Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2007/November

Changed answer to replaceability question and reason

I uploaded Image:Bonniemacbird.jpg and received a notice that it will be removed next week unless the image is deemed to be irreplaceable. I have changed the answer from "yes" to "no" to the applicable question in the template. I also explained that I know of no other photographs of Bonnie MacBird in existence. Is changing the answer in the template sufficient? If not, is my explanation good enough? - Desmond Hobson 07:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, which means all of our material is freely licensed. For a definition of freedom in this context see freedomdefined.org. Because of this we try and only use non-free content when we absolutely have to, or when there are no non-free alternatives which exist or could be created. In this case, since the subject is still alive, a free content image could be created of her. It's in the interest of increasing free content to encourage this creation while we still can. - cohesion 01:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess the answer is no, so I'll have to go back to the page and remove it, I guess. Like quitting before you're fired.:( - Desmond Hobson 16:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If you think you can get a free image of her please try, for more info about how to do that see WP:COPYREQ. - cohesion 04:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Keke Wyatt

Is this and this OK? In other words, does that wording make it acceptable to use album covers in the above article here? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Album covers can be used in articles where there is critical commentary of the album, or its cover. For more information see the non-free content policy. - cohesion 02:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I guess I'm not explaning myself properly. I already explained that policy to the anon but they are claiming based on their edits to the image pages that it is now OK to use the images, here. What I need to know is if the use of that wording now makes it OK to use the images in that way. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with having scroll boxes on the page? CambridgeBayWeather claims that the article is hard to read; however, I find that it makes the article easier to read. Anytime you can decrease overall vertical scroll you increase page usability. And I changed the fair use rationale to justify/clear usage on the main artist article page were there is no copyright infringement or harm done as is on the individual album article page. 74.167.228.199 09:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If the subject is still alive these images cannot be used simply to show what she looks like, as a free replacement could be created to do the same thing. Album art can be included if you are discussing the album though. And I reverted the scrolling. That's not related to images, but is not a good idea. There may not be any policy against it, but we don't need a policy for everything. I commented on the talk page also. :) - cohesion 05:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Belinda Stronach

Found this pic Belinda_Stronach_Image_MainArticleImage-1-.jpg on this wed site http://www.torontodailynews.com/image_MainArticleImage.php?articleid=2006092401belinda-stronach And its on the Belinda Stronach page on wiki. What is the right copyright tag to put on this pic.Michaelm

The vast majority of images on the internet are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Unless you are aware that this image is somehow freely licensed it is probably not acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, which means all of our material is freely licensed. For a definition of freedom in this context see freedomdefined.org. cohesion 05:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Derviative work

Would you consider Image:Wpsaw.jpg to be a dervative of the logo used in Image:Saw3 cape10.jpg? hbdragon88 21:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Typefaces are ineligible for copyright in the US, so you should be in the clear regardless of what it's based on. Calliopejen1 00:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

WTF is happening to wikipedia?

Is there a new policy to drive good editors away until only the woowoos are left? I uploaded an image on October 15 Image:HMS New Zealand (1911) superstructure.jpg. I explained what it was and that it came from a 1919 photo album. I tagged it with {{Don't know}} and {{No license needing editor assistance}}, seeking guidance. I discover now that six days later it was zapped with the message "Speedy deleted per (CSD I4), was an image lacking sources or licensing information for more than seven days. using TW". This is stupidity at its finest. I have restored the image, and replaced it the article it was in. As the original ownership is unknown, and the photos were taken nearly 90 years ago, there must be a licence for its use in Wiki, but I rarely work with images and am unsure what it is. Can someone oblige? Moriori 23:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe this falls under PD. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It's {{PD-US}} (technically, assuming it was published--not just included in a personal photo album--before 1923). Calliopejen1 00:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The proper copyright template in that case would presumably be {{PD-NZ}}. However, I'm not sure this image actually qualifies for that, since it's quite possible that the person who took that photographed lived for more that 38 years after taking it. I don't think if qualifies for public domain under U.S. copyright law either, since you say it wasn't published before 1923, and since the duration of copyright in the U.S. is otherwise longer (70 years from death of author, for works first published in 2003 or later). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me... emblem again

I've found the problem of retagging both Thai emblems here(Image:Thai Garuda emblem.svg and Image:Thai Garuda emblem.png).

As I reviewed the emblem detail deeply, I've found that the image is really derivative work from uncopyrighted Thai government Gazette (which contains laws, notices, official images, tables and etc.). Please note that if this emblem is not stated in Thai Gazette, it is invalid and cannot be used at all.

Can I bother you by asking this question-

• Is it proper to retag by using Template:PD-ThaiGov, because this emblem is derivative work from Thai Governmental Gazettes? Tangmo ^(talk) 13:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The answer is the same as last time: according to the translation provided of Thai copyright law, neither of these things is public domain. It does not fit in any of the specified categories for public domain government work. Calliopejen1 01:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Image from a state run website

Was wondering if it was permissible to use files originating from a U.S. State government website. Specifically I want to add a picture of the state adjutant general that resides at a state run website. Hardnfast 18:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Works of the US (federal) government are excluded from copyright protection by a specific statute that does not apply to works of the individual state governments. Some states may place their works into the public domain, but there's no general rule to that effect. So unless you can find a release on the state website, you generally can't use their images. -- But|seriously|folks  18:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I won't upload the pic, thanks for the information. Hardnfast 15:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this PD-GOV?

It took a while, but I found this on the US Patent Office site here:

Copyrights are administered by the Copyright Office, a division of the Library of Congress. Copyright law (17 U.S.C. § 105) states that all materials created by the United States government are in the public domain. However, there are restrictions on use.

Anyone incorporating a work of the U.S. Government into a copyrighted work should be aware of 17 U.S.C. § 403. This section requires a copyright notice to contain a statement identifying what portions of the work consist of a work of the U.S.Government. Failure to do so could result in loss of copyright protection for the entire work. WARNING: Not all materials on our website were created by the U.S. Government. Some have been published by permission of the creators, and that permission is not generally transferrable. Please contact us regarding copyright status before publishing or reselling any documents having outside authorship or any images contained on the webpages for this site.

See the Editorial Standards for more specific copyright information.

So is this PD-GOV?

Maury 11:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Maury - what are you refering to - the entire website or a particular document on it ? Megapixie 13:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Beryl Ford Collection

I posted this at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use..., but I have since noted that it has been suggested to merge that page here, and have also noted that that it is comparatively low traffic page, so I am reposting this here. I apologize if this isn't the right place for this.

The Tulsa Public Library is putting digitized copies of the pictures from the Beryl Ford Collection online. Beryl Ford was a local Tulsa historian who collected a massive collection of pictures (75,000 - 100,000 pictures) illustrating Tulsa and the surrounding area's history from the earliest known photographs to the recent past. (I have found images as recent as the 1960s in the collection.) Because of copyright concerns I have been very sparing in uploading these pictures, limiting myself to images from the 19th century. However the library recently converted the final link one has to click to see a picture to text that says "View photograph from Beryl Ford Collection. You are free to distribute this photo provided the content is left unchanged. Photo credit should be given to the Beryl Ford Collection/Rotary Club of Tulsa and Tulsa City-County Library." example here. The collection itself is owned by a not-for-proft subsidiary of the Rotary Club of Tulsa. See here and here for more information on the collection. Many of these picture, so far as I know, have not been published before, and almost all are anonymous. Is the text on the link sufficient permission for me to upload images here or do I need more permission? Or does each image will have to be considered as separate case depending on its age? I would especially like to be able to use images from the 1920s and 1930s to illustrate an article I am developing on Tulsa's architectural history in order to illustrate now demolished, but important buildings. Dsmdgold 16:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that they require the image to be 'unchanged' makes their license un-usable here. Images that are public domain in the collection (i.e. images published before 1923, or where the author died before 1937) could be uploaded under the correct {{PD-US}} {{PD-art-life-70}} tag. Megapixie 01:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyright of never published media

As I understand it, U.S. copyright law says that anything published before 1923 is in the public domain. What about media that was never exactly published, like a family photograph? Is it PD if created before 1923? jwillbur 17:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Consult Hirtle. Megapixie 01:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to edit an image page to add a copyright tag?

Why is it necessary to edit an image page to add a copyright tag? Why isn't this done automagically on the wiki server when the image is uploaded?

When I uploaded the image I indicated that it was my Own Work. On the following page I selected the licensing choice of:

Own Work, Attribution required (the second option under Free Licenses -> Own Work)

I expected that this would automatically tag the image and image page with the appropriate license. But it didn't. See:

What is the point of having the user select a license when uploading the image if this data isn't kept with the image and displayed on the image page? Is this a bug?

I also note that there is no text on this page (where I ask my question) giving me the correct format for linking to my image. I had to open a new browser tab and find the prior page to refresh my memory about the correct format. This is a bug - the directions need to be on the same page as the page where you need to enter the data you were directed to enter!

Thanks!

jc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcdill (talk • contribs) 20:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You probably have a technical issue with your browser. Seems to work for everyone else. Megapixie 01:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Olga Maynard

The second image in this article has been twice removed and will be removed a third time in a few days, despite my efforts to comply with Wikipediat protocols. The existing image description reads:

"Cover photo of subject from out of print book 'The American Ballet' (Philadelphia: Macrae Smith, 1959), by photo studio (Florence Art's Studio, La Mesa, Calif.) that no longer exists. This file is made from a print [from the same] negative [but] superior to [the cover] print."

I don't see that the image needs even to be classified as from a book cover (for an out-of-print book) since, as stated, the print used here is *distinct* from, and superior to, that used by the publisher, and in my possession. As stated, the photo studio that made the negative no longer exists. However I can't find in your choice of tags any for pictures *owned*--as opposed to being *made* by--oneself.

I'd appreciate help, since this image is intended to contrast with the first one, in illustration of the changes narrated in the text, and so is of more than attraction value. Thanks. Alethe 01:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Alethe. To illustrate this: I own many DVDs - however just because I own the DVDs, it doesn't give me the right to distribute copies of the DVDs, or upload the films contained to websites. In the same way the fact that you own a copy of a photo, does not give you the right to distribute/upload the image.

Essentially the photograph is potentially copyright - unless either someone gave permission (release) for the image to be "modified, distributed, used for any purpose" or the copyright expired. If you took the photograph, then you can release the image. If you just own the photograph, you can only wait for the copyright to expire.

Copyright images can be used in a limited way on wikipedia, for the purposes of critical comment (i.e. pictures of copyright paintings, or very famous photographs) under a Fair use doctrine. We don't allow such use of images, just to show what someone looked like. Megapixie 02:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Lynn Denlon Mutilated Head

Can wikipedia have images like this? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/87/Saw3dvd2b.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhart_family) If not, where can I find a page on "content" (not copyright) restrictions? 71.224.255.59 01:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You can try WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored. But this is an encyclopedia use your best judgement. Megapixie 02:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not preview the image myself, and as Megapixie said, Wikipedia is not censored. However, based on the name I assume that this is a very gory image. You may want to consider uploading it to Wikimedia Commons, and then making use of {{Template:Sisterlinks}} to direct those who may be interested in seeing detailed imagery. Keep in mind that there are many younger users on Wikipedia as well, and while there is not censorship, there sometimes are are more appropriate solutions without losing encyclopedic quality. Take a look at this "before and after" example for an analogical view of this strategy. If you think it is most suitable in the article, then use it there. If you think that it would be better to use a workaround, then do so. All-in-all, use your best judgment. --MaTrIx 04:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It is awfully crufty. Why do we really need long articles about each character, with multiple non-free images per article, to celebrate a middling quality, moderately successful series of gory horror films? I would say, zero encyclopedic value. Not deletable because we're not censored, but unusable in any reasonable article so no use for it.Wikidemo 05:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello

If I were to upload these images [[1]] [[2]], what licensing would they be?--Angel David 01:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Logo Copyrights

Can bloody WP after all develop a policy with regards to logos. Logos are expensively designed to have maximum impact. Therefore they are to be known. If presented in a context that does not materially benefit a third party or materially disadvantage the originator they are an inexpensive advertisement.

Assuming WP to be authoritative people might check out if the logo on their chaep stuff fromm (some country) is indeed the logo of brand (insert brand here).

I currently have problems with:

• Image:BrisbaneLionsSC.png

Logo of the Brisbane Lions soccer club, Queensland, Australia (defunct). Created from a vector graphic provided by hqfl.dk.

• Image:DanubioFC.png

Template:Hqfl logos ===Fair-use rationale=== # low resolution image # no non-copyright version available, by definition # the logo is only being used for informational purposes # its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because it is the

The image just replaced Image:Danubio FC.gif which has broad white borders, but else is the same and has been around for a long time.

Can somebody please sort that out, or delete all the other approx 4500 football club logos on site which have not explicit permission from the copyright owner. Or at least tell me which formula to use.

Delete all of them - or leave all of them with a common rationale. But don't hassle me!!!!!!

I would be glad if somebody can resolve the issue and tag the images in a way that the issue is positively resolved. I forthwith shall use the same tags in similar cases. Thank you very much. --Oalexander-En 13:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the rationale and added the wikilink for the real article that it is being used in (the full name of the club). I think that will do the trick. hbdragon88 22:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm

New user here. Just got a message that I need to TAG my uploaded image. I'm pretty tired, but I can't seem to find how to re-enter the screen where I could add one. I didn't at first because I couldn't find a selection that fit. It's a scanned image of the author Richard Katz. Any help would be great, although I'm so new I don't even know how people will connect with me. .. hmm. Might just re-upload if no replies.--Ravagedhand 08:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Logo

Hi,

For one of my projects I am creating a site that examines a range of collaborative tools and sites and the benefits they have to offer users.

I wish to display an article about Wikipedia and the way it works. Can I use the Wikipedia logo for illustrative purposes?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.212.103 (talk) 09:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's logo is copyrighted by the wikimedia foundation. However I don't see any reason why you couldn't use the logo within the scope of Fair use or Fair dealing depending on the laws of the country you reside in. Megapixie 04:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Image NLL1961.jpg problems with tagging

I want to add a copyright tag ( {{CopyrightedFreeUse-Link}} ) to an existing image NLL1961.jpg but I don't know how to do it because when I go to "Wikipedia:Media copyright questions"and try to follow the instructions on that page, I can't follow the point 1 because on the image page there is no "Edit this page" on the description page of the image.

How can I solve this problem?

MaRuKo 12:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You possibly have a technical issue with you browser (no css support?) - try following the link to [3] if that doesn't work try [4]. Note that the database is occasionally locked for maintainance. Megapixie 04:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Magazine covers?

I'm looking at an image of the October 1953 issue of Fate Magazine. It illustrates an Avro "Omega" aircraft in flight over their (somewhat liberalized) Malton Airport factories, which I have seen nowhere else. It would make a great addition to the Avrocar article, which currently shows the "Ace" model only. There is no copyright notice on the image. Does this make it -1978'able?

Maury 13:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there a copyright symbol inside the magazine anywhere ? Just because a single page of a "work" doesn't have a copyright symbol, doesn't mean that it isn't copyright pre-1978. Megapixie 04:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Olga Maynard

Apologies: I forgot in my query yesterday about the 2d image for this article, to identify it:

Alethe 13:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

See the answer above. Megapixie 04:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:University of Durham and similar

Hello. What are your thoughts on the logos in this an similar templates. I removed one from the Newcastle Uni template on the grounds that they are derivative works. The JPS^{talk to me} 15:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Difficult. When was the coat of arms created (and by who), and is it a registered trademark ? Megapixie 04:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

make a refrance to the Bimini page onto a book

I would like to make the Bimini page on your website onto a book for people who are at a book store and want information on Bimini. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.3.235.81 (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

See [5] Megapixie 04:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use of my book cover

Image:Ears-on-fire-cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poetmex (talk • contribs) 04:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you calling our attention to the problem or asking how to fix it? In other words, do you want the image used or not? -- But|seriously|folks  04:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Notice for speedy deletion due to possible invalid fair use tag

Unfortunately, I'm still a little confused as to what qualifies an image as fair use. The image in question (in this case an album cover) was pulled from an available picture found on an external website with which I have no connection. In essence, what it comes down to is: Is an album cover considered "fair use"? And would it still qualify as such if I did not actually make a scan of it and post it myself?

Inspector Baynes 08:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Please state the image link so that we could track it. Thank you. --βandβ ^{(talk•contribs)} 08:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Metrocable picture removed by Bot

A bot owned by user Carlin has deleted my picture in the info box for Metrocable article. Please review, that picture was update under GDFL license.Camilo Sanchez 08:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Was the image deleted entirely or the just image link itself in the associated page. What is the link of that image? Please state. --βandβ ^{(talk•contribs)} 08:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You can see here that the bot simply removed the image name from the box because the image had already been deleted. The image was deleted a short while earlier by User:Maxim, an administrator, not a bot. The reason given was lack of source information (see Image:Medellintram.jpeg). Every non-free image must have a statement of the source (i.e. what url you got it from, where it comes from and/or the owner of the copyright), in addition to the other key requirements (a copyright tag, a use rationale for inclusion in the article, and a backlink to the article it's used in). One options at this point are to re-upload with all the right information and add it back to the article. If that's too much trouble, you can contact the deleting administrator on their talk page. If you promise you have the source and will fix it, they will probably undelete the image for you.Wikidemo 09:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

How to obtian copyright?

