Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2008/April

Image from National Geographic, Found on Web

I found this image of the Sargasso Sea on the web. It looks like it is from National Geographic, and one person who used it (Richard Corfield) said it is not his image and that he found it on the web. The image in question can be seen here(scroll down):

http://shs.westport.k12.ct.us/chia/caribbean/sargasso_sea.htm

You'll notice it is sourced to National Geographic, but a little searching on the National Geo webpage turned up nothing... and a few other web sources have used it... Any help with how to credit this? And should it be uploaded to Wikimedia instead? Thanks! --Enviropearson (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless the map is licensed under a free license, we can’t use it on Wikipedia, because it surely could be replaced by a free image. —teb728 t c 19:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

And looking at that image it was almost certainly published quite a while after 1923, so the chances of it being copyrighted are pretty high, which means the only way we can use it on Wikipedia is under a Fair Use rationale. Also, FYI, Wikimedia is only for images that have been released under a free license, or into the public domain. -- Hux (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Pictures from American Museum of Natural History website

I have looked through the license articles but am not sure how to go about this (as I am a newbie). I wanted to upload some images from the American Museum of Natural History website on the Saragasso Sea, seen here:

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/ocean/01_dioramas/e_sargasso.php

how would these need to be credited and would it be OK to upload them? Any further reading on how to go about this would be appreciated. Thanks -Enviropearson (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I checked the copyright policy[1] and it does not allow free use. Notwithstanding the copyright policy, if any of the images are copies of two-dimensional(meaning flat, like a drawing or painting) works published in the US before 1923, they are public domain and the museum has no say in the matter. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing on the linked page looks like it would fit Rat's description of a copy of a 2D work, so you're out of luck, I'm afraid. -- Hux (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

East Hampton, CT Town Seal image

I uploaded the image of East Hampton, CT's town seal. I got it from the municipal website. Do I need a copywrite notation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CTJames (talk • contribs) 23:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I added the templates for you. Just fill them in. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I changed the template to this one and fixed the mess. -- Hux (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use question on image

Image:PASSCharlieBeth04.JPG -- A screenshot from a copyrighted television series. Fair use doctrine should allow use in an article about the fictional characters and series; however an editor disagrees because the image was obtained from a third party press source (Soap Opera Digest). -- Dougie WII (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I endorse your interpretation, for what that's worth. User:KellyAna seems to be behaving in good faith, but appears to be misunderstanding the situation. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If the Fair Use claim is adequate (and I think it is in this case) then the source of the image doesn't really matter. -- Hux (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Question about this logo

Hello everybody, I have uploaded the image "image:Logo University Freiburg.gif", as the image currently on the University of Freiburg page is not the logo but the seal. I figured the logo would be a useful addition to the article. Is it okay to use the logo and have I classified it correctly? I would greatly appreciate any help. Thanks so much! --RoDeWo (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks reasonable to me. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --RoDeWo (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

What happened?

I uploaded several Public Domain images from National Park Service few weeks ago. Just found what looks like pull-and-replace action that killed original files (Image:Watchman Lookout at Crater Lake National Park, 1932.jpg / Image:Sinnott Memorial Building at Crater Lake National Park, 1981.jpg / Image:Sinnott Memorial observation deck, 1938.jpg), and replaced them with new files with same name/source info/etc (Image:Watchman Lookout at Crater Lake National Park 2C 1932.jpg / Image:Sinnott Memorial Building at Crater Lake National Park 1981.jpg / Image:Sinnott Memorial observation deck 1938.jpg). Images still appear in wiki-articles so looks like some kind of re-formating job; however, "image" and "discussion" tabs remain red. Can someone tell me what happened and why? And what I need to do to get format right when I upload image so administrator/editors don't have to do re-formating work?--Orygun (talk) 02:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there! Whenever someone uploads a truly free image to the English Wikipedia (a Public Domain image, a well-certified free image, etc), it is usually tagged with the {{move to commons}} template. This is because the image uploaded here can only be used in the English Wikipedia. However, since it is free, it can be moved into Wikimedia Commons, the central repository of free media of the Wikimedia foundation. This way the images can be used in any Wikipedia, not only the English ones.

In the case of Image:Watchman Lookout at Crater Lake National Park, 1932.jpg, you uploaded it on March 12, 2008. Ipoellet (talk · contribs) added the {{to Commons}} template on March 17, 2008. Undead warrior (talk · contribs) copied the image to Wikimedia Commons on March 22. MetsBot (talk · contribs) (a bot) tagged the image as "correctly copied to Wikimedia Commons" on March 31, and on the same day, east718 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) deleted your original image (because it is already available at Commons). The other image has surely passed a similar process.

So, you did nothing wrong. It is just part of the Wikipedia process to move free images from the English (or any other Wikipedia) to Wikimedia Commons so that it can be shared anywhere. However, technically the image should have been uploaded at Commons with exactly the same name, however it appears that the transfer script messed up the comma in the name (the original was "Park, 1932", but the copy at Commons is "Park 2C 1932", 2C being the ASCII code in hexadecimal for comma). I will request moving the image to the correct name.

You could, alternatively, make an account at Wikimedia Commons and upload free images there directly. However, it is not necessary: as you noticed, sooner or later they will be moved there. Part of Wikipedia spirit is sharing ;-)

Hope that explains the confusion. Cheers! -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Got it--thanks for taking time to explain process.--Orygun (talk) 04:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyright material

I maintain Larry Barbee website. He is mentioned in the entry on Harry Leahey and I thought I would put a short explanation about Larry on his link. I used the same BIO that I used on the website (larrybarbee.com) and it's been flagged. I can't read through all the info on how to cite this as my material that I own. I know HTML but contributing to Wikipedia is new to me. Thanks for you help. -- Kathy Neely —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kneely (talk • contribs) 04:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This is just a suggestion; I can't guarantee it'll satisfy all other other editors. When you add the text, write something like "I am the webmaster of ... and I swear that I wrote this text myself" --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 04:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That wouldn’t be enough for me: The source site says, “© 2005, Larry Barbee. All rights reserved. Content Owner: Larry Barbee.” All text on Wikipedia must be licensed under GFDL, and apparently Kathy Neely doesn’t have the power to license this text. —teb728 t c 05:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have the right to license it, then you should put a note on the source website saying "This text is licensed under version 1.2 of the GNU Free Documentation License, with no Front-Cover Text, no Back-Cover Text, and no Invariant Sections. Elfits (klat) 10:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused about a photo I put up

I'd appreciate it if someone could help me with this: I posted an old photo that I took in 1958 of Sondra Peterson. I posted it on the Sondra Peterson page and I thought I selected the correct "rights" or whatever you call it. I mean, I released it into the public domain. But now a robot has come along and taken down the photo and I got a message saying the photo might be erased within seven days. Could you please let me know whether I selected the wrong "rights"? I don't remember exactly which ones I selected, and now I can't see them anymore because there is no image to click on. I'm pretty sure I selected the option that said that I took the photo and that I'm releasing it in the public domain, so I'm surprised there's a problem. Thanks in advance for any help you can give me! Daniela Morton (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sondra Peterson in 1958.jpg was deleted because it lacked source information. You didn't specify where you got it - just stating "I took this photo" would have been enough. Do you want the photo restored? Elfits (klat) 10:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

For the license, if you're releasing your own work into the public domain then it's best to use the {{PD-self}} tag. You should also put a description and a confirmation that you're releasing it as such. Here's the way I do it with my images and so far the bots haven't complained. ;) -- Hux (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both very much for those answers. And yes, Elfits, I would like the photo restored. Are you asking because you're offering to restore it for me? If yes, that would be great! If not, that's okay, I'll just try to download it onto Wikipedia again, because it looks as though it may already have been deleted (though I'm not sure). And I will try to follow the instructions you both gave me. Daniela Morton (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've restored it and tagged it for you. Feel free to add it back to the article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thank you so much for restoring it, Sarcasticidealist! I don't know what it means when you say you "tagged it," but thanks anyway for doing it, whatever it means, and I assume it doesn't mean fixing the "rights" which I hadn't done correctly I guess, so I went and reposted the photo and added the stuff Hux (above) told me to regarding the rights. Hopefully it's okay now. Cheers, Daniela Morton (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Illinois Department of Corrections

For a picture of an inmate from the IDOC website, what is the appropriate copyright license? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

They have a copyright notice on their page stating "© 2002 IDOC" and no other statements of license. This means we can only use an image from them under fair use and our non-free content criteria which may not work if the person is only "temporarily" imprisoned. However, you could request they license a image freely to us. Please see WP:COPYREQ for more information on how and what to ask. Note: {{PD-USGov}} and all related items do not apply as this is not the federal government. MECU≈talk 14:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. In theory, he's temporarily imprisoned, but he's currently serving two 40 year sentences, and will be on trial for a few more murders soon. I could probably go with the fair use, but I may contact the prison, too. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not just two 40 year sentences, but two consecutive 40 year sentences, so I doubt he's ever getting out! That being the case, I think you can legitimately use a photo of him under Wikipedia's non-free content criteria - ordinarily that wouldn't be allowed because he's alive, but long term incarceration is an exception to that rule. -- Hux (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I generally agree with Hux, but if he is facing more trials coming up, he could be in a public place at a known time, and it would be possible to create a free image (if not better, more interesting) at that time. That's how replaceability goes around here. MECU≈talk 17:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Spoken Article copyright and rationale...?

I've recorded and uploaded a spoken article file (Image:Green Wing (Series 1).ogg) but I'm unsure as to how to figure out its license and source. And its fair-use rationale. So basically I've uploaded something and I haven't a clue where to go on from there! Thanks londonsista | ^Prod 16:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Since it's just you reading the Wiki article then I'm guessing you should tag it as {{GFDL}} since that's the license that covers the text on Wikipedia. I'll wait to see what others say, however, as I've never commented on this type of contribution before. -- Hux (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't need a rationale, fair use or any of that non-free stuff. I agree with Hux that you have to license it under the GFDL since the source (us) is under the GFDL. Just put the tag on there and make sure it clearly states that it is your own work of reading the article and you can delete the other tags at that time. Thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia. MECU≈talk 17:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Two other wiki contributors managed to fix it, but thanks guys for answering my question even though I'm still slightly confuddled. :) londonsista | ^Prod 00:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Delia Derbyshire

Hello,

Please advise, The image used on the Delia Derbyshire has been found by more than one person to be offence and not in keeping with the article see Talk:Delia_Derbyshire#photo_of_Delia

Image:Deliaderbyshire.jpg

Above is the image in question is not in the public domain, would it be ok to swap this image with another which is also not in the public domain but better suits the article  ?

I suggest to upload a more famous image of her in the studio [ see link below], which is copyright of the BBC, does this come under fair use ?

[[2]]

02:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes - one fair use image is as good as another, from a copyright standpoint (assuming that both serve to illustrate the article's subject, and neither is replaceable by a free image). One note: the current image is too high resolution for use on Wikipedia as a fair use image; it should be no more than 200 px long on its longer side. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks for that, should i tag it any way special ? King dumb (talk) 03:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Depends on the image. Make sure you attach a fair use rationale, though. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Olympic rings images on Commons

There are several images on Commons that are copyrighted by the International Olympic Committee but still hosted on Commons anyway (commons:Category:Copyrighted International Olympic Committee). There has been spirited discussion about whether or not they should be deleted from Commons (see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2006/02#The Olympic ring) with consensus to keep. I note that several other Wikipedias make liberal use of the five rings logo as a decorative image for infoboxes, navboxes, stub templates, etc. although we had a "purge" of that kind of usage on en.wikipedia a year or so ago. So, given the usage of these images elsewhere, do we need to be so strict on en.wiki? Can we assume that any image hosted on Commons is open for widespread usage here, without the normal restrictions we impose on fair-use images? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Are the images copyrighted, or are they trademarked? --Carnildo (talk) 00:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, now there is a good question. Certainly the category name and license tag template name (commons:Template:Copyrighted IOC) would imply they are copyrighted. A careful reading of the Olympic Charter reveals:

Bye-Law to Rules 7-14 (page 20), paragraph 1.2:
Each NOC is responsible to the IOC for the observance, in its country, of Rules 7-14 and BLR 7-14. It shall take steps to prohibit any use of any Olympic properties which would be contrary to such Rules or their Bye-laws. It shall also endeavour to obtain, for the benefit of the IOC, protection of the Olympic properties of the IOC.

That would imply that each National Olympic Committee has responsibility to trademark these symbols on behalf of their respective countries (e.g. USOC for the USA). I spent some time searching the US Patent and Trademark Office database, and found trademarks for dozens of Olympic logos (for example, #76519765 for this image), but not specifically a trademark for the plain five rings by themselves.

I also discovered the Olympic Insignia Protection Act from Australia, which states "the Federation shall be taken to be the owner of the copyright in the olympic symbol" and "copyright in the olympic symbol subsists indefinitely". The People's Republic of China has both copyright and trademark protection of the Olympic symbols, per this document. The United Kingdom has the Olympic Symbol etc. (Protection) Act 1995, which seems to mention both trademark and copyright protection, but I can't be sure.

Therefore, I am going to assume that the logo is copyrighted in multiple countries, and not just a trademark. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Graph derived from "Vision of Britain" data

I've made a graph showing the growth in population of my locality since 1801, but the source of the data is "Vision of Britain". Now it could be argued that they got the data from the national census, which is public domain but they've added value by matching the boundary changes over the decades, even though the census enumeration districts remain roughly constant. Is it valid to claim that it is my original work when I just rekeyed the numbers into a spreadsheet? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If you've converted the numbers from them into a graph - as opposed to copied a graph from them - you should be fine to use it, wherever they got the data. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Question on controversial image

Image:Keshub_Chunder_Sen.jpg This is with reference to 2 intense but inconclusive debates at Talk:Brahmo_Samaj and also Village Pump (Policy)- (disc.still open as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#International_USA.2FGBR.2FIN.2FBD_.22Copyright_of_image.22_question) concerning this image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Keshub_Chunder_Sen.jpg -- It is claimed to be a "photographic" image of Keshub Chunder Sen who died in 1884. The Wikipedia Admin "User:Ragib" who uploaded it to Wiki Commons Media originally cited 3 Public Domain Tags - 1 of which PD-IN's requirements he could not comply with - namely "The creator and year of publication are essential information and must be provided". Thereafter it turns out the image uploaded (in good faith) to WM was scanned from a Print Encyclopedia of Bangladesh - Banglapedia which was first published in 2003. No prior publication for this image has been cited so far in the debate. There is also considerable doubt over the image's authenticity and "fair reproduction" from a true "fixation", since the image in question differs greatly from numerous portraits of the man (bio-subject) hanging in museums, and published as postage stamp (with booklet) (in identical pose and costume) by Govt of India, and also differing in significant respects from other photographs of the man (accessible online in copyright asserted websites) which have been cited. The Uploader's initial position was that all photographic images of a person who admittedly passed away around 1884 are in Public Domain (Free), and hence uploadable to WM. The matter has reached an impasse. Kindly advise if this image is acceptable to WikiMedia. Yvantanguy (talk) 08:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak to the authenticity of the image, User:Dragons flight hits the copyright question on the head (as if it were a nail, even). I agree that there probably isn't sufficient evidence to tag it was {{PD_IN}}, but, as Dragons flight says, that's not necessary, since it's in the public domain in the United States. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

As the next contributor to Dragon_FLight ie. User:Abecedare cited, while attempting to explain User:Dragon_flight's argument (when it was challenged as being without basis), that as per citation http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/ , "Works Published Outside the U.S. by Foreign Nationals or U.S. Citizens Living Abroad" before 1923 are in the public domain. This includes works published both in the U.S. and abroad by foreign authors. However, as I (and others) have repeatedly stated this is consistent with the {{PD_IN}} tag. In fact as per the Indian tag even proof that the image is published prior to 1938 is sufficient for it to be in PD in USA. BUT, even this LATER DATE is not forthcoming - possibly because the image itself is a forgery. So whereas (and I am sorry to say this) everyone is focussed on the "it's OK to use because US CPR says pre-1888 makes it legal and free" argument, they are overlooking the even more relaxed and tolerant PD-IN tag which says demonstrate publication OR creation anywhere pre-1938 for this Indian image and its OK. Even US CPR requires either publication (and its proof) or creation "somewhere" / "anywhere". Is WM an encyclopedia where any old dubious "photograph" can be published? Let me take this argument one step further - although I am now going into uncharted waters. The Uploader admits freeely that he scanned the image from a print encyclopedia Banglapedia published by the Asiatic Society of Bengal (Bangladesh). BUT, The bio-subject's father was the Secretary of this Society well before the time this image could have been created - where the bio-subject would certainly have been a member. The first Asian members of this Society were Brahmos (admitted in 1829). If an "encyclopedic" publication of such an old and prestigious Society like the Asiatic Society (having at least 20 images in their possession / knowledge of this bio-subject - NONE of which correspond to this image) selects such a dubious image (Original Research?) which is tolerated on WM, what will an average user at WP think of encyclopedic credibility? PS: Sorry for spouting off. Finally, what's with the "if its free to use in the USA its OK to use on WM justification - can we cite an absolutely binding WM policy on this"? Yvantanguy (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've looked into the debate surrounding this image a little further, and I think my initial answer was incorrect. On further reflection, I tend to agree that this work cannot be established as being in the public domain unless a date of publication can be established, given the following quote from Wikipedia's public domain guidelines: "When a work has not been published in the U.S. but in some other country, that other country's copyright laws also must be taken into account." However, if Indian law has a clause similar to the U.S.'s "right to assume public domain status" rule cited by Dragon's flight, then the image can be considered PD after all. I continue to make no comment on the authenticity of the photo, which is not a copyright question. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Yvantanguy's argument centers on the fact that the image might very well be an unpublished one. I.e., it has not been published in India, other than being released to the subject/family by the photographer. So, it is not even covered by Indian copyright law, which probably does not have any clause on unpublished images. --Ragib (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to summarize some facts as I see here, I'm listing them below:

• The photographic image was taken most likely in British India, and possibly in Bengal (which is now divided between Republic of India and Bangladesh). It is also likely that the image was taken in England when the subject visited it briefly.

• Judging by appearance of the subject, the image shows the subject well before his death in 1884. In other words, the photo was taken well before 1884.

• The copyright limit for photos taken in India or Bangladesh is 60 years.

• In case of anonymous author, the copyright is date of publishing+60 years.

Now, the question becomes, what is the copyright status of a photo taken more than 125 years ago, which may not have been printed (i.e. it's publication status is unknown). Does the printing of the photo and its release to the subject mean publication? What happens if I found a 150 year old photo in an old album ... is it in public domain or not? IF someone prints the photo in a newsletter today, would that mean the photo, though 150 year old, would become copyrighted starting from today? This seems to be the main question which Yvantaguy raises. Under this argument for old photos, many of the PD photos of Wikipedia would have to be deleted unless we can show it was printed in some manner and in sufficient numbers to justify a "publishing". --Ragib (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as I understand it the law is very clear on this point. In jurisdictions where copyright is measured from the date of publication, a date of publication has to be established proximately enough to know whether or not the copyright is lapsed. If the earliest date of publication we're aware of for this photo is 2003, then we can't consider it in the public domain in jurisdictions where the relevant lapse is date of publication + 60. For what constitutes publication, see Wikipedia:PD#Publication. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This Keshav Image dispute does not IMO impinge on WM in general. If Mr.A has a 150 year old photo in his 125 year old photo album, he can always licence it for PD usage. Yvantanguy (talk) 05:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Going back to the "publication" date of the photograph, it seems to be coming from the collections of the India office of British Library. The publication is from "Calcutta Art Studios" circa 1890 [3]. It seems that the same studio published a large number of photographs of prominent people of the era. If anyone can verify that the photo in question is indeed from this publication, that will establish the copyright status of the photo. --Ragib (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The link you posted didn't seem to go anywhere for me, but I agree that a publication date of 1890 would clearly make this PD in all relevant jurisdictions (and all the irrelevant ones too, I think). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The link doesn't work for me either - can you cite how to locate the item. I could not locate any work tagged here to Keshub pertaining to 1890. What I did find via the BL website are many books published around 1926, 1931 with "plates" or "portraits" of "Keshub Sen". In particular Manilal Chotalal Parekh (1926) has his "portrait with ektara". Another (1920) book has his studio portrait in full colour (similar to the payer.de "photograph"). Even Sen's autobiograpy (1915) does not have his photograph, neither does Mazoomdar's (his closest apostle) biography - which has a "portrait". (BUT I wont say anything about the 1931 Ramakrishna Mission book or the G.C.Chatterjee Brahmananda one either ;-). PS. Can you verify that the "Calcutta Art Studio" is a "photographic" studio, because from BL it looks to be a "calendar art studio" as in paintings and portraits of gods and goddesses (like the impugned image) Yvantanguy (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Go to this page, and search with the keyword "keshab" (note the spelling) in the portrait field. --Ragib (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ragib, I am affected by frequent session timeouts with the BL site. It seems to me that your image is a "portrait" (lithograph) not "photograph" (which has a separate search page). I have no issues with portraits of Keshav Sen, since there are so many acceptable ones in the public domain - for example the one in the 1920 book (first published in New York 5th Avenue - so no issue on US CPR) which is in full colour, very detailed, and signed by the artist at the bottom. Can we close this discussion (shortly) with your uploading the 1920 image to Commons and then linking this to the Brahmo Samaj page/s where the pro-Keshav / anti-Keshav charges are beginning to fly and I am being (wrongly) accused of bias and groupism for my NPOV research. Yvantanguy (talk) 05:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Question concerning images???

so i'm new at this, but i do have permission to use every single picture i have, by the photographer and by the artists in them. i also have an email, from the photographer if need be, to send where ever so the pictures can be on here and legally. how can i get everything straightened out on them? i uploaded the 2 i had received deletion tags about and added all the information, but it still has the tag. what now? thanks alot, SOTUFan Funky! 08:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not enough just to have permission to use them on Wikipedia. The copyright holder has to give license for anyone to use them, for any purpose. If the copyright holder is willing to license them, see WP:COPYREQ for information on how to confirm.

