded it and used it on their userpage User:Shibby007 for an "article" about their team. They only have 2 edits (the image and the userpage). It will likely be deleted within a week. It is already tagged no license. MECUtalk 18:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please could you determine the copyright of this pic? (2)


I found it here---->[25]

Thanks in advance.

vincent shooter 10:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a better link? That link links directly to the image, and we need to see the HTML page it is used on to determine the copyright. Also, what kind of plane is this? There there an article here at Wikipedia about it? Does the place still exist today? Could someone go take a picture of the image and release it freely (is it possible? even if it's not likely?)? MECUtalk 12:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I looked at the image you uploaded here, and for a source you gave "google". This is most likely not an image we can allow here. Please do not search for images on Google. --MECUtalk 18:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The image source is here: [26]. We definitely can't use it. Even the guys who upload pictures to that forum don't always appear to know where they came from. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
To elaborate: We can't assume a free license. I also don't believe this falls under fair use because it should be possible to take a photo of a Moroccan AF plane at international air shows and so forth, so this is at least theoretically replaceable. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I would caution fellow Wikipedians to not assume anything is "possible" here! A friend of mine was recently arrested, interrogated and briefly incarcerated after taking photos of Moroccan Air Force fighter jets while exiting his flight to Casablanca from NYC. He was eventually released with a warning that Moroccan military aircraft cannot be photographed under any circumstances. Unfortunately I do not know what (if any) restrictions are in place outside of Morocco. --Jasap 05:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I assumed it was illegal in Morocco, which is why I suggested an air show. I said "international" thinking of the Paris show, but what I really meant was "outside Morocco". TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. Thanks for clarifying my doubts. I needed a picture of a Moroccan fighter or military aircraft, to complete the article on the Moroccan Air Force I wrote some time ago, that's why I looked for it on Google Images, but unfortunately it seems the copyright status is unknown. I found another link, and this time it seems there is no problem with the copyright, since it is on a professional military website. Please could someone here tell me if it is alright to upload the following pictures:--->

picture1 picture2

thanks in advance

vincent_shooter 09:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I would again say no. That website appears to take images from donations on the website, or other means, and publish them in a magazine. We would need to use the images then under fair use, for which replaceable would again apply. As to reply to Jasap above, just because you, I, your brother, or another Wikipedian can't take an image, doesn't mean one can't be created or freely found. The US Military might likely have some good information about planes of other countries. I agree that taking images of military planes is bad. When I was in the Marines I had a friend come to our unit from an air wing unit who said it's illegal to take images of planes (etc), so the images he has are of him playing golf, and oh, a plane happens to be in the background. MECUtalk 14:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
And even if it was a "professional military website" -- which I take to mean an official website of some military force -- the .nl means "Netherlands" so it would probably be theirs. I have no idea whether work of the Dutch government is PD as work of the US government is. The latter is mandated by statute, and it's not true in all countries. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Old Bughouse Square image

I was wondering if I can use Image:Bughouse Square.jpg in Washington Square Park, Chicago. I don't have any date information, but I image an expert might be able to approximate a date. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 00:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you can use it there since it's a public domain image. Why do you need the date to use it there though? MECUtalk 16:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, it wasn't explicitly stated that the image was in the public domain, but TonyTheTiger's guess is that the image was taken before 1923. ShadowHalo 16:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I'm missing here

Image:Krishnakumarmenonsinger.JPG It says it's missing a Copyright. How do I add one on? ImtiazAA 15:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It has a copyright license, rationale and source, so I removed the tags saying otherwise that were added because you put "Some website" in the drop down box. However, this image appears to be replaceable since he is still alive and singing. Please read the fair use criteria, especially #1. MECUtalk 16:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


As a collaboration center we have can use UNEP images. I'm refering Image:unep.gif and want to ask what kind of Tag would be the most appropriate.

Thanks for your help!!

unep.gif discussion by --Energybase 15:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

{{logo}} would seem appropriate. Though you should then also write a fair use rationale guideline and use the logo on an article so it is not orphaned. MECUtalk 16:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:100 1147.jpg

Copyright tag has been added to the above image previous comments by Trueblood786 on 18:17, January 7, 2007

21:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


I would like to send a pix of Peter created by Peter or taken by me in his studio. There are hundreds to choose from. Grudz was appalled by the artwork Parallel Worlds did (the jpeg that accompanies original aticle. Again I have offered to send copies of my mastercds; copies of early Peter G. tapes and copies of post Parallrl World Cds that were produced and personally signed and numbered by Peter. I have offered to send my coy of Peter Grudzien and Barbara Zigman "Outsider Music". (Beadie Finzi channel 4 England)

Again I have referred the original author our website;also included in Gay Americana Music.I have givem the tyahoo address of which contains audio material not available here. Frankly-I have a grinding abscessed tooth-would rather go to bed and forget the whole thing. Follow the example of Townes Van Zandt's ex wife- sell the masters-flood the market with the tapes given to me by Peter and the world be darned. Somehow-I can't sink that low yet.