I would like for the entry for American actor Billy Halop to have a photograph. I have none of him personally in which copyright rules apply. However, on his official website (approved by the Halop family - http://www.billyhalop.net) there are several. How do I get one from there to here, legally? 71.198.172.123 12:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Spost8260 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You should email his official website to see if his family will release one of those photos (or another one) under a free license. See WP:COPYREQ for instructions. Calliopejen1 19:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrong tagging

In my fair use downscaling adventures, I've come across a handful of people who tag every image they upload with {{GFDL-self}}, which is all well and good except that they're scans of fair-use material (e.g. comic characters, celebrity photos from magazines, etc.). According to the upload prompt, these can be speedily deleted for false license declarations, but that's not actually a listed reason in the speedy delete options. Anyway, up til now I've been changing the license tags and tagging them as replaceable fair use where appropriate, but is there a faster way, either by tagging them for speedy delete, or anything else...? Melesse 11:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Train Operator Logo

Hi,

I'd like to add the logo of the Italian railways operator to an info box that shows the route map of the Rome metro and where it intersects with the railway. The idea is to have a template that could be used on pages for each station, along the lines of the equivalent Italian page - linked below with the logo in question being the little 'f' shaped effort appearing twice in the box.

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Metropolitana_di_Roma/Linea_A

It seems to me that the real logo is the one to use as (in the context) it would be immediately clear what the symbol meant, and that this ought to qualify as fair use. It also seems that a template is better than including the logo on several separate pages.

I've uploaded the logo, but had it removed from use on a template and then some months later deleted altogether. Can someone confirm that this usage is OK and tell me how to correctly get the logo made available.Meddlin' Pedant 16:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging

I've added an image to the Ian Tamblyn entry, need tagging help. image:ian_tamblyn_pose_1200.jpg No clue how to choose a tag or do the tagging. Read through your info, doesn't help.

As I put in the entry editBejane 18:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC), this image is freely available for download from the artists website (www.tamblyn.com). There is no credit given for the photo. In addition, I emailed the photo subject (Ian Tamblyn himself) and received his permission to include it in Wikipedia.

Let me know what I should do, or fix it as appropriate.

So far, the information you have provided does not make this image OK to include in Wikipedia. Ironically, permission to use an image in Wikipedia is NOT enough to use an image in Wikipedia. The image must be released under a free license or into the public domain. See WP:COPYREQ for the procedure for getting permission sufficient for inclusion--you'll have to email Tamblyn again and see if he'll release it under a license that allows commercial reuse and derivative works. Calliopejen1 19:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Chemistry Diagrams

I have redrawn several chemical structures form research papers (the articles reference the papers) and uploaded them. that is not a violation, right? I cannot see how it could be, the image is different, a structure is a structure... no art involved. I used Chemsketch, a free program for accademia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Squidonius (talk • contribs) 18:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

That's fine--there is no original authorship in a standard drawing of a chemical structure. Use the tag {{PD-ineligible}}. Calliopejen1 19:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Help

I had a admin tell me that I had to add a copyright tag to a image. I don't know the exact website I got the image from, but I do know that Warner Brothers holds all rights to the images of the characters of the show. I gave credit to Warner Brothers due to the fact that the image in question is a cell that I cropped to fit the page my saying that "This image is a crop of a cell. The image of this character is trademarked by Warner Brothers." in the description. The show I question Road Rovers is no longer aired on television or has a Warner Brothers supported web site they only own the trademarks for the images. What else can I do? The image is Image:Blitz road rovers2.jpg User:wabed 16:36, 4 November 2007

I've helped you out and filled out all the necessary info on the image page. You should go there to check it out though so you know what to do next time. First, I reduced the size of the image and reuploaded it, because a non-free image should not be any larger than necessary. Then I added the best copyright tag, which I found by looking through WP:TAGS/FU. I tracked down the image using Google images, and that allowed me to add all the necessary information to the required fair use rationale. Calliopejen1 02:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

You are the first user to actually help me rather then belittle my lack of skills in how to use Wikipedia. And I have asked a few Wikipedians for help. Wabed 21:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Non-free images

I wonder, what could possibly happen if Wikipedia lets any non-free images become permanent? It is no wonder why they're so critical regards to the embedding of those kinds of pics. Duke17 02:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you please be more explicit on what you mean by "permanent" and "embedding"? Forgive me, but I don't understand. What is the problem? Wikidemo 08:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a strict policy regarding non-free images that feature living people. This is why those pictures often get deleted. The thing I wonder is what would happen if they let non-free pictures of living persons stay in articles permanently? Duke17 10:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the situation. Sometimes, Wikipedia let non-free images of a living person when the time it was taken was exceptional. --βandβ ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

they want to delete the picture I have TAKEN becasue of copy right issues?

me, {{GFDL-self}} got a message indicating they wanted to delete the picture I uploaded and also photographed. whats up with that?

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Downtown-skyline-Calgary-radisson-heights2.jpg Thanks for uploading Image:Downtown-skyline-Calgary-radisson-heights2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nicewomanizer"

When you first upload an image, you should select a license from the drop-down list on the upload form or include a license tag in the image description. (If you forget to do that, just edit the image page and add the tag.) On the assumption that the "{{GFDL-self}}" above is the tag you wanted to use for Image:Downtown-skyline-Calgary-radisson-heights2.jpg, I've added it there; if this is not correct, please let me know (or just edit the image page to correct it yourself). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Harper Lee

Image:Harper Lee Medal.jpg was tagged by a bot for more justification of copyright. I presume identifying it as a White House photo from the White House site is sufficient to establish it as public domain (I didn't upload the picture, but it was easy to find)? (John User:Jwy talk) 03:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Public domain update - author date of death known

Regarding Image:Adalbert Krueger.jpg, someone recently uploaded a new version - a colour photo of the original portrait, along with author information. The date of death of the artist is 1885: "Ludwig Bohnstedt (1822-1885)". Does this mean that the current PD-tag (a "published outside US prior to 1923" one) can be updated, or not? I get confused about that, so some advice would be appreciated. Thanks. Carcharoth 13:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure. If he died in 1885 that would also make it eligible for upload to the commons as well. Megapixie 04:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I changed it to {{PD-art}}. Hopefully a bot will upload it to Commons - though I'll try and remember later. Carcharoth 01:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted image

Hi - I downloaded three CD covers but these have been deleted on the basis that "there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under 'fair use' may be invalid"

I had understood that copies of CD covers was valid as part of a discography. Could you clarify please?

Thanks

3seat 06:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

If you used a template for album covers, you have to include |Article=(name) for it to produce the name of the article the fair use is being claimed for. Most cases of deletion are these-invalid fair use. --βandβ ^{(talk•contribs)} 06:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Cd covers are not allowed as part of a discography. It violates WP:NFCC #3 and #8. See WP:NFC#Unacceptable images. Rettetast 11:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Photos - restricting non-wikipedia commercial use

I am a photographer. I want to put some of my images on Wikipedia. I want to license them for use on Wikipedia (which apparently means I must give "commercial use" permission) and allow the image to be used by others in non-commercial ways (with attribution).

But I do NOT want to give free license for others to use them for all other commercial uses - e.g. if someone wants to use these images in a book or for a billboard ad they need to contact me for a license.

Is this possible? I tried to set the licensing for one image as: Attribution + Noncommercial + ShareAlike (by-nc-sa) but the image was removed.  :-(

Thanks!

jc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcdill (talk • contribs) 17:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy favors the free reuse of Wikipedia content. There are two kinds of images on Wikipedia: Free images, which can be reused by anybody for anything (including commercial). And non-free images, which are strongly discouraged and can be used only under special circumstances (see WP:NFCC). Sorry, but it sounds like you don’t want to release the images under a free license; so you could post them only under WP:NFCC – most significantly a non-free image must not be replaceable by a free image, and its use must contribute significantly to the articles where it is used. Your photo of Landon Curt Noll presumably could be replaced with a free image by another person. --teb728 22:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Jokela School Shooting

I uploaded [[6]] and mentioned that it was a photograph of the Jokela School Centre, taken by the perpetrator of the recent school shooting. I thought it would be a better replacement of the main image of the perpetrator (the image of him would subsequently be moved to the section 'the shooter') - [to my edit]. The image was removed for being "nonfree". But, surely, the picture of the perpetrator himself is also "nonfree". Why was my image singled out and deleted? Gregh 17:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The other image was not targeted because its description page (Image:Jokela-school-shooter.jpg) provides source information (a youtube link) and a licensing tag ({{Non-free film screenshot}}); your image (Image:Jokelan Lukio.png) was targeted because it provides neither. The other image also provides a non-free use rationale; for your image to survive, it will need that as well. Even then your image might have trouble because it could be replaced by a free image of the school; the fact that was taken by the shooter does not make it better. --teb728 18:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Uploading images with permission

If I am going to upload an image in which I've been granted permission to do so, which would the best "licensing" to choose in the uploading mode? FoxLad 13:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it permission to use only on Wikipedia or is it blanket permission to allow anyone in the world to use or edit it for any purpose, commercially or non-commercially, in original or modified version, subject only to a right of attribution? In the former case permission is irrelevant and we treat it as a non-free use, subject to all of the limitations and requirements of a non-free image. The tag would depend on what the image is - Artwork? Promotional photo? Historical photo? In the latter case, the best thing to do is to upload it to Wikimedia Commons or Flickr under a GDFL license, and although you can probably do it, it's safest to have the copyright holder do it to make sure they know what they're getting into.Wikidemo 19:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale?

A while ago I uploaded the image Literaxxboard.PNG . I got the owner of the site's permission to use it, so I figured that was ok. Now there's some sort of disputed fair use rationale thing, and I don't understand what it means :/ . What should I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lark ascending (talk • contribs) 03:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears a bot noticed that Image:Literaxxboard.PNG‎ is used on Scrabble variants‎, but the image page does not provide a non-free-use rationale which links to that page. See WP:NFURG for guidance on how to create a non-free-use rationale. (By the way, the web site owner’s permission is neither necessary nor sufficient for using non-free content.) --teb728 09:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Modwheelmood EP cover art proposed deletion

I have recently recieved a message stating that the cover art for Modwheelmood's EP ? "has a fair use rationale that is disputed because of the following concern: invalid rationale per WP:NFCC#10c." I cannot see what is wrong with using this image: Image:Modwheelmood EP cover art.JPG as I have cited where I obtained it and used the correct licensing. The image is used soley for the purpose of illustrating the EP and hence there can be no replacement for it. I am new to Wikipedia, and BetacommandBot, who proposed the deletion, recommended that I enquire here. Any help would be much appreciated. Ahc.ii 03:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Are patent drawings public domain? Otherwise usable?

I have recently written an article about a series of aircraft of odd design. The only diagrams I can find are from a 1935 magazine article, and the series of patents the designer filed in 1929. Are patent diagrams PD? If not, have they expired by this point? Is there some other way these could be used? Maury 21:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

{{PD-Pre1978}} may apply, but otherwise you'll have to use the WP:NFCC. Stifle (talk) 22:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way we can tell the difference for sure? I would suspect that US patents fall under something other than straight copyright, but how do we know for sure? Maury 03:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Patent images are generally PD - unless the patent specifically states that they are not. See Image:Macleod_Claymore_patent.png Megapixie 13:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, patent drawings are always PD if the patent is actually granted. See [7]. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, on re-reading, that was clear as dirt. The design itself is always PD. As a "useful article", design drawings are not covered under the same section of copyright law as other works. To the extent that mask work for semiconductors or some element not part of the design is part of the drawing, those portions of the drawing may be copyrighted and will be so marked. Any other part of the drawing, actually embodying the design, will be PD. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Feist TheReminder.png

A bot has tagged Image:Feist TheReminder.png for possible deletion as a copyright infringement. When I downloaded the image several days ago, I included a fair use rationale that is consistent with several other album covers on Wikipedia so I don't understand what the problem is or how to resolve it. Can you help me understand please? FYI, the image isn't even the album cover itself. It is a scanned image of a paper insert in the CD that is an add for ringtones. Using the image to explain the album is, I thought, a valid fair use. Your help is appreciated. Truthanado 19:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the image from the article it was used. Cd covers are not allowed as part of a discography. It violates WP:NFCC #3 and #8. See WP:NFC#Unacceptable images. Rettetast 20:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick feedback. Although I don;t fully understand what constitutes free use and what does not, I understand the Wikipedia policy you refer to. Since the purpose of the image was to illustrate the album (which is not valid) I am marking the image for speedy delete. Truthanado 20:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

An album cover (or other remarkable images associated with an album such as your example here) can be used to illustrate an article about the album itself, where criticism or commentary about it is being presented. If there was an article about the album, the image would be perfectly acceptable there. It is not acceptable for illustrating a bare list of titles. (I don't know which article this image appeared in, so I'm going by Rettetast's description of its use in a discography.)

Whether it's a cover or a insert, it's still covered by copyright. We must respect that and use it only within permissible fair use boundaries. Wikipedia policy is actually more restrictive than the law requires in order to encourage the creation of free media. That's obviously not possible in this case -- but it's cases where no free media can possibly be made where fair use is allowed. But this was very questionable fair use. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

USS Jonas Ingram in Wiki - photo I uploaded on 11/06/07

hi, i am a new contributor here. I uploaded a file on 11/6 with a pic of the USS Jonas Ingram, a ship I served on in the 1970s (there were no pics of the ship on Wiki). Is there anything else i need to do, re: a tag?? I checked today and don't see the pic out there yet.

thanks so much! Looking forward to becoming a frequent contributor Jim Carroll airforcefalcon05@yahoo.com Airforcefalcon05 15:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing to the encyclopedia. More expertise on any subject is always welcome.

I'm not sure what you're expecting to happen. The photo is here: Image:JonasIngram.jpg. If you want it to appear in an article, you need to place it yourself. See the tutorial on extended image syntax to find out how. The basic format is something like [[Image:JonasIngram.jpg|thumb|right|200px|USS Jonas Ingram]] This will insert the image as a clickable thumbnail to the full image, right-aligned on the page, 200 pixels wide, with "USS Jonas Ingram" for the caption. Change "right" to "left" to place it on the left side instead, and change that 200 to something else if you want it sized differently. (It's a bad idea to use a full-size image in an article when it's this big.) You can change the caption to anything suitable. You insert this into the text of the article at about the place where you'd like the image to appear. Precise placement is impossible due to the different conditions under which a web browser must render a page. At best, by placing it in a certain location in the text you're specifying where you want the text to begin wrapping around the image.

This image is not PD unless Lt. Leonhardt took the photo as part of his official duties. In that case it is a work of the US Navy and is already in the public domain by law, and should be tagged {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}.

On the other hand, if Lt. Leonhardt took the photo on his own time, then he owns the copyright and we cannot host it here without his explicit release under a free license. See WP:COPYREQ for guidelines on exactly what to ask for. Note that we cannot use an image licensed "for Wikipedia only", "non-commercial use only", etc. It must be a license that allows reuse by anyone for any purpose, including derivative works. Once permission is received you can tag it with the license granted, but be sure to follow the instructions near the bottom of the COPYREQ page for notifying the Foundation of the received permission so there's a record of it in the system. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Pakistan's Copyright Laws

A photo of Mohammed Ali Jinnah has been used on the Ziarat page, and many others. It is claimed that it's copyright has expired under Pakistan's copyright laws, putting this image in the public domain. The fact that Jinnah died in 1948 proves that this image is more than 50 years old. If Pakistan's copyright laws are accepted, then this image is in the public domain and should not need a fair use tag. If it does, does this explanation as written above fulfil the requirement? Martin Cordon 23:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

PS. Any answer is too late in this case, all the photos of Jinnah labelled as being Public Domain have been removed. Martin Cordon 12:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

uploading a file/an article

I would like to upload a file/an articcle on certain dedicated mine winders safety equipments, which I used to design and manufacture for general knowladge of technical persons engaged in mining activities. How can I do it? What are the benifits and what are the restrictions? please advise Thanks I am P. RATHORE and my email address is "mineneeds@hotmail.com" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.88.129 (talk) 07:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The benefit is that you contribute to the general pool of freely available human knowledge.

The restrictions in terms of copyright are that any material you add must be created by you, you must own the copyright to it, and -- as it says at the bottom of every edit window -- you must agree to license your contributions under the GFDL.

There are a number of other important considerations, the chief of which are maintaining a neutral point of view and no original research is allowed, but must all be referenced from reliable sources. Also, you must be willing to allow others to edit your work, sometimes extensively. "Five Pillars of Wikipedia" is a good starting place to learn about Wikipedia's philosophy. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Images with Permission?

I got a note saying that an image I posted may not fall under the fair use umbrella. The image was a cover of a magazine in an article about that magazine. I work for the company that publishes the magazine and was given permission to use it. Is that not alright? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travisawells (talk • contribs) 10:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Permission is irrelevant under fair use. The only permission that Wikipedia accepts is free use, which permits reuse by anybody for anything. Wikipedia policy severely restricts the use of non-free content. See WP:NFC and WP:NFCRG for details. --teb728 20:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Promotional photo of Richard D. Lewis

image:Richard-d-lewis.jpg This image was supplied with the permission of Richard Lewis Communications. They use it for publications and on the web and distribute it to organisations who may use in the context of articles and promotion of talks/seminars that he may give. This photo was commissioned for this purpose, although it is not clear who holds the copyright.