Another way to do it would be if the website of the copyright holder were to tag the photos; for instance "This photo is in the Public Domain", or "This photo is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution license" --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 08:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Condemned Logo

I don't know how many times I've had to work on this image description. Perhaps you could provide clarification for me as it appears I am incapable of meeting the rather pedantic criteria. Could you please explain to me what you mean by "inline" and particularly "sourced commentary"? What exactly is the problem with this image?

As I have stated in the image descriptions and tags the logo is used for identification purposes. As with many bands out there if you do a search you'll find more than one band have the same name, the logo is the best way to differentiate between these. Do a search for Condemned and you'll see at least 3 other bands by the same name spread around the globe.

If your issue specifically regards the image in the background of the logo, I can replace it with a plain logo which the band makes freely available on their myspace page.

As per the tag I highlight the following paragraph, this is my main point of arguement-

"It is believed that the use of low-resolution images on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, of logos for certain uses involving identification and critical commentary may qualify as fair use under United States copyright law."

Could you define what is meant by "critical commentary"? I am unclear.

I have free images that I have taken of the band myself when I have seen them live. You stated something about this in your commentary. Is the problem the live image in the background? If that is the case I can, as I have stated above, replace the logo with a plain one, I can also provide a free image for the page.

Please do not take my tone in the wrong way here, I'm just getting fed up having to jump through so many hoops for a single image! I had thought it was all sorted the last time this issue arose.

Thank you for your time. Mojowibble (talk) 10:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cond000007.gif —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojowibble (talk • contribs) 10:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks right to me. I removed the tag. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The other editor, User:J Milburn, immediately reasserted the tag. Unlike most images on this page, the supposed problem is not about a missing copyright tag or missing use rationale: Rather the editor contends that the use is not permitted. It may be a good idea to discuss it on his talk page. —teb728 t c 01:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

License plates?

Would US State license plates be under the public domain, or would they be copyrighted? Soxred93 | talk bot 19:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Depends on the source and what the sourced licensed them as. But you should first check if we already have that license plate in the category on Commons at Commons:Category:License plates of the United States for starters and searching around here first. Taking the image from a (state) government website would not be a good idea. MECU≈talk 19:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

HELP!!

So, I took this screenshot of the Safari Web Browser for Windows to show the differences between the final release and the beta. I made the screenshot myself and am having a little trouble with the copyright stuff. please go to my user talk page with a reply --</post> Geek45 (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest taking a screenshot of the browser showing a Public Domain web page, or no page at all. It would make the licensing stuff a lot easier. Replying on your talk page as well. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Pullen Memorial Baptist Church

Aleta and I are writing an article about this church. I found a picture to use on flickr and e-mailed the guy who took it, asking him permission to use it on the article. He replied that it can be used, but the picture says "all rights reserved" and I don't think he's familiar with uploading pictures for this site. How do I show he has given permission to use it? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, he has to do more than provide permission for its use on Wikipedia; he also has to release it under a free license, such as the GFDL or one of the creative commons free licenses. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll see if I can talk him through it. Thanks. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 00:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:COPYREQ for information on how to request and what do to with a license statement of permission (where to send the email). This helps clarify for both you and the Flickr user what they are agreeing to. Alternatively, you could have the Flickr owner change the license to a free enough one (not NC or ND) for us to use, and then upload the image with the Flickr image as source. MECU≈talk 00:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll see if he'll change the license for at least that one picture. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 00:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

My Picture on ebay

someone has used a picture of something i was selling on ebay as part of a tutorial cd and selling it what can i do about it bob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.136.27 (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, this page is normally for copyright questions as they apply to Wikipedia, but I'll answer yours anyway: you need to contact them and ask them to stop using it. If they refuse, you might have to consider legal action. That's the point at which you'll need to talk to a lawyer, rather than a Wikipedia editor. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If they are using the image on eBay, you could try complaining to eBay. SpinningSpark 15:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:NataliDelConte.jpg

The image owner Ms. Natali Del Conte gave me the right to use this image and if you have any questions about this you can ask her. You can find her e-mail address at her blog. (I am not posting here in a public place.) I said that this was the case when I added the image but for some reason the image was removed.

I never did receive an e-mail why the image was removed. Maybe I added it when I wasn't login to Wikipedia so you didn't know who added and had no way to contact me.

Anyway I was thinking sending you a note now could avoid future coflict over the image.

Thanks,

Joe —Preceding unsigned comment added by BitStop (talk • contribs) 13:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The image was deleted because it was licensed as for non-commercial use only, non-derivative use or used with permission. Wikipedia does not accept such permission. The only permission that Wikipedia permits is permission which allows reuse by anyone for anything including commercial use and derivative works. If you want to ask the owner for that kind of permission, see WP:COPYREQ. We never send emails, but I am surprised that you did not receive a notice on your talk page. —teb728 t c 17:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

New Template for Historic Photos of Famous Individuals?

Could someone with template skills please modify this template: {{Non-free historic image}} to say

• to illustrate the historically notable person(s) in question where:
• the image depicts a historically notable person(s) , and dah dah dah

I'm attempting to illustrate such articles as Daniel C. Jackling. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Daniel_C._Jackling.gif, where I had to use the generic license {{Non-free fair use in }} --but a more specific tag would be better, I think. Thanks in advance, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

As you can see, I have done as you suggested.

—WHLfan (talk) 05:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! That makes the template a lot broader & more useful. I appreciate your prompt response! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

image of Clifton Snider

I own the image. No copyright is needed as far as I know. Please tell me what the problem is.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorgesilverado (talk • contribs) 06:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are the copyright holder, you have to specify a copyright tag. Just permission to use on Wikipedia is not enough; it has to allow use by anyone for any purpose. See WP:ICTIC --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 10:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don’t quite understand what you mean when you say you own the image. Mario Hernandez is listed as source: Are you Mario Hernandez? In any case, Wikipedia can’t use the photo without the permission of the photographer. And Wikipedia will not accept their permission, unless they also grant permission for anyone to use it for anything. —teb728 t c 18:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Putting a Dukes of Hazzard-related pic on a certain userbox

Is it okay to put this picture into a userbox (or on a userbox) ? Thanks. -iaNLOPEZ1115 · TaLKBaCK · Vandalize it 11:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the image is licensed under GFDL; so if it is appropriate for the userbox, there is no copyright issue. —teb728 t c 19:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Beaverroadmarks.gif

What sort of copyright should this have? I got the image off a government owned, but public, website. It is only a bar chart... KillerKat 13:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjfletcher (talk • contribs)

This isn't really an answer, but according to http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/ the site is under Crown Copyright. I doubt that we can use it. —teb728 t c 19:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Ojamajo Doremi and Sailor Moon Images

Hi,

My friend and I have a website and we are wondering if we may copy and paste some Ojamajo Doremi and Sailor Moon images you have here on Wikipedia!

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Momoko Asuka (talk • contribs) 19:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

None of the images in the Ojamajo Doremi and Sailor Moon articles is licensed as free content. Wikipedia can’t give you permission to use them, as we are using them without permission—under fair use. Depending on how you wanted to use them and where your site is hosted, you might also be able to use them under fair use, but we can't give you legal advice. If you are interested in some other image, click on the image, and see if there is a free license tag on the image description page. —teb728 t c 20:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Uploading a signature

I would like to upload the signature of author Anthony Horowitz, but am not sure if it is acceptable. What are the rules regarding signature images?

I would upload the image from Anthony Horowitz Official Web Site

Thanks

WHLfan (talk) 05:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Not 100% sure on this one. Signatures are not eligible for copyright protection under US law, but this is a UK issue and I'm not sure whether signatures are similarly ineligible there. I'd say the chances are high that there are, but I wouldn't rely on my educated guess if I were you! -- Hux (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Modifying image makes you a copy-right owner?

If you look at the image, it says that the "author," which I am pretty sure that he's not Barack Obama, is releasing it to the public domain. I was wondering where the copyright law stands on this issue. For example, if I crop someone's image, does that make me a copyright owner? Thanks Beidabaozi (talk) 06:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

According to Signature#Copyright, they are ineligible for copyright. The tag would be {{PD-ineligible}} --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 08:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Wicsoviet.jpg

This image appear to fall under #8 of Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images 2. Please advise. --MrStalker ^(talk) 07:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right - we can't use magazine covers simply to illustrate articles about the thing that's on the cover unless the cover itself is the subject of the discussion. I've tagged it for deletion. -- Hux (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Music excerpts from copyright works

What about audio files - music excerpts from works with copyrights? I noticed, that on english wikipedia there are files like this. For example in article Turangalîla-Symphonie. Can I make and use excerpts like this in wikipedia? Can I upload it on Commons? --Bunco-sk (talk) 10:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If you use a copyrighted musical recording in accordance with WP:NFCC then that's fine. Typically, this means you can use a small portion of the recording in order to illustrate a discussion about that recording that could not be illustrated by mere words alone, and for which a free version could not reasonably be created. (It's more complicated than that, but that's the basic gist of it.) Regarding your other question, the Commons is only for freely usable media - you can't upload copyrighted musical clips there. -- Hux (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

How can you tell?

How can you tell the licensing from an image off the internet? I got this image Image:Una_Damon.gif off this site that says it wants to get an image of every actor, and I don't know the license. Where can you find them? C Teng 15:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, unless clearly stated otherwise, it's safest to assume that all images on the internet are copyrighted, meaning you can't upload them to Wikipedia unless the copyright owner releases them under a free license, or you upload the image in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. In the case of the site you link, those are screen caps from Spider-Man, the copyright for which is likely owned by Sony Pictures Entertainment - the studio/distributor of the movie. There is another problem with the Una Damon image you uploaded, however: since Ms Damon is a living person we can't use a copyrighted image of her since a free image could reasonably be created. See my reply to Fullmetalchibi immediately below for more info on that. -- Hux (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Pictures from official website

I want to use the pictures found on http://www.runandgun.jp/profile.html to put on their respective wiki pages. Though, I can't figure out if I'm allowed to do this? And if I am, what sort of licensing I should use for it? --Fullmetalchibi (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The images at that site are almost certainly copyrighted, plus since they're living persons (I'm assuming) we can't use those images because a free version could reasonably be created (e.g. by someone taking a photo of the person and releasing it under a free license). Your only option, if you want to use those photos, is to contact the copyright holder and request that they release them. For details on how to do this see WP:COPYREQ.

Why are you deleting my picture?

Why are you deleting my picture? I created and designed it so I don't see the point in deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keenan Football Association (talk • contribs) 19:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It's being deleted because you're not adding a copyright tag to it, either by selecting one from the drop-down list when you upload the image, or by adding a tag to it after it's uploaded by editing the image page. If the image is all your own work then you need to release it under a free license (e.g. the GFDL) or into the public domain. To do the former, edit the image page and add {{GFDL-self}}. If you prefer the latter, add {{PD-self}}. You should be aware, though, that by doing this you are allowing anyone to use these images for any purpose, including commercial purposes. If you're not comfortable doing that then you should not upload the image to Wikipedia. Hope this helps! -- Hux (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Flickr

I found an image on Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dawilson/356566308/) im unsure regarding copyright etc. Is it possible to upload for use on the Ravenscraig article?

Some rights reserved:
You are free:
to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work

Under the following conditions:
Attribution. You must give the original author credit.
Non-Commercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes.
No Derivative Works.

I would have thought that "you are free to copy distribute, display and perform the work" would mean that it can be uploaded. But this page says different?

Any help much appreciated. Thanks, Grant ← κεηηε∂γ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The Upload page is correct. There was a decree[4] from the WikiMedia foundation that "Non-Commercial" and "No Derivative" licenses were not suitable for Wikipedia. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 08:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. Why though? If the liscense is that it can be used as long as we are not making money from it, why should that sort of liscense not be used? Sorry im not being akward, just interested thats all. ← κεηηε∂γ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

One of the guys high up in WikiMedia wrote an essay[5] on the reasons. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah right, i see. Basically we should have a 'totally' free image so we can use it for whatever we like? I understand it a bit more now... Ach, suppose I will drive down to Ravenscraig and take a couple of snaps myself! ← κεηηε∂γ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be awesome. Please then upload the images to Commons. An alternative is to ask the Flickr owner to change the license of the image on Flickr, or just grant us a free license. You can read more at WP:COPYREQ. Thanks. MECU≈talk 14:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It may not be a great deal of help in the overall discussion but the photo in question is mine and I would be happy to make a low resolution version of it available on an unrestricted license for use on Wikipedia (as I have with a couple of other pictures). Contact me via Flickr mail and let me know if this would be helpful. Dave Wilson (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dawilson). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.136.110.27 (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The image is now available in Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Ravenscraig_Steel_Mill.jpg. I'll keep an eye on the Ravenscraig page to see if you end up using it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.206.106.211 (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow thats fantastic! I'll add it in. Thanks muchly! ← κεηηε∂γ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Images in patents

Can images in patents be freely used? Is the 1923 date relevant? The question is general but I have a specific in mind. I am writing an article on Otto Zobel who has a number of US patents from the 1920's through to the 1950's. There are many of Zobel's sketches in these patents which would be good to illustrate the article. SpinningSpark 11:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Pre-1923, probably yes. Post-1923, probably no. I'm not 100% sure on that though, I have to admit. It would depend on whether patent diagrams are considered creative works of original authorship. I'm inclined to think that they are, in which case the usual copyright rules would apply just as they do for any original drawings. -- Hux (talk) 23:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to be picky, but "probably" is not telling me whether I can upload or not. If we are going to go by the 1923 date I also need to know if it is the "filed" or "issued" date that is important. This is very significant in my case. There can be many years between filing and a patent being granted and Zobel started applying for patents in 1920. SpinningSpark 07:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

In general, patents are public domain unless specifically specified otherwise. See [6] Archived 2009-09-25 at the Wayback Machine --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 08:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent - thank you for your help. SpinningSpark 08:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Stamp 4 image

Back on March 22 I asked this question on the Wikipedia talk:Non-free content page but no one made any comment. Should this image Image:Stamp4EUFam.jpg, used in Stamp 4, more appropriately be a candidate for fair-use because the uploader clearly does not have the right to assert a PD on it. ww2censor (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Since it's a government document, the image might be in the public domain (In lots of countries, works created by the government are public domain by default.) However, I don't know if Ireland is one of those countries and if it is then we need a tag specifically for it (i.e. an Irish equivalent of {{PD-USGov}}). Irrespective of that, though, you are correct that the uploader does not have the right to release the work under {{PD-self}}. If in doubt, I think a Fair Use tag would work, but only if the image was being used in a discussion about the work itself, i.e. the card's design. Under Wikipedia's non-free content criteria we can't use it simply as decoration for the article about the card, which is the context in which it's currently being used. -- Hux (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Irish government work does not come into the public domain until 50 years aftre the work was made, just like the stamps - there is a commons template for this type of work commons:Template:PD-IrishGov, so that does not apply. We should really have that template here on the EN.wiki. The image is being used on a page about the status conferred by having the card and not about the card itself, so please have a closer look. ww2censor (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Then it seems clear that the design of the card is copyrighted and, as you say, the image is not currently being used in a way that is consistent with a Fair Use claim under WP:NFCC. I'm going to tag it for deletion and give the uploader a chance to modify its use/license. I think I'll create a page for that Commons template as well. Good find, by the way! -- Hux (talk) 02:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Query re copyright of images illustrating data/findings from published reports papers

Hi I have a query regarding the use of images that illustrate the findings of published research etc. It strikes me that this is not something that is the same as a drawing or other illustration that could be released for anyone to use how they see fit. I had previously considered that the Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvided tag provided a means of protecting the image as regards acknowledging the sources of the information and preventing the misrepresentation of that information by third parties. However, others have taken the position that the conditions attached to the tag cannot be used to prohibit derivatives. This defeats the purpose in my view and would seem to create an obstacle to the reporting of published research via wikipedia --Sf (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not accept any license which excludes derivative works. Images with such restrictions may be used only under the highly restrictive non-free content criteria. Among the restrictions, the image may not be replaceable with a free image, and it must contribute substantially to the understandability of the article. Such non-free images require a non-free tag such as {{non-free fair use in}} and a non-free use rationale for each use. {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvided}} is free use tag not a non-free tag; so it cannot be used for a non-free image. —teb728 t c 02:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that however a statement of policy re non-free images does not necessarily answer the question. Are you saying so that all images portraying information content (such as census stats, research findings etc) rather than illustrations should be non-free? Also the non-free category states that the image must be published elsewhere not that the information portrayed must have been published. This would seem to preclude wikipedia contributors from developing visual illustrations of some aspect of the article they are working on. This to my mind defeats the purpose of having an encyclopedia. --Sf (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Quite the contrary: I’m saying that all images should be free except in special cases. Users are encouraged to create their own images, but they must license them as free content. (Wikipedia, however, does not publish WP:original research; I hope you not suggesting that.) —teb728 t c 22:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If I'm reading the above correctly, I think you may be talking past each other. As far as I can tell, when Sf says that the images he's talking about "should be non-free", he's referring to the categorization of those images on Wikipedia, i.e. whether they should be indicated as free or non-free, given their content. However, when teb728 says that "all images should be free except in special cases", I believe he's saying that all images that are uploaded to Wikipedia should be freely usable (except in special cases) in order to comply with Wiki policy. Do I have that right? (Note: if one or both of you are "she" and not "he", then I apologize!) -- Hux (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That is what I am saying. Let me try replying to Sf’s last post again in the light of your comment: All images on Wikipedia portraying information content (as opposed to illustrations) should be licensed such that they can be used in derivative works. Unlike illustrations there are probably no fair-use exceptions for such images, for they are inherently replaceable by a derivable image portraying the same information. This does not preclude Wikipedia contributors from developing visual illustrations of some aspect of the article they are working on, but it requires that they license those images under a license that permits derivative works. I have a concern, however, that he is thinking of images that would constitute WP:OR. —teb728 t c 02:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It would seem the issue is the definition of "derivative" this implies that the licence allows someone to amend the image such that the information it portrays is other then that indicated by the published source i.e. that someone may misrepresent the information. If the stipulation is that someone must be permitted to use the unamended and properly cited image in a derivative work then that is clearly a completely separate matter. If the latter is the case then that should be clearly stated in the copyright policy. Re the original research query, and at the risk of sounding tetchy, what part of the words findings of published research were unclear? --Sf (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A license to make a derivative work is not a license to commit fraud. Say the original image is a graph: A legitimate derivative might for example add (clearly indicated) data points, which for example point out a discrepency between theoretical predictions and actual measurments. Or the derivative might point out an error in the calculations or methodology of the published research. —teb728 t c 21:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is my view that the use of language like "Wikipedia does not accept any license which excludes derivative works" would seem to be an open invitation if not a "licence" to commit fraud. If the use of the term "derivative" is in fact qualified under Wikipedia policy then the nature of such qualifications should be clearly stated and the implications set out. --Sf (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

PS I accept that it might be perfectly legitimate to amend a, properly acknowledged, image for the purposes you set out. But that would be the case in any scientific or academic discussion outside of wikipedia. That is not what is driving the question. What is driving the question is "is wikipedia seeking to place the use of such images outside any bounds?". If wikipedia refuses to be bound by such conventions of academic discourse then this would seem to introduce obstacles to the development of articles --Sf (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy requires that, with some very specific exceptions, everything on Wikipedia should be free content. However, it is worth noting that the freedom in question mainly refers to freedom from copyright restrictions. There are many other laws and conventions that limits what one may or should do with material published on Wikipedia, but, as a rule, we are not concerned with such limitations since they do not generally interfere with our mission to create a collaborative, freely available and extensible encyclopedia.

For example, our article on Google includes numerous phrases and logos that are trademarks of Google Inc.; these are not considered problematic in any way, since the restrictions put on their use by trademark law would only come into play if one were to commercially use them in a manner that competed with Google or sought to misrepresent oneself as being affiliated with them. Similarly, the fact that Wikipedia consists of free content means that I am free to print it out, give the printed out copy to my friends or even to sell it for profit — but if I took the printed out copy of Wikipedia and hit someone with it, I'd still be charged with assault. The freedom to create derivative works, which Wikipedia's license grants me, allows me to take Wikipedia's article on George W. Bush, edit it to express my own views on his policies and publish the edited version on my own website without having to worry about being sued for copyright infingement by Wikipedia or the article's other authors (provided that I comply with the attribution and other requirements of the license) — yet, if my edited version of the article were to claim that he rapes kittens, I'd still be liable to get sued for libel.