Think on tis Peter. Twill improve your disposition to the tune of the Old Man from the Mountain by M Haggard The old Queen from the mountain's coming home, home, home I thought I better warn you so I called you on the phone Watch out-joe the Rounder-cause you better be there alone The old queen from the mountain's homing home

Npw I've been workin' my ass off all forma dollar bill I need some kinda lovin so I'm a coming down the hill

Well it gets progressively more scatalogicaland suggestive. If you read the brilliant Nick Tosches"Country:The Twisted Roots of rock and Roll?" you'll see that early country was down and dirty-not the pablum coming out of Nashville these days.So Peter was frankly very true to his roots and to authentic country. Barbara Jane Barbara Jane Grew up pretty but she went insane Thanks loads grudz. laughing. What a mess you left me to clean up. Sides I'm odd-not insane

"I gotta job sittin on the fence And I haven't done a damned thing since Work all day with the bottle in my hand Come on and give the fiddler a gram. Actualy HMR used the line and some of the melody for the Barbara Jane song originally.I believe Pete Stampfel of HMR is very nuch alive and has been in touch with the Grudz since they were kids. You might also try Don Perliss chum from art college he is still in touch with frequently.(Art and Design) I also sent some pix of Peter taking pix of Dons last show but I guess they were deleted.

Barbara Jane

21:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Headline text

P.S I also want to something about wikimedia dot org.

21:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

free copyright

    I would like to get certain exart from your webpage about social movement .Shall i get it through my email id –

21:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Parliamentary Brief - cover image

Could you please check that I have added the fair use ratioanle correctly for the cover image of Parliamentary Brief. Thank you in anticipation.


this is a personal image taken by a friend. i added the copyright tag, but am finding it difficult for the page to come up like i wished. help!

21:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Legal action

Can you please give me your mailing address where I can send you a cease and desist letter from our lawyer for your violation of our copyright on the file name Conrad_black_cp_harris that appears on your site. There is no fair use in this case and our images is stored on your servers and being distributed. The policy of The Canadian Press, like AP, is to prosecute. The picture must be removed from your site immediately.


Ron Poling Executive Director, Picture Services The Canadian Press 36 King Street, East, Toronto, Ontario. M5C 2L9


On the following link you can find the contact information for the Wikimedia foundation. [27]. However, the image is already deleted. Garion96 (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Garion, it might also be wise to notify the uploader of this issue to prevent him/her from taking images from this source in the future. You may already be in the process of doing this, but I just wanted to suggest it.↔NMajdantalk 19:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yumi Kakazu image

I found a pic of Yumi Kakazu on the Indonesian language article for her[[28]]. I figured permission was granted for use on wikipedia Image:Yumi Kakazu.jpg[[29]] The Indonesian pic seems to credit this website

Not being able to read anything in the non English links I have provided I am unaware of what other information is necessary. Irate velociraptor 07:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, copyrighted images cannot be used on the English Wikipedia to illustrate living people, even with permission for use on Wikipedia. Our material needs to be reusable by others. ShadowHalo 08:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

System Analysis and Design

Question: S & M Consult is an establishment with a workforce of 200 employees. you have been contracted to prepare a pay roll based on the following information. 1. Employees are ranked as CEO, Executives, Senior and Junior. 2. The basic salary is computed on the CEO's salary of $10,000 for all categories of employees. 3. Famale executive and senior employees have their basis salaries computed as 75% of the CEO"s basic. 4. Male executive employees are paid 80%, Male senior employees get 76% and the rest are paid 50% of the CEO's basic salary. 5. With the exception senior and junior male employees who receive a fix amount of $500 and 5% of basic and Female senior and junior employees who receive $500 and 20% of basic as the allowances, the rest receive 40.5% of basic as the allowance. 6. Deductions are calculated on basic salary except welfare which is a fix amount adjusted at the end of every year. 7. Gross is the accumulation of basic and allowances. 8. Net is gross less deductions.

Draw a flowchart to represent this.

We don't do homework. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyrighted artwork?

User:Wizzywiz has uploaded Image:Ganga Devi.jpg where he has stated that he redrew the image. Considering that images Hindu deities may be the creative artwork of an artist, would a redraw constitute to be an imagevio? =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Redrawing is somewhat vague, it could range anywhere from using the original as inspiration (which is fine) to tracing or photocopying the image (which is not ok). Given that he says it's original I would lean to the side of ok, but as is the question is difficult to answer. - cohesion 16:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I know, answering this is hard. I guess we'd have to WP:AGF on behalf of the uploader for now. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess. It's not being used on any articles though, I wonder if there are plans to. If they never do you might think about WP:IFD since it's somewhat questionable. - cohesion 20:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)