Which copyright tag should be used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archibaldgrabbitch (talk • contribs) 12:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Richard Lewis Communications may use a photograph without knowing the copyright status, but Wikipedia doesn’t. Without knowing who owns the copyright you can’t use a free-use tag. And inasmuch as Lewis is living, non-free use is virtually impossible, for it should be possible to get a free image of him. Do I assume correctly that you work for him? If so, take your own picture of him, and use that. --teb728 19:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

approved image deleted

My image was proven legal to be shown on the corresponding page. It was tagged my a person who not only dislikes me personally, but to abuse the privileges given to them by such entities as Wikipedia in order to annoy me. It is utterly clear that Wikipedia does not check the source of the complaints, even when the information is right on your own servers. By tagging this image for removal, she is trying to get more personal information so that I can get the already approved image returned. I would rather remove his information from this site before that happens again. And should Wikipedia take her entry concerning this specific actor, you will also be added to the pending lawsuit that the family has undertaken from this psychopath getting hold of their email address from this site in the first place. I want the approved image returned or else just tell me and I will remove his entry completely. I will not allow this deceased individual and his family to be traumatized further simply because I wanted his TRUE information and LEGAL photograph to be a part of a well-known information service. Check your sources. Spost8260 14:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)spost8260

Looks to me like it should be allowed as a non-free image, as the subject is deceased. Anyone object to restoration of the image on those terms? -- But|seriously|folks  17:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The image in question is Image:Frankieburkepersonal4READY.jpg and Image:FRANKIEBURKEPERSONAL4.jpg. -- But|seriously|folks  17:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the image might be restored, but based on his comments above I wonder if User:Spost8260 should be blocked for violating WP:AFG and WP:LEGAL. --teb728 19:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Albert Einstein memorial photos

I am concerned about the copyright status of Albert Einstein memorial photos: Image:Washington DC Oct 2005 Einstein 02.jpg and Image:EinsteinSculptureWashington 07110012.jpg. Both claim to be self-published, but they seem to be derivative of a sculpture that ought to be copyrighted. It seems to me that the description pages ought at least to address the copyright status of the sculpture. Right? --teb728 02:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC) Also Commons:Image:Einstein Memorial.jpg --teb728 02:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Standard question for sculpture. The photographs themselves are GDFL. The artwork protrayed is (depending on the Federal issues) probably copyrighted by the artist. Thus, non-free. It needs an appropriate copyright tag (for 3D artowork), a non-free use rationale, and all the usual stuff. Simply taking a picture of a copyrighted work doesn't entitle you to release the copyright to the public. Wikidemo 08:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Remembering that this generally only applies to contemporary (roughly last century) artworks. Old sculptures generally are now in the public domain. Talking of which, precisely when do old sculptures end up in the public domain? Carcharoth 01:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

They have the same copyright term as other art. "Publication" is the date on which it went on public display. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Image of Actor keeps being deleted.

Hi I have made several attempts to load an image onto the actor info page for Richard Armitage. I have an image that I have screencapped myself. It is also available on the web at [http://www.thearmitagearmy.co.uk/ The Armitage Army. I chose the license {{Non-free television screenshot}} with the following inclusion of This image is a low resolution screenshot taken from the BBC television programme Robin Hood but it was deleted.

If I were to add

{{Non-free use rationale | Description = Picture of Richard Armitage as character Guy of Gisborne | Source = personally aquired image | Article = not sure if I put image name or actor name here??????? | Portion = cropped from widescreen image | Low_resolution = yes | Purpose = image relates to a biography article of subject | Replaceability = ????????? | other_information = (optional variable, can be left out) }} I am not sure what to put for 'Replaceability' - advice please.

If I add this rationale with missing data added, will the image remain?

Madnaduk 11:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

No, replaceability is in fact the problem here. Non-free images of living people generally cannot be used on Wikipedia. Since he is alive, you need to find a free image of him. Screencaps and promo photos won't work. -- But|seriously|folks  18:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input! I have seen other screen shots for other actors info pages - which is why I thought this would be ok. If I were to get a friend to upload a photo that she took herself - as long as she picked "{{GFDL-self}}" that would be ok then?

Yes, that is exactly the kind of thing the policy is intended to encourage. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Are there legal issues about the formats rather than about the content?

Should we be legally concerned about what format to use for our uploads? I have a file to upload, say, an image. The work is entirely free, but the file is in some exotic format. Can this be a legal issue?

Particularly, my problem is about an image created with Corel PhotoPaint X3; it uses its own format, with the extension CPT.

I am aware that, aside from the legal aspects, using such a media limits its usability by some users, who might need to pay for a license to use the software that would enable them to use the media. Do we have any guideline regarding this issue (non-legal)?

In short: Could a file be illegal, not by its content but by its format? What about Corel PhotoPaint's format? Do we have any guidelines regarding the use of non-free formats, still provided that they're used legally?

Thanks in advance for your help.

Un saludo.

Alfredo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.220.222.140 (talk) 04:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue with format isn't related to copyright, but to what a web browser is able to render. I seriously doubt any of them can handle CPT. Export the image to a web-standard format like PNG before uploading. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

To expand on that: Wikipedia is not a general media repository, but an encyclopedia. There's no encyclopedic reason to upload files in any format other than those normally used -- and in fact normally permitted; I doubt the upload form will accept a CPT file. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The article has a GIF version. Anyway, I thought it would be good to make the CPT available, since it has more detail, including layers and so on. So, I thought of linking the CPT to the image in the article. Given that Wikipedia is not a general media repository, is it a bad idea to upload the CPT to link to it from an article (assuming that the upload form allows it)?

Still, what about legal issues?

Alfredo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.220.222.140 (talk) 04:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

In general there are no legal issues in cases like this, just technical ones, but your license may say something else.

Since I don't know what image you're talking about, I can't say much about the technical end except that I'd be surprised if GIF was a very good format for any image complex enough to require layers to manipulate it. So you may still be in a position to upload a better image, in a more suitable format and higher resolution. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's a drawn sketch of a tree-like data structure. The GIF version doesn't actually contain all the information, as you supposed. Furthermore, the layer separation of the very elements in the GIF helps understanding. But anyway you're right, I could upload a higher resolution image in a more suitable format, as an alternative to uploading the CPT. What would you recommend me? The article I'm talking about is the one for Segment tree.

Alfredo.

Justa Stove

I have located a PDF file that does a good job of explaining "Justa Stove" at http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/TWP/justa/Justa_stoveone-pager.pdf and i wanted to see if it could be used to create the article text / images for it.

sorry, just realised that I forgot to leave my name and stuff.Kb5tlq 04:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC) John- user kb5tlq

You can use it for a reference, and you can cite it, but you shouldn't quote from it. It would also be better for you to redraw the diagram of the stove. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:JemtalentsearchVHS.JPG

I created this file, scanned it off from my own video tape collection, and would like the image used on the Jem (TV series) listing on Wikipedia's website regarding the show's old VHS releases from the 1980s, just to illustrate an image to one of the VHS videos. How can I fix the image copyright dispute to properly leave the image on Wikipedia permanently? I give Wikipedia full permission to use this image. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks.

(talk) 02:04, 9 November 2007 User:Queen of Swords —Preceding comment was added at 09:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What the warning at Image:JemtalentsearchVHS.JPG is telling you is that you need to provide a non-free-use rationale for Jem (TV series) as described by WP:NFURG. --teb728 09:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Saloniki population graph.png

OrphanBot is being obnoxious, and I'm [possibly] being stupid. Please see the image page, and if I've done something incorrectly, please drop me a note on my talk page letting me know what I should have done instead of what I have. Sorry to be such a pain, but I really don't know what else to do. OrphanBot lied, IMHO, and I really don't know what I did wrong. I may need correction, and will try not to be too obnoxious in receipt thereof. Thanks for your time. Tomer^talk 09:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow you. The image was untagged when OrphanBot visited it. According to the page history, you uploaded it to the English Wikipedia at 8:05, untagged even after the subsequent edit [8], OrphanBot tagged it at 9:09, you made a series of edits ending at 9:31 when it ended up finally tagged -- the current version -- and you posted here at 9:35.

The bots do not check other Wikis you may link to. There's rarely a point, since different ones have different rules, and a tag in one place (in general) might not be valid in another. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:2005 Per Capita.PNG

I'm not familier with how to copywright materials. I am trying to copywright the file Image:2005 Per Capita.PNG and I'm not sure how. I created this file on my own. This file is probably origional and unique. I searched through the pages and the best I could find was to insert the phrase "{{PD-self}}". Apparently I'm missing a tag and I don't know how to tag this file. Davidmmcfadden 03:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The copyright notice you inserted on the image description page corresponds roughly to a GFDL license. If that is what you wanted you should have used the {{GFDL-self}} tag. I see that an anonymous editor has replaced your copyright notice with a {{PD-self}} tag. That is OK if you want to give up your copyright; otherwise replace it with a {{GFDL-self}} tag. But in any case you should remove the {{untagged}} tag. --teb728 21:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Advice please: How do I stop my own photos being removed?

I illustrated an article with my own photos, but one by one they have been removed for copyright violation or something. The note left by the remover refers me to a page which is supposed to show me how to stop this happening, but the page does not actually explain what to do. I have lost 3 photos already! Can someone please add details of how to tag my own photos (i.e. I took the) in such a way that some busybody will not keep removing them. Thanks Sah10406 21:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. If you took the image (that is, you took the picture and is not a picture of a postcard or a scanning), you need to choose a license. You must know that others will be able to use your image for profit, or edit it if necessary. If you don't have any problem with that, there are a few licenses that may be used: {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}, {{cc-by-2.5}}, {{PD-self}} or {{GFDL-self}}. Also, please provide some information about the image (when you took the image, where, etc). Finally, consider adding it directly to Wikimedia Commons so that other Wikimedia projects can use them (although if you are not sure, just upload them here and someone else will upload them there later). -- ReyBrujo 00:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

What type of license is a picture I took with my camera?LeonardoGolden 17:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If you took the picture, you can choose between Public Domain, GFDL or Creative Commons. Check the upload form to learn a bit more about the different licenses. If you are uploading such a free image (you took it and want to "donate" it to Wikipedia and all the editors) you can upload it at Wikimedia Commons directly (you will need to create an account there). -- ReyBrujo 19:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Adding the right copyright tag to photo

Hi - I am a newbie and I have had the following message appear. I'm stuck and I don't know how to edit my photo with the right tag. Please help

You appear to have taken an image from a copyrighted source and placed it on Wikipedia under aGFDL license. You have made no assertion that you are the actual owner of the image and thus have the right to do so.dramatic 17:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the photo Image:RedHat2.jpg

Thanks 21:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Dramatic was referring to the copyright notice on the source page, which says “The text and images on this site are for personal use and the public. Any other publication of the copyright holder, Copyright © Ellinore Ginn 1999 - 2007, New Zealand is strictly prohibited,” and to the text you put on the image description page, which is confusing: “The copyright belongs to my late mother or the Ginn family "Own work, all rights released (Public domain)"” And there is a GFDL license tag. I don’t understand: Does the copyright belong to your mother, to the Ginn family, or to you? Or has someone released it into the Public Domain (in which case there is no copyright)? Or is it licensed under GFDL, which is inconsistent with Public Domain? Was the picture taken by you personally or by a photographer? If you own the copyright, you could release it to the Public Domain or license it under GFDL. --teb728 22:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that but - I do not know how to actually add the right tag to my page with the photo on once it's on the site. I actually own the photograph and took it myself.

I also think my own webpage itself has the wrong copyright notice on it and I will have to get someone to show me what it should be.

Can you please put on the right copyright on my site here or not? I don't want to get it deleted.

I also have uploaded 2 other pictures somewhere but they are not on my site and I don't know where they are to delete them as they are probably wrong too. Where are they? Is there a File Manager that holds my own uploaded photos somewhere?

Hope you can help and thanks once again

--SphinxGottaGo 20:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The other two images are Image:ReturnMe.jpg‎ and Image:Musicbox.jpg‎. You could have found them (and all your other contributions) by clicking on “my contributions” at the top the page.

The picture of your mother is not tagged for deletion; so it is not in immediate danger of being deleted. If you do own the image, it has a good tag already. The concern expressed by User:Dramatic is that you do actually claim that you own the image. If you do not own it, you cannot license its use. --teb728 22:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Book cover images

I made a picture of a book cover Image:HoldOnToYourKids.jpg. In general, is a book cover in the public domain since it is sold in book stores? The book cover picture is used with the article describing the book content. Is this not allowed, the same way we can use the book title. The book title could be argued to be copyright material as well, couldn't it? So my question is: Is it allowed to make a picture of a book cover and upload the image with an article about the book itself, or not?

If that is allowed, what tag should I use? Thanks Ervinn 05:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No, a book cover is in the public domain if its first edition was created and first published before January 1, 1923, or at least 95 years before January 1 of the current year, whichever is later For all newer covers the copyright is still valid, and therefore finding an image of the cover in Amazon or scanning it is the same: they must be tagged as fair use ones. -- ReyBrujo 15:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding Lawsuits?

Some of the administrators these days are attempting to limit the usage of non-free pics that feature living people by deleting those which they consider replaceable. What is the point really? Is it to avoid lawsuits which copyright holders of certain images might file once they see their pictures being posted here? Duke17 13:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is because we are a "free" encyclopedia, and therefore should aim at getting free content. I always quote our former lawyer's words: Don't seek sanctuary in the law. Make the law irrelevant. Provide free content everywhere you can. Hopefully one day agencies and studios will donate images and media to us with free licenses, but until then, I think we can live without them. -- ReyBrujo 15:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rey, but additionally it does reduces wikipedia's (and other content re-users) potential exposure to copyright infringement lawsuits down the line. Megapixie 23:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Flint Indians scorecardf from 1941

Hi,

I would like to add an image (or two) from a scorecard to the "Flint Indians" page, but I'm not sure what media copyright to use. Actually, I'm not sure if a copyright for this even exists, since the team and the whole league folded about 66 years ago. I own this scorecard and just scanned it last night.

Thanks, Brent —Preceding unsigned comment added by CMUBrent (talk • contribs) 19:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Does the scorecard have a copyright notice on it? If not, I should think the image would be a candidate for {{PD-Pre1978}}, being published in the US before 1978 without a copyright notice. --teb728 02:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Concerning two LOGOS that were uploaded

Image:Corintians_logo.jpg & Image:Corintians.gif Were both uploaded as FAIR USE LOGOS. I used only low-res versions of the logos and was very careful to include both the {non-free logo} message as specified by Wikipedia:Logos AND the fair use rational, which clearly specified the logos use instructions. STILL, both logos are being considered for deletion? What did I do wrong and how can I stop the deletion? Tedzsee 22:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The images were tagged by betacommand bot because they didn't have a fair use rationale (he also left a message on your talk page). Between then and now some helpful individual added a fair use rationale (go to the image description page and look at the history). They do not appear to be in danger of being deleted at the moment. Megapixie 23:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment in general

I am concerned that Wikipedia's polcies are more concerned with the policing and removal of images than with the possible benefit that a supposedly 'free' encyclopedia would gain by having less exclusionary policies regarding images in place. There are countless articles where we have a well-worded and fairly complete compendium of knowledge on the particular person, item or concept, yet due to complex copyright issues, one cannot even see a simple image of said topic. Perhaps instead of 'Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia', the title should be 'Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia with Unduly Restrictive Image Copyright Policies'. C'mon people, let's loosen up a little and allow images to be used here more freely. Maybe it will infringe on some copyright issues, but the greater good should be what's most important. What harm really is there in a picture that someone owns showing up in an online encyclopedia? That the copyright owner doesn't receive a royalty? Really? I mean, it's an encyclopedia, who's being injured? Where is the royalty? Who is illegally benefitting instead? Feel free to debate this point with me here or on my talk page, as I feel strongly about this. ROB 05:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC) (My Talk Page)

I agree with your sentiments, but I assume that the good folk who run Wikipedia are worried about possible lawsuits, which can be made for reasons that seem to some observers to be trivial. It would be a shame if Wikipedia, for all its faults, failed because someone sued it. Patche99z 17:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

band

i'm uploading an article about a band, but i don't know what the license should be —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxmax12 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don’t understand: It sounds as if you are asking about a text article rather than an image, but this page is for image and other media questions.

Assuming you are asking about a text article, all text in Wikipedia must be GFDL. If it is an article you are creating (rather than copying from another source), by uploading it you inherently license it under GFDL. If it is an article by someone else (and it sounds as if that is what you mean), you could upload it only if it is licensed under GFDL. If it is an article by someone else that is not GFDL, you could rewrite it in your own words. --teb728 17:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Uploading copies of admission tickets

We have purchased admission tickets for the annual Surin (Thailand) Elephant Round-up (2007) which include a schedule of the events. Would it be acceptable to upload a scanned copy of a ticket?

Freebeerforyorky 02:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously we can’t get a free license for that, which mean it could uploaded only under Wikipedia’s very restrictive non-free content criteria. I can’t imagine any use which would conform with them. What do you have in mind?

If you just want the schedule of events, you could enter it in text form. --teb728 02:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I see you have uploaded it anyway at Image:Roundup2007.jpg. You will need a non-free content rationale for each use. Good luck with that. --teb728 17:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Tarot card images

What about images of a restored ancient Tarot cards. The cards are dated to the 17th century and held in a museum but there is a recent replica/restoration of these cards? http://tarot-history.com/boutique/index.php?Lang=EN

there is a 2007 edition and an edition with no year associated. http://tarot-history.com/Jean-Noblet/pages/ll-bateleur.html http://tarot-history.com/Jean-Noblet/pages/la-papesse.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.139.119 (talk) 15:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The original cards would be in the public domain. So if you had access to them in the museum, and took your own pictures of them, you could grant a free license to those pictures. But replica/restorations made by someone else (such as those on that site) would be copyrighted to the person who made the replica/restorations. In order to use them, the person who made the replica/restorations would have to grant a license. Inasmuch as the replica/restorations on the site are offered for sale, there is probably no chance of that. --teb728 17:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lair of the lion.jpg.