The issue with academic misconduct is similar. Wikipedia's policy of accepting only freely license content implies that, if you upload a figure showing your research results to Wikipedia, I can take that figure and publish it in any medium (on my website, on Wikipedia itself, in an academic article or on the back of a T-shirt) with any modifications I might choose to make to it (including but not limited to adding data points, cutting it in half, scribbling on it with a crayon or using it as part of an art collage), and, provided that I comply with the specific license you've chosen (which will typically at least require that I attribute you as the author of the original work, and possibly more), you won't be able to sue me for infringing your copyright on the figure. Even so, if I were to use the figure in a fraudulent manner, such as by claiming it as my own research (even if the license didn't explicitly require me to attribute it to you) or by trying to pass off a version with fake data as accurately representing your original results, I'd still be facing academic sanctions. Moreover, that would be just as true even if I were to do the same with a figure I'd drawn completely from scratch myself, without using your work in any way.

So, to recap, freely licensing your work implies that you retain only a limited amount of copyright protection on it. It doesn't, and indeed cannot, mean that you somehow authorize anyone else to do anything otherwise illegal or formally sanctioned with (or without) it, if only because such permission is not usually yours to give. And, even where it technically could, a normal free content license will not in any way limit your right to sue people reusing your work for defamation, privacy violation, trademark infringement, fraud or any other non-copyright-related offense, nor to raise charges of academic misconduct against them, should you believe them to have committed such. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Or, to sum this up in one sentence: Yes, people are legally able to misrepresent and distort published research information that is released to Wikipedia under a free license, but the benefits of allowing the creation of derivative works in general far outweigh the drawback of opening the door to such misrepresentation.

Now, if nobody minds, I need to go and find an abrasive mental solvent to remove the image of George W. Bush raping kittens from my mind... :) -- Hux (talk) 01:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

MY COPYRIGHT for THE SECRET HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY

I am new to Wikepedia (6 hours flying time)... I created a page which has been deleted tue to copyright issue.

I am the author of THE SECRET HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY and I own the copyright.

How do I get my page back on line?

regards Malcolm Brocklehurst

My website is www.cleveleyswriters.co.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrmajinka (talk • contribs) 16:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really the place for discussing this. You should have received a notice on your talk page about the issue (but I see you didn't). The first thing you should do is either change your website to state that the information is available under the GFDL license or e-mail WP:OTRS folks stating the problem, providing a link to the former article location or the article name and stating that you are willing to license the text you contributed under the GFDL license and are the owner of the website it came from. The first option is much better (and quicker), but either are fine. If you provide the article name here, we can help you further and give you a better location to seek help. MECU≈talk 17:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You should also read WP:BK: (It is possible that even if your article hadn’t been deleted for copyright violation, it might have been deleted for a non-notable subject.) Also read WP:SPAM: (It is possible that even if your article hadn’t been deleted for copyright violation, it might have been deleted as promotional.) Also read WP:COI: (Inasmuch as you are the author of the book, you have a conflict of interest in writing an article about it.) —teb728 t c 17:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this copyright notice acceptable for WP?

Wikisource has text and images from the book Days of War, Nights of Love. I was wondering if I could use content from the book here, uploaded as public domain. The book's copyright notice reads as follows:

English language (and all applications thereof) used without permission from its inventors, writers, and copywriters. No rights reserved. All parts of this book may be reproduced and transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, especially including photocopying if it is done at the expense of some unsuspecting corporation. Other recommended methods include broadcasting reading over pirate radio, reprinting tracts in unwary newspapers, and just signing your own name to this and publishing it as your own work. Any claim relating to copyright infringement, advocation of illegal activities, defamation of character, incitement to riot, treason, etc. should be addressed directly to your Congressperson as a military rather than civil issue.

Oh ya,... intended "for entertainment purposes only," you fucking sheep.

All responses appreciated. Skomorokh 18:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that no rights are reserved, I'd say you're fine. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait - I just caught the meaning of "for entertainment purposes only". I'd say that there probably isn't enough information in here to conclude whether it's freely-usable. Probably you'd have to contact the publisher. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Does that apply to all copyright notices of the form "fukk copyrite capitalizt pigs", or just ones that explicitly say "no rights reserved"? Thanks, Skomorokh 18:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

CrimethInc, the publisher of the book, is very much anti-copyright in general so I see no reason why the above should not be taken literally and the assumption made that all rights have been released on this work, including its cover. I don't think that the "for entertainment purposes only" part has anything to do with the anti-copyright stuff. I infer it to mean, basically, "you can't sue us if you do anything in this book" (c.f. The Anarchist Cookbook, which is well known as likely to cause a person great harm if they were to actually follow the "recipes" within). -- Hux (talk) 02:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Help! School Badges?

I just uploaded my school badge to Image:Bearsden_Academy_Badge.png. As it was a logo I selected logo but now have to find a fair use rationale etc etc. Are school badges fair use? It's not something I've seen mentioned in any of the help files or anything. Should I use a "fair use in (article)" template or something?

Sorry to be so ignorant lol, I'm still a n00b and I've been here for ages! Thanks for your help thefunkygibson^T¤C 19:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The image of the badge in the article about the school is definitely fair use, I think. The easiest way to add a rationale is to add this template, and fill it out as appropriate. Let me know if you have any other questions. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Think it's sorted now, thanks for your help! thefunkygibson^T¤C 19:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Aqua Teen Hunger Force characters

In a recent peer review of the Aqua Teen Hunger Force article, it was suggested to add additional images to improve the article. I would like to add an image depicting the three main characters (Master Shake, Frylock, and Meatwad), but there are no free images available. After reading the various policy pages regarding the use of non-free content, I'm even more confused than when I started by just trying to upload it. Would a non-free image be acceptable in this case? Thanks, Kamek (Koopa wizard!) 19:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't absolutely guarantee it, but in my opinion, yes, a non-free image is acceptable in this case, since no free alternative could be created. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 01:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance. I went ahead and uploaded one and included it in the article. I'll see what happens from there. Kamek (Koopa wizard!) 03:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Image of a wireless transmittor from circa 1910

I would like to use this [7] image in an article, but I am unclear on the licensing. If it was produced in the USA, I would say it is in PD, but since it was produced in France, I can't figure out what to do. There's no assertion of copyright on the source pages. Any ideas, or maybe suggestions where to find a suitable image? Thanks Yngvarr (c) 21:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, copyright in France runs for the life of the author plus 70 years, which means that unless you can assert that the photographer died in 1937 or earlier, you can't declare the image to be in the public domain. It might be worth e-mailing the website to see what they know about the photo. Alternatively, do any such transmitters still exist? If so, try to find somebody who can take a picture of one and release it under a free license. If not, you may have a case for fair use of a copyrighted image. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That clause only applies if the author is known and named. Different clauses apply if the author of the work is not known. This is common sense, if you think about it, because if no-one claimed copyright at the time, and no-one currently claims copyright, then how likely is it that anyone in the future will claim copyright? Copyright law is not intended to leave huge numbers of pictures of uncertain origin and uncertain authorship in limbo for ever. See Template:PD-EU-no author disclosure. Carcharoth (talk) 12:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Develop image cleanup project

Help is needed to develop an "image cleanup month" (June). The goal is to "Educate, cleanup and move images here at Wikipedia". You don't need to be an expert or knowledgeable about images here to help. Need folks who can write well, copyedit, design connections/templates, organize, group, communicate, have connections to users to help advertise (once the month starts) or just want to help in any other capacity. Not knowing about images would be helpful as we can test our pages on you. Being knowledgeable you can help write the content. See the project central location at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Image Monitoring Group#Wikipedia Image Cleanup Month (June) and dive right in to help. MECU≈talk 17:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"The first fatality of the October 14 incident being winched atop the Democracy Monument."

Image:The first fatality of the October 14 incident being winched atop the Democracy Monument.jpgThis b&w photo was scanned from page 199 of "Democracy, shaken & stirred : a novel" by Win Lyovarin, translated by Prisna Boonsinsukh (2003) ISBN 978-974-90404-7-8. The caption is from page 198. There are no photo credits anywhere in the book. I don't know what license to use. Fair-use rationale: This photo vividly illustrates incidents described in History of Thailand (1932–1973)#The_1973_democracy_movement and in Democracy Monument, Bangkok. It is also pertinent to Thammasat_University#Seal. I contacted Win Lyovarin at his (Thai) "Talk to Win" page; he responded that he doesn't recall, and suggested I move my questions to his (Thai) Bookworm Conversation page. My Thai isn't all that good, so I thought I'd try here first. Pawyilee (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. There's no Thailand-specific info at Commons:COM:L, so I'm going to guess it's a 70-year pma rule. You can slap {{non-free fair use in}} on it and write up a good fair use rationale. howcheng {chat} 17:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

{{Non-free historic image}} probably is more specific than the catch-all "use in". Carcharoth (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

...I don't know HOW to copyright tag my picture...

I took the picture myself, and it is of myself. How would i copyright tag that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakedemian (talk • contribs) 22:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Every picture you take is automatically copyrighted to you(unless it's a copy of someone else's copyrighted work). To allow use on Wikipedia, you just need to decide under which conditions you will make it available to the world. See WP:ICTIC --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Dragonball online...i have some questions about it,help/answer

i was thinking...about dragonball online..and i want 2 ask: 1)Can human in that game transform into..something,like sayians into a super sayian?? 2)when will it come to europe?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tottika (talk • contribs) 19:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. MECU≈talk 19:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Image for Crush 40

Hi. I recently had a picture taken down of the band Crush 40 because both members of the band are still alive, so a free version might possibly exist, and I was claiming fair use on the image. Now, I respected them taking it down and didn't put up any fight with it, but it's impossible for me to find any free equivalent because the band does not tour or perform at any live shows, and they do not get together often (all of the members have commitments to other projects, though the band is still technically active). Given this situation, and that such an image would be used only in an encyclopedic manner and would not have any influence on their record sales and such, would it be possible to make a legitimate claim of fair use for an image of them? The picture of them I have in mind is just of the two main band members (since no picture of all four of them together exists to my knowledge), but I can't link it because it is from the band's MySpace page. By the way, this article is listed at WP:GAN, so the faster this is resolved, the better. Thanks for your help. Red Phoenix (Talk) 20:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No. It doesn't matter how difficult it is to find or create a free image, but only where it's possible. Have you sent a request to the band asking for them to license an image freely? They may be willing to do so, especially to get more "publicity" by having their image on Wikipedia. Take a look at WP:COPYREQ for how and what to ask and what to do if they grant a free license. Also, have you looked at http://www.flickr.com ? Even if you find an image that's not free, you can ask the user to change the license to a free one (or grant us one via email like COPYREQ) and then we can use that one. Maybe then try all the other websites that you can find images of them and request a license. I know it sounds like a lot of work, but really it's not. Keep trying, but in the end, even if you are unsuccessful, there's no requirement to have an image to pass GA and there's no requirement to have an image NOW!, so be patient and keep trying. Good luck! MECU≈talk 23:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well, at least I know. Thanks for the info, I guess I better start looking. Red Phoenix (Talk) 01:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

download

can i download a song from here without paying any money or do i have to pay money216.188.241.218 (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You can't download a song from Wikipedia. You've definitely got the wrong site, and even if Wikipedia did offer downloads, it would be monitored by Wikipedia's strict adherence to copyright law. Red Phoenix (Talk) 23:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we do have a lot of free music. Start by looking at commons:Category:Music. It won't be anything recent due to copyright laws, but there is lots of music there. And of course if you find it here, it's free (unless it's uploaded illegally, which should be a rare occurrence). MECU≈talk 23:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

what are some points that we need to be aeare of when we are producing yest products

what are some points that we need to be aeare of when we are producing yest products —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darshan291983 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

the pointy heads? Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. MECU≈talk 21:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Rights for image to : Alberto VARGAS "LADY IN RED"

Hello, We are interesting by an picture of Alberto VARGAS for a local city advertising in France. We have 132 posters 400 x 300 cm for seven days and display for same time. Can you to say me how much are the royalties. Thank you for your answer. Best regards

Alain ROLLAND

Phone : (removed) e.mail : (removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.209.56.139 (talk) 07:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

What image are you talking about? Please be sure to link to it like this: [[:Image:Example.jpg]]. It's quite possibly free and there would be no royalties involved. But it might be used under fair use which then you shouldn't use it for your publication. Without knowing the exact image, we can't help you further. MECU≈talk 21:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over two million articles, and thought that we were directly affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the online free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is a help desk for asking questions related to using the encyclopedia. Thus, we have no inside track on the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the left hand side of your screen. If that is not fruitful, we have a reference desk, divided into various subjects areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. —teb728 t c 22:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sloan Digital Sky Survey images

Hello,

The policy for use is here and states:

Any SDSS image on the SDSS Web site may be downloaded, linked to, or otherwise used for non-commercial purposes provided that you agree to the following conditions:

• You must maintain the image credits. Unless otherwise stated, images should be credited to the Sloan Digital Sky Survey.
• Your use of the image cannot be construed as an endorsement of any product or service.

Can we use these images and if so, under what process? Creative Commons? Thanks. WilliamKF (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No, they can't be used here. The page says "SDSS Images may not be used for any commercial publication or other commercial purpose except with explicit approval by the Astrophysical Research Consortium(ARC)", and Wikipedia doesn't accept non-commercial images, except possibly under fair use. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Photo Help

Hello I am working on the wikipedia page for Dean Karr and I got a copyright error on one of the photographs uploaded I am trying to understand how to make sure that the system is aware that I have permission from Dean to create this page and use the images accordingly. However, as I am learning this all as I go, I am unclear how to tag the photo as being Okay. Thank you.

this is the image in question Image:Deancrashinto.jpg

Rikki Sixx Rikkisixx (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

What did you get permission for? Wikipedia doesn't accept images that are permission for Wikipedia only. See WP:COPYREQ --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 00:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not use noncommercial licensed images? (a rant)

I imagine this has been discussed before ;-} -- but I just learned (to my considerable annoyance) that the l5 or so photos I'd uploaded (and cropped and massaged...) today, from the very nice LA Times photographic archive, were subject to the NONCOMMERCIAL CC 3.0 license, and not the straight CC 3.0 license I'd thought they were. Sigh. All but one are historic photos, and so usable as Fair Use stuff, but still --- what a pain to go back and change all the licenses, generate FURS, etc etc. Not to mention annoying an administrator or two....

OK, I can hear the world's smallest violin-of-sympathy -- but howcome Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization in the state of Florida (USA) which operates Wikipedia, can't use CC noncommercial-licensed stuff? Here's the license in question: which defines commercial use as use "in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation." Which fersure ain't us chickens.

I suppose the argument is, all WP stuff is supposed to be FREE FREE FREE. But it isn't. WP has thousands of fair-use images (etc) that absolutely CAN'T be reused freely. It sez so, right on the license:

dah dah dah "qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement... "

So why not put similar boilerplate on noncom-licensed stuff and be done with it? Stubbornness? Inertia? Sacred Walesian Texts??

"It's a sin to waste the editor's time" (apologies to Larry Niven)

Grumpily, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

dern, forgot to give you all an example: "Authorities meet to discuss the Zoot Suit Riots" I mean, is that a headline, or what?

-- and don't miss this puppy. Can we get more postwar California than this? Note that UCLA catalogs this photo as "Man-woman relationships--California--Los Angeles"... Ayup. Pete Tillman (talk) 04:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed many a time. Put simply, it's not about "a non-profit organization in the state of Florida" (though note that non-profits do sometimes engage in commercial activity), but about every reuser. You are correct that non-free (i.e. fair use) images can't be used freely, which is why we're trying to limit them. Superm401 - Talk 04:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue of noncommercial licenses was brought up at WT:Non-free content/Archive 34#Creative Commons vs. Fair-Use. Images under the noncommercial license are essentially fair use images. Considering they're more "free" than an "all rights reserved" image, it's allowed as long as it meets the criteria in WP:NFCC. It was added to the speedy deletion criteria because people could easily confuse it with a free Creative Commons license. Spellcast (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As I did -- thanks for the info & link. It would probably be a good idea to add something specific re this on the image tutorial -- but, in truth, the whole image thing is a minefield, especially when fair-use is involved, and probably the next guy will learn by screwing up, too... <rueful grin> --Cheers Pete Tillman (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

One could question whether noncommercial-licensed material should be "speedily deleted" -- since use of such material on Wikipedia is explicitly permitted by the license! Shooting ourselves in the foot again?

Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

“ Against stupidity, the Gods themselves rage in vain. -- Friedrich von Schiller ”

State Legislative District Images

What copyright license label do we use for state legislative district images? I am thinking about posting California's state legislative districts on their pages. Here is an image of California's 1st Senate District: http://republican.sen.ca.gov/web/1/images/SD01_2004.jpg Socal gal at heart (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Absent any declaration to the contrary on the websites hosting those images (I was unable to find any such declaration), I would say they're clearly copyrighted, unlicensed, and unsuitable for use on Wikipedia. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Politicians are typically willing to relicense an image freely for us to use. You should definitely inquire about getting a free license. See WP:COPYREQ for how and what to ask and what do then do. Otherwise, Sarcasticidealist is right. MECU≈talk 21:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering: since district boundaries are a matter of public record there is presumably nothing to stop an editor creating their own map from that information and releasing it under a free license, even though such a map will inherently be almost a copy of the official one, correct? -- Hux (talk) 00:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

As long as we don't copy the style of that image, yes. There's a federal website/agency that has all kinds of maps of districts and states and counties and such. Search around on similar articles until you find such a map and try and get it from there might be a good idea. MECU≈talk 12:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Very old photo

Found photo taken in 1886 in on-line version of National Park Service history report. Since original photo was taken before 1923 (probably by U.S. Geological Survey team) think image is probably Public Domain. However, photo caption in NPS report says "...Coutesy of Oregon Historical Society." Are there any special restriction that apply when old photo has that kind of note or is this photo simply Public Domain?--Orygun (talk) 02:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hard to say. It might be public domain by virtue of its age, but then again it might not since it's possible that the photographer died less than 70 years ago. Why not email the Oregon Historical Society and ask for details of the photographer? -- Hux (talk) 03:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

1923 is sort of a "magic date" for US copyright. As long as it was published before 1923, it's Public Domain. Of course it's polite to acknowledge the people who archived it and digitized it. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 07:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thought there might be some nuance to consider--thanks--Orygun (talk) 00:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Youtube link to a video in Abbas Kiarostami

a user added a youtube link to a video in Abbas Kiarostami article which was reverted by me (see diff). I felt that it was a copyright violation. but the user added it back in the article (see diff). The issue was raised on the talk page of the article. WP:COPYRIGHT#Linking to copyrighted works states that "if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work". I believe that the movie is copyrighted work and an external website (in this case youtube) is carrying the movie clip in violation of the creator's copyright. So thats why we shd not link to it. However, other users are in favor of keeping the link. I would like to get an experienced editor's opinion on this. Gprince007 (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the link should go and you are absolutely correct. We should almost never link to Youtube. There used to be a bot running around removing such links. If it stays, it will eventually get removed. MECU≈talk 12:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, MECU is right. I removed the link and added a note on the talk page explaining this. Hopefully the editors there won't add it back again. -- Hux (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Question re: uploading an image

I am constructing a Wikipedia bio for a music promoter. I wish to include a poster of a concert that his company promoted. The subject of the bio, and head of the promotion company, has given verbal authorization to post the image of the poster in his bio. Not sure what heading this would fall under and whether or not formal, written authorization from him is needed. The image is also posted on his personal website and that of his new company (a company different from the promotion company, which no longer exists)

What steps do I need to take to post that image (right now I'm presently building the site in my personal sandbox) without getting notice from Wikipedia that the image will be removed.

Please advise. Thank you

James Hicks San Francisco

21:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)~~

Hi James - unfortunately, permission for use of the image in Wikipedia is insufficient. The copyright holder must agree to license it under the GNU Free Documentation License or a comparably free license, allowing unlimited re-use (including of derivative works), with the only allowable restriction being a requirement of proper attribution. I hope this helps. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The other possibility, it it meets all the Non-free content criteria, is to use it under a claim of fair use. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, while this is not relevant to your copyright question, you may run into problems with the article in general if the community does not deem the person sufficiently notable. A promoter like Bill Graham, for example, would meet such a standard. A random promoter in general? Not so much. ;) -- Hux (talk) 05:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair fair use

Fair use terms apply to any wikipedia language, or only to english, or doesnt matter?. because fair use only could be apply in the USA, im wondering: can i use a photo published in the united states for spanish wikipedia version, can i use on english wikipedia version a photo from anywhere, or because wikipedia is an United States organization every images responds to fair use? so, what's important, the language wiki version, the country where photo has been published, the country from where im editing and uploading the image?