This image has been taged as a disputed non-fair use. I'm not sure why this is so. It is image of cover art to a book. It's not for advertising, and it isn't used as a substitute of the book. What is the problem?

Jahunta07 22:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

What the warning at Image:Lair of the lion.jpg is telling you is that you need to provide a non-free-use rationale for Lair of the Lion as described by WP:NFURG. --teb728 23:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Jeopardy questions

Are these screenshots really copyrightable? The question itself I can possibly see, but the image is just text on a blue background. Don't they qualify for the Template:PD-ineligible tag? I ask in relation to this image: Image:Leeroy Jenkins Jeopardy clue.jpg --SeizureDog 03:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

links

can I have a link to wikipedia on my web site home pageDianes Jewelry 03:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you can't use your business name as your username here. -- But|seriously|folks  19:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Why not? I don't see anything about business names at WP:UN. --teb728 21:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It's right in the middle of the page. -- But|seriously|folks  20:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoa!!!! wtf? Way to bite the newbie right up the bottom. You should give a better explanation than just slapping a ban on Diane's Jewelry because it's iffy if that person might see info here. Remember, if you're an admin you're also an ambassador for Wiki. Guroadrunner 07:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I second that. I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who thinks so. --teb728 09:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

19th Century Philadelphia Map

Could someone look at this image, Image:PhilaCnty1854.jpg and help with what the status of the image is? The dates in the bottom corner are blurry. --evrik ^(talk) 17:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I see you give www.library.upenn.edu (University of Pennsylvania Library) as an alternate source. Why not ask them the copyright status? --teb728 18:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• I sent an email earlier today, but because the deletion tag is looming I'm not confident we'll get a response soon enough. I also called the city. --evrik ^(talk) 20:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The most recent date on the map is 1959, and appears to be the work of the Bureau of Engineering & Surveys, Philly. Not sure what local government copyright in the US is like - someone must know that. I'd guess they hold copyright and that it is not PD. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If it was published in the United States prior to 1978 without copyright notice, it could still be {{PD-Pre1978}}. Are public documents of this kind considered to be “published” when they are made? --teb728 18:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

sideeffects of glutathione,desired effects too?

what are the desired effects of this drug?is it for whitening for the skin?any sideeffects? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.142.58 (talk) 21:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not a media copyright question. --teb728 01:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Company Information

Good Afternoon

My name is Fonda Manell I am employed at a company called Sabinet based in South Africa. We basically offer information services pertaining to Legislation, journals etc through subscription basis.

I have been assigned the task of making our Company/Services more visible on the Internet and I thought it would be a good idea if I could upload a file onto the wikipedia site.

I would like to upload our company profile onto the Wikipedia site and I am unable to since the information on your site is a little daunting and there is so much of it to sift through.

Would someone be able to walk me through how to do it.

Thank you and Regards Fonda Manell fonda@sabinet.co.za —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fonda33 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Sabinet is a notable company; so it would be appropriate to have an article about it. Bear in mind though that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. So the information in the article must be neutral and encyclopedic; it must not look like a public relations release or an advertisment. Inasmuch as you work for the company, you may be perceived as having a conflict of interest; please read WP:COI. Also although the article would be about the company, it does not belong to the company; anybody can edit it.

I agree that Wikipedia is a little daunting for newcomers. A good starting reference is the Welcome Page. If you already have the start of a neutral encyclopedic article, you can click here on Sabinet and start editing.

One further tip: On help pages such as this one (and also on talk pages) but not on article pages, you should sign your post with ~~~~ (4 tildes). This will add a signature—like mine: teb728 18:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Car picture from website

I found a picture of a car (1942 De Soto)on a website (http://oldcarandtruckpictures.com/Chrysler/1942DeSotoCoupe-may16b.jpg) that I would like to include an a article, but I'm unsure of its copyright. I need some help. Thanks, WHRM3 19:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The site says "These pictures came for a number of sources including web pages of the manufacturer, news groups and my own.". We can't use any of them. Secretlondon 22:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I want to add this image from an Uk MoD website.

I think the article on the FV430 series APC used by the British army could do with an image of the latest version currently deployed in Iraq as images show the significant differences clearly. Anyway, I found a few images on an MoD website which are covered by Crown Copyright. Reading the terms of use (see [9]) seems to suggest that wikipedia can use images off their website for free as long as for "research" or "reporting current affairs". I'm guessing wikipedia could use images off of the site then.

I thought I'd check here anyway, just in case I'm wrong.

These are the images in question: [10] [11]

Please post in my talk page to answer me as I might forget to check here for answers.

--Tom of north wales 21:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

We can't use it "This material may be reproduced for the purposes of non-commercial research or private study and for the purposes of reporting current events only.". We are not current affairs and we are not non commercial. Secretlondon 22:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

And even if we fit their restriction, as a matter of policy Wikipedia accepts only licenses which allow reuse by anyone for anything. --teb728 23:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

taxes

i have unfiled tax returns for 2001 and 2002 that the government owes me money is there anyway to recoup that barring the three year limit the government preposees —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.91.10 (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not a media copyright question. --teb728 01:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

High School Musical 2 (Hindi Version)

I uploaded the image Image:Hm2hindi.jpg and got an error message since I didn't add a copyright tag. I'm not exactly sure how to add one of those. I got the image off of this page (http://www.musicindiaonline.com/music/hindi_bollywood/s/movie_name.9470/). If anyone could help, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks ImtiazAA 16:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hand drawn image of copyright logo

The following Image:FAITHemblemPKproFinal.jpg is claimed to be a hand drawn version of a copyright logo from an animated series. Is the current tagging sufficient?144.15.255.227 22:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No. It's covered by the copyright on the original screenshot. This is at best a derivative work of the original and cannot be released under a free license. It needs a rationale. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the proper procedure when the tag requesting valid fair use rationale for this image keeps getting reverted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.41 (talk) 02:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe tag it with {{pui}} and list it at WP:PUI. See WP:PUI#Instructions for instructions. --teb728 08:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyright dispute about image use in info box

In an issue tangentialy related to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Hand drawn image of copyright logo, the copyright images Image:Zaft2.jpeg and Image:Rengo2.jpeg appear to be used in violation of WP:NFCC#8 in a number of articles where they appear in an infobox to indicate the fictional characters' factional alliance - uses where simply the name of the alliance will provide the same information. The {di} tag keeps getting removed without addressing the fair use issues. What is the proper method of dealing with this situation? 207.69.137.7 03:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This is in fact a content dispute and part of a WP:POINT campaign by several anonymous IP addresses. -- Jtrainor (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

My take (for what it’s worth) is that these images are used according to our non-free use policy on List of Cosmic Era factions but not on the other articles. ---- teb728 (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Public School Logos

I uploaded the image Image:OBHS_Logo.jpg to use on the entry for my old high school. I got the image off of the district website[12] and cropped it down to size.

Is this fair use? It's a small logo of a public school's mascot, used simply to show what the mascot looks like. Thanks.

AdamKidabra 10:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

copyright tags

I'm trying to add a copyright tag to a satelite image taken from local.live.com. The copyright would go to (c) 2007 Microsoft. How do I add this tage to a photo? What is the proper tag to add to the photo?

Thanks,

jda —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuatrees (talk • contribs) 17:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but Image:League park today.jpeg can’t be used. As non-free content it could only be used under WP:NFCC. But someone could get an airplane and take an equivalent free image; so it fails WP:NFCC#1 ---- teb728 (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Weil

The entry on Dr. Andrew Weil currently contains the image of a 1997 TIME magazine cover. This reference is out of date: Dr. Weil was featured on the cover of TIME magazine on Oct. 17, 2005. I have tried to upload this more contemporaneous image, but it does not seem to take, even though someone managed to successfully upload an image with the same copyright issues, but from an older issue of the magazine. Can anyone help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scienceman11 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 16 November 2007

I don’t know what you mean by “it didn’t take.” You have three images:

• Image:Dr. Andrew Weil 2005 TIME cover.jpg, which you uploaded at 16:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC),
• Image:Dr. Andrew Weil Oct 17 2005 TIME cover.jpg‎, which you uploaded at 16:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC), and
• Image:Andrew Weil Oct. 17 2005 TIME cover.jpg‎, which you uploaded at 17:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC).

Inasmuch as they are duplicates, at least two of them will be deleted. --teb728 (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Tatw-logo.gif

I am trying to respond to this tag on my user talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Account9000

that tells me to have an image tag for my logo that I used for my article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tatw-logo.gif

I don't understand this or how to do it. Can someone do it for me (preferred) or explain to me which tag to use and how to do it?

The original source for the image was found here:

http://www.anjunabeats.com/

Thanks.

Account9000 (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The tag you want is undoubtedly {{non-free logo}}. In addition to that, the logo image will need a non-free use rationale for its use on Trance Around the World. You could use the {{logo fur}} template to produce a rationale. (See template:logo fur for how to use it. --teb728 (talk) 03:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobel Prize (R) Medal images

Image:Nobel medal dsc06171.jpg

[and]

Image:DSCN0732.JPG

[and]

Image:Nobel Prize.png

[updated; addition. --NYScholar 00:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)]

• [Re: WP:IUP; particularly WP:IUP#Public domain, WP:IUP#Fair use considerations, and WP:IUP#User-created images. [Added links. Updated. --NYScholar 19:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)]

An administrator has suggested (in User talk:Shell Kinney#Images based on photographs of Nobel Prize (R) Medals) that I post this query here. The query questions the presentation of these images on their image pages and specifically the featuring of a "public domain" in the U.S. template tag being listed for ""Nobel medal dsc-6171.jpg" image and the "GFDL" license on the "DSCN0732.JPG" image. These templates/tags appear to be inconsistent with the uploaders' claims of "fair use" in "Nobel medal dsc06171.jpg" and with the notices of "proprietary rights" posted by the "author" of the designs of the medals, the Nobel Foundation. There still appears to be a need for detailed "fair-use rationales" for each of the separate uses of each one of these images (or any other images of these medals posted in Wikipedia), since they are "Derivative works (photographs) based on images for which the Nobel Foundation still claims to have "proprietary rights". The "public domain" and/or "GFDL" license template tags appear to conflict with registered trademark and copyright notices posted by the author of the image design, the Nobel Foundation. The Nobel Foundation's notices appear to pertain to images of all of its Nobel Prize (R) Medals. The copyright status of the images appears to be more complex than the "GFDL" license on the second image indicates or that the "public domain" in the U.S. tags indicate. Please see the discussions pertaining to these image pages, sources pertaining to the images listed in User talk:NYScholar#Information pertaining to registered trademarks and copyright pertaining to designs and images of the Nobel Prize Medals (and in Archive 16 linked there), in User talk:Shell Kinney#Images based on photographs of Nobel Prize (R) Medals (and prev. sec.), on the linked "non-free use" and "fair use" administrative pages, and the (locked) Wikipedia Foundation correspondence no. cited in the fair-use rationale for "Nobel medal dsc-6171.jpg" (which I am not able to verify myself). Thank you. --NYScholar 22:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The image pages contain links to related discussion as well: e.g., in the first one listed: "Possibly unfree images 2007 October 21. --NYScholar 23:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the history is here. -- But|seriously|folks  23:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that, at this point, NYS is simply forum-shopping to get the image removed. He has not addressed the fact that the registration and copyright of the medal ultimately dooms his argument since it was known the medal was first struck before 1923. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hardly: I was directed to post here by another administrator: User:Shell Kinney in that administrator's talk page.

Moreover, I most certainly have addressed this non-fact. As another user points out, "public domain in the U.S." does not pertain to the images of the Nobel Prize (R) medals. The medal is not registered and copyright in the U.S. prior to 1923. The medal is minted in Sweden still, its image is registered as a trademark still by a Swedish institution (the Nobel Foundation, its "author" of record), and its images are still copyright-protected by the Nobel Foundation. It really appears to me the JC does not know what s/he is talking about and has simply been persuaded by faulty information and faulty logic. Do the research before making such claims. The "public domain" matter is not even currently in the image page of the image that you (JC) protected and have kept protected in Nobel Prize despite claims that the protection does not take a position on the current version.

The whole image page needs re-construction and your protecting it is not helping matters. See the other image that I've linked to for what an image page should look like. This image protection is ridiculous and page protection is ridiculous. There is no way to improve this article due to it. The claim (by an administrator no less) that I am "shopping around" violates WP:AGF. It is also extremely rude.

As a new administrator, you really do need to check some of these policies and stop attacking me personally for my attempts to discuss these matters in good faith. Administrators are supposed to maintain neutrality and to do the kind of research into policies and sources that reveal that they have thought about the matter carefully; they should not jump to false conclusions swayed by uploaders of images who have little concern for whether or not the use of the images actually pertain to the content of the articles. The image that you keep supporting (the edited photograph of the 1933 Nobel Peace Prize (R) medal given to Norman Angell illustrates one side of a Nobel Peace Prize (R) Medal; it does not even illustrate any of the other medals given to those who win Nobel Prizes (and it is not an "image" of a "Nobel Prize"; it's an image from a photograph of one side of a Nobel Peace Prize (R) Medal presented (minted) in 1933. If deemed usable in Wikipedia, it really needs to be placed as an illustration of a pertinent section of a pertinent article (not Nobel Prize's infobox!). The other contested image (the front side of the Nobel Prize (R) Medal for Physics) is far more relevant (it is the image based on the photograph of the front side of one of the five Nobel Prize (R) Medals in various fields [chem., phys., lit., and physiology/med.] to any such section on the medals that might be added to Nobel Prize (and it shouldn't be in an infobox either). If there were a section on the medals in this article on the Nobel Prize, it might be suitable to illustrate it. This one (the Peace Prize medal) is irrelevant to this infobox and all that blackness is, in my view, a distracting blight in the infobox. --NYScholar 06:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You were not "directed" to post here by an admin. To be fair to the admin in question, I am reposting the relevant passage from said admin's user talk page:

"I'm not even reading that. Making your claims over and over using lengthier paragraphs each time you tell me doesn't change the underling problem. Your interpretation of copyright law contradicts current usage on Wikipedia. Since I am not an expert, I have suggested you bring this up with the legal counsel for Wikipedia, or the community at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions where someone may feel they have the time to answer your eternal arguments."

-- But|seriously|folks  06:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I ignored the nasty tone in places and simply responded to: <<"Since I am not an expert, I have suggested you bring this up with the legal counsel for Wikipedia, or the community at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions where someone may feel they have the time to answer your eternal arguments. Shell babelfish 22:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC) I've done that. [I threaded this comment and yours and separated the discussion from what follows, which is not related, by adding a heading for it. Hope that's okay. --NYScholar 22:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)>>

[There's my response.]

To these others: see WP:AGF and stop these false accusations; I posted here in "good faith"; why don't you just stay out of it and let other people respond to my queries; you've already posted a link to all the things you've said before. You're adding nothing new here. I attempted simply to do what Shell suggested; I was unaware of this page before s/he mentioned it. Please allow this section to elicit other people's responses and stop trying to skew things over to your positions that are (in my view) "eternal arguments". --NYScholar 07:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

See my changes to organization (format) of Nobel Prize in Physics and, specifically, the new section (with previous content): Nobel Prize in Physics#The award, which shows an appropriate placement of such an image, with an appropriate caption (if its copyright status is deemed okay). --NYScholar 08:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added a third image, Image:Nobel Prize.png, which has questionable copyright (despite claims in posted licenses by uploaders). (See also "non-free" administrative page.) This image has been uploaded to Wikipedia Commons as well as Wikipedia with misleading licensing information. The image is very close to the trademarked and copyrighted images posted on the site of the Nobel Foundation (nobelprize.org) with a registered trademark for the image (front side of four of five Nobel Prize (R) medals), which the Nobel Foundation states that it has "proprietary rights" to; simply tracing and/or copying the image and then uploading it to Wikipedia image pages and Wikipedia Commons does not give one a license to declare it to be GFDL-compatible (it seems to me). Review requested of the third image, Image:Nobel Prize.png as well. For information, please click on the link provided on the Wikipedia image page, which links to the Wikipedia Commons image page. Yesterday I revised the description of the image in both places; it was previously described as an "image of a Nobel Prize," which it is not. It is a derivative work based on a [registered trademarked and copyrighted (non-free)] image of the front side of the Nobel Prize (R) Medals for four of the five Nobel Prizes (in Physics, Chemistry, Literature, and Physiology or Medicine); the Nobel Peace Prize Medal and the Medal for the Prize in Economics presented at the Nobel Prize ceremony both have different front sides). For source of information about these Nobel Prize Medals, see Birgitta Lemmel's article,"The Nobel Prize Medals and the Medal for the Prize in Economics", provided in the individual prize Wikipedia articles and in Nobel Prize in References or External links secs. Thanks. --NYScholar 00:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC) [additions; added links. --NYScholar 00:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)]

Here's the entry from Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 October 21, for easy ref. (scroll up for other related discussion provided by other user(s). Thanks. --NYScholar 01:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no foundation for the claim that the design of the Nobel Prize medals for Physics and Chemistry, Medicine or Physiology, Literature, and Peace are protected by copyright in the United States. They were first struck in 1902 and have had the same design ever since, according to [13]. Subsequent republication does not extend the term of copyright. They are plainly PD images in the United States, as copyright even on works published abroad before 1923 has expired. See this handy summary from Cornell Law School.

This does not mean they are not registered trademarks: They certainly are. But since we're not using the marks to identify anything other than the Nobel Prize they're intended to represent, we are within the the law and Wikipedia policy to tag them both {{PD-US}} and {{trademark}}.

On the other hand, the medal for Economics is more recent. It was published (i.e. first awarded) in 1968. Unless it can be shown to have been published by the Nobel Foundation in the US without copyright notice before 1 January 1978 -- in which case it's PD as far as copyright is concerned -- copyright will not expire under US law until 1 January 2064.

It is crucial that trademarks and copyrights not be confused. They are two entirely different kinds of protection for intellectual property. Copyright -- very literally, the right to make copies -- expires under certain conditions; this governs issues such as reproduction, derivative use, etc. Trademark -- the exclusive right to identify goods and services with a distinctive design -- never expires unless the owner abandons the mark. We may not use an image of a Nobel Medal to identify some other product. That does not mean you may not use it in some context where it is not identifying a product, in non-defamatory ways, etc. We can, for example, write the words "Nobel Prize" without fear of trademark infringement even though that name is a registered trademark in the US as long as we do not:

(a) use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive; or

(b) reproduce, counterfeit, copy or colorably imitate a registered mark and apply such reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used in commerce upon or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive (15 U.S.C. §1114(1)(a),(b)).

Since it is very unlikely that anyone will mistake a Wikipedia article for a product of the Nobel Foundation, there is nothing to prohibit the use of these images. They are free media within our meaning of the phrase, since there are any number of derivative works that can be made from them while still complying with trademark law. We should, of course, identify the trademark owner in the image description. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• The "Trademark and Copyright" policies stated clearly in the "Terms of Service" regarding the Nobel Prize (R) Medal images and the "design mark" of the Nobel Prize (R) and the copyright notices at the bottom of the webpages on the official site of the Nobel Foundation place the above claims about these images being "free content" in dispute. Despite the templates and claims made on the image pages and in these various discussions, no one has provided a reliable and verifiable source to document that the design of the images (pictured in the derivative works--photographs--uploaded by Wikipedia users) are in the "public domain" in the United States [their copyright "author" is the Nobel Foundation in Sweden; there may be renewals/automatic renewals of copyright that these users are not aware of]; allusions to prevailing laws in the Nobel Foundation's Copyright statements account for such possibilities. All the notices posted on the Nobel Foundation's website assert current and ongoing "proprietary rights" and the need to write the Nobel Foundation for "permission" to feature them and the conditions in its providing such written permission (if and when it does). Fair use rationales still seem to be needed for each use of such images in Wikipedia articles as per Wikipedia policy. The uploaders can only give Wikipedia permission to use their own photographs, but they do not have proprietary rights (e.g., copyright) over the images that their photographs are based on, which look much the same as those featured on the Nobel Foundation website. The Nobel Foundation requires that one post a notice with both the registered trademark and the copyright symbols and "The Nobel Foundation" when it gives permission to feature such images. See Talk:Nobel Prize in Economics for related discussion. A user has written to the Nobel Foundation for further clarification. In earlier correspondence (from Sept. 2006), the Nobel Foundation public relations office stated that it was referring the matter to its legal department. Locked (possibly later) correspondence with the Wikipedia Foundation exists, but I have not seen it. I do not know what it says. --NYScholar 04:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter what it says on their website. Nobody is arguing that they have licensed or otherwise permitted use of the image, so the terms pursuant to which they grant licenses or permissions are irrelevant. And as far as their proprietary claims are concerned, such claims cannot be broader than the rights provided by law. If a design is no longer protected by copyright, it's in the public domain, regardless what its owner says on a website. -- But|seriously|folks  05:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The "if" in your conditional clause is precisely what is being questioned; the Nobel Foundation's copyright and trademark notices do matter (despite your claims to the contrary) and you have provided no documentation/source to establish your claims that they do not. In the notices they refer to legal matters pertaining to their proprietary rights which you do not have enough information to dispute. Until you have concrete details about whether or not the copyrights of the "design" of the images of their Nobel Prize (R) Medals have or have not been renewed subsequent to 1902 +28 years (e.g., 1930 (extending copyright to beg. 1931) plus 95 years=2026), there is no way for you to claim that they are "in the public domain in the United States"; you have clearly not carefully read the laws posted on U.S. government's copyright office site and/or the circulars linked via the Library of Congress; the links are provided on my talk page. Until there is truly a definitive answer about these legal issues, your opinions are simply just opinions and not matters of fact as you state them. Continuing to repeat "public domain" is contrary to the "fair use rationales" already provided on some of these image pages. Some of the images are exceptionally close to the images posted on the Nobel Foundation's website so as to be virtually indistinguishable from them. This closeness does matter and the Nobel Foundation's statements prohibiting "derivative works" matter as well. Though Wikipedians provide statements claiming that the images are based on personal photographs, there is no way to verify those claims. Some users have challenged the first image listed because it looks so close to the image on the Nobel Foundation site for the front side of several of its medals. If the format for presenting the image in that case (which provides fair use rationales) is being accepted in Wikipedia, then the other images need similar fair use rationales as well. There needs to be consistency in the way these image pages are presented that does not make Wikipedia liable to copyright infringement claims from the author of the designs of the images (the Nobel Foundation). The locked correspondence is relevant to this discussion, yet no one has provided verifiable information about what it says. --NYScholar (talk) 09:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• See related updates re: correspondence with the Nobel Foundation (the "author" of the copyrighted designs of the Nobel Prize (R) Medals depicted in images of them); the Nobel Foundation's public relations officer had already referred this matter to its legal department according to correspondence with it in Sept. 2006, referred to in Talk:Nobel Prize (Archive 1) and in Talk:Nobel Prize#The Nobel Prize Medals (and earlier secs. of current talk page). Panda's more recent update simply reiterates what the Nobel Foundation had already stated both in that correspondence cited in Archive 1 and on its own website's notices of copyright and trademark: [that the designs of the Nobel Prize (R) Medals/images are the Nobel Foundation's copyrighted in the U.S. (as well as trademarked in the U.S. and elsewhere).] (Those notices are linked in various discussions of these images and in my own talk page section on them.) --NYScholar (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC) --added info. See also Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 October 22/Images and recent discussions on my talk page and archived in archive 16 of my talk page. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)]

Photograph of Nazi War Criminal

Hello - I am requesting assistance in determining the correct copyright for this picture of a Nazi war criminal, Edward Roschmann. I obtained this image from this site - [14] - but I feel sure that owing to the subject and the era, it is free for public use. K a r n a (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the subject affects its status. And I'm sorry to say that you can't assume from the era that it is PD. Depending on the lifetime of the photographer and/or when and how it was first published, it could still be copyrighted for years. --teb728 (talk) 03:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but then, is this particular image usable? How do I ascertain that? K a r n a (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

What sorts of reasons should I give to justify fair use?

I uploaded an image, and it's a screenshot from a tv show. I classified it as such, and then recieved a message saying that I had to justify why it was "fair use". [15] That is the image in question. Please help. Matt 00:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

See WP:NFURG --teb728 (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

User-friendliness - the wave of the future!

PLEASE! look up "User-friendly" and apply it to this website!

Case in point - here is a copy/paste from the link that brought me to this page:

"If you have a question about a specific image, please be sure to link to it like this: Image:Example.jpg"

Would it not make a LOT more sense to include this note at the top of the page I am using rght now to make ask this question?

As it was, I had to hit the back arrow, copy/paste the quotation to notepad, and then hit this link again just so i could remember the format you wanted this in!

Now to the real question: I uploaded: Image:CaseWiki1.jpg and a bunch of other pics which can be referenced by first clicking on the following link; going to the top menu option; standing on your head; singing the "Star Spangled Banner" while eating a peanut butter sandwich; and right clicking your home folder :)

seriously - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lbrewer42&diff=cur

These pics were made by me, of my own material, and, like it APPEARS to say ont the upload page, were listed as my own work being released for anyone to use anywhere for any reason. Yes, there were some that are from a couple different websites - and I slao stated they were being used with permission. The options that you gave as tags did not wholly fit the actual situation involving the pics so I thought the included explanation was what was needed. Please consider making the tags being built from single-option checkboxes, rather than combining multiple conditions into one check box.

BTW - it took me quite a while to finally sort out where this message goes - and I am not sure, even now, if this is the right place. I do not have time to wade through pages and pages of instructions - few people do - thus fewer (than what could be possible) people will be happy to make submissions (I know I have been duiscouraged as information that I put into the "Glass Insulator" category from even 2 years ago was totally wiped out along with the new page I submitted. Have somone outside the system take the time to ghep you simpliy/majke things more logical. It should not take 3 links to get to this page to post a reply! One link at the end of the original article saying the pic was unnacceptible is easily all that needs be done! Its as if a Microsoft-manual-writer designed your website! :)

Lee BTW - here is a quick, user-friendly, no-nonsense way of answering why the pics I had were not deemed applicable and the entire historical article I wrote was deleted (as was all of the other 2-year old references to glass insulators from the "insulator" category - why???):

Lbrewer42@embarqmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbrewer42 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 18 November 2007

You know, the editors who answer questions on this page don’t get paid for doing so; so you are lucky you found one who was willing to read through your rant.

You have been getting image messages on your talk page since 7 September, and three of them, including the first directed you to this page. If you had come here before those images were deleted, we might have been able to advise you.

At least one of the messages on your talk page complained that the permission on the image was for “for non-profit educational purposes.” Wikipedia does not accept permission unless it permits reuse by anybody for anything. Perhaps the reason no option was offered for what you wanted to do is that what you wanted to do is not permitted.

If a copyright owner is willing to license reuse by anyone for anything, see WP:COPYREQ for how you can handle that. --teb728 (talk) 04:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Renaming an image

I don't know where to ask this but this area handles images.

So there's this image of a racing driver in his car: Image:Luca_Badoer_Minardi_1994.jpg, but the name lists the wrong person driving the car. It should not be Luca Badoer, but instead Pierluigi Martini. How can it be renamed? Guroadrunner 07:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:MV, “To change the name of an image, one needs to upload it again, and copy the image description.” –teb728 17:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Guroadrunner (talk) 10:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:MiguelFerrer_new.jpg

Regarding the use of this image, I have e-mails from Bill Mumy and David Goudsward granting permission to use the image. Who needs to see these to settle this matter, and is there anything else needed? I'm very rarely on Wikipedia during college semesters, so please use leniency with "deletion dates" and time constraints. --Godfoster 23:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia accepts only blanket permission that includes reuse by anyone for anything. And the permission must come from the individual artist who owns the image copyright. I doubt that it is jointly owned by the site administrator and the webmaster you contacted, but they could tell you who does. The image link on your description page is broken; so I couldn’t guess the owner.

When you know who the owner is, follow the instructions at WP:COPYREQ for getting permission and forwarding it to the communications committee. You also need to add a tag to the image description page, indicating which free license was granted.

With regard to leniency: We just answer questions on this page; we have no more ability to grant leniency than you do. --teb728 01:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The owner is NBC. The picture came from a press kit - likening it to that of a press release, in that the author/rights holder expects it will be freely copied for further publication. Thus, I believe that the usage of the picture is covered under Fair Use. --Godfoster (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from my talk page

This question was left on my talk page and I'm not really sure how to reply:

Dear Marsh,

I would love to put an image in one of the topics in wikipedia. It is a 'first day cover' or a cover with postage stamp that is available for sale generally on the day of release of a postal stamp. I have one such first day cover and I scanned it and tried to upload it to the page. First I got stuck in the sandbox or something of that kind, being inexperienced in the ways of the wiki. I finally managed to put it there. Alas! It was deleted by another user, with some gobbledygook about 'fair use image'. I tried to read about this fair use stuff, but it led me deeper into legalese, and in the end I am pretty confused.

My simple question is, Can I upload an image of a postal stamp/ first day cover (released in India) to the page 'Tenneti Viswanadham'. It is a great honour bestowed upon this gentleman who is my grandfather, I felt that it is only right that I share this image with the community through wikipedia. Kindly reply at your convenience to me at ansrao@gmail.com.

Thanks ANS Rao

I'll direct him here in case someone has an answer. --W.marsh 21:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Using images of stamps is rather restricted on Wikipedia. They can be used only to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to person appearing in the stamp's design). The mention of the stamp at Tenneti Viswanadham may require some expansion to support that. And accordingly the article may need considerable expansion; so that the mention of the stamp does not unbalance the article.

If it will be used that way, he can upload the picture again. The image will need a copyright tag – in this case {{non-free stamp}}. Also a non-free use rationale as described at WP:NFURG. It might be good if the first day cover were cropped to show just the stamp, since presumably the whole cover would not be the subject of the use. --teb728 (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

How do I change the copywright status of an existing article?

How do I cahnge the copywright status of an existing article?-- I'm so perfect I'm jealous of myself (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't imagine what sort of thing you are referring to. If you are referring to a Wikipedia article, they are unalterably GFDL.

Are you perhaps trying to inquire the copyright status of Image:Cooltext71425023.jpg‎, which you uploaded? In order to help you with that we would have to know where you got it from. --teb728 (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Side note: If you got it from the Cool Text generator ( cooltext.com ), then you can use it. But again, where did you get it? Guroadrunner (talk) 10:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

my picture

I got a message that says that I should look over the copyright for the image that I uploaded of myself. I don't know what to do. Tigersfan1992 (talk) 03:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

What that message is telling you is that in order for you to upload an image you can use on your user page, it must be freely reusable. That means, you must tag the image description page with a template that grants free reuse. For your photo the two most likely tags would be {{PD-self}}, through which you would give up your copyright on the photo, or {{GFDL-self}}, through which you would keep the copyright but allow anyone to reuse it for anything. There are other free copyright tags listed at WP:ICT/FL. So what you need to do is select the tag you want and edit it into the image description page. --teb728 (talk) 07:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

OK Thanks Tigersfan1992 (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

My creation?

An old friend drew a portrait of a well known musician, Andres Segovia (d1986) in the 1960s from an unknown photograph. This pencil drawing was later freely given to me. I have scanned it and wish to upload it to the Article Andres Segovia currently containing no image of subject. I have no contact with the artist nor original photographer. What is licence status should I do so? please reply on my talk page RichardJ Christie (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Forget it, I'm going to assume that the gift of an original drawing grants permission to me me to do with it as I please including permission to place it on Wikipedia RichardJ Christie (talk) 06:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not right. Unless your friend has explicitly stated he was releasing the drawing to the public domain, or granting you a free license, he still retains the copyright to the image. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Santa Baby DVD Cover

Hello I am new to this. I added the Santa Baby (film) DVD Cover, becasue I seen it on google images and on amazon and I tried to add the copyright tag but it will not let me. Can someone put the copyright info on there for me so I don't lose the image. Thanks if you can save it! please help me save this image. you can get in contact with me at masmith123@aol.com or my user name on wikipedia freakshow123

I tagged it as a non-free DVD cover. Maybe a fair use rationale is still needed. Kraxler (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That’s the correct tag, and a non-free use rationale is certainly required.

But I suspect that a DVD cover might not be permitted to illustrate a movie as opposed to the DVD of the movie. For the tag claims fair use “to illustrate the DVD in question.” Can someone please confirm? --teb728 (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Transcription of a 1948 pamphlet.

I am currently transcribing a pamphlet published somewhere around 1948 by the Plum Valley Homemakers, Plum Valley Wisconsin. It is a photocopy, not an original. I have no title page information or copyright information. I hope to publish it to your Sauk County, Wisconsin page as it contains histories of many familites from that area.

Any suggestions as to copyright permissions?

69.215.142.159 (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC) C. Thomas (bennec@gmail.com)

If you had the title information, you should rewrite the relevant parts in your own words and cite the pamphlet as a source. But without the title you may be out of luck, because Wikipedia requires information to be sourced. --teb728 (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Max Baer image deleted

I noticed the following edit: 15:00, 17 November 2007 Nv8200p (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Baermaxcutkirkpic.jpeg" ‎ (Remove image per WP:IFD) where the image File:Baermaxcutkirkpic.jpeg is deleted.

Could someone explain or refer me to the stipulations covering allowable images so I can get one or more images on the page. I have over 250 images of Max Baer from a variety of sources, both commercial and private and want to include photos on his page.

Thanks Maxies Gal (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Maxies Gal

For what it’s worth, the IFD listing on that is at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 November 9#Image:Baermaxcutkirkpic.jpeg. It says that the uploader had claimed that the copyright owner had released the image to the public domain but didn’t say who that copyright owner was.