Zen-kiu-beri-mach, Neotex555 (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

All Wikimedia projects are hosted in the United States, which is also where Wikimedia is incorporated; accordingly American law applies whichever language is being used. Note, though, that Wikipedia's policy for allowing non-free content is actually much more stringent than fair use under American law: meeting fair use under American law is necessary for non-free content to be included in Wikipedia, but it is not itself sufficient. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about Spanish Wikipedia, but I understand that some language Wikipedias do not allow any non-free content. —teb728 t c 01:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

In general, for non-free content the most reliable thing to do is simply pay close attention to Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. It's better not to worry about whether or not an image's usage fits within US Fair Use law since doing so is liable to confuse the issue due to that fact that Fair Use and the non-free content criteria are not the same (as Sarcasticidealist pointed out). -- Hux (talk) 05:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyright of CSS

A VERY SIMPLE INFOBOX
foo
bar

Hello, I have created the following "infobar", based on the infobox CSS class from MediaWiki:Common.css, and some templates which vanished in the process. There is no remaining trace to the templates (I used them only for grasping how infoboxes work) and I tried to avoid as much style as possible. What remains is just a wiki-table, whose style attribute closely resembles (and copies part of) the above-mentioned CSS class. Is it still under GFDL? (because it is, in some sense, a derivative work of MediaWiki:Common.css) or am I being paranoid?

If it is under GFDL, does the license apply to the infobox itself, or does it also applies to any article where I transclude it?. I would like to use in other wiki whose license is not specified. Thanks you.

<!--some CSS style was borrowed from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Common.css-->
{|style="border: 1px solid #aaa; background-color: #f8f8f8; color: black; float: right; clear: right; width: 15em;"
!style="background-color:#ccccff; padding-left:5px; text-align:left"|A VERY LONG TITLE
|- 
|[[foo]]
|- 
|[[bar]]
|}

Rjgodoy (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's an issue with copyright on this sort of coding here. Lara❤Love 17:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

888

business group in yiwu china zhenjiang which protects enviromental through various business opinions director is MUBANGIZI MALCOM PIOUS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.112.113.161 (talk) 10:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No copyright, no ISBN, no sources at all - can I still use it?

I have a book about Dunn's Falls, talked about in the Sites of Interest section on Meridian, Mississippi's article. The book cites no copyright information, no ISBN number — nothing. The text on the front of the book is:

DUNN'S FALLS PARK

Lauderdale and Clarke
Counties
Mississippi

MASTER PLAN
For
Historical and Recreational
Development

Prepared for
Pat Harrison Waterway District

Prepared by

Kemp, Springer & Associates, Ltd.

On the inside cover, it gives the seal of Kemp, Springer & Associates, Ltd. and a date of September 1984; however, no copyright symbol/copyright date is present. Does this mean that the book isn't copyrighted, and I am free to do as I please — including scanning the pages as pdfs and uploading them to the web?

The book has a ton of information and many pictures that would be useful to a new article. Thanks for your time!
-Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

See the section "Omission of Notice" in the U.S. Copyright Office's Circular No. 3, Copyright Notice. I do not find this work in the U.S. Copyright Catalog (1978 to present), doing keyword searches on "Dunn's Falls Park", "Master Plan for Historical and Recreational Development", "Pat Harrison Waterway District", or "Kemp, Springer & Associates". — Walloon (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"The work must have been registered before it was published in any form or before the omission occurred, or it must have been registered within five years after the date of publication without notice[,] and [t]he copyright owner must have made a reasonable effort to add the notice to all copies or phonorecords that were distributed to the public in the United States after the omission was discovered. If these corrective steps were not taken, the work went into the public domain..." — So since there is no copyright notice on the book and it doesn't show up in the copyright records, does this mean that it is public domain, or must I contact the publisher to find out if any of the above steps were taken?

Sorry for the trouble; I just want to be absolutely positive that I'm not infringing on copyright. Thanks! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Both of the steps must be taken to preserve the copyright if the work was published without a copyright notice. It couldn't hurt to contact the Pat Harrison Waterway District and Kemp, Springer & Associates. But since no copyright notice appears on the work, and no evidence appears in the Copyright Catalog of the work's registration, I would consider the work to be in the public domain. — Walloon (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Prooving copyright permissions

Hello, I've been given copyright permission to use both the logo of the CPA and a photo of Alan Craig however (I'm not sure what I can do to prove it. I'm personally not the copyright owner.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnlumgair (talk • contribs) 16:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You need to send them a release form. It informs them of exactly what Wikipedia requires in order for us to use the image. The image must be freely licensed to allow for commercial use of both the original and derivative works (such as CC-BY-SA). Once they've filled that out and emailed it back to you, you forward that e-mail to OTRS for confirmation at permissions-commons [at] wikimedia [dot] org. Lara❤Love 17:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

1497 woodcut/illustration question

I was referred here from Wikipedia talk:Image use policy for a second opinion, so I'll do a cross-post:

I came across this image on this page, which is clearly just a zoomed-in image of this work, which appears to be drawn from a work called Hortus Sanitatis by Johannes de Cuba that was published 21 October 1497 in Strasbourg. The super-quality dkimages.com is oddly tagged copyright. Is this a public domain for our purposes or fair use? I'm baffled how a high-quality scan of a 511 year old wood carving can be copyrighted. Lawrence § t/e 22:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's clearly public domain. I'm guessing that the person is assuming they hold a copyright specifically for the digitized image of it simply by virtue of having created the image. It's a misunderstanding that happens all the time. -- Hux (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

C3 Chevrolet Corvette

I`m interested in the C3 Chevrolet Corvette , and I need to know what body type does it have ?? , is it a G-body !!??

Could you send the answer to : <email removed>

This is a forum for media copyright questions regarding usage on this website. Lara❤Love 04:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Does all video game screenshots/boxarts...

1. Does all video game screenshots/box arts can be used freely? Because it seems they are scattered in any game sites.

2. Also, if I take my own screenshot of a game, is it considered my own work or do I still need to get a copyright license? Thanks

--Logicartery (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Logicartery - video game screenshots and box art will never be free (except in the extraordinary circumstance of a video game publisher releasing them into the public domain or licensing them under a free license, which may literally never have happened). Such images can be used in some articles under Wikipedia's non-free content policy. This includes screenshots that you take, which remain copyrighted by the publisher. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It IS possible for a video game screenshot to be free, if they've been released under a free license like the GPL. For instance, Commons, which only accepts free licenses, has a whole gallery of video game screenshots. [8] --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Unsure of status for a photo owned by my family

Hi, my grandmother owns a promotional photo of my grandfather that was taken at his request and subsequently used for publicity purposes. She has given me the rights to use it as I wish, but I'm not sure how to tag it correctly for Wikipedia as it's not a photo I created and - although I've been given the rights to it - I'm not sure where exactly it fits.

I've currently uploaded the photo to Flickr, and can be viewed here: [9]

I want to use it to illustrate the article on Dennis Berry.

Many thanks, Howie ☎ 01:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless there was a contract saying otherwise, or it falls under the narrow definition of a work for hire, then copyright still belongs to the photographer, regardless of who has a physical copy of the photo. However, it may be Public Domain depending on how and when it was published, see Wikipedia:Public_domain#Published works --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 04:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The copyright was owned by my grandfather - he commissioned the photograph from a photographer at the company he worked at. Howie ☎ 04:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There's two possibilities:

It might be Public Domain; did you look at Wikipedia:Public_domain#Published works? If you can't figure it out tell us and we'll try to figure it out: What year was it created in? What year was it published? Was it published with a copyright notice? Was the copyright registered? Was the copyright renewed?

Or if you are indeed the copyright holder, then you get to choose the license: See WP:ICTIC. Fill in the Source section of the image page with all the details that show how you got the copyright. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 08:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

thermodynamics

what is meant by free delivery of reciprocating air compressor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nieptjc (talk • contribs) 02:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over two million articles, and thought that we were directly affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the online free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is a help desk for asking questions related to using the encyclopedia. Thus, we have no inside track on the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the left hand side of your screen. If that is not fruitful, we have a reference desk, divided into various subjects areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. —teb728 t c 07:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

G. Edward Griffin

An amicable discussion is occurring at this article on the subject of images in the article. [10] We would like some expert opinion about whether the inclusion of photo of a book cover of a book written by the subject meets guidelines or not. [11] Thanks for your help --Slp1 (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Answered there. {{Non-free book cover}} explains that fair use only applies for use in the article discussing the book. Lara❤Love 15:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I had a feeling that was the case. Thanks.--Slp1 (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, that specific cover may be ineligible for copyright; a short title and geometric shape is too simple to be copyrighted. The eagle is the Great Seal of the United States, a work of the federal government, and therefore public domain. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I await further opinions with interest! --Slp1 (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

LaraLove, I think the book is discussed to a significant extend in the article, so I conclude that this rule actually allows the use of the book cover in our case. Or does an "article discussing the book" necessarily have to be the article solely about the book? Please note that the rule states "an article" but you said "the article". Please reconsider, it's still not clear to me. Thanks. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

In general, Wikipedia's non-free content criteria only allow for the use of a copyrighted book cover to illustrate discussion of the cover itself (i.e. its design), whether in a whole article about that cover or in a section of some other article. The exception to this is the convention that a book cover can be used in an infobox at the top of the article about that book. However, having said that, I agree with Rat at WikiFur: this cover is probably ineligible for copyright since it consists solely of typographical elements and one image that is in the public domain by default, so on that basis you're free to use it in any article without legal restriction. (I'm going to edit the license info to reflect that.) However, having said that, from an encyclopedic style point of view I don't really think it should be in the article: that fact that all it consists of is typography and the seal of the United States makes it pretty uninteresting, in my view, and I don't really think its inclusion adds anything to the article. So on that basis this whole discussion might be rather moot. :) -- Hux (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Old familiy picture

I have trouble trying to chose the license for an old (almost 80 years) family picture of my grandfather, Dr. José Luis Duomarco, that I want to include in an article about his life as a scientist. Could you please help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtierno (talk • contribs) 13:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Rtierno (talk) 13:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Who took the photograph? Lara❤Love 15:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's an old picture we have in our family album, possibly taken for administrative, bureaucratic purposes.Rtierno (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It might be public domain; see Wikipedia:Public_domain#Published works --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I tried to upload it under public domain licencing, using the tag {{PD-US-1996}}, but the page doesn't allow that option. I cannot select "public domain" as an option for "licencing". Am I doing something wrong?Rtierno (talk) 12:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You can upload the image without selecting a license. Just put the tag as above in the "Summary" box when uploading and it will count as the license tag. If you've already uploaded it, just "edit this page" and add it in there. MECU≈talk 19:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Please verify if free

The Drapier's Letters uses four original pictures: 1, 2, 3, 4. They are from the originals (over 200 years old). However, they were sourced from "Eighteenth Century Collections Online", which is a pay site. What is the Wikipedia rule for using free items from pay sites? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If the images are in the public domain, which they certainly appear to be, it doesn't matter where they were obtained or whether any fee was paid to access them. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Even if formatting and the rest would make them different than the original item? Seeing as how this is a book, copyright becomes new when there is a new format or stylistic change. A pay site would not be public domain. Hence the dilemma. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Btw, I like the sourced images, I just feel that it might be wrong if we clean out all of the old pictures from a pay website and add them to Wikicommons. Perhaps some on the OTRS may need to respond on this. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If an image is in the public domain then it's freely usable, period. If someone uses that image and creates a work from it that is considered sufficiently transformative then, as you say, it becomes a new, copyrighted work. The only question here is whether or not these images are public domain (and they certainly seem to be, as far as I can tell). If so then you are free to use them however you wish, irrespective of what the owner of that website may think. Note also that just because a creative work is being offered for sale that doesn't say anything about its copyright status - people are free to attempt to sell public domain work if they like and they routinely do (e.g. the works of Shakespeare). -- Hux (talk) 10:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

So, if a book cover uses a painting that is in the public domain, I could then crop the book cover and use it? What are the boundaries to this? None? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If the book cover consists entirely of the painting, then yes. If the book cover contains any creative elements in addition to the painting, then the book cover would be considered copyrighted in its own right. However, if you were able to crop the book cover such that the only part remaining was the public domain painting, then you could still use that. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

picture from the NTL press club UFO conference at NOV. 12 2007

is it possible that we use the following picture at http://www.freedomofinfo.org/images/group_web.jpg for the UFO article? when searching the web, the guy called "Bernard Thouanel" seems to be the only one who took all the photographs at the press conference. i think it's important to show the people that the press conference was indeed real and that this information, given in the ufo article, is not something we made up. hence, maybe it's possible to claim "fair use"...but i don't know exactly and therefor ask here if it's possible to use at least one picture. AnubisGodfather^T_© 10:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that your proposed Fair Use claim would fit with Wikipedia's non-free content criteria, specifically point #8: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Given that linking to the website on which the image appears would accomplish the proof you're looking for just as much as including that image in the UFO article, why not just do that? -- Hux (talk) 10:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

hm, that indeed would be a good alternative. so, for now i'll simply link to the website and see what the future brings.AnubisGodfather^T_© 10:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Kim_Deal.jpg

Hi I accidently uploaded this image without putting my "public domain" copyright on it. Can somebody do it for me or tell me how to do it? Thanks Speedboy Salesman (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Just add {{PD-self}} to the image page. Garion96 (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation???? and request for mediation

I showed an official reference instead they made edits without references-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenshinhan reference number 30 is not official but it comes from a fan page which means they made unsourced editions several times. This is not a copyright violation??????-URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/3716/gruposraciaisd7oy1.gif URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/6541/shishinnokendg6.jpg These scans were provided by myself why insist to keep them in the discussion page??? I am working in citizendium too. Can you help me and warn these vandals * User:Prede * User:Lord Sesshomaru can i add my officila sources in the refences of this page????http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenshinhan --Saxnot (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)--Saxnot (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Saxnot

Saxnot: This page is for media copyright questions, e.g. questions about the copyright status of an image that an editor would like to use in an article. We can't help with copyright questions about text, content disputes, or vandalism concerns. I had a look at the links you provided and I don't see any evidence of improperly licensed images or other media used on the Tenshinhan article or its talk page. If you're talking about images that have already been uploaded to Wikipedia then can you link directly to those images?

(Note to other editors: looks like Saxnot has also filed an ANI on this issue.) -- Hux (talk) 09:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Having looked into this further it appears this is a simple content dispute between Saxnot and two other editors. There's no copyright issue here. -- Hux (talk) 09:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

PUJDestinations2008.PNG

Image Image:PUJDestinations2008.PNG is labeled Cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0 images and GFDL but has an obvious copyright statement and has the statement MY OWN WORK (NO CPY AND NO DELETATION WITHOUT MY PERMISION!. I have removed it twice from Punta Cana International Airport as it appears despite the licence not to be free use or reusable. Just wanted to check what is the right course of action. Or indeed if I am right to contest it. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I deleted it under WP:CSD#I3, since the "no copy" means no derivatives and is therefore not free enough for us. Reporting to an admin is the best way, or marking it with the appropriate CSD tag would work as well. MECU≈talk 19:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry back again - image has been uploaded again with a slightly different name Image:PUJ-Destinations2008.PNG but has the no copy or deletion text removed but still has a visible copyright, doe the visible copyright still restrict the free use? MilborneOne (talk) 11:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the image and left a message on the user's talk page. Drop a note on my talk if there are any further issues. Lara❤Love 12:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Amaranthusbrownii low res.jpg

Hi. I need someone to review my non-free rationale and licensing for errors or make suggestions for improvement. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Given the apparent difficulty of visiting Nihoa, I would tend to agree that it's fair to consider this image non-replaceable, although I obviously can't guarantee that that would be the consensus of the community if the image was nominated for deletion. Everything else looks good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that a fair use claim is reasonable, but you might also have luck e-mailing the copyright holder(s) and seeing if they'll release it under a free license. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 05:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree - since you need a Fish & Wildlife Service permit even to set foot on the island I don't think it's fair to say that a free image could reasonably be taken, so I think a Fair Use claim on this basis would hold up since it fits in with the existing conventions regarding hard to get photos (e.g. photos of living, but reclusive persons, or those in prison). Viriditas: if this does get nominated for deletion feel free to leave me a message on my talk page and I'll be happy to join the deletion discussion and vote for it to be kept. -- Hux (talk) 09:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

garage band

does garage band cost money i want to make a song —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.98.123 (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello. This forum is for questions regarding the use of copyrighted media on Wikipedia. Lara❤Love 12:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Tshirt graphic from movie still

If i take a screen shot of an older movie and use it to print on a shirt is that illegal? if so what do i need to do to make somthing of the sorts a legal grament to sell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.166.173.132 (talk) 03:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You'd need to negotiate a deal with the company that owns the copyright to the movie for it to be legal. If the movie is so old that it has fallen out of copyright, then it would be okay. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 05:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the movie, and when was it released? What actors are depicted, if any? — Walloon (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

about admission

when admission start,do u take student in 9th class.what is age limit for 8th &9th class. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.65.180.186 (talk) 06:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over two million articles, and thought that we were directly affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the online free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is a help desk for asking questions related to using the encyclopedia. Thus, we have no inside track on the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the left hand side of your screen. If that is not fruitful, we have a reference desk, divided into various subjects areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. —teb728 t c 08:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Is 100 years old enough?

You have a page on the Hollywood Hotel. In my archives I happened to have a photo showing that in 1905, it was actually called the Hotel Hollywood. Image:Hotelhollywood.jpg I put as much as I know in the summary. Is that sufficient?

Noahveil (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. I removed the copyright warning. For future ref, it's fine for you to remove that warning yourself once you provide the info that it's asking for. :) -- Hux (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

License for organization's photo?

Friends,

I would like to upload a photo commissioned by my employer, a US nonprofit, and cannot figure out which license to use. The nonprofit has purchased worldwide rights to the photo. None of the choices in the licensing wizard seem to cover this situation. Can anyone provide some guidance? Thank you. Erichubler (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Erich - to upload the photo, your employer will have to be willing to release it under a free license, such as the GNU Free Documentation License or a Creative Commons license that allows re-use by anybody for any purpose, including derivative works. If your employer is willing to do that, you can then tag it with the appropriate license ({{GFDL-self}}, for example). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Photo copyright

I uploaded the image Image:Scanner Band.jpg of the band Scanner that I retrieved from the bands official website. I am unsure of its current state of copyright because on the page that I got it from it stated "Band Shot (download for press media)." Website URL: http://www.scanner4u.de/Band_Shot.htm

The problem with the permissions on that image is that a Wikipedia image has to be usable by anyone, and allow derivative works(modifications). The permission on that image is not clear enough to know whether those things are allow. See WP:COPYREQ for information on requesting the proper licensing. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 23:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Science Question

In science class today, we were talking about the mercury that is in fluorescent light bulbs. We were wondering about the people that manufacture these light bulbs. Aren't they in any harm to the mercury? Also, if the light bulbs are supposed to be "environmentally safe", then how come the producers are putting a harmful toxic in the light bulb?Dancers3 (talk) 00:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Dancers, this is a talk page to discuss Media copyright Xanar (User Talk:Xanar) 00:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, this page is for copyright-related questions about media (usually images) uploaded to Wikipedia. For general questions like this, try asking at the Reference Desk. -- Hux (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

General Mohan image permission

Hi, Just created a new article about the Iraqi General Mohan and I'm looking for an image. I've come across this photo from Getty Images. I'm wondering about the copyright permissions and fair use. It says on the upload page that if a free image can not be easily found (because it illustrates a point in that person's career) then the image could be used...The image is from the handover of Basra from the British to the Iraqi Army in December 2007 which is something that Gen. Mohan encouraged and had a vital role in. So my question is, can this image be used? Lawrencema (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There are a couple of separate possibilities, here: first of all, you're right, if a non-free photo illustrates a particular point in somebody's career that it's important to represent visually, you can claim fair use on that basis. However, I don't think this image meets that requirement, because General Mohan's current appearance is approximately the same as it was in that photo (I assume, at least, since the photo is recent). That clause is more for performers and the like, who might have been big in the sixties and then faded from public view. In that case, a recent free photo of the subject wouldn't be as useful to the article as a non-free image of the subject when they were in the spotlight. What you're actually suggesting here is more that the event depicted in the photo is of sufficient importance that it needs to be depicted in the article. There might be a case to be made for that if the event depicted is dealt with at any length in the article; I can't actually find the article, so I can't comment further. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is here. I just created the article today, so it doesn't cover anything at all in great detail. I guess the first step is to expand the article rather than thinking about images. Thanks for your help.Lawrencema (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

PD-ineligible, Fair Use only, or...something else?

I know I usually answer media copyright questions, but this time I have a question of my own. :) Check out this image. It's a test acetate record of the Simon & Garfunkel single Bridge Over Troubled Water, which I photographed with the intention of using it either in Gramophone Record or, more likely, in a separate article about test acetates in general. Trouble is, I'm torn as to what license I should be using. On the one hand it seems like it should be {{PD-ineligible}}, but on the other hand there are two company logos on there which might be considered copyrighted works, in which case perhaps it should be {{fair use in}} and therefore I'm not sure I could even use it to illustrate the general concept of test acetates, given the strict terms of WP:NFCC. But having said that, if you check out the Gramophone Record article, there are several images of records, pretty much all of which are licensed {{PD-self}} or {{GFDL-self}}. What do you guys think? -- Hux (talk) 01:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather use something without logos if at all posible.Geni 02:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Moudud.jpg

I have uploaded the image because I have viewed whether or not the image can be used or not, if it is copyrighted by the holders or not, but no information is provided by the AP Photo or daylife.com, and I need help with the image copyright status please! Thanks! Link of image: [12]

Moshino31 (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Like the vast majority of images found on the internet, this AP photo is copyrighted by default and cannot be used on Wikipedia except in accordance with the non-free content criteria. Since this is simply a photo of Mr Ahmed, who is still alive, and is not a photo depicting an important event that will never be repeated, we can't use it because a free version could reasonably be created. Sorry. -- Hux (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the meaning of 'open source Operating System'?

Ya,this is one of the topic assessment in this year .Learning IT is such a fun but when you can't find useful information & that'll be a worst bad dream.

Teacher wants us to find out the meaning of 'open source Operating System',I tried but just found a lot of rubbish information. Please don't give me any info of this kind of OS products.(like Linux,Mini OS...)

I just need to know what is its meaning.& I don't want meaning of open-source' or 'Operating system ' which are just a part of another useless rubbish information for me.I need them both and not in a separated position.

PLEASE give me a good answer ,as fast as you can.

THANKS FOR YOUR　HELP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.121.244 (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, this page is for copyright-related questions about media (usually images) uploaded to Wikipedia. For general questions like this, try asking at the Reference Desk. -- Hux (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that even the Reference Desk will answer your quesstion the way you put it: They will tell you to do your own homework. So ask thim instead how to find the answer. —teb728 t c 21:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

copyright status of album art

I have provided album art for two albums 'storm in a tea cup' and 'little deaths'. i have a warning on the latter saying that the image does not have copyright status, however it is identical to the copyright status of former and there are no warnings for that image. can you shed some light. Vancera (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Little Deaths.jpg needs a {{Non-free album cover}} tag in addition to the non-free use rationale that it already has. —teb728 t c 19:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Image:Storm in a Tea Cup.jpg needs one too; the bot just hasn't got around to warning you about it yet. —teb728 t c 19:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Cdeboghorski Image:Plymouth.jpg

I am quite sorry for the inconvinience, it was an older photo of the trunk lid of a Plymouth Neon. I zoomed in, cropped the logo and recolored the pixels to make it look more official. When I uploaded the photo I must not of selected a copyright tag. If I changed the copy right status of the photo I will not make the same mistake again. However if you feel there would be another incident or you or anyone else for that matter would protest I will not reupload the said photo. I only ask for I do not wish to cause trouble. Also, please forgive me for my tardiness in response to BigrTex's message. If you would be so kind as to respond promtly, I would be happy to reupload the photo A.S.A.P. Thank you.--Cdeboghorski (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I added the right tags for you. Just fill them in. See Template:Logo_fur for instructions. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what to do(for I have both not uploaded a file in several months neighter have I encountered this problem before). So I am not sure how but can I have this photo deleted. thank you. --Cdeboghorski (talk) 02:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind PLease DO NOT DELETE photo.--Cdeboghorski (talk) 02:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Tagging conflict

So, the great cross-tabbing is done and there is a list of 700 images at User:Betacommand/Sandbox 3 that show images classed as both free AND non-free. Obviously, an image can only be one of the two, so if editors could go through and correct the images, striking them out on the master list it would be great. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 02:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:National Museum Lebanon.png

The image seems to be the official logo, recreated by User:Elie plus. Is the logo protected independent of the image file? --Yooden ☮

Yes. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 05:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

1. the logo is used for educational purposes Eli+ 06:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I never said you couldn't use it. The logo is likely creative enough to attract copyright, and not just trademark. You can't make a new copyright just by creating a faithful reproduction of a copyrighted work. To use it on Wikipedia, it would have to be tagged as a non-free logo, along with a fair use rationale. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 07:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

done thank you :) Eli+ 07:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Glad that worked out, have fun! --Yooden ☮

When no copyright holder exists

I bought an old photo at a market; there are no details on the back other than the date is was taken. It is impossible to trace who took it. What copyright do I put down?

Dunxuk (talk) 06:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If you know for sure it was published before 1923, you could tag it as public domain. Otherwise we need more information. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 07:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

But there are no other details except that it was taken in 1941. It is completely untraceable, the back of the photo is blank. Is their fair use as it is of a historical building of which no other photo can be found?

Dunxuk (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If the copyright hasn't been renewed, a photo published in 1941 is public domain now. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 07:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks! Can I please ask for help in the correct tags to put on the picture? It is the photo attached to the article on Rankinston Railway Station at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rankinston.jpg

Dunxuk (talk) 07:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The tag you likely need is {{PD-Pre1964}} - just check that it fits your image. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 07:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't. This photo (of a railway station in Scotland) is unlikely to have been published in the USA. There is {{non-free unsure}}, but that is supposedly deprecated. I agree this photo is OK to use, but Wikipedia tends to worry itself too much over historical images of uncertain provenance. My view is unless someone complains about this picture, go ahead and use it. Carcharoth (talk) 10:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Airport information can I use this.

I want to create a new application for my iPhone. This application will be used by the public. In other words you (anyone with an iPhone) will be able to use this application to search for, and hopefully get, information on airports. You know, gates, airlines, terminals, flights, wifi reception, all that kind of stuff. There is some concern in the company that I am working for about copyright, which I understand. So I promised, before I created a web bot to extract this stuff, to check this out. I am attempting to do due diligence.. Here is my understanding.. Unless there is a copyright mark or notice I am allowed to use it. So if I pull down an image of say a diagram of an airport terminal and there is no copyright mark on it, I am allowed to use it. Information (text) about the airport etc, that I scrap from the wiki is okay for me to use, as long as it does not have some kind of copyright thing. So, do I have that right.. ???

Ray lukas (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are intending to use information "scraped" from the internet, then you are best to consult a lawyer - this page is only intended to provide copyright advice related to wikipedia. In general if you are interested in reusing pure facts information from wikipedia, i.e. grabbing data from the infobox like airport_name=Saint Fort Texas location=texas num_gates=12 flights_per_day=47 free_wifi=yes - then such information cannot really be copyrighted, so you would be free to use it. Prose - i.e. "Saint Fort Texas airport is the largest airport in the state of Texas and has been so for the last ten years" then you would need to comply with the GFDL see Wikipedia:Copyright#Reusers.27_rights_and_obligations. Images, diagrams, sounds, videos may be GFDL, public domain or creative commons licensed which impose various restrictions and obligations on re-users, the particular licensing of an image or media file is indicated on its description page, by an image copyright tag.

These days copyright is granted automatically pretty much everywhere in the world the presence or absence of a copyright symbol (c) or text "Copyright" does not affect it.

Again I would suggest consulting with a copyright lawyer before proceeding, a couple of hours of legal advice now could save you a lot of money down the line. Megapixie (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Free image?

Is this image free? I created this after this deletion request and I wondered if this would be free because it is simply a geometric "x" and a collection of circles. I'm not sure if it is free or not (which is why I did not upload it to Wikipedia) and I appreciate any help. Thanks. Thingg^⊕⊗ 01:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I take it this is a free sort-of equivalent to Image:Microsoft XBOX.svg? Personally I think it would be fine. Kelly ^hi! 01:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, I just saw this also. This is probably uncomfortably close to copyrighted Microsoft logos. Kelly ^hi! 01:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Links to Youtube video as Citation.

Article: Rickroll#Radio_and_television "During the April 4, 2008 episode of E!'s The Soup, an introduction to a clip from the season finale of LA Ink led instead into a rickroll.[citation needed]" The original citation was a link to a youtube video of the incident in question. This link was removed as per Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works, seeing as it is very unlikely that youtube has copyright clearance on this clip.

The unfortunate facts are that there are no published references to this incident other than unreliable blogs and comments on forums. In particular, no reference to this incident can be found on the E! website. Question: Is a youtube video documenting the existence of an event a valid citation and are the copyright issues enough to warrant going without reference or with an inferior reference?

See Talk:Rickroll for more details. Wcudmore (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

In general, links to YouTube are never appropriate. Even if the specific video being linked to is not itself infringing, since the vast majority of the site's content is, linking to it opens Wikipedia up to charges of copyright infringement in a contributory capacity. However, in this case this is a moot point: the more pressing issue is that if there is no reliable source for this information then the event is not sufficiently notable for Wikipedia anyway, so the text should just be removed. -- Hux (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you got that doubly wrong. Notability does not apply to content, only to article topics, and primary sources are reliable sources. Just use {{cite episode}} (if it's a video clip of a TV show) and don't mention the YouTube link.--Father Goose (talk) 06:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, I erred in implying that the specific policy at WP:N applies to everything in an article. What I meant was that if something isn't sufficiently interesting from an encyclopedic perspective then it should be in the article. I was asserting that since no usable sources appear to talk about what (to me at least) seems to be a pretty trivial incident, it's probably not worth mentioning. Regarding "doubly wrong", I'm not sure what you meant by that. When I said, "if there is no reliable source", I thought it was implicit that I meant, "no reliable source that can be used on Wikipedia without copyright problems". I can see how that could be read differently though. -- Hux (talk) 07:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, a primary source (a television episode) is a usable (aka reliable) source. It's why we have {{cite episode}}. We don't have to link to a copyright-violating clip of the episode; just cite the episode. As for whether it's "interesting enough from an encyclopedic perspective", it's a "Rickroll" that occurred right in the midst of a TV show; sounds to me like it's worth mentioning in the rickroll article.--Father Goose (talk) 10:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know what your issue is. I never argued that we can't cite TV episodes as sources generally. I simply said that 1) we shouldn't be linking to YouTube due to the copyright issues (because, you know, this page is about copyright issues) and 2) that in my opinion it's probably not an interesting enough event to put into the article anyway given that, aside from YouTube, no usable source seems to be talking about it. -- Hux (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The YouTube clip in question was of an episode of a TV show.--Father Goose (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

SVG's generated from shapefiles Creative Commons licensing question

I think I already know the answer to my question, but am laying it out here in case the masses have any other thoughts. Basically, I want to use several shapefiles I have found to generate SVG maps of these counties, as part of a historical maps project I'm working on for Wikipedia.

The Newberry Library has ESRI shapefiles that display the historical county boundaries for several U.S. states. The files are free for download, and the site indicates that the files are available under CC-BY-NC-SA. A similar site, the National Historical Geographic Information System also has historic county shapefiles. the NHGIS site does not use a Creative Commons license, but instead states "all persons are granted a limited license to use this documentation and accompanying data" as long as it is attributed. Does not say anything about restricting use for non-commercial purposes, but when you register for a user account (which is needed to download files) is says "No fees may be charged for use or distribution of the data. All persons are granted a limited license to use and distribute these data, but you may not charge a fee for the data if you distribute it to others."

I know that CC-BY-NC-SA for the Newberry shapefiles means I can't use the SVG maps based on that data on Wikipedia, but what about the NHGIS files? The non-commercial restriction appears only to use and distribution of the "data" and not derivative works. I wouldn't be distributing the shapefiles, only the maps I create based on the data. I've e-mailed the NHGIS folks for clarification, but thought I'd check here as well. My questions are:

• Can I use the NHGIS files to create these SVG maps licensed under CC-BY-SA on Wikipedia?
• Is it possible to license SVG derivative map maps under CC-BY-SA, even though the underlying shapefiles used to make the derivative remain CC-BY-NC-SA, if I get permission from the two organizations?
• Since these are the only two sources of this historic data, with no corresponding public domain or free license source, would I be permitted to add the SVG files to Wikipedia under Fair Use?Dcmacnut (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

My two cents...hopefully the e-mail from NHGIS will clarify, but "no fees may be charged" sounds like non-commercial to me. If they ultimately permit commercial use, though, I think it should be fine to license as CC-BY-SA so long as you attribute http://www.nhgis.org, this would seem to satisfy their conditions. I don't think fair use would be OK though - it would likely be a violation of WP:NFCC#1 because they could be replaced by free equivalents. Somebody could make those shapes given access to the original geographical data. Kelly ^hi! 01:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. As far as using "original sources," these GIS files are the only one's I know if in existence. They used non-public domain paper sources combined with Census public domain TIGER line files to generate their maps. So short of going through and tracing 200 year old maps or manually generating latitude and longitude points in a GIS program, I'm at the mercy of the organizations. So far they haven't responded to my request. At least the license is flexible enough for me to still create the maps--I just can't post them on Wikipedia. Hopefully, I'll get a satisfactory response.Dcmacnut (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image deletion

Unless you provide me with specific image names, I can't provide exact information. But I probably did. Just because as website doesn't state the image is copyrighted, doesn't mean the image isn't copyrighted. In fact, the presumption is that all images/artworks are copyrighted and "All rights reserved" unless there is a statement to the opposite. "Assuming they are free to use" is never a good idea. Just because you don't pay for something, doesn't mean it's free. You may want to read my Image FAQ for more information in general about images. If you have questions, please ask before uploading. Thanks for understanding. MECU≈talk 13:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Mexican federal government

Pictures by Mexican Federal Government authorities, are they permitted to be used the same as United States government images? --I Write Stuff (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

They probably will qualify under the General Public License, but I'm not 100% sure about that. If you have any pictures, upload them, put them on the appropriate page, and if the image gets tagged, you can then discuss the issue, and hopefully it will still be allowed on Wikipedia.--EclipseSSD (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to the above, I think it's safe to bet my house on the fact that the Mexican government doesn't license images created by its employees under any GNU license, especially since such licenses have only existed for a couple of decades while the nation of Mexico has been around for nearly 200 years! To answer the question fully, we're going to need a Spanish speaker to hunt through Mexican copyright law and (hopefully) find a section that provides insight on this, unless that's already been done and noted elsewhere on Wikipedia. -- Hux (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Textual Logo of my own organisation

I've recently noticed that the logo for an organisation I'm involved with (Bailrigg FM) has been deleted, because it was of unknown origin. (I believe I probably created the original image in the first place, although I didn't upload it)

It's a simple text logo, and I'm thinking of re-uploading a new image. I've got an image (which I've created that mirrors the official branding) which I can upload.

Can it be uploaded using the same rationale as images like Image:Google.png? I'm assuming as a logo it's not something which will be covered by the GFDL or similar?

Jiphex (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds reasonable to me. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Uploads from User:Fahadsaeed50

User:Fahadsaeed50 uploaded a number of images without sources or licenses. However, random users like User:78.86.216.241 have started tagging images of his like Image:Rwp train1.jpg as public domain. I am wondering if it appropriate to revert. I see that User:Ahsaniqbal 93 has started doing that to images as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Dre

Can I use upload an image of rapper Dr. Dre, a screenshot from MTV VMA awards 2007 in infobox in article Dr. Dre? ZAPMUT (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably not. As a screenshot, it would fall under {{non-free television screenshot}} and still be replaceable because it realistically would not difficult to find a free image of him. If there was a particular reason why that image is important (say, he was dressed a certain, or something similar) and that was the reasoning for the image then it could in the article. Have you tried looking through Flickr? There's usually some interesting pictures and some may have a free license? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Cable London logo

The message about this, dated February 2008, is daft. I am not prepared to be involved with such bureaucratic nonsense.

Cable London does not exist as a company any longer. I was one of the last directors of the company before it was taken over in 1999. The successor company, Virgin Media, would not have the slightest problem with my displaying the Cable London logo.

Note: this is for Image:Cable London - logo.jpg which was deleted for not having a complete rationale. If someone could undelete it and just complete one, it is perfectly fine to use. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your opinion of whether or not Virgin would have a problem with the use of Cable London's logo doesn't change the fact that, as owners of the copyright over that logo's design, Virgin has the exclusive right to control its reproduction and distribution. Wikipedia recognizes this in order to avoid legal liability, which means we can't use that logo unless its use conforms with our non-free content criteria. Sorry if you find this to be irritatingly bureaucratic, but it's a safety mechanism without which Wikipedia would probably be sued into nonexistence. -- Hux (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding the appropriate copyright tag to an image?

Hello, while creating an article on him, I uploaded the following image of Ambassador Ronald Barnes for use on his page:
Image:Ambassador Ronald Barnes Alaska Copyright April 2008 Vikipediisto Fanoler.jpg

The orginal photograph I received directly from Amb. Ronald Barnes for my free use on websites (even if with transformation before publication).

I worked on the original image, added the description: "Ambassador Ronald Barnes, Alaska" and included the copyright notice in the file name:
Copyright April 2008 Vikipediisto Fanoler

Please inform me about the appropriate copyright tag in this case. Thank you in advance. Fanoler (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

In order to use this image on Wikipedia, it needs a license from the photographer which allows reuse by anyone for anything, including commercial use and derivative images. See WP:COPYREQ about getting such a license. Permission to use only on web pages talking about Barnes is not adequate. The appropriate tag depends on which license the photographer grants. —teb728 t c 02:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Am I right in guessing that you are Vikipediisto Fanoler and you are claiming copyright based on your adding the caption? It so, you should realize that just adding text does not qualify you for a copyright. And even if it did, it would not supersede the copyright which belongs to the original photographer. It is his or her license that we need. —teb728 t c 02:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Questions about Image:Batangas_flag.JPG

It doesn't qualify as a logo (as claimed by the one who uploaded it/placed the fair use rationale on it). It is A FLAG, adopted sometime between July 2007 and April 2008 during the term of Governor Vilma Santos-Recto. Is there a fair use rationale for flags? Is there a law in the Philippines that mentions the Intellectual property of flags? Thank you in advance. -iaNLOPEZ1115 · TaLKBaCK · Vandalize it 05:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The tag for flags is {{Non-free symbol}}. I looked up Philippine copyright law but didn't see any indication that a flag would be public domain. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 06:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Photo of a Portrait

I have taken a photo of a portrait. The subject of the portrait is the founder of a football club, and the portrait hangs in the football club. The portrait dates from the 1870's.

I need help figuring whether the licence applies to my photograph - which I have no problem releasing under free licence.

or

Whether the licence applies to the author of the portrait?? --Myrica (talk) 11:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

What country are you in?Geni 12:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, I should have said - Ireland. - Further to the above, there appears to be no information re. the author of the portrait, -(signature, accreditation etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myrica (talk • contribs) 13:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

EU? Hmm then we assume that the painting is still under copyright for the next ten years or so. You photo would be a derivative so can't upload.

"Next ten years or so?" - surely the law is more exact than that? Carcharoth (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

the law is. The law is life +70. Generaly wikipedia thinks you are stafe once somthing is ~150 years old.Geni 17:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

{{PD-US-1923-abroad}} should apply in this case. Kelly ^hi! 17:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really that only works if you yourself are in the US.Geni 21:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoa - are you saying that the uploader has to be physically in the U.S. to use the {{PD-US}} tags (including foreign publication ones like {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} and {{PD-US-1996}}? How do we verify that? I thought that only Commons was requiring that images be PD both in the U.S. and in the country of origin. Time for me to go read the copyright FAQs again...can you link to that policy? Kelly ^hi! 00:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Not an issue of policy. The uploader is free to upload stuff if they want but may have issues themselves with Irish law. A slight complication in this case it that the work may not have ever actualy been published.Geni 00:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I see your point...paintings are not automatically considered to be "published" at the date of creation - WP:PD#Artworks. Kelly ^hi! 00:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you know who the artist was and when he died? If that was 70 years ago, it is PD. —teb728 t c 01:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

In short, the image can be uploaded and used on Wikipedia without violating policy and US law, but to upload it may violate Irish law, in this case the Copyrights and Related Rights Act, 2000. Stifle (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Publicity Photos of Artists

Can I add publicity photos of our artists to existing pages? As the label, we have paid for these photos, and they are offered on our website for free use with photo credit to the original photographer. They were shot for us and are owned by us. I've read the pages several times and it doesn't seem to be addressed specifically since we would appear to be the copyright holders now. Thanks!PMonaghan (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

We'd definitely appreciate the contribution of photos under a free license...please e-mail "permissions AT wikimedia.org", they will assign a ticket number to place on the uploaded photos to show that they were contributed by the copyright holder. Kelly ^hi! 04:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

PMonaghan: I believe I'm right in saying that the copyright in such photos is held by the photographer unless either of the following apply: a) the photographer has transferred their copyright for each photo to the record label in accordance with the copyright transfer laws of the relevant jurisdiction, or b) the photographer is a salaried employee of the label. Simply paying for a photographer to shoot some photos does not in and of itself cause their copyrights to become the property of the label. If this is all the label did then you would need to get a release from the photographer(s) before being able to upload them to Wikipedia. For more info on requesting such a release, see WP:COPYREQ. -- Hux (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Image use

Hi, I need some help with a small matter. I've contacted a particular organisation which has images of particular interest and asked if they would be willing to release them under the GFDL. The organisation replied and told me the would be happy to assist me - they said that the images on the website were by various authors and they went on to contact the authors of the images to ask them for permission.

The organisation replied back some time later saying they got a positive response from some of the authors and they specified which ones. Is this regarded as enough "permission" for me to release the images by authors which gave a positive response or should I ask the organisation for a direct contact to the authors? (I'm only worrying that doing this may be more trouble than what its worth for both parties)

Thanks.

Davido321 (talk) 14:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that isn't enough; as you suspect, you'd need to contact the copyright holders directly. There's a specific procedure for requesting that a copyright holder release an image under a free license and then recording that release. See WP:COPYREQ for details. -- Hux (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

photo of school

I am kind of new to images, so I would appreciate some help. I am editing a business school article, and I don't know about the status of a photo of the building. It is available on the school's website, and is a very general picture of an atrium. There is no listed copyright. Am I allowed to use the image if I refrence the source? If not, what steps should I take? Thanks, Rugz (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

In general, photographs become copyrighted as soon as they are created, so the fact that the photo in question doesn't list any copyright information is irrelevant. Assuming that it's a reasonably new photo (i.e. taken within the last 80 years or so), you should assume that it is under copyright, in which case you would have to locate the copyright holder and request that they release it under a free license suitable for Wikipedia. See WP:COPYREQ for more info on that. -- Hux (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, it may be easier to take your own picture of the atrium. —teb728 t c 21:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Help

I have uploaded an image twice and it has been deleted because I didn't provide the right information on the copy right. I work for the location that I am trying to put the image up on and have checked to make sure there was not a problem with me uploading it. Can someone point me in the right direction, or send me a talk to help?