In any case, images in Wikipedia have to be reusable by anyone for anything. This means that either they have to be licensed by the copyright owner under a free license like GFDF, or they have to be in the public domain (which is very hard to determine for subjects in Baer’s era). If you have a photo you took yourself, that would be your best choice, for you could license it under a free license. The next choice would be a photo taken by someone you know; in that case see WP:COPYREQ for how to handle the licensing. --teb728 (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Official portrait images

I have uploaded an official portrait of the Australian Chief of Defence Force, Air Marshal Angus Houston here: Image:Angus Houston.jpg. I have been told through tags and at the Image talk:Angus Houston.jpg page that this image does not meet Wikipedia policy for inclusion. I will admit to feeling frustrated at the overly negative attitude towards image copyright questions displayed by many editors on here - negative in the sense that they normally seem very focussed on saying 'no', and not so focussed on working with people to get images included. Hence my post here.... can anyone suggest a way to include the image in question, using an appropriate licence/permission? Given the explicit permission granted by the source of the image for its use, I am confused by what else is required. Many thanks PalawanOz (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The only way to keep this image is to contact the copyright holder and ask them to release the image under a free content license Wikipedia accepts. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for help on doing so. Quite often that works out quite well. Garion96 (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The explanation is that as a matter of policy Wikipedia accepts permission only if it allows reuse by anyone for anything. So the permission on the source site is irrelevant to its use here. (Beside that: The source grants only fair use, and we have a right of fair use without their granting it.) --teb728 (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Tretorri Rende.JPG

I have uploaded the pic choosing 'it is the work of someone else, who has given permission to use it on Wikipedia'
the photo is already on the original page of Rende in italian wikipedia.
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rende
what can i do to use that pic?
which tag i must use?
please, be patient with me. the tutorial in english are little hard for me. but i am trying to improve
thanks maurizio (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it up for you. The info was in the edit summary. I don't know why it didn't get into the descrption page. --teb728 (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Gwm-logo.jpg

Can somebody tell me why this is supposed to be deleted? The image is used in the infobox on the article page. Poeloq (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the Bot that tagged it as invalid fair use rationale is broken. It doesn't make sense. It's all there what is needed, especially the point in question. Kraxler (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Replaceability, and "reasonableness"

Can anyone confirm that not knowing where something or someone is going to be at a given time is not a valid argument for "not reasonably replaceable"? I believe there was some discussion about this a long time ago in relation to images of individuals used only to show what they look like that because we don't know where someone was going to be does not mean in and of itself that the image is not replaceable. Image at hand is Image:Arrivavoyager.png, and I'd appreciate a neutral party that knows something on the matter weighing in. 90.203.45.244 (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen the specific example of a rebranded train, but by analogy in cases of humans the matter of not knowing the public appearance schedule of a celebrity does not mean that a free image cannot be made. It simply means it will take more work. People have mentioned in hypothetical arguments that an extreme degree of difficulty would be required before saying that no picture is likely to be available of a living human being, e.g. the person is imprisoned somewhere for life or has been missing for a long time. To extend the analogy, if the train is the same but one simply does not know where it is on the line, one can assume that a picture could be taken if someone cares enough to do so. However, if the train is repainted or is otherwise different in appearance, one could say that like a human the old one has "died" and the new one is not a true replacement. Hope this helps. Wikidemo (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

So, how hard would it be to just call up the company and ask them what route that particular train is going to be running that day? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

New York Yankees logo

I came across Image:Crossed_N_and_Y.jpg in CAT:CSD, and there are several issues. The image that it was a claimed copyright violation of, now gone, was tagged PD-USa and moved to Commons (and deleted there by User:Durin). The Yankees have been in New York since 1903. My question is: How long has the current logo been in use (is it old enough to be public domain) - is it copyrightable anyway (it's just two letters superimposed), and - clearly it's fair use if it is, and it should be either here or on commons (if it's in fact PD), not both. I'm undeleting Image:ALE-NYY-Insignia.png for now, as it was deleted under I8 and no longer exists on commons. —Random832 21:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ruth1920.jpg, a picture clearly taken before 1923, shows the logo on Babe Ruth's cap. So it would seem it's not copyrighted in the US. Any other opinions? —Random832 21:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

See also New York Yankees#Logo, uniform, and dress code and Image:NYYLogos Cap.PNG. --teb728 (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted this per CSD G12 as an obvious copyvio. Besides, it's nearly an exact copy of Image:NYYLogos PrintNY.PNG and the uploader used a false public domain release, claiming to be the original copyright holder.

Also, these are trademarked logos, which I'm pretty sure don't lapse into the public domain if currently in use. Caknuck (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Trademark is not relevant to inclusion of an image on Wikipedia, it's completely separate from copyright. The idea that Logos are "inherently copyrighted" is false - whether this specific one is or not; the Coca-cola logo, for example, is not. The false release is, obviously, not nice, but should have been fixed rather than deleted IMO —Random832 22:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Meh - the image that was deleted was a JPG copy of an image that already exists as PNG, so no-one should be crying over it anyway. I'd like to see the wider question resolved, though.—Random832 22:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sam Brown (singer) photo

Whom should I attribute the copyright if I want to cut Sam Brown's photo form the file (album cover?) already on the Wiki article, and post it separately? GuggiePrg (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you can’t use such a cropped photo to illustrate Sam Brown on Wikipedia. The album cover is undoubtedly copyrighted; so by Wikipedia’s policy on non-free content it can be used only to illustrate the album itself. --teb728 (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

LUMS

So, what is the deal with this [16]. I basically copied the "fair use" rights that are on a number of other restaurants that actually still exist, while LUMS is effectively dead as a chain, so, there isn't anyone who is going to complain anyway. I don't really care, but, seems silly to jump through so many hoops. Dletter (talk) 05:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem was that the non-free use rationale referenced the LUMS disambiguation page rather than Lums (Restaurant Chain). I fixed it. --teb728 (talk) 06:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyright rules for very old photos

Would like to understand copyright rules for several specific cases. First case....photo is potrait of long-dead public figure. The individual died in 1920 so photo was obviously taken before 1923. I found the image on internet, but I have also seen it on a book cover and number of other places. Are there any restrictions on use of this image? Can I upload it to Wiki-Commons? Second case....I have number of original photos take in China between 1915 and 1945. I did not take them, but I inherited them so the original hard-copies are my property. What copyright rule apply, if any? --Orygun 05:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyright law is a bit peculiar: you can own the original physical copy of something without owning the copyright. What's the history of the China photos: who took them, for what purpose, and have they been published anywhere?

As for the pre-1920 photo: is it reasonably likely that the photo was published before 1923? --Carnildo 07:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Pre-1920 photo is of State official; probably his official portrait. It was published in a local news paper obituary on 8 Jan 1920. China photos were taken by my grandfather who was U.S. diplomat in China. They are personal photos; however, many were taken while traveling on Gov business. There are few photos of him so he obviously didn't take those, but they were clearly taken with his camera. Photos have never been published. Among the photos is one formal portrait. It could be official State Dept portrait photo; however, there is no photographers label on front or back.--Orygun 19:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like they're all useable, then. The pre-1920 photo is in the public domain in the United States, and you appear to have the rights to do what you want to with your grandfather's photos. --Carnildo 08:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding my grandfathers China photos which you say are mine to release; I uploaded one of the images (Image:Ernest B. Price.JPG) and was notified I need to add a tag. The image is either mine as discussed above or copy of official Government portrait--either way, it should be releasable. However, image was hit with "No Tag" notice. I've tried 3 time to add tag, but w/o success. Really don't care how image is classifed just want to get it tagged so it can be used. What do I do?--Orygun (talk) 03:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If your grandfather took the photos then he owned the copyright; It seems unlikely that you would have inherited the hard copies without also inheriting the copyright. You would tag the pre-1923 one with {{PD-US}}, the others (that you own the copyright on) can be any free -self license like {{GFDL-self}}, {{PD-self}}, etc.—Random832 19:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

oh, and any that were official works of the US government are {{PD-USGov}}.—Random832 19:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

the impact of internet

i want a short note on the impact of internet in the modern universities —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.207.13.154 (talk) 11:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not a media copyright question. So don't expect an answer here. --teb728 (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Joe Murray

I'd like to know if this image is suitable for upload to WP? Yngvarr 13:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be under a free license so no.Geni 14:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyright issue with my picture

The picture featured at my entry on Wikipedia--Tibor R. Machan--was taken by a student while I was giving at talk in Italy. He sent it to me via email but I no longer recall his name--the event was attended by several dozen students from several countries. There should be no issue about featuring the picture--it belongs to me now.

Tibor R. Machan TMachan@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Szatyor39 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The image has been deleted; so I can’t see what was on its description page and its history. But judging from the messages on your talk page, I would guess that the image description page didn’t have a copyright tag (like {{GFDL}} for example. An image without a copyright tag) is sure to be deleted. See WP:ICT for more about copyright tags. --teb728 (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Drawings of symbols that appeared on a TV show

I am currently trying to get an article up to GA status and tried to replace some non-free fairuse images from a TV show with drawings. Now I'd like to have a second opinion whether these drawings still fall under copyright as a derivative work, or if alternatives would work.

1. My first drawing (edit: now only accessible as the October 4 version, intentionally orphaned) is based on a symbol that regularly appeared on a car in the TV show. This car now belongs to a fan and was presented on a fan convention. Note that this symbol is similar to the title card of the TV show. Another fan took a photo of a truck on the set, similar to this one. So, was it right to license my drawing under GDFL (because I used PD and GDFL elements, and it is not exactly the title card)? If I got the owners of these photos to license them under a wiki-free license, would those photos still fall under derivative work?
2. Another of my drawings is a reproduction of a symbol that appeared on a few props in the TV show. These props were also photographed on a convention. Because this symbol is very much based on a real-world symbol, I had based my drawing on it also. I already uploaded it to Commons, but I'd like to know whether that was correct.

I'd rather deal with the possible consequences myself now before someone later (e.g. at WP:FAC) tells me I was wrong. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Using A copy of a page in the leicester mercury as referance

--Marquisofqueensbury (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC) is it ok theyre from the 1960's --Marquisofqueensbury (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You can use them as a referance although obviously you can't coppy them.Geni 20:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

DVD Cover for TV programme

I have upload a copy of the dvd cover Image:Malice aforethought.jpg and posted it on the relevant article.

For hints on what to do I have looked at other similar articles, and I posted the picture with the same license as these examples, with the license {{Non-free DVD cover}}

This has been disputed but I am not sure why as other articles with the same info are not??? How is this consistent?

What should I add to prevent this from being deleted?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Madnaduk (talk • contribs) 11:55, 21 November 2007

The 'license tag' isn't the only thing necessary, you need a fair use rationale, explaining why it's needed in the particular article you're using it in, with a link to that article. —Random832 16:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

World Series Programs: scanned images

Am I allowed to upload scanned images of Major League Baseball World Series programs and if so what copyright type should I select upon uploading? What other restrictions apply to using scanned magazine or program covers? Thank you. Kjbopp 18:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The closest tag seems to be {{non-free magazine cover}}. Indeed a program is really a kind of a magazine.

As with all non-free tags, the tag must be accompanied by a non-free use rationale for each use. The use(s) must conform to Wikipedia’s highly restrictive non-free content criteria, and the rationale(s) must document that conformity. See the non-free use rationale guideline.

In particular, the approved use for a magazine cover is to illustrate comment on the issue of the magazine in question in a way that words alone could not. Presumably a program cover would be used to illustrate comment on the program. --teb728 (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Using a figure from a scientific journal article

Hello, I've been visiting Wikipedia for years but this is the first time I've written an article - the article is on the prokaryotic cytoskeleton. I added an image, found here that I found in a journal article that I believe is a very helpful visual aid and I made sure to cite the source. However, I stated that I was unsure of the copyright information in the image, and the image is slated to be deleted. I don't know what Wikipedia's policy is on using figures published in scientific journals and I surprisingly haven't been able to find anything in the Wikipedia image use guidelines on this subject (and I'm sure I'm not the first to ask this question). Anyway, please let me know what I should do or (even better) feel free to edit the image yourself as appropriate. Thanks in advance.

Chaoticcranium (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Soccer pictures inside stadia

Many pictures of football (soccer) players are taken by fans inside the ground. However, only photographers with licenses are allowed to distribute pictures taken inside football grounds (in the UK at least) due to rights issues.

So should all images taken "from the stands" be deleted? Duke of Whitstable (talk) 23:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for Removal of All My Images

Based on recent unpleasant events associated with my account, I would like to request that all of my images be removed. How do I go about it and what is the fastest way to achieve that? Thanks for your help. MarkMarek (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but when you uploaded your images, you licensed them under the GNU Free Documentation License. This license is not revokable; so what you want to do is not possible. And I am sorry you had an unpleasant experience; I hope that you will get over it. --teb728 (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I would hate to have to go through all of my images and add notes to them explaining what is going on and that I don't approve for the use of them after some true colors have been demonstrated to me. There's a difference between a change of heart and not wanting to be associated with a website where cyber bullying and power tripping go berzerk. I hope this is understood and the removal of my images goes without major delays. I appreciate your time. MarkMarek (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid, Mark, that TEB728 is correct. I don't know the circumstances of your conflict, but try to rise above the keyboard warriors. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not about the keyboard warriors. It had been before it turned into a lynch mob event where anyone who was around felt compelled to come by and take a kick at the guy on the ground. This is a matter of dignity and self respect. I'm asking you once more not to pour any more salt into the open wound and respect my wish so I can leave in peace without additional abuse. Thank you for your understanding. MarkMarek (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Although this might sound heartless, you really should have thought about this possibility before you licensed them under the GNU Free Documentation License. As soon as you did, you gave up the ability to ask for them to be deleted. Duke of Whitstable (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Mark, I read the history on your talk page and I can understand you are frustrated at a few administrators here who may have mistreated you. However, as the previous authors have mentioned, you can not revoke the licensing of your photos, you have entered a legal contract. And: Consider the greater good to the readers of Wikipedia all over the world and just forget what happened to you. Poeloq (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Poeloq, that's exactly what I was doing - offering my time and photography for the greater good until a biased admin jumped down my throat and decided to show me that he is more than me because he's the admin. As if that wasn't enough, few more admins join the party and each of them threw the stone and enjoyed every second of it. They all let me feel that I'm a nobody and they are admins so they can do as they please with me. What would you do if you were in my shoes? Would you be as excited about the greater good?

They are still admins and it still is just a question of time before they take a second round of abuse against me. They were having a lot of fun at round one... No my friend, I'm all for the greater good but the line is drown as soon as I'm turned into a subject of multiple abuse. You know what the worst part is? This place is infested with powertripping abusers. YOU could be next! MarkMarek (talk) 04:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses, I truly appreciate that. Can anyone point me at the right direction? I would like to speak to someone who has the authority to do what's right, rather than what's politically correct. Someone from the higher up on the hierarchy scale, possibly a member of the management team, etc. Can anyone give me a pointer?

Please note, I do appreciate the advice of everyone who chimed in with their 2 cents. I did get it. You do not need to repeat it to me again. If you do have the answer to my latest question, please respond, otherwise please move on to something else. Thank you. MarkMarek (talk) 01:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You're basically looking for an out-of-process deletion, which is rather rare. The only one I can think of is the one revolving around the original version of Image:Big Quran page.jpg. The situation in that case was that an established editor had taken a photo of his wife next to a large scroll of Quranic calligraphy. Here's the first and the second talk page archives of the resulting uproar. This was further complicated by the hapless uploader asking that the photo be removed because of emotional distress over being connected to the controversy. Things reached a head when an admin deleted the image out of process, citing both the interminable argument and the request of the uploader, and was taken to WP:RFC by critics, which in turn resulted in a majority of editors, including a very special appearance of Jimbo, supporting the invocation of WP:IAR in the deletion.

You probably don't want to hear this but, as far as I can tell, there is nothing like that extensive sinkhole of effort from multiple editors involved in your request. Note that where you say "politically correct" above, other editors would say "legally binding." You might be interested in following the current discussion on Commons about the photographer of a featured picture attempting to revoke permission for use of the high quality version of his picture. So short answer: you need a rogue admin who can make an argument that would result in the images staying deleted, and preferably keep the admin from being desysopped for abuse of the tools. You could try bumping it up to an email to the permissions queue at WP:OTRS, but I rather doubt you would get an outcome you would find satisfactory from them. - BanyanTree 06:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

part_time job

can u anwer me that how is status of part_timejob in students , if ok, can u give me some statistics of sts do part_time job in some universities or any place.than ks much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.252.254.215 (talk) 04:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That is not a media copyright question. So don't expect an answer here. --teb728 (talk) 04:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Use of logo for a userbox

I wanted to make a userbox for myself saying "This User loves animals, but despises PETA" and for the image, I made a variation of the PETA logo with an X through it. Before I uploaded it, I wanted to make sure if I can do this and what I would put down for copyright info considering that its a variation of an image.

Heres a link to the original image I put an X through:

Thanks.--Renegade Replicant|^{leave me a message} 05:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

In general you cannot use a non-free image on your user page for any reason. There's a reasonable question whether the PETA logo is copyrightable because it's just stylized text. However, better to be safe and just make up your own italicized PETA image in a standard italic font and start from there. Then you won't have a copyright issue. You might want to check around for userboxes. I doubt there's an anti-PETA one specifically but there are plenty for issues you might think of as conservative. Also, I'm not sure if there are any rules here against that kind of advocacy but I doubt it inasmuch as Wikipedia isn't censored. Hope that helps.Wikidemo (talk) 07:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'll just use regular text, as you suggested. Thanks. By the way, I don't plan on finding any conservative userboxes considering my left leg is considerably shorter than my right, metaphorically of course.

I lean to the left, but I cannot stand how PETA is ran with their "we're right, you're wrong" policies. They have some of the most obnoxious cronies.--Renegade Replicant|^{leave me a message} 16:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

part time job

can u anwer me that how is status of part_timejob in students , if ok, can u give me some statistics of sts do part_time job in some universities or any place.thanks much222.252.247.115 (talk) 09:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

my english no good.. can somebody make e- mule ok for me. can not download... ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.28.25.184 (talk) 11:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Norwegian royal family

It is difficult to obtain good images of the Norwegian royal family that are totally free. Images taken by regular people are usually not good and images by professionals are usually not free. The royal house has released a set of images here that is inteded for use by the press and similar. As such they are the similar to promotional press kits. The kit also group images of european heads of states, throne heirs and so on which are impossible to dublicate and IMO impossible to obtain under a free licence. The page states that the images are released for "editorial" (redaksjonelt) use, that selling the images are not permitted and that the photographer and the Royal Court must be credited. Can these images be uploaded to wikipedia (not commons of course) and used by us? Inge (talk) 12:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Because one of Wikipedia main goals is to produce freely reusable content, it prefers an image which is not good to one which is not free. If a grouping, however, were notable in itself, a non-free image might be acceptable to illustrate a comment on the grouping, provided it contributes significantly to the article in a way that words alone could not. (But the usefulness of that seems unlikely to me.) --teb728 (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. I didnt really get that much out of it though...You believe the group images possibly could be used if the group is notable? As pointed out the images are free to use for editorial puposes as long as they are credited and not sold. That means they can be used by anyone so long as they follow the rules. Are they then not permissable on wikipedia?Inge (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

In short no. The restriction on selling (among other things) is actualy a fairly big restriction, so images with that kind of conditions are considered non-free. They may be used in accordance with the non-free content policy iff deemed nessesary to adequately explain a subject (such as a spesific historic event), but for simple identification such images are not permited as long as it's possible to create new free licensed photos of the subjects, and members of the royal family often appear in public where they can be photographed. It may also be possible to contact the copyright holder for an existing image of them, and ask them to release it under a free license, see WP:COPYREQ for more info on how to go about that. --Sherool (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think there is a misunderstanding because the English word “free” can mean either free of cost or free of restriction. When Wikipedia talks of “free” images they mean the latter. Specifically, free images on Wikipedia are images that can be reused by anyone for anything. An image which can be used only for editorial purposes or as long as it is not sold is “non-free.” --teb728 (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Deleted Rightfully Uploaded Pic

Why did Wikipedia deleted my rightfully uploaded picture? I had the permission of the owner to post it, but it was still deleted! Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midoria (talk • contribs) 14:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The image has already been deleted; so I can’t see what was on its description page and its history. But judging from the messages on your talk page, I would guess that the image description page lacked information on the source and/or information on the license and/or a copyright tag. Be sure you understand: Wikipedia does not accept permission to appear only on Wikipedia; we only accept permission which allows reuse by anyone for anything. Because some people mistakenly upload images without that kind of permission, we have to be able to check. --teb728 (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Freefoto.com

What is the procedure for adding photos from Freefoto.com? MickMacNee (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The potentially applicable FreeFoto.com licensing condition is, “ANYONE, by which we mean commercial and non-commercial alike, can use FreeFoto.com images in an online setting, providing they provide attribution to the image and a link back to FreeFoto.com (either the image or the main site). This license allows blogs, social networking sites and use in emails, just to name a few, providing they provide the required attribution, this includes sites that pay people to write, carry advertising or are selling and promoting products. The only requirement the attribution and link back. … You MAY NOT use the images to create your own photo gallery web site.”

Wikipedia accepts only licenses that permit reuse by anyone for anything. A license may require attribution. But I suspect that the requirement of a link back, the restriction to online settings, and the restriction on creating a photo gallery web site may be unacceptable to Wikipedia.

Does someone have a second opinion on this? --teb728 (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Images

I downloaded few images from Google images to my computer,and I want to upload them to Wikipedia.I think,that because I downloaded them to my computer that I can upload them to Wikipedia freely,but I am not sure.Can you help me? Aleksandar665 (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No, that’s absolutely wrong (though perhaps a common misconception). Almost everything on the web is copyrighted. You are entitled to fair use of it on your own computer, but that doesn’t change the copyright. You can upload copyrighted material to Wikipedia only if it appears under GFDL or other free license license. --teb728 (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Experienced editor with a novice question

I'm a little embarrassed that I don't know the answer to this question, given that I consider myself a pretty experienced editor, but could somebody clarify for me the fair use legitimacy of using a copyrighted photograph to illustrate a deceased subject in which no free image is known to be available? I was under the impression that this was allowed, but when I upload the file this isn't one of the fair use rationales available in the dropdown menu. Could somebody set me straight (and, if I'm doing this wrong, tag Hawrelak.jpg and Laurence_decore.jpg for deletion)? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:ICT/FU use {{Non-free fair use in|Article}}. --teb728 (talk) 00:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added the tags. Can I take your response to mean that this is indeed a valid fair use rationale? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No. I believe that with this, as with all non-free tags, you need a separate rationale. --teb728 (talk) 01:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:FultonStreetAnd10thAvenueWithMunisFirstBusAndFirstStreetcarRoute.jpg

Hi, I have a question about this image I just uploaded that it was published in the United states before 1923. However, it says that permission is needed if the image is to be used. So, to be safe, I uploaded the image under the Public Domain for now, but I am not sure whether it is really in the public domain. Thanks for your help! -Goodshoped 02:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I found the image in San Francisco Historical Photograph Collection, ID AAC-7747.

http://sflib1.sfpl.org:82/search/i?SEARCH=AAC-7747&x=37&y=8

It indicates the photo was taken in 1918 but the only publication date given is October 13 1962.

If you look at the Cornell Copyright Information Center, unpublished works have a copyright term of life of the author + 70 years. You need to find out when it was first published. If it was first published under copyright in 1962 it would have to be renewed 28 years later (1990). http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain

The copyright of old photos can be very difficult to determine. You should ask the San Francisco Public Library. Please note that sometimes organizations claim a copyright on images that are in the public domain. Ask who the photographer was and when he (or she) died. Also ask about the chain of copyright ownership.

Good luck. After doing a lot of searching I found that most Ziff-Davis Publishing and Gernsback Publications magazines published before 1964 did not have their copyright renewed and are in the public domain. You may find this photo and others in the collection are in the public domain. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 03:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Photos of sculptures

Who holds the copyright of photos of sculptures that are shown at a museum? The photographer, the sculptor, or both? Does it make a difference if the scuplture is put in a public square, like monuments? Kraxler (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is both. See Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2007/November#Albert Einstein memorial photos. And putting a sculpture in a public place doesn’t affect its copyright status. --teb728 (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That depends on the country you are in.Geni 02:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the photo may be copyrighted even if the sculpture is not, and vice versa. For example a photo of a sculpture that is public domain because of its age or for some other reason acquires a new copyright. The opposite is possible as well. A Wikipedia or Flickr user may release under GDFL license a photograph of a sculpture, whereupon there is no concern over the new copyright in the photograph, but the underlying sculpture remains copyrighted and thus subject to our non-free use policy. Or they could each have a copyright held by different people, or neither. In nearly all cases we would not use a photo of a sculpture when the photograph is subject to its own copyright, because unless the sculpture was subsequently destroyed the photo is considered replaceable. Someone could in theory take a new photograph and release that new photograph to GDFL. I'm not sure how or whether non-US law bears on things because we generally acknowledge only US laws on the English Wikipedia. Wikidemo (talk) 10:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You can certainly take photos of sculptures that are visible from public places in the UK. Secretlondon (talk) 10:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course you can take a picture. But if the sculpture is neither PD nor free-licensed, we can use it in Wikipedia only under non-free content restrictions. --teb728 (talk) 11:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Not true. Due the UK's Freedom of panorama laws the copyright status of the the sculpture would be largely irrelivant.Geni 12:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

As a relative newcomer to all this legal stuff, it took some time to track this down, but the reference seems to be on the Commons: freedom of panorama.

Under the heading United Kingdom, it says:

"Section 62 of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 is much broader than the corresponding provisions in many other countries, and allows photographers to take pictures of

• buildings, and
• sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship (if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public).

without breaching copyright. Such photographs may be published in any way.

Note that under UK law, works of artistic craftsmanship fall into a different copyright category from artistic works such as paintings, photographs, drawings and the like. The freedom provided by Section 62 does not apply to artistic works such as for example murals, advertising hoardings, maps, posters or signs. These cannot be uploaded to Commons without a licence from the copyright holder."

...and a little later, it says:

"The practical effect of the broad Freedom of Panorama provisions in the UK and in other countries with similar laws is that it is acceptable to upload to Commons not only photographs of public buildings and sculptures but also works of works of artistic craftsmanship which are on permanent public display in museums, galleries and exhibitions which are open to the public. According to Copinger and Skoane James, "The expression "open to the public" presumably extends the section to premises to which the public are admitted only on licence or on payment". Again, this is broader than 'public place' which is the wording in many countries."

So I think there has been some undue restriction placed on photos of sculptures. But I am sure someone will disagree.... Patche99z (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I have found another reference on an important example of uploaded photos of a statue: commons:Category:Angel of the North. This shows several photos of the famous statue of that name, with a special copyright warning regarding the limitations of photos of statues under the freedom of panorama laws. I guess that some other photos on the commons which should have this warning do not do so, because people do not know about it. Patche99z (talk) 14:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

hi...

i recently uploaded an image...
...and i was left a message by a bot that told me i had to tag it or something...
and i took the image myself and dont want to put any copyright thing on it... but when i followed the instructions on the talkpage it left me to add the tag... i cudnt figure it out...
Could you message me please?

xx Iamandrewrice (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Since you took the photo yourself you have a copyright on it. Wikipedia wants your permission to host it. So we can see that you give that permission, you need to put tag on the image description page. In your case the two most likely tags are {{PD-self}}, which means you give up your copyright, and {{GFDL-self}}, which means you keep your copyright but allow anyone to use the photo for anything.

After you decide which tag to use, follow the directions at the top of this page to add the tag to the image. --teb728 (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Bowser Verifacation?

Could someone verify that Image:Bowser in his Modern Appearance.jpg is properly attributed? --Is this fact...? 12:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. --teb728 (talk) 07:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:JulieHarrisChips.JPG

This photo is from a publicity kit MGM issued in conjunction with the release of the 1969 film Goodbye, Mr. Chips. There's no category in the pull-down menu on the upload page that accurately describes this. How do I categorize it? Please respond on my talk page. Thank you for your help. MovieMadness (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The tag to use is {{non-free promotional}}. You will also need a non-free use rationale, as described in WP:NFURG. --teb728 (talk) 08:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Re-Creation of Diagrams

I am creating SVG versions of existing jpg/png diagrams. No actual image data from the original is used although the results are supposed to be nearly identical. The diagrams in question are released into the public domain. What is the proper way of attributing to the original author and licensing the resulting image (Happily to the public domain)? Image:Simple distillation apparatus.png

Jermonian (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say something like “Source: Image:Simple distillation apparatus.png Author: Original PNG by User:Quantockgoblin, SVG conversion by User:Jermonian” If the original is PD, the conversion should be PD as well. --teb728 (talk) 07:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Viva Pinata PC.jpg

{{untagged}}

Tofu Time (talk) 04:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I gave it an appropriate tag. --teb728 (talk) 06:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Charles Boyce page-

Do not consider the image sent awhile back for this page. It's hard to determine what it is that needs to be edited on this page. Can you indicate in talk what it is that's hindering the completion of this page. If it's possible. Charles boyce (talk) CB —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles boyce (talk • contribs) 15:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page. --teb728 t c 00:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tuff.jpg

I did not find this image in any web site. It was actually from a burned DVD. The "invalid fair use" tag must be removed. User:Jonghyunchung Jonghyunchung (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't the problem. The problem was that your rationale did not mention the page where the image was used. I fixed it. --teb728 t c 23:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Uwlathletics.gif

What is the problem with this image? Why does it need to be deleted?? --Crosscountrycpjon (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You need to provide a non-free use rationale for its use in University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, as described at WP:NFURG. --teb728 t c 00:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Unknown licenses

If there is material of which the license is unknown, then how do I found out what kind of license it has?--24.62.236.10 (talk) 02:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If you can see a copyright link on the webpage you should read that first. If the author of the original image died more than 70 years ago, or the image was first published in the USA prior to 1923, it is Public Domain no matter what the site owners say. Other cases when it can be PD: if it contains no original authorship (for example a red square), if it was created by an organ of the USA federal government, if it was created by the UK government more than 50 years ago... (there are a number of other for work created by governments of various countries). Other than that the image is considered copyrighted by the site owner, and can't be used on wikipedia, unless it can be proven to be irreplaceable and meets the guidelines at WP:FU. Jackaranga (talk) 03:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Using GFDL images outside Wikipedia

I'm a long-time WP editor who has uploaded a ton of photos under GFDL. But when someone asks me a question about using my WP photos for their commercial products, I am at a loss to provide them with information in anything like plain English. Example: "I like your dog photos; I'd like to make refrigerator magnets using those photos. What do I have to do for this to be legal?" I don't really have a clue. Do they have to put the author's (my) name on the magnet? Do they have to put a link to wikipedia on the magnet? Do they have to do one or the other, or both, on their web site, but not on the magnets? Or can they just make the magnets with no attribution and sell them? I've been looking off and on all afternoon for articles or Q&A or anything at all that's fairly clear about this. Reading the text of GFDL isn't clear to me at all. Help? Thanks. Elf | Talk 02:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

They must give attribution to you in such a manner that it is clear that you created the original image, but that the modified version is separate from you. They must include a copy of the GFDL with the magnet, and if they sell more than 100 units of each specific type, they must make a copy of the original photo(s) available to the buyers. Jackaranga (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Elf | Talk 04:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The GFDL does not restrict the creator's rights to use or sell the pictures. You can grant them permission under another license and charge them a fee. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 04:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, my understanding is that, if they find it on wikipedia, I can't tell them that they have to buy it from me under a different license and can't use the WP version, right? Elf | Talk 04:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If the Wikipedia version is bit for bit what you uploaded you could re-license that one or use your own copy. The commercial user can comply with all conditions of the GFDL or get another license from you. (All of my images are full public domain so I don't have to worry about this issue.) -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 06:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed book cover

The 'bot has indicated that my Fair Use rationale for Image:Tolkien Encyclopedia cover 2006.jpg is in some way insufficient. I believe I have provided a sufficient rationale, and have no idea how to improve it to meet the unstated problems seen by the 'bot. Can someon advise me? - PKM (talk) 03:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently this was caused by the article title being changed; that has been fixed by User:Carcharoth, and we should be fine now. - PKM (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Public domain movie screenshot

Hi there. Is a screenshot of the public domain movie also considered to be in PD? If yes, how can I tag it? Thanks, --Kober^Talk 14:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes although you need to be care about the copyright status of so called PD movies.Geni 01:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Publication marked 'copyright free'

I wish to upload a scan I found on the net of an old (1978) promotional poster for a vehicle, issued by the manufacturer. It comprises mainly a photo and a paragraph of text, at the end of the text it states clearly the name of the company and "Copyright Free". Am I correct in assuming this can be uploaded with the tag {{Copyrighted free use}} MickMacNee (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I would guess that’s not the correct tag, but I would have to see the source page to be sure. In any case you would have to specify the source on the image description page; so that someone could verify it. --teb728 (talk) 23:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, don't know what you mean by source? The original source of the image is surely the company, it is a press photo. The scan of the original photo [17] is hosted here [18] listing the photo for sale. Don't know the in's and out's of this I'm afraid, but I didn't think you could copyright scans of original photos, the copyright holder (or free issuer) is still the original photos creator, hence the scan is 'copyright free' aswell? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MickMacNee (talk • contribs) 02:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The two links you gave were just what I meant by source. According to the listing page, it is a press photo of a Bedford JJL Midi-Bus prototype, which explains why it is marked “copyright free”—they want the press to use it. But I don’t know if “copyright free” means public domain or what Wikipedia calls free content or something more restricted than that.

Does someone else have an opinion on that? --teb728 (talk) 08:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It strikes me as meaning "we never copyrighted it", so a "public domain" tag would be appropriate. --Carnildo (talk) 07:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Uploading actor headshot

I'm totally new to wiki, so please excuse lack of understanding of how to do this/under what licence etc

I have permission from the publicist for actor Michael Shanks to provide a stock headshot/promotional photo sent to me (for use on the Michael Shanks Online website) as an image for such sites as wikipedia. (I've already provided the same photo for use on the SciFi Channel's own wiki.)

I would like to add the image to the wikipedia entry for Michael, but not sure how to do it, under what licence etc. Could somebody please advise?

Mfluder42 (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The tag to use would be {{non-free promotional}}. You would also need a non-free use rationale, as described in WP:NFURG. This rationale must explain why no free equivalent image is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. But I am sorry to say that this may be impossible to explain, as exemplified by the fact that a free image of his wife does exist.