Without knowing more about the image it's difficult to help. If you're talking about an image titled "Bcacs.png" then I'm guessing that since you tried to put it on St. Philip Catholic Central High School it's the school's logo, perhaps? Maybe you could upload it to a free, online image host and link to it here so that we can see it. That way we'd be able to give you better advice. -- Hux (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Original work?

I drew this image of a school's logo; which license should I use? I did not create it, but I did draw this version of it. Should I use a non-free use rationale with the image, or what? — Bob • (talk) • 22:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you should use a non-free use rationale; the original copyright doesn't go away just because it was redrawn. You are certainly welcome to explain on the image description page, exactly how the image was created. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 05:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

School logo

Hi there. I was curious if you could help me with the copyright status of Image:AVSS viking heads.JPG. This image is a symbol of Arthur Voaden Secondary School, a TVDSB secondary school in St. Thomas, Ontario Canada. I have the suspicion that it may not be full-out copyrighted, or there may be no copyright at all. Could you determine this in any way? Please post a reply on my talk page. Thanks. -- Reaper X 22:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any reason to believe they would not be fully copyrighted. Do you know when the logo was created? --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Photos from forums

The photos I wish to use are from a forum which they have posted already knowing they can be copied and used in other locations. Is it possible for me to use these photos without the consent of the author? The forums which I have collected these photos are from Nasioc.com/forums and rs25.com/forums.

Chargerder (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Stephen

No, Wikipedia needs something that explicitly gives permission for anyone to use, including commercially and to make derivative works. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 02:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Campaign sign?

The state representative around here is running for reëlection in tomorrow's primary. I'm considering taking a photograph of one of his campaign signs and posting it as fair-use on his article, once one is written. Would this be considered proper under fair-use rules? Nyttend (talk) 12:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Depends on how you use the image. If it is used simply as decoration for the article then that wouldn't be allowed. However, if the use of the image is specifically linked to discussion of his campaign then the non-free content criteria might allow it. It's a bit of a borderline case though: on the one hand, there is an existing precedent, but on the other hand, the NFCC generally only allows non-free images to be used in articles and discussions that specifically talk about the image itself, which technically is not what the image in that link is doing, nor what I suspect you plan to do with your image. -- Hux (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware that using it as "decoration" for the article, or an infobox picture for him, would not be allowed. My idea, more specifically, would be to use it in a section on this year's reëlection campaign. What do you think of that? Nyttend (talk) 23:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, it depends exactly how you're going to use it. If part of that article talks about the design of that specific campaign sign, for example, then you could definitely use the image to better illustrate that. If the image is just there as a symbol of his campaign generally then personally I don't think that fits with the rules and I wouldn't do it. -- Hux (talk) 05:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

upload?

how do you upload a picture? it is very difficult —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlo117 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Uploading_images --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Video game sprites.

Hello, I uploaded this image Image:Tailspeace.gif, but I'm not sure what kind of copyright status it has. KJS77_Talk 21:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The only copyright status it could have is fair use, since the copyright holder is unlikely to release it under a free license. Fair use images aren't allowed on User pages, however. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 05:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's the only thing I'm using it for, so you might as well delete it. KJS77_Talk 20:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Another screenshot question

The image Image:Meganeurid.jpg is a copyrighted screenshot. My understanding was that such an image could only be used in an article discussing the program the screenshot came from, but the image is now appearing in articles such as Carboniferous where it seems to me to be non-fair use. Can someone help advise on this? Many thanks Geologyguy (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I say no, this doesn't fall under fair use as defined in Wikipedia policy, since a freely-licensed image could impart the same information. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 01:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Geologyguy: I agree that this image's appearance at Carboniferous is not appropriate. As far as I can see, it's only there for decoration. The article doesn't even discuss the creature. I'll remove it. -- Hux (talk) 05:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:VH1.svg

Why was this listed as not having a fair use rationale on the talk page for VH1? I added a fair use rationale when I first posted the image, and yet it was listed on the discussion page as needing a fair use rationale by a bot. CoolKid1993 (talk) 04:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You posted the image only a few hours ago, but the warning was posted last July, presumably with reference to a previous image by the same name. —teb728 t c 05:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh...Now I feel a little dumb. Sorry for not looking at the date before asking about the issue here. Thank you for pointing this out to me. CoolKid1993 (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

how to change upload th photo

how to up load the photo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superambadi (talk • contribs) 04:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Uploading_images --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

print

if i want to take a print out, is there any option? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinoalias (talk • contribs) 11:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean? --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Image Copywrite

I have an image that has been given to me by the owner and am not sure what or how to tag the image properly so it will not be deleted. Image DrewMarshall.jpeg Sierranorth (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, copyright is not transferred unless specifically stated, except in the narrow case of a work for hire. If you do own the copyright, then you are the one who chooses what license it will be under (see WP:ICTIC for help choosing a license). Make sure you explain on the image description page how you came to be the copyright holder. If you don't own the copyright, then you can try to see if the copyright holder will put it under a specific license; see WP:COPYREQ. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Several images of a product, fair use question

I'm working on the L-Tronics article currently. There are several images on the L-Tronics website of their direction finding equipment. I have contacted L-Tronics and requested free use of the images, which I feel would help immensely in the article for illustrating them. However, an E-Mail I received back has indicated that they are willing to allow their use on Wikipedia only, which is not acceptable free use. Can these images be used under Fair Use in the L-Tronics article only? —  scetoaux (T|C) 20:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, they could not, since it would be possible for someone to take a picture of it, and put it under a free license. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Licensing by proxy?

I have located the photographer of some rare images that would be a great addition to a Wikipedia article. The creator has agreed to allow the images to be released into the public domain, but he is not familiar with Wikipedia, uploading images or attaching the correct license. Can I do that for him if he sends me the images and gives me permission to post them with a GFDL? Or does the image creator have to personally upload and license the images?--Edgewise (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you can upload for another person who has granted them under a free license; see WP:COPYREQ --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

using a friend's photo

Hi

If a friend has given you permission to upload one of their photgraphs to Wikipedia, how do you show this? Do you have to get the person holding the copyright to send an e-mail? How can this be done? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaplain4870 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:COPYREQ --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Correlation graph

I currently have an image of a correlation graph (correlation graph.gif) on the wikipedia page about David Tilman. The problem that I'm having is that it isn't copyrighted but was published in a journal article as a part of his research on a specific conservation topic. Because it isn't copyrighted, but it doesn't fit any of the other license categories, I sent him an e-mail asking for his permission as long as it was cited and he said that was fine. I however, need to know where to go from here to ensure it doesn't get deleted. Please let me know what I should do. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kharr2 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Any creative work is automatically copyrighted as soon as it is created. If the image doesn't qualify as a creative work the tag is {{PD-ineligible}}. I can't tell you whether this would qualify as a creative work or not; it's borderline. If you need instructions for getting permissions, see WP:COPYREQ. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a simple graph is considered to contain any creative work of original authorship, so {{PD-ineligible}} would be the right one to use. -- Hux (talk) 05:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that but would have to see the graph to be sure. Stifle (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like this message was about Image:Correlation graph.gif which is marked "copyright all rights reserved". As such, I've speedied the image as a blatant copyvio. Stifle (talk) 13:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Multiple Use of Image

If an image fair use rationale says the image is only for use in one article, but it is actually used in three, what to do?

• change rationale
• remove the image from the other articles
• ignore

??? Wanderer57 (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There should be one rationale for each page an image is used on. If the use of an image on a page cannot be justified under WP:NFCC then it should be removed from the page. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Is that three separate rationales, or one rationale which includes a justification re article A, a 2nd re article B, a 3rd re article C? Or does it matter, as long as the bases are all covered? Wanderer57 (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:NFCC specifies that there must be a separate rationale for each use. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Concern over "fanart" image

I'm concern about Image:PBB Teen Edition Plus Housemates (fanart).JPG uploaded by Stoned prince07 (talk · contribs) because I believe this image is in fact a collage of the housemates' images, which I believe were taken from the website. Should I change its license, tag it differently, pr put it up for speedy deletion? Or is there anything you can suggest? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 07:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the show, so I can't get too specific. If fan art is misleading, or represents something as being official when it is not, it would be better to not use the image at all, or use an original fair use image. If someone makes a modification, or something based on a copyrighted work, the original copyright does not go away. It's still a fair use image and has to meet the requirements at WP:NFCC. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 09:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Image from a bankrupt company

Who owns images that were owned by a company that has no become bankrupt (my examples are here: http://ieee.ca/millennium/fp6000/fp6000_datar.html and they belonged to Ferranti-Packard, a sub division of Ferranti)?

Matt (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The copyright still exists after a company goes bankrupt. The copyright may go to the creditors, or it may belong to the individuals who created them; you'd have to research the records to find out. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Photo libraries and old pictures

Trying to find a picture for William Henry Perkin, Jr., see here and here. See also here. Can anyone advise on the status of pictures like this? Carcharoth (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Since he's deceased, {{Non-free historic image}} (with an appropriate rationale) would be an appropriate tag. The images may also be PD due to age, but I am unable to open that website so can't check for myself. Stifle (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the pictures are being sold, I wouldn't claim fair-use unless the picture itself was iconic (and that is not the case here), or the article was about the picture (again, not the case here). Are other people having problems opening that link? What the three pictures say is "...probably taken [at] the then new Dyson Perrin Laboratory at Oxford around the time it was opened in 1916." In other words, they are uncertain about the date and don't know much for certain (including not knowing who took the photo). That might make it public domain, but the uncertainty near the 1923 date, the picture being in the UK, and the sales company being in the UK, all complicate matters. Having said that, I've found 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 images on Commons with the source/credit being "Science and Society Picture Library". Does that help, or should those images be reviewed as well? Carcharoth (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

On the one hand, it's certainly not unheard of for companies to claim copyright over something that's in the public domain. But on the other hand, UK copyright law is life of the author plus 70 years, which means a photo taken in 1916 could very easily still be under copyright. Given that, and the high profile of this company's clients (the Science Museum is the premier museum of its type in the UK, for example), I'd bank on their copyright claim being genuine, which means the Perkin images could only be used on Wikipedia in accordance with the non-free content criteria. In addition, the "Science and Society Picture Library" images you found on the Commons should be deleted. -- Hux (talk) 03:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I pretty much agree, except for the bit about life of author plus 70. I happen to think that when someone claims copyright, they should be able to say when it expires (otherwise you hit a grey area when no-one is quite sure when it expires, and the photo is left in a kind of limbo). For example, if they don't know when it expires, how can they renew copyright? In this case, I suspect they don't actually know the name of the author or the copyright history. If they admitted that (and there are probably good reasons why they don't) then it would default to some other figure for works where the copyright holder is not known (that is usually worked out from date of publication, and failing that, from date of creation). If you don't know any of that for sure, then actually claiming copyright, let alone proving the picture is of who you say it is, is very difficult. In reality, there will be records somewhere of where they got the pcture from. They just don't display that on their website. Carcharoth (talk) 07:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

2008 Grammy Awards Show Video Content

On February 10th, 2008 was the 50th Grammy Awards ceremony held in LA and part of the event is the Grammy Awards show, which featured this year Cirque du Soleil's tribute to The Beatles "A Day In The Life" and Carol Wood and Timmy Mitchum (from "Across the Universe") performance of the Beatles song "Let It Be". The show was aired live on ABC Television. Does it constitute "fair use", if only parts of the show (video recording of the ABC broadcast) are published on a video sharing site, such as YouTube (= no commercial use)? The video (which was also edited by me, prior me uploading it to YouTube) was rejected by YouTube's Content Identification program on behalf of "Grammys", claiming that the "some or all of the visual content" infringes their copyright. I would have been less surprised, if Paul McCartney, ABC Television or Cirque du Soleil would have made a claim (although the Cirque has seen a bunch of my videos, some of which are much more likely to be infringing than this one and actually likes the free promotion of their shows etc.). I assume that this claim and the resulting rejection of the video was done automatically and I would like to know, if it is worthwhile to "dispute the claim" or not. I know a bit about copyright laws, but this case is not 100% clear to me. Does somebody has some comments or any tips for this particular case? --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 18:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to extend my question. The video uploaded to YouTube serves also the purpose to be embedded into a blog post, website or Wikipedia article for that matter. The same question I asked specifically for the Grammy's awards show can be applied to a number of similar cases that are relevant for Wikipedia. Video is not added too much to articles yet, but I hope that this will change, considering the broad adaption of online video by the average user. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 19:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use has nothing to with whether Cirque du Soleil objects or not; it is a matter of free speech. But more than a very brief excerpt for the purpose of critical commentary would not be fair use. I suspect that YouTube was right. As for Wikipedia, Wikipedia’s policy on non-free content is much more restrictive than fair use; see WP:NFCC. In particular by WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8, a video could not be used unless its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic over a single-frame screen shot. —teb728 t c 23:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

roy: Following on from what teb728 said, and without going into too much detail, any reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, or a derivative version of it, is by default infringing however much of it is used, unless the use conforms with certain specific exceptions, or you get sued, make a Fair Use claim, and the court agrees. Fair Use is not an affirmative right, it's a defense against a charge of infringement, and what is or is not Fair Use is decided on a case-by-case basis. This results in a lot of educated guesswork: individuals and organizations (like YouTube and Wikipedia) make decisions on what kind of uses would likely be deemed fair if they ever found themselves on the wrong side of a lawsuit, and then construct their usage policies accordingly. Why your video got rejected by YouTube when thousands of other videos that are blatantly infringing get uploaded every day I couldn't say. But since your description of the video suggests that it's a clear infringement I don't imagine you'll have any luck if you challenge the rejection. Regarding adding video to Wikipedia, as teb said, for non-free videos Wikipedia's rules are very strict. For example, if an excerpt from a movie was added to an article about the movie and served no purpose other than to decorate the page then that would not be allowed. However, if the video was illustrating a specific thing that was being discussed in the article and if its inclusion added a significant amount to it that words alone could not convey, then that might be okay. Either way, I agree that getting more video onto Wikipedia in general is a good thing from the reader's perspective. It just needs to be done in a way that minimizes the chances of Wikipedia getting sued out of existence by an aggrieved copyright holder. -- Hux (talk) 02:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I also learned that CBS and Grammys are very draconian and cause numerous content to be pulled from video sharing sites and others. It seems that this is done pretty much automated. Just using the phrase "Grammy Awards" on a sharing site as title for your image, video or other content could be enough for getting your content pulled. This is bad behavior, because they even risk to claim that content they do not even own is infringing their copyright. I saw that kind of behaviour before. FRANCIS DREYFUS MUSIC did the same with content that included the word "Oxygene" (Jean Michel Jarre music). A video of mine was pulled where I happen to know exactly who the creators where (every byte of it, literally). I also know that their content was released with the intention to copy and spread it, because that is the whole idea behind creating that specific content to begin with. I sent a nasty email to YouTube when the video was pulled and demanded that they put it back up, especially after I provided them with the proof that DREYFUS MUSIC's claim was bs. They never put it back up, so I uploaded it again and left a nasty comment in the description of the video addressing DREYFUS MUSIC directly. This triggered some comments from people who had similar experiences. The current copyright laws don't make sense and have to be changed. They simply don't work in the modern day and age anymore. I translated a few month ago an Article from a German computer magazine from 2005 about the attempt of one of the writers to get a Music CD compilation done with his and his wife's favorite music for all of his guests to his round birthday (40th) that is legally perfectly okay (10-15 copies of a song is not personal use anymore). It was impossible to do. He was forced as consumer to either not do what he wanted to do or to break the law. Nobody would sue him for breaking the law, but that is making the point only more clear that the law does not work anymore. What is ironic in this whole mess is the fact that most of today's "infringements" are people who are fans and promote the companies products or services who's copyright they infringe. That means that they not only lose the opportunity for broad and very targeted advertising without having to pay a cent, but they also pis*ed of their once loyal and evangelist customers. p.s. I deleted the video from YouTube and tried something else (not so nice for Grammy's, but hey, they asked for it). Sorry for my rant, but I get more and more mad these days, since these kind of cases increase in frequency and stupidity lately. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 03:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Another question. What is the best way to find out who the copyright owner is of something, what the copyright situation of a publication is (song, video, movie, picture) e.g. if it is fully copyrighted, creative commons or public domain, and how to contact the copyright owner if it seems to be copyright protected? I released stuff into public domain and plastered it all over my site where the content is published, but that does not always seem be to enough and people get problems with using my stuff elsewhere, even though they are technically allowed to do so. I would not even have guessed that CBS and The Grammys own the copyright to the video in question and that nobody else has re-publishing rights for it, not even the copyright owners of the content that is part of the content in the video (Beatles songs, Cirque performances from their show "Love" etc.). Are there any databases that are freely accessible for consumers where companies expressed their willingness to enforce their copyright on their specified content or a database where people can state publicly in a central place that their stuff is public domain or released under creative commons? --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 03:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Except from the Wikipedia Commons of course where it is hard to get your own stuff in there that you even released into public domain. Stuff that I provided two years ago is still not in there. Some of it made it though. There gotta be a better way. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 03:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The best way is to assume everything is copyrighted in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

If you want to point out that content on your website is released into the public domain or under some sort of free license, you're welcome to do so. http://www.creativecommons.org has some suggestions on how to accomplish that.

The rest of your questions aren't really a matter for this noticeboard. Stifle (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

1921 Irish Newspaper photo image

I Have a photograph of a person who died in 1921. It appeared in an Irish newspaper in April 1921. Am I permitted to include it in a page i am working on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RashersTierney (talk • contribs) 18:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Failing that, would a pencil sketch based on the photograph avoid copyright issues?RashersTierney (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Non-free historic image seems most appropriate unless I am otherwise informed. RashersTierney (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Since it was published before 1921, it would be considered pubic domain in the United States, where the Wikimedia Foundation is located. I'm not sure what the copyright status in Ireland would be. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like expiry in Ireland is 70 years after the author's death. Is the an image credit for the photo? --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea how the paper acquired the original image, it may have been supplied by the Government from his service record, or by his family. So far, I have been unable to locate any living relatives. I still think that the Template:Non-free historic image is most appropriate. 83.71.38.170 (talk) 02:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

{{PD-US}} would probably do it as far as Wikipedia is concerned, but we can't say whether you'd be in compliance with Irish copyright law. I'd point you at chapter 6 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Images taken from an NHS website

I could use some clarification here please. Promotional images on this website http://www.imperial.nhs.uk/mediacentre/imagelibrary/index.htm, have a disclaimer stating:

"Visitors to the www.imperial.nhs.uk website have permission to access this copyright material, which may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium provided it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context." (http://www.imperial.nhs.uk/aboutus/disclaimer/index.htm)

Does this count as being uploadable? Matt641 (talk) 12:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to think that this falls short of permitting derivative use and as such would not be permissible. Stifle (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Da That is crown copyright terms which we know are not compatible with GFDL.Geni 02:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Help

Hi, i really have problems doing pages on here, but i've recently done a page on a British Wrestler called The Juggernaught, his page is titled the same as his name. Anyway, i uploaded a pic on it and it says about the copyright, i own no copyright on it, but Juggernaught himself said i could use it but i have no idea how to do it and it's frustrating trying to figure it out.

Would one of you guys help me and add the copyright on there for me?, he gives permission for anybody to use his pics, aslong as it's for use such as this and not for beneficial uses.

If you could, i'd really appreciate it.

Kev

87.102.76.131 (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Once you put in the "as long as it's ... not for benefical uses", the image (Juggernaught.jpg) becomes unusable at Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Image use policy. It's been deleted. Stifle (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:PAVCS_Logo1.jpg

I recently uploaded Image:PAVCS_Logo1.jpg as a replacement of Image:PAVCS_Logo1.gif, however it has been marked in violation of the non-free image policy. May I ask why it is in violation and the other image was not? -[[Ryan]] ^{(me) (talk)} 17:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Request withdrawn. -[[Ryan]] ^{(me) (talk)} 18:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Image uploading

How do I upoload an image to wikipedia? There is an image on the infobox of the Indian Cricket League page which is unsourced, but it is likely that the picture came directly from the official site. I also needed a couple of logos for the pages for each different tournament and was wondering a. how to upload them to wikipedia, and b. if they are licensed?

these logos are listed here: http://www.indiancricketleague.in/fixtures/icl-tournaments.html

Thanks

Lihaas (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Google Books

Is a photograph or scan of a page from a book taken from Google Books acceptable, given that the book is past copyright? (It was published in England 1849) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dozenthey (talk • contribs) 23:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's public domain, scanning it in doesn't renew the copyright; the scan is also public domain, according to Bridgeman v Corel. Of course, it's proper to credit the source of the scan. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bridge CS3.png

Is this an appropriate edit? I'm not sure where the boundary between simple text being PD and if gradients or drop shadows start to push it away. -- atropos235 ✄ (blah blah, my past) 04:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Is the license genuine?