By a “free image” I mean one with a license that allows reuse by anyone for anything. Your promotional photo is almost certainly not “free” in this sense. Wikipedia policy strongly favors free content. By policy Wikipedia would rather wait for a free image than use a non-free one. --teb728 (talk) 08:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. The concern with “free image” photos is they are generally photos taken at conventions and other public events, and therefore may not represent (in the case of actors etc) the 'professional' image the actor may want to put forth. (Afterall, there's a reason they have headshots/promos taken.) For example, that photo of Michael's wife may be free, but it's not a flattering photo at all. (Can photos be changed over?) Anywho, I'll check my bank of photos of Michael and see if I can find one good enough to upload. Thank you again for the advice. Mfluder42 (talk) 03:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Unsure of Historical Figure Copyright

I want to use an image of Robert Rundle. He died in 1896, and this photo [19] is probably the earliest photo of him available on the net; it dates c. 1854-60. Original author unknown. Now, the conundrum for me is, the Glenbow Institute (Calgary, Alberta, Canada) claims copyright on all photos I can find of Rundle (and have their archive numbers on all of them, too), and yet the creator of the photos must have passed on a very long time ago. So do I need to seek Glenbow's permission? Or can I use one of Glenbow's photos under some kind of PD-old tag, even without knowing when the original photographer passed away? Or have I missed some other possibility? Thanks! RPM (talk) 04:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

According to Canadian_copyright_law the copyright for photos is the life of the author + 50 years. The 1860 photographer would have been over 100 years old. Please note that sometimes organizations claim a copyright on images that are in the public domain. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 06:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Fancy! Though I should note that the photograph itself was almost certainly taken in England. I should use {{PD-old}}, right? RPM (talk) 07:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

PD-old sounds right. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 01:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Photo Copyright

I am very new to all of this and almost have no idea what I am doing. All I did was Google Image Search, found photos, and uploaded them. Please tell me what I am supposed to do next and I will gladly do whatever is needed. If the photos are just off of a website how do I copyright tag them? Please help me help Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyblemc (talk • contribs) 05:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If you just took them off a website, it's almost a hundred percent that they're copyrighted. Before you bother tagging them, you need to figure out if they're even usable on Wikipedia. If they are, they have to fit one of the rationales for non-free content - give WP:NONFREE a read to begin with, and then bring any questions back here. Or, if you want some more specific help, tell us what the images are and what articles you want to use them in. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:MOS Capacitor.png

Resolved

 – Local copy deleted as requested. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I inadvertently loaded this image at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MOS_Capacitor.png I intended to use http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:MOS_Capacitor.png, and have loaded the image there. I am unfamiliar with the differences between these two, but suspect the image at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MOS_Capacitor.png should be deleted. Brews ohare (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the local copy. In the future, you can just tag the image page with {{db-author}} (or {{db-nowcommons}}) and an admin will be shortly along to delete it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

posting a photograph I took myself

hi- I have posted a section about NorthPointe Christian Schools on Wikipedia, a school in my area, and have also tried posting a picture of their cross country team who won the state title this year. I took the picture myself and can't figure out how to "tag" it correctly on Wikipedia. Any suggestions? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdejong24 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Under the "Licensing" dropdown menu at Special:Upload, select one of the four options under "Your own work". Which you select depends on how you want to license your work. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Since you have already uploaded the image, you need to edit Image:IMG 1145.JPG and replace the {{untagged}} tag with a copyright tag like {{GFDL-self}}, as described at the top of this page. --teb728 t c 23:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

can you edit a pic

can you edit a pic

You'll have to explain the circumstances a bit more clearly: which picture, how do you want to edit it, and for what purpose? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Purcell and Gray

John S. Gray. the artist's firstborn son, uploaded these. rwquirements.

John has a day job as archivist of Canada's music at the CMC <www.musiccentre.ca>

Ed McCurdy and Jack L. Gray were buddies from the late 1940's, and re-connected with each other when Ed was spending more and more vacations in Nova Scotia with his family, pining to eventally get there more premanently. Jack was much the same, having lived in Winterport Maine up until 1961, and then spent every summer on a boat in Nova Scotia; he finally moved back there in 1962, but not for long (divorce ensued...) and in the end most art historians think of Jack's career centred on a gallery in Palm Beach, plain and simple. The reality is much more compilcated, much more colorful, and much more interesting, for any readers with patience enough to read the fine print.

I will try to find time to type up a bare-bones biography of Jack for Wikipedia.

John S. Gray Canadian Music Centre Archivist http://www.clc-lcc.ca/membership-bio.php?composerID=112 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Studentjohn36 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this eligible to be uploaded to Wikipedia

Is this photo eligible to be uploaded to Wikipedia? It is from the Hungarian National Museum Historical Photo Gallery. The photo was taken in 1945. The photo is apparently in the compilation Nagy képes milleniumi arcképcsarnok. 100 portré a magyar történelembõl. from 1999. I'm unsure what the policy is regarding museum photos.--Palatinus Regni^!!! 15:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It would depend where it was taken and by whom.Geni 19:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Another dumb question from an experienced editor

When copyright was held by a corporate entity that no longer exists, who has the capacity to license something under an acceptable license? Specifically, I'm wondering about material published in a newspaper that stopped publishing in 1951 (with the corporation that published it going under the same year). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyright still exists - it's just difficult to determine where. This kind of thing actually happens all the time. Can you indicate/link the newspaper in question. If it was published in the US without stating that it was copyright - it may actually be public domain. Megapixie (talk) 00:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It was a general question mostly, but the newspaper I used in my example (and the one from which I'd probably like to eventually upload some content) is the Edmonton Bulletin,; .jpgs of some of them are available here. Actually, if these guys are displaying .jpgs of old issues online, they must know who has the copyright, right?

More generally, what happens to a copyright after the organization holding it goes under? Is it just sold off like any other asset? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, bankrupcy laws probably differ a bit, but generaly speaning I believe the ownership of all the company's assets, including the rights to it's intelectual property is passed to some kind of temporary court appointed entity run by a lawyer or such who's sole responsibility it is to sell off the assets in order to pay off as much of the company's debth as possible. So any copyrights of any value will most likely be sold. A few odds and ends might fall between the cracks if they have no commercial value, but I believe the copyright still legaly persist even if there is no new owner, possebly defaulting back to whatever person originaly created them or some such... --Sherool (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and in case it wasn't clear, this is a Canadian newspaper. If you know the answer to my question as if it was an American paper, though, I can probably figure out any relevant differences between American and Canadian law. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Canadian copyright law is actually not understood as well here. There is a good starting point here: http://www.digital-copyright.ca/chronology and http://www.creativecommons.ca/index.php?p=cacopyright#faq_copyright-duration - but basically from 1921 everything was life of the author + 50 years. Before that it was 28 years if registered and a further 14 if extended. The problem is that life+50 makes things a little difficult. I can't see any names associated with the newspaper - is anyone ever credited with a byline or authorship ? If not then the rule of anonymous work may apply (50 years from publication) - which would make pre-1957 work okay. Does anyone else have any clarity they can bring to the matter ? Megapixie (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

A couple of problems though. US copyright law doesn't recognize the principle of the shorter term like most other countries, so even if a work was published in Canada more than 50 years ago and is considered public domain there US law (wich Wikipedia must follow) still consider those works copyrighted untill the end of the copyright term defined in US law, wich is 70 years after the death of the author, or if the author is unknown or the copyright belong to a company or organization, 95 years after first publication (or 120 years after creation if never published). There is one loophole in that if a work was considered public domain in the country of origin before a scertain copyright treaty was signed (I forget wich exactly) it would not be considered copyrighted in the US eitehr because the treaty didn't re-copyright works that had already expired at the time, just extend the term of still copyrighted works. --Sherool (talk) 08:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point about "rule of the shorter term". Looking at hirtle - if it was public domain before-1996 then it would be in the public domain in the US (I can find no record of any renewal googling through the copyright offices records) subtracting 50 years (assuming it was published anonymously) we get 1946 as the cut-off date for being public domain. Does that make sense ? Megapixie (talk) 09:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) So anything of unknown authorship published pre-1946 is public domain by virtue of having been published at least fifty years ago as of 1996, while anything of unknown authorship published post-1946 won't be in the public domain until 95 years after first publication? Thanks, by the way - you guys are wonders. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Baltimore Bays logo

I copied a logo of the NASL football (soccer) team Baltimore Bays from [20]. I have seen other logos used from this site. Would I be able to upload it, and if so, how should I license it? Cheers from Malpass93 (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You may upload it, but use it only the page for the Baltimore Bays. Use the {{Non-free logo}} template, and make sure to provide a fair use rationale. You might find the template {{Logo fur}} or {{Logo rationale}} useful, but you have to modify them to fit the way you use the logo. nadav (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Does copyright apply

When pictures are released from a game a lot of websites get them is it okay to post these on wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank polizzi (talk • contribs) 17:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Frank polizzi (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You may add limited number of game screenshots if they are genuinely needed to understand the article text. All copyrighted images have to follow the rules. nadav (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Gallneukirchen

Image:Turm.jpg I got problems with keeping my pictures on my generated site Gallneukirchen in English. Ahm I always upload my self made pictures but they get atomaticly deleted. Can someone fix that problem at Gallneukirchen thank u very much greetings --Blackbirdkd (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem was that you didn’t originally indicate the license under which you were releasing the image. I see that you added {{GFDL-self}} later, which is what was needed. When you added that tag, you could have also deleted the {{di-no license}} to make the warning go away. On Image:Turm.jpg I deleted that for you.

When you upload an image in the future, you may want to select “GFDL” from the “Licensing” drop-down list. Doing so would set your copyright tag without your having to edit the image description page. --teb728 t c 02:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyright rules for 60's magazines

I am doing an article about Architect Harry Gesner. I have an image of his work from the 1969 issue of "Home Magazine" that I would like to include. The image is in the middle of this page http://www.malibumag.com/onlinemagazine/febmar06/harrygesner.htm.

What are issue with using something 28 years old?Wicklonious (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well if it was first published in the US before 1989 and did not include a copyright notice it may be public domain (more info reqired to say for sure) if it was not an omission that was not corrected within 5 years. Also if it was published before 1964 with a notice, but did not have it's copyright renewed within 28 years it may also be public domain now. See this flowchart for more details on copyright expiration rules. If the copyright can not be demonstrated to have expired it will have to be treated like any other non-free work though. --Sherool (talk) 00:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a really cool flowchart! Guroadrunner (talk) 09:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

How do I get a image under copyright

How do i get a image under copyright and if i do how do, do i need a template?Frank polizzi (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean you want to copyright an image? Guroadrunner (talk) 08:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Magazine advertisements

What is the copyright status of the advertisements published in a magazine?

Advertisements published in US magazines prior to 1978 typically do not have a © notice on themselves, but the magazine usually has. This probably does not mean that the magazine publisher owns any rights on the advertisement, which was in many cases published in various magazines at the time. However does this © sign on the magazine imply that all the contents, including the advertisements, is copyrighted to its respective authors, e.g. the advertising company? The same question is probably valid for photographs published in a magazine, with an author's name but no specific © notice other than that of the full magazine.

I first posted the question in Wikipedia talk:Public domain but received no answer. I hope I will have better luck here.

--Rebollo fr (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless I'm very much mistaken, the material would be copyrighted to the advertising company, whether or not a © appears anywhere on the ad or in the magazine. The © isn't required in order for something to be copyrighted, it just informs the reader that the material is copyrighted, so there isn't any doubt (and, of course, it's usually followed by something indicating who holds the copyright).

I'm really not an authority on this - I'm only on this page in the first place to ask questions of my own - but in this case I'm about 98% sure of what I say. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You are correct for all "new" material, however the rule that all new material is automaticaly copyrighted without the need of a notice is actualy fairly new. Material first published before 1989 did in fact require a copyright notice, although the absense of one is not a 100% sure sign that something is PD because if only a few copies of the material was published without a notice or they made an effort to adress the absense of the notice within 5 years or some such it may still be copyrighted. A lot of fairly recent things like this, including several movie trailers and what not are in fact considered PD due to the lack of a copyright notice though. As to wether or not the copyright notice on the magazine itself would apply to all the material published within it that's a good question. Logicaly I would asume the notice would only cover the material created by the magazine's staff though, unless maybe it's one of those general "other material copyrighted by theyr respective owners" type thing, but I believe copyrighted notices needed to have a spesific form to invoke the legal protection... --Sherool (talk) 07:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:World Record Club universal sleeve.jpg

I think I first omitted to tag this fair-use image properly and have followed a procedure to add a {{Non-free album cover}} tag to the edit-box. I went through the whole upload process again as I couldn't at first see how to re-open edit. I have put this tag in at the end of the (second) caption text. However, the 'logo' license box and copyright feature has not appeared. Could you please advise at my userpage? Thankyou, Sedgefoot (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Later - I seem to have sorted this out now, thanks. Sedgefoot (talk) 01:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You also need a non-free use rationale. --teb728 t c 07:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Chevrolet K5 Blazer.jpg

I'm concerned about Image:Chevrolet K5 Blazer.jpg because there are people in it. I'm not sure if we have the right to put out an image that has the likeness of these private individuals -- but on the other hand it appears to be taken on a public street. Thoughts? Guroadrunner (talk) 08:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Publicity rights is a very complicated issue, but it's not a copyright issue and it doesn't prevent the image from being put up on Commons. See commons:Template:Personality rights. I believe in most jurisdictions, the law only prevents commercial use (similar to trademark say). Commons has a lot of images that, though free of copyright, have other weird legal restrictions on use. nadav (talk) 09:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

How do I validate my images for use?

Dear Wikipedia staff,

A few days ago, I received a notice stating that a few images I've uploaded would be deleted because the rationale I have provided for using the images under "fair use" may be invalid. The images I've upload are meant only to describe a character(s) in the series I've uploading them to, and also to be used in an informative manner.

The images in question are screenshots, which I've added to the character description and Major/Minor character pages for the anime/manga "Love Hina." I added them in only to help out in visuals, so that other viewing and reading the content can have a look at the characters themselves.

I was only trying to help, nothing more.

Now, I'm pretty new here, and I still haven't figured out how the Non-Free Use Rationate works. In oreder to validate the images, do I have a add a bullet desciption in the summary, stating where the screenshot is from, and that it's only meant to be informative and meant to describe the said character? Like this:

Keitaro Urashima from the Love Hina anime by Ken Akamatsu. Source: Love Hina Vol 1 DVD EP. 3

Fair Use Rationale:

• This image identifies a main character in the Love Hina series
• This image is being used in an informative way

If so, can I added these seperate bullet descriptions in(for each character, seperately) and validate the images properly? I have several images I've uploaded to the Love Hina character desciption pages, and I would like to validate them, so they won't get deleted in any way. Will this be the right way to do it?

Please reply back as soon as possible, so that I may complete the validations. the images I need to valid are the following:

[[:Image:Kuro-chan 1.jpg] [[:Image:Kentaro 03.jpg] [[:Image:Hina 2.jpg] [[:Image:Ema Maeda 2.jpg]

I also have the following images posted on the description pages as well, which I will also validate right away:

Please reply back soon, so that I may complete the validations. Thank you.

CaptRicoSakara (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Your approach is correct. The rationales haves to be added to the image description page like you wrote. However, it's better to put the rationale in a new section titled, say, "Fair use for ARTICLE NAME", where you replace ARTICLE NAME with the article where you wish to insert the picture, since rationales have to be specifically written for each article that includes the image. In addition, they need to include some more information than you gave. See the guideline. In particular, you need to write that the screenshot shows only an inconsequential part of the copyrighted work, that the resolution has been lowered, and that the image is not replaceable by a non-copyrighted/free alternative. For some examples of rationales, see User:ESkog/Rationales and Wikipedia:Use rationale examples. nadav (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Photo copyright

I have a photo taken over 97 years ago. The owner of the photograph has given me their permission to use it. The photograph has not been published anywhere previously and the person who took the photo is unknown and is most likely to have passed away.

Generally in the publishing industry (i.e. books etc.) this photo would be published, however I am not too sure if it is on wikipedia.

What do I do? Which license type do I use?

Mcebach (talk)mcebach —Preceding comment was added at 06:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Two questions: When was the photograph first sold (assuming that it was sold) ? This would effectively be the date of the first publication. Where was the photograph taken ? (which country) - it being in the public domain before 1996 is important. Megapixie (talk) 09:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

File:ANaef 1910.jpg

Adolf Naef during 1910

The image was never sold or bought. It was taken in Italy (Naples) 1910. It has been available for quite sometime among colleagues and the scientific community (therefore in the public domain). Mcebach (talk)mcebach

Assuming that it was generally distributed in the US before 1978 - I would tag the image with {{PD-Pre1978}} (assuming that it is an original photograph created before 1978 and doesn't have any copyright mark on it) Add a detailed explaination of the sourcing to the image page to save confusion later on. If it was distributed before 1923 (and this is something you are sure of) - tag it with {{PD-US}} Megapixie 22:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:StudioEIS_Einstein.JPG

I put the copyright information in the file, but I keep getting messages that it's not there. Can you tell me exactly what tag to use and what mark-up to say the following:

The copyright holder, Elliot Schwartz of StudioEIS, has released this photograph under the GNU Free Documentation License. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forgottendelights (talk • contribs) 01:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I finally figured out how to add the GFDL logo, but now I'm wondering if the bot was asking for a copyright tag as well. The iamge is Copyright (c) Elliot, Schwartz, StudioEIS. What tags shall I use for it, and does it go in the image description field?

The {{GFDL}} tag is just what the bot wanted; it indicates that a GFDL license was granted by a third party. Sooner or later someone may be looking for confirmation that Elliot Schwartz of StudioEIS has granted the license; see WP:COPYREQ for more info on how to go about that. --teb728 t c 21:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! What confused me most was that after an hour or so of poking around, I couldn't find a GFDL tag for someone else's photo, rather than one I had taken. I'm relieved I finally got it right. The copyright holder did email a permission letter.

Use of a logo for a page

After i had uploaded the image Scs.gif onto the uploaded, i got a message form a bot that stated the following:

---

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Scs.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 03:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

---

I dont really understand what the bot means, this image is not a copyright, it is merely a school logo, and I never specified that the image was being used for fair use, can someone please explain to me what I should do? Thanks TOL (talk) 04:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

All images created are effectively copyright. I'm guessing you don't own the copyright of the image, thus it can only be fair use. See the answer to the below question as for how to proceed. Megapixie (talk) 08:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

My images non-free?

My images i uploaded and put onto articles Image:Obverse-side Round50cents.jpg Image:NZcoin-RE2cent.jpg Image:NZcoin-OB1cent.jpg have been tagged as having an invalid rationale of fair use. I don't know how since i made these and added them to related articles. Can i ask why? Hothguard11 (talk) 07:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You need to add an article specific fair use rationale to the image description page for each of the images. Because of the artwork on coinage, essentially although you took a photograph of it, the original artist/government retains a portion of the copyright of the image (see Derivative work). It's the same (but far less extreme) principle as taking a video camera into a cinema and filming the screen. The rationale explains how the use of the copyright material falls within the scope of fair use, and is therefore permissable. Megapixie (talk) 08:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

How can I tag the image file

Please tell. 13:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)~

See How to add a copyright tag to an existing image at the top of this page. teb728 t c 21:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)