I believe this image's license is not genuine, the detail is very brief, there are no meta camera details accompanying the image, and the user is a fly-by uploader never to be seen again. How does one work out and judge if it is fake? Timeshift (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's very difficult to establish the genuineness of such single upload images. It's a little bit noisy and the angle would suggest that maybe it was taken from a public gallery however the security regulations suggest it's not allowed to take photos from there and this suggests that only accredited members of the press are allowed to take photographs during proceedings. It's possible that the photograph is genuine and released by the photographer, but again - it's hard to know 100%. Nominate for deletion on commons if you like (it's only a single button click). Megapixie (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

A small version of the same image ([13]) is on the front page of www.tonyburke.com.au. It might be worth asking them — it's always possible that the mysterious "KM" was someone on his staff with authorization to release the image. (There are also versions on other sites, e.g. [14], suggesting that the image may have been part of a press kit.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The rather narrow area in focus suggests zoom lense.Geni 14:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

See User_talk:Kenneth84. The person warring to keep it on the page seems to know its an AUSPIC photo. As much as i'd like them to be, AUSPIC photos arent allowed on wikipedia. Timeshift (talk) 03:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Tunnels uncovered in Rafah.jpg

Image:Tunnels uncovered in Rafah.jpg was recently deleted from wiki and best of my knowledge, it is a fair use non replaceable image of the Tunnels uncovered in the Rafah operation.

I wish/propose to have/readmit the image on the article due to it's clear encyclopedic value.
Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I feel that the image is replaceable by a free image which could be created and therefore this one appears to fail WP:NFCC #1. Stifle (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

But as the listing here results from a disagreement between myself and Jaakobou, further opinions are welcome. Stifle (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If we are talking about Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. This is an image that is iconic in an of itself. Then the use of the image in an article talking about it is fair use. Likewise one or two still images from a movie in an article talking about the visual style of the movie are probably fair use. I have no idea what the image contained, but if it was a map - it could be re-drawn. If it was a photograph, then it was probably the work of a photographer who expected to be paid for his work, then it would fair the fair use test of "economic competition". Megapixie (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[15] is the source of the image, which is a map with text and lines drawn on it. Stifle (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If you mean this one then, as Megapixie said, we can't use it because a free version could be created using the same data (assuming that the underlying map is available somewhere for free). -- Hux (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the information is obviously encyclopedic and valuable. I'm not sure that copying its information suddenly makes for a "free" copyright, as the initial copyright was "fair use" and not "feel free to copy and then manipulate however you see fit". But, if there is a consensus on this, I have absolutely no personal objection to someone making a copy and posting it in replacement of the original. Still, until that person conjures himself to do the deed, I think the image should be "fair use" by Wikipedia (or other), as was intended by the IDF spokesperson. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

user:jamiecg74

I have just added a tag on the picture, can you advise me if this is the correct image? 82.19.60.209 (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't know what image you're referring to. Please specify the exact image name beginning with the prefix Image:. Thanks. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Obtaining pictures for Perna viridis

Can I rip off obtain pictures from this United States Geological Survey document as Public Domain? If so, then what tag should I use? I'll use it to improve the article Perna viridis--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, since works of the US federal government are public domain. It's possible that sometimes they use an image from an outside source but there's no credit to indicate this is the case here. The tag is {{PD-USGov-Interior-USGS}}. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 08:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll use this later.--Lenticel ^(talk) 08:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

IMAGES copyright

What EXACTLY is the syntax to the line I have to add to the ALBUM Cover images etc on my WIKI site to ensure they are ok with copyright (As I am layman and just want to copy this and put the correct NAME in the appropriate place) Most of these ALBUM covers were created by me (or by an artist I commissioned who I can name) Thanks Guy Manning —Preceding unsigned comment added by GuyManning (talk • contribs) 07:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you asking a question about Wikipedia, or about some other website? Wikipedia is not your WIKI site. Stifle (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

still photo from a movie that I produced and own the copyright to.

Hi I just posted a photo from a movie that I produced called "Never Say Macbeth". I own the movie, and I own the copyright to the movie. Technically, I did not take the photo because my cinematographer was holding the camera. Can I choose the option "I am the copyright owner" even though I did not technically take the photo? I have uploaded the photo onto the article for Scott Cunningham, and now it has been tagged for possible removal.

Joegold (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Usually, copyright is not transferred unless specifically stated, except in the case of a work for hire. If you do indeed own the copyright, then yes you can use "I am the copyright owner". Make sure you explain on the image description page how you came to be the copyright holder. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If you indeed own the copyright to the movie, and if the picture is a frame from the movie, then you evidently hold the copyright to the picture and may license it any way you like. Even if the picture was taken separately during the filming, it may still, depending on the circumstances, count as a work for hire. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on the work for hire side of the law, but as I understand it, in the movie industry cinematographers, camera operators, etc., are typically not considered employees of the production company (they're contract workers, basically). If I'm correct then in order for the film to be considered a work for hire, there needs to be a specific, written agreement between them and the production company stating that. Absent that agreement, the copyright is not owned by the production company, but by whoever created the footage. -- Hux (talk) 04:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:2007 Way to Happiness unauthorized SF city logo.jpg

I uploaded this image and I want to doublecheck its use in the article "The Way to Happiness", and the fair use rationale used on the image page.

Here is a brief description of the background of the image:

• Vega, Cecilia M. (2007-10-13). "Group censured for using Newsom's image in pro-Scientology booklet". San Francisco Chronicle. Hearst Communications Inc. Retrieved 2008-04-25.

Now it's true that "The Way to Happiness Foundation International" did arrange the images on the cover of this pamphlet, and their logo is on there as well - but the pamphlet cover also contains a blatantly unauthorized use of both the logo of the City of San Francisco, and wording from the Mayor of San Francisco (written in first person), which he never said nor authorized. (The image is being used in the article to illustrate exactly that.)

Clarification/feedback would be appreciated. -- Cirt (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that image itself should indeed be able to pass our non-free content criteria, but the rationale you've provided frankly reads like word salad. I'll see if I can turn it into something a bit more coherent. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've fixed it. The real problem seems to have been the {{logo fur}} template, which is meant for pictures of individual logos and isn't really very well suited for images like this one. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Ilmari Karonen, much better! Cirt (talk) 08:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyright status...

Hello there. I've stumbled across this map which I'd like to use in articles but I'm suspicious about the copyrights status. How do we know if the uploader is in a position to release it as public domain? Does it need deletion? Otherwise, I hope it is useable. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hard to say. On the one hand, this PDF contains an almost identical map, credited to "Indonesian Government" (though the paper is written by "Ö. Aydan"), but on the other hand a little Googling suggests that Herman Darman is published geologist, so for all we know he created the original map and the Indonesian Government claim is false. On balance, given the nature of his other contributions, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. -- Hux (talk) 05:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your prompt and thoroughly considered response. Your efforts are very much appreciated. regards --Merbabu (talk) 03:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Question from adoptee

Hey! I'm currently in adopter program, and my adoptee asked me "I have a question about uploading pictures; from what I've read, it seems okay to scan the cover of an album and upload it, providing that I put copyright information on it (even though album covers don't usually specify copyright info)." I have no idea what copyrights album covers have, so anyone here who could provide some info? Ilyushka88 (talk) 10:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure: album covers can be used in the infobox of the article about the album. They can also be used elsewhere, provided that their use is to illustrate discussion of the design of the cover (or perhaps its newsworthiness) and adds significantly to that discussion in ways that words alone cannot. In all cases, the template {{non-free album cover}} should be used, along with a separate Fair Use rationale for each article in which the cover appears. Your adoptee can use this template for that. -- Hux (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

image copyright

I have permission from the author of this image to include it on the entry about him. How do I specify that when I upload the image? This is the image:Steve Pyke Self-Portrait.jpg I guess it was already deleted before I posted this, but please let me know how I can upload it with the correct copyright information next time. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoyobee (talk • contribs) 12:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:COPYREQ for what kind of permission is required and how to request it. —teb728 t c 01:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Two images from free PC videogames flagged for deletion

I'm very new at adding images, but did for 2 video games the other day, and today I learned that both are going to be deleted. I think I tagged the images incorrectly but am unsure as to what I need to do to them to get them "unflagged" for deletion.

Both images gave credit to the creator of the game, and lists the source and URLs. I used the tag for video game screenshots but obviously that's wrong because it's coming back as non-free images (??). Both of these screenshots, Hasslevania.png and NPMTCE.png are from free games, so how should I edit them accordingly?

EDIT: Those are the correct names of both files yet they come up as dead links. You can see the images at their Wiki pages here at Hasslevania and Neil Peart- Mission: The Camera Eye. I don't know why these come up as red links when they exist?

TheHenge (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The images are Image:Hasslevania.png and Image:NPMTCE.png. You needed :Image: in the links. —teb728 t c 00:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You need a non-free use rationale for each use. You can use {{game screenshot rationale}} to provide one. —teb728 t c 00:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Donboscotech_logo.png

I just wanted to know if the Image:Donboscotech_logo.png is okay to be used since there is a fair use rationale —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarchingBandFan (talk • contribs) 23:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It can be used in the article for which its fair-use rationale has been written (the rationale needs a little clean-up; I'll take care of it). In fact, the image now has to be used, else it faces deletion as an orphaned image. Go ahead and put it in if you think it will improve the article. --Dynaflow babble 00:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• FYI - Image:Donboscotech_logo.PNG was just tagged as {[tl|duplicate}} because it was the same as the image referenced above. --evrik ^(talk) 02:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

a picture with no copyrights

I have a picture of a illustration of hell according to Buddhism culture Image:Hell-5-Yan-Luo-King.jpg. It is posted everywhere including on Buddhism sites and forums etc. Some Buddhism sites that published these pictures says, "There is no copyright of these pictures. Please help to spread and republish it. It is a virtue to help to spread it." Then how should I address it in the copyright tag?

Riyue (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately for Buddhism, virtue does not trump copyright law! However, from its style it looks old enough to be in the public domain, but without knowing more about it it's hard to say for sure. Can you provide more info about the image, i.e. who painted it, and where and roughly when? -- Hux (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

According to the page talking about it, Picture References on Causality – Variety of Scenes in Hell it was created in 2003, so it's still copyrighted. Since there is an article discussing the painting itself, you could claim fair use. The tag would be {{Non-free 2D art}}. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess I could've just read the article before I posted, but that would've been too easy. ;) -- Hux (talk) 07:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use of copyrighted drawings of historical figures

Recently, a few of us have been involved in an add/revert cycle regarding historical samurai such as Oda Nobunaga#Oda Nobunaga in fiction and Tokugawa Ieyasu#In popular culture. Some feel that the inclusion of images from recent video games is a valid fair use of those copyright images. Others feel that the fair-use rationale is shaky; and, that the articles are fine without the added images.

My position is the latter, and, I will explain the main crux of my reasoning here. If a person is consistently portrayed in a certain manner, it is reasonable to have such a description. Criteria #1 of Wikipedia:FAIR#Policy 2 says that if a topic can be adequately expressed with text, then fair-use images should probably be left out. But, I have seen no attempt to describe the characteristics which are supposedly important enough to warrant the images in any of the articles where I've reverted the addition of images like this. If the intention is to show a person drawn in a modern style, then, it is also likely that a free version from one of Wikipedia's artists could be requested. In neither case do I think that a screen capture or package scan from a particular game has any impact other than aesthetic to the person's article.

I also feel that while the popular culture section is questionably significant, illustrations inside that section are against the spirit of #8 in the list; but, since #8 is controversial, there is no need to go into that here.

This debate has been carried forth through edit summaries, and recently User talk:Exiled Ambition#Dynasty Warriors images (and, a section at the end of the same user talk page).

I would like to solicit some outside opinions on this. Thanks. Neier (talk) 09:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I should add that if someone can point out the difference between a game's image of a person versus the example of Barry Bonds' baseball card (which is prohibited as a fair use image), I would like to hear it. Neier (talk) 09:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I know little about Oda, computer games, baseball, baseball cards or copyright law; but I'd have thought that baseball cards purported to provide faithful representations of people: even after airbrushing and other processes dictated by convention, we are looking (or we think we are looking) at photographs. For a Japanese game image of the pseudohistorical namesake of Oda semifictionalized into the game, convention would I think be paramount: while I don't know what either the historical Oda or his historical sword looked like, I do know that his sword wouldn't have been luminous, and the luminosity of the sword here is a giveaway that we are in fantasy-land. So, simply, this isn't an illustration of the person Oda; it's an illustration of the game character "Oda".

You say In neither case do I think that a screen capture or package scan from a particular game has any impact other than aesthetic to the person's article. The editors of en:Wikipedia, like US presidential/primary candidates, are frequently reminded not to be elitist. Perhaps illustration of Oda by the game contruct "Oda" (complete with luminous sword) helps reassure our sensitive readers that the article was created by jus' plain folks like themselves, less absorbed by boring books about boring old reality than they are by the excitement of Playstation and the rest. This is history we can all participate in. (Slash, slash, skewer: Game over.) -- Hoary (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Neier: Under the Non-Free Content Criteria (NFCC), a copyrighted image can't be used as mere decoration - for example, if the subject was "album covers of the 1960s" then we couldn't use a photo of the Beatles' Sergeant Pepper's cover as if to say, "Here's an example of a 60s album cover". However, we could use it in order to illustrate an article (or article section) that discusses that specific cover, since words alone aren't enough to convey the subject fully. These samurai examples are, imo, an example of the latter. In both cases, the articles note that they are represented in computer games and then a screenshot is provided to illustrate that. It would be impossible to fully represent that screenshot in words (however detailed the description, it can never be a complete substitute for the image itself) so as I understand the NFCC it's okay to use such images in such cases. For a precedent that illustrates this kind of use, see the Mario article: as you can see, aside from the first image, the purpose of the screenshots in that article is to illustrate specific things that the accompanying text discusses; they're not just there for decoration. -- Hux (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Is the reader's ability to understand that "he is often featured as a character in a video game" adversely impacted if there is no picture to back it up? Hoary's description of Oda's sword far surpasses any text on the pages where I've been reverting out the pictures, as far as trying to document what it is about the image that makes it so important. Currently, all that is being said is that so-and-so is in video games. And, that's all that probably CAN be said, since detail about particular game implementations of a character do not belong on the real-life person's article. Every sentence does not need illustrations; and, bending the NFCC rules to try to make an image fit seems like the backwards approach to me. Mario is a disingenuous example, since it is a fictional character to begin with, and revolves around the game. This is more akin to adding a frame-grab picture of the Cloverfield (creature) to New York City, as long as I say that "New York City is often used as a backdrop for post-9/11 thriller movies". Neier (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Barry Bonds question, I don't actually think that his baseball card has been "prohibited as a fair use image". Certain previous, individual uses of that image may have been deleted as inconsistent with the NFCC, but that's not the same thing. If there was something notable about Bonds' card (e.g. a feature of its design) then it would be fine to use an image of that card in order to illustrate that, just as it's fine to use screenshots from Mario games in manner previously described. -- Hux (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hoary: Whether or not the screenshot is an illustration of the person or an illustration of the game character is irrelevant from a copyright perspective. Likewise, elitism, sensitive readers, historiography, etc., are not factors that are important for the purposes of this page. They may be relevant for the talk page of the article about the person, but we don't need to dwell on them here. -- Hux (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

A further question: how closely does the illustration have to be related to the subject of the article in order for the use of a screenshot to qualify as fair use? The article on Oda Nobunaga is primarily about Oda Nobunaga. If a World War II-era painter portrayed Nobunaga in oils, could we show the painting? Can we include a still from the Kurosawa film Kagemusha, in which an actor portrays Kurosawa's vision of the historical Nobunaga? The article has a section, Oda Nobunaga#Oda Nobunaga in fiction, that is not about any one specific work of fiction; can we include a screenshot from a game such as Samurai Warriors 2? Or is the screenshot restricted to an article on the game, or an article that would have a title like Oda Nobunaga (Samurai Warriors 2) (if there were such an article)? Separately, are there any guidelines on how many stills we can take from a single game? Could we illustrate a dozen articles on historical figures with copyrighted images from one video game? Fg2 (talk) 11:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, the licensing information on Image:OdaNobunaga.jpg (which is presently in the article) permits use of the image "for identification and critical commentary on the computer or video game in question or the copyrighted character(s) or item(s) depicted on the screenshot in question." Is use of this image in the biographical article Oda Nobunaga permitted under this license? Fg2 (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And, that's kinda my point, too. There is no commentary about the game (and, since it would be commentary abou the game, and not the person, it would belong more on the game article anyway -- like Mario above). All that is said is "he is in video games." I don't think we need pictures to convey that. Do they make the article look better? Perhaps; but, we can't invoke Fair Use for aesthetic reasons alone. Neier (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I've answered my own question. The license stating that the image may be used "for identification and critical commentary on the computer or video game in question or the copyrighted character(s) or item(s) depicted on the screenshot in question" is prohibited in the article on Oda Nobunaga. There, it is not identifying a copyrighted character. Rather it is identifying a historical person. So I believe its use is prohibited in that article. If anyone has authoritative information that it's permitted, please tell us. Fg2 (talk) 04:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

But I'm not sure it answers Neier's questions. Fg2 (talk) 10:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Like you said, fair use for a character image does not apply in the bio article. Another comment I saw at User_talk:Exiled_Ambition made me realize that these are either pictures about the characters, or original research regarding the appearance of a person. In articles about the game or characters in the game, such an image is not original research, and the fair use license would justly apply. But, we can't say that the image is of Oda Nobunaga, without some non-firsthand reliable sources to back it up. Thus in order to overcome WP:OR, we have to dictate that it is just a picture of the character, and not of Oda Nobunaga; and, the fair use on Oda Nobunaga's article is disallowed. There is no more reason to annotate Oda Nobunaga's article with lengthy descriptions of descendant fiction than there is to fill up President of the United States with images of every movie that Harrison Ford or James Cromwell pretended to be one. Neier (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Fg2, the image of Oda Nobunaga would act in accordance with Fair Use's expectations because it is identifying the copyrighted character meant to respectively represent the historical figure, and it therefore constitutes such a clause. As for your comment Neier, there is indeed no initial evidence to prove that the image representing Oda Nobunaga is meant to be him, but that case would be too ridiculous to apply any concreted justification such as a footnote, as why would the image be added in the article to begin with if it had not been formerly verified? Besides, another would have already proved otherwise with a substitute, and I certainly would not allow myself to be labeled a fool. As for your secondary comment, the same principles are applicable: I would have already verified that the image of Oda Nobunaga is something of trivia and not the historical figure himself, as everything concerning the image denotes it as easily as a black dot on white paper.

As like in my talk page, I also provide an additional statement that proves distributing these images is just: You have stated that the images constitute original research due to being a respective representation created by a company. That is of course accurate, but you need to understand that original research in application to information is something unfavorable, but in the case of an image, each viewer already understands that it is a part of trivia and shouldn't be considered a true representation of the person represented. This constitutes safe distribution of the trivial image, which is only passable in these circumstances. If you understand this, then you will understand that adding these images will ultimately not create any form of detriment to the subject article -- the prime clause enforced by Wikipedia's Fair Use. User:Exiled Ambition 27 April 2008 (EST)

Whether or not the images are detrimental to the biographical article is irrelevant. These character images have fair-use criteria that are justified on character or game pages; not the biographical pages. Neier (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Statements in past-tense will provide nothing to the present argument: I have already justified that even though these images are best fit within their video game pages--which is still something realistically impossible to initiate--they are able to exist within the articles of their historical figure in consequence to each clause being passed with reason. Where the image is best fit is one thing, but when no ultimate principle can be applied against my argument, then wouldn't the very same formalities follow for that image's inclusion into a biographical article? Truly, no clause set forth by Fair Use could speak otherwise, and its not anything difficult to see this. User:Exiled Ambition 27 April 2008 (EST)

Before I can help you guys and hopefully sort out this disagreement, a couple of things need to be clarified here:

• This page is only concerned with questions about copyright issues. Whether an image is a "best fit" for a particular article is a question of style so it isn't relevant to any discussion on this page. Questions of original research and about whether or not an image is a faithful representation of a real person are similarly not relevant here.
• Whether or not a particular use of an image "constitutes Fair Use" is, perhaps counter-intuitively, also not relevant. Since we're talking about copyrighted images, the only thing you need to worry about is Wikipedia's non-free content criteria (NFCC). Fair Use and the NFCC are not the same thing and in fact the latter is quite a bit more strict.
• The NFCC defines how non-free content may be used and the same rules apply whichever article we're talking about, i.e. the fact that an article is biographical in nature doesn't intrinsically allow a non-free image to be used there any more than in any other article. It entirely depends on the context in which the image is being used.

So, for these particular images of computer game representations of historical persons, the basic questions you need to ask are:

1. Is the image being used in order to illustrate discussion in the article about that specific image?
2. If yes, does that image add significantly to that discussion in a way that cannot adequately be described in words alone?

For example, this use of the Nobunaga image was not consistent with the NFCC because there was no mention of that specific game in the accompanying text and the editor that removed the image in a later edit was right to do so. In order for the NFCC to be satisfied, the text would have to both mention the game and describe the image in some way. The image could then be used to illustrate that description, since words alone do not sufficiently convey what it looks like to the reader.

Does that make things more clear? -- Hux (talk) 22:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, with what you have stated, Hux, the circumstances are as simple as they should be. For the majority of the historical figure articles that I have equipped these images to, I will admit that they do not fully illustrate a discussion that could only be described through such a representation, and I will therefore likewise ensure that NFCC's expectations are answered by making them a figure of controversy. User:Exiled Ambition 28 April 2008 (EST)

Add comic strip panel from 1913-1925?

I want to add an image to Cyrus Cotton "Cy" Hungerford http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_Cotton_%22Cy%22_Hungerford

The image would be an example of Hungerford's work, a daily panel from his newspaper strip "Snoodles". The image is at http://bp3.blogger.com/_SvmlM7-oNw0/SBIYw5a0y1I/AAAAAAAAFtc/mtBXi7jm8xo/s1600-h/may71926.JPG It is from this page: http://john-adcock.blogspot.com/2008/04/snoodles-iii.html

John Adcock at the blog "Yesterday's Papers" has scanned a number of strips from a Canadian newspaper that carried the strip 1924-1927, but the strip was first published 1913-1925.

He gives permission for his scans to be used, but would this constitute fair use of Hungerford's work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyn50 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you happen to know exactly when that particular strip was first published? If it was before January 1, 1923, you could tag it as {{PD-US}}. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Exhibitionism

Resolved

 – Exception added to MediaWiki:Bad image list.

Can someone please release this image Image:Jello biafra mooning.jpg to be used here, Exhibitionism#Types_of_exposure? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.224.121 (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Done, even though this isn't really the right place to ask for this. (Next time, try either WP:AN or MediaWiki talk:Bad image list.) I'd like to note, however, that the relevance of some of the images already on that page, as well as the appropriateness of their associated captions, seems questionable at best. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Myspace image

I uploaded this image a few days ago. It is the image for the Myspace profile of a band. I wasn't exactly sure if that meant it was okay to use the image (I figured there was probably some rule against it). Could someone tell me if it is okay to use this image or not, and why? I would greatly appreciate it- Kanogul ^(talk) 12:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, like most photos on the internet, without overt evidence to the contrary we have to assume that this is a copyrighted image and that the copyright is held by the photographer, so as far as Wikipedia's non-free content criteria are concerned, we can only use it if the copyright holder releases it under a free license. If you're interested in pursuing this see WP:COPYREQ, otherwise I'm afraid it'll have to be deleted. -- Hux (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Three old biographical pictures

Could people here advise on the copyright status of the following pics? Arthur William Rucker picture, William Carmichael McIntosh picture and Harold Baily Dixon picture.

• (1) Are the images public domain or not?
• (2) If they are still in copyright, when will they become public domain?
• (3) Is it possible to say something is copyrighted even if you don't know when it will become public domain?

Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

1) Based on the information we have here, it's impossible to know for sure. It's possible that all of them are, but it might also be that none of them are. Given the ages of their subjects, the lengthy copyright terms in the US and UK, and the sites on which they are hosted, we have to assume they're still under copyright. 2) Unfortunately, it's not possible to know that for sure without more information about when the photos were taken and whether or not their photographers are still alive. 3) Yes, very much so. Since copyright is typically based on the life of the author plus a certain number of years, unless you know when a photo was taken and/or when the copyright holder died, you can't know for sure when it will revert to the public domain, so in order to be safe you have to assume that copyright still applies. -- Hux (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

So I am correct in assuming that those with copyright in a picture have a vested interest in "losing" (or not publicising) the information about when a picture was taken and by whom, and when it was published and where? I think other aspects of the copyright law kick in at this point, but I will repeat here my assertion that it was surely never the intent of copyright that people would be allowed to say, "we don't know when this photo was taken or by whom, and so we can claim copyright for a long time because we think the author might have lived a long time." This is the whole reason that "pseudonymous author" (ie. author known but because they are pseudonymous, not their date of death) or "anonymous author" or "unknown author" clauses exist in copyright law. The "life of author" bit only applies if you know the author. If the entity claiming copyright cannot demonstrate or prove the identity of the author, then the 'life of the author' stuff does not apply. Carcharoth (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

How to make copyrighted images?

Can anybody say how my own image can be uploaded in the wikipedia such that, it will not ask for copyright information? The pictures are actually diagrams of graphs, and entirely(No plagiarism ) drawn by me in my computer.

Eagerly waiting for reply.:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bipulkumarbal (talk • contribs) 16:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Any image is copyrighted as soon as it is created, so even images created by yourself need to have copyright information. If you want to relinquish any copyright owned by you, the tag is {{PD-self}} --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Or, for things like simple graphs, possibly even {{PD-self-ineligible}}. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

uploading an image

what is a copyright tag? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmillermac (talk • contribs) 20:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

See Help:Image page --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Road Signs

I want to make pages for the Nassau County Route system. Im getting my images from nycroads.com there is no copyright information. Also, Im not sure if it's copyrighted at all being that it's a route sheild. If so, where can I get pictures of the NC Route Sheilds. Wiki only has a few...not all.

For the route shields, whether or not the design is copyrighted would depend on the type of shield and the state. I believe I'm right in saying that interstate route shields are the domain of the federal government, in which case they would likely be in the public domain by default. New York state and Nassau County route shields may also be in the public domain, but that would depend on the laws of the state and county respectively (in some localities, government-created works are public domain, but in others they're copyrighted just like any other creative work). So basically there's no easy answer to this; you'd have to get in touch with the relevant authorities to be certain. Of course, having said all this, if a partycular image of a route shield were copyrighted and your article were discussing the design of that shield then it would probably be okay to use a photo of it under the non-free content criteria. -- Hux (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

David H. Petraeus 2008.jpg

Hi - I received this photo from a US Army Soldier who took it during her official capacity. I just tried to correctly edit the description that accompanied the photo - can you let me know if I did it correctly? This is my first time uploading an image. Thanks so much! YoungLion24 —Preceding unsigned comment added by YoungLion24 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that license is fine...not really any doubt that's an official portrait. I removed the deletion tag. Kelly ^hi! 04:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

like to let images go

Resolved

 – Images deleted per CSD G7. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

hello

thanks for getting in touch with me about the images DSN1487,88, 95 and 98 plus 1507,17 and 19

i no longer require their use (as i ended up creating them, whilst trying to upload images for the first time). i would like to let the images go and would like to see them deleted. Kilnburn (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use of copyrighted drawings of historical figures: second request

The section Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Fair use of copyrighted drawings of historical figures (higher up in this project page) has become a discussion between users who have opinions about fair use but are not specifically informed about the subject. We invite users who have a broader knowledge of fair use to help us clarify this issue. Fg2 (talk) 20:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I replied above. Hopefully I addressed everyone's concerns sufficiently. -- Hux (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, Hux. It helps us focus on the issues and points us in the right direction for solving them. Fg2 (talk) 02:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Advice needed

I have a wedding picture that was taken in 1947 by a professional photographer for Stone Photography Incorporated and I'm trying to figure out whether I can upload this into wikicommons. Can someone out there help? Mmyotis ^{^^o^^} 01:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Only in the unlikely case of the photographer licensing it under a free license. If you seriously think that is possible, see WP:COPYREQ. —teb728 t c 05:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's your own wedding picture, you could just try asking the photo company to sign the rights over to you; they might well be willing to do that. Then you could license the image any way you wanted. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If the copyright wasn't renewed, it may be public domain. The template is {{PD-Pre1964}} if so. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 03:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

WMF Logos

Images like Image:Wikimedia.png are non-free copyrighted images owned by the WMF that should only be used per FUR guidelines. I think we should comment their use out of all userpages that have them as fairuse overuse. Any objections. MBisanz ^talk 06:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The WMF logos are a special case. I don't tend to agree with this because of the extent of the use and the fact that we are definitely not violating any copyrights by using the images here. I would further recommend transferring this discussion to WP:AN for visibility. Stifle (talk) 11:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Crossposted. MBisanz ^talk 21:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone from the Foundation voiced an opinion on the matter? Treating the WMF logos as traditional FU imagery strikes me as very bureaucratic in nature. For starters, why are they on Commons if they aren't to be freely used? We have special licenses in such cases, and I see no exception here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The WMF position from the last time I raised this question (~6 months ago, if I recall correctly), is that they have no official position. Or to put it more plainly they have not granted any license or permission for any generic third party of their copyrights and trademarks within or outside of Wikipedia. At the same time, they are aware of these uses and have not taken any explicit action to generically restrict or remove the unathorized use of their copyrights and trademarks within Wikipedia. (Though it is worth noting that they have removed a few specific examples of infringing uses in the past.) So you can read into that whatever you want. MBisanz is basically correct that in the absense of an authorizing license, all of these uses created by Wikipedians represent acts of copyright/trademark infringment both within Wikipedia and for reusers. However, the WMF is obviously in a position to snuff this out even without legal action, should they choose to do so. I've been advocating for an official WMF Logo use policy for nigh on 2 years now, but it seems little progress has been made. Personally, my feeling is that under the current situation they are plainly unfree and purely decorative uses of WMF logos should be restricted. Dragons flight (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion centralized to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#WMF_Logos. MBisanz ^talk 21:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mileva Maric (nee Einstein).jpg

See Talk:Mileva Marić#Image:Mileva Maric (nee Einstein).jpg. I saw that the image was tagged for speedy delete and recognised it as a 1896 photograph from Roger Highfield's book, so I added a partly completed Information template. I then removed both the di-no source and the PD-old tags because (1) there is some source now, and (2) I am unsure whether PD-old applies due to both the photographer and first date of publication being unknown. Could someone check whether it might at least fall into the US public domain? More details are in the image talk. -84.222.0.142 (talk) 14:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I tagged it for now with {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. It may also be in the public domain in its country of origin but that needs some research (I'm short on time at the moment). I'm not sure if the Austro-Hungarian Empire was party to international copyright agreements (some entities weren't - see {{PD-RusEmpire}} - or how it applies in former provinces that are now independent nations. I hesitate to say that European Union rules of {{PD-old-70}} apply because Switzerland is not a member, and also Switzerland often does not consider straightforward portrait photos to be copyrightable. (Is Serbia an EU member? I don't think so but can't remember.) Kelly ^hi! 15:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this. I just noticed the Mileva's Serbian article uses this larger resolution image from Commons, tagged PD-old but also with no author information. The Bern museum site claims reproduction rights, for what it's worth. I will add a note on the Talk there. Anyway having reread Mileva's biography, she was most likely in Zurich at the end of 1896 (when she turned 21) as she had switched to the polytechnic in October. In fact she'd been in Zurich since 1894. (Serbia is not in the EU yet.) -84.222.0.142 (talk) 19:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I am completely confused!!

I just uploaded 4 official images of the girl group Girlicious, off of the CW network ehre the show was aired, and I am not sure how to properly tag them. Help!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by I teh yuh (talk • contribs) 00:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I checked the copyright statement on the site you sourced the image to, and it wouldn't allow use on Wikipedia. You could try asking according to WP:COPYREQ. I don't think it would fall under fair use because they are still alive so it would be possible to obtain a freely-licensed image. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 02:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Two Images

Does anyone know if the following images qualify for use in the article Harold Dodds?

[16] Specifically, the second image (the one with Truman). Is this public domain because it's in the National Archives?

[17] How about this? Same guy as the first image. This is most likely copywritten, but can we use it through fair use? He's dead, so it would be hard to get a free image. Also, it's not of the best quality.

Thanks in advance for the help. Paragon12321 (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The national archives aren't guaranteed to be public domain, but it's possible. If the copyright wasn't renewed, then the tag would be {{PD-Pre1978}} or {{PD-Pre1964}}. Check to see if either of those match your situation. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright

I am trying to add a copyright tag to my image Image:Brandon at night2.JPG. I have tried adding {{PD-self}} by editing the page, but I still get the message that there is no copyright tag on the image. I also appear to be making a mess and now have 3 versions of the image. If somebody could tell me how to add the copyright tag correctly or how to clean up the mess I have made, I would be very grateful. Seftonm (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Once you've corrected the problem, and it looks like you have, you just need to remove the tag that the bot added. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

How to nominate an image for deletion

I have come across this image: Image:Blawal.jpg. I believe it is copyrighted as I can see several watermarks for World Picture Network througout the image. I would like to know how I can request a deletion. Thank you. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 04:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images which probably is the best place to bring it up. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 04:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 04:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Old television logos

We've got a bit of confusion over whether old television station logoes are pre-'78 no-copyright-notice public domain. I'm suspecting they're still copyrighted, but there's a lot of opposition (much of it buried in "Stay the course, defend our articles from deletionism!" rhetoric, sadly). Input would be appreciated here.

Images are already being retagged, so some early intervention would be appreciated, so we don't have to dig through a bunch of PD-tagged images to find out that, no, they're not PD. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sheet music cover?

What license should I use for the cover of sheet music for a song published in 1925 in the United States? Thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 05:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If copyright not renewed, {{PD-Pre1964}}. If published without a copyright notice prior to 1978, {{PD-Pre1978}}. Otherwise, may be under fair use only. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 05:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

HOW TO POST A PICTURE IN GALLARY —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mudassar gohar (talk • contribs) 06:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyright compliance

Per request I am posting a notification of a bot request Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MBisanzBot 2 that will remove non-compliant copyrighted logos owned by the WMF from userpages per our non-free content policy. Please add comments or questions to the Request page. MBisanz ^talk 10:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Replicating a copyrighted image with text

There was a comment on the talk page of {{Desperate Housewives}} that a copyrighted image cannot be used on the template. However, it wasn't an image being used, but rather formatted text to look like the Desperate Housewives logo. Anyone know the policy on this? --CapitalR (talk) 10:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

A short name in basic typography can't be copyrighted. However it may be trademarked. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(trademarks) --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I use this image? Help

Image:GeothermalMap-Big.jpg.

What is the tag that I should use when editing a wikipedia page and can I use this without it getting deleted in a week? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanharb (talk • contribs) 12:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

First question is, where did you get it from? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Nix that last picture. A more appropriate picture for the page I am editing is from the following website: http://www.geo4va.vt.edu/A1/A1.htm

Virginia Tech - State energy program. U.S. Dept. of Energy is what a banner says.

File:US-geothermal.gif

Where do I go from here? Thank you in advance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanharb (talk • contribs) 14:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If this specific image is indeed from the Department of Enegry(you may have to ask; it wasn't clear to me), you would tag it {{PD-USGov-DOE}} --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

User: Political Dweeb's explanation

User: Political Dweeb here was told about copyright problems by User:STBotl of an image called Image:PUP Logo.gif. The question Political Dweeb wants to ask here is how do I add a copyright tag to this image's description page and which copyright tag is the one I need to use for this image?.Political Dweeb (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.224.122 (talk) 13:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I improved the image description page; it should be ok now. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Old Stone House (Washington, D.C.)

I found a better quality picture to replace the circa 1890 picture. The page says all rights reserved, but the picture was taken before 1923. Is it ok to use this picture without his permisson? APK ^{yada yada} 23:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure of the date? The page said the uploader took the picture March 14, 2008. It's possible that its a scan or a picture of a picture. If he did anything to improve the picture (color, scratches, other fixes), it may be enough originality to justify new copyright. Without definitive answer to that question, since the uploader is claiming copyright, you probably need to assume the picture is copyrighted.Dcmacnut (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

After looking at it again I think he may have used the photo that I used, but cleaned it up. It's from the National Park Service website. It's definitely an old picture because the buidling to the left was torn down a long time ago and the sign is for a house painting business. That operated in the late 19th century/early 20th century. APK ^{yada yada} 01:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyright of a scanned image

What is the copyright status of an image which is uploaded after being scanned from a booklet. And the booklet holds no where any claim of copyright. I have added these images with a {{PD-self}} tag. Can anyone please guide me? --SMS ^Talk 03:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Simply scanning something in does not create a new copyright; the copyright, if there is any, is still fully held by the original author. Just because there is no copyright notice doesn't mean it's public domain; copyright is automatic and doesn't require a notice. Could you tag the images with their original creation date and original source? --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

How can I know who the author is or who holds it's copyright. Let me give some details, I am talking of these images: Image:Piffer Center.JPG and Image:Piffers War Memorial.JPG, which I took from an official booklet of Frontier Force Regiment. So can you please guide me what to tag to these images. Thanks! --SMS ^Talk 16:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Was there an image credit, copyright notice, or publication date on the booklet? --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Flickr licensing

I'd really like to include this image in an article but firstly, I don't know if the t-shirt image would count as derivative work (the image is a copyrighted piece of artwork by Trevor Brown) and secondly I don't know how to contact the user to change the licensing if the image is usable. Any help or direction to where I should ask this question will be greatly appreciated :) Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 11:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The T-shirt is one of the main focuses of the image, so the photo is a derivative work. Unless it somehow constitutes fair use, you would need to get a release from both the photographer and the copyright holder of the t-shirt. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help :). Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 17:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Image sources

Yes.. I posted a photo of an old Cream of Wheat box in the Cream of Wheat section, and i tried my best to give the sources, but all i really have to offer is the link to the picture on the website i found it on. I want to keep the image up, so i'm wondering who i need to contact from the site to find out who holds the copyright status and sources. Thank you, Terminator14 (talk) 03:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a possibility: If it was published before 1964 and the copyright was not renewed, then it's public domain now. The tag if that is the case, is {{PD-Pre1964}}. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 04:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

What do i do in that case? Terminator14 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Search the copyright office records.[18] If it hasn't been renewed, it is public domain and you can give that as the reason. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 06:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I just got back and didn't really find anything, it seems it wasn't renewed. Now what do i do? Terminator14 (talk) 08:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I added the tags for you. It was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, and Commons has different names for the copyright tags. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Artist Jeff Koons on Google.com home page, use of his banner ad

The artist Jeff Koons did a drawing that appeared as the Google Banner Ad or Google Home Page image on 2008-04-30. How do I properly mark the image so that it does not get deleted? Please let me know or feel free to mark it up if that would be easier for you. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkromedic (talk • contribs) 08:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the copyright owner is unlikely to release it under a free license, you would have to upload it as a fair use image. See Wikipedia:Non-free content --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Also note that our usual boilerplate fair use rationale templates for logos (such as {{logo fur}}) aren't likely to work very well here, since they're mostly geared towards uses of logos in articles about the company or organization owning the logo. What you'd need to do in this case is come up with a convincing justification for using that logo image in an article about its author. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point. The tag {{Non-free 2D art}} would probably be the closest to what you need in that case. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Logo of Aramco in Aramco article is wrong

Logo of Aramco in "Aramco" article is wrong and I want to replace it with the correct one. I have it as an SVG file.

Please help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huwaidi (talk • contribs) 09:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Uploading_images --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sar-el logo

I got this message and I'm not sure what to write in order to correct it. I added this: "Summary: Sar-El logo found here." Is this correct? Please help!

Fair use rationale for Image:Sarel logo.gif Thanks for uploading Image:Sarel logo.gif. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Telstar2 (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I added a fair use rationale. It should be okay now. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Telstar2 (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Statistics

I wanted to know how many images/graphics/illustrations does wikipedia currently index in its millions of articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.165.194 (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:AncientPhonecian.jpg

I found this posted pic Image:AncientPhonecian.jpg which is taken from a book cover entitled "Phoenicians , Lebanon's epic heritage", you can actually see how it was cropped from this page [19], the user who uploaded it has released it into public domain without a proper permission, is it actually acceptable to do so???

As long as it's a 2-dimensional art, with no added creative input, it's okay, according to Bridgeman v Corel --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Figuring out if these are copyrighted

I visited the M.D. Anderson Library, which is the University of Houston's main library recently. I went to the library's Special collection, and found some great images from the university archives that are a really great way to illustrate parts of the university's history. I told the library that I'd like to use these images on a Wikimedia project (namely Wikipedia), and asked if they were under public domain. The special collection librarian in charge of copyright assured me these images are free because they are owned by the University of Houston, a public, Texas institution. I also had to sign a form stating the intent of use for the images, and I stated that they would be used for Wikipedia. This is on file at the library.

I've been trying to find anything about this elsewhere, but I can't. The library has digitized the two images I'd like to use for me. One is from 1938, a preliminary drawing by the architect of the first building at the university. The second is from 1945, a view of the school's original library. Neither of the images have copyright notices attached to them, and I wasn't given any sort of copyright notice by the library when they were electronically delivered to me.

Here is the word for word statement that was in the e-mail (email addresses removed to combat spam):

From:

Justin Hughes Digitization Technician Special Collections 114 University Libraries University of Houston Houston, TX 77204-2000

April 30, 2008

Dear Mr. Reading,

Please find attached the third and final batch of requested images from Special Collections, University of Houston.

When publishing these images in print, electronically, or on a website, please use the following citation:

Drawing of Roy G. Cullen Memorial Building, 1938, UH Photographs Collection. Courtesy of Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries.

Library, Roy G. Cullen Memorial Building, 1945, UH Photographs Collection. Courtesy of Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries.

Thank you for your patronage!

-J. Hughes

If there are any further questions, please contact:

Julie Grob Digital Projects and Instruction Librarian Special Collections 114 University Libraries University of Houston Houston, TX 77204-2000 (713) 743-9744

Are these images in public domain? There are a few main issues I'd point at here. The images don't have a copyright notice on them, and were published prior to 1989. The library knew the purpose, and released them to me. They claimed they were free images. I just don't want to be posting things up that will be taken down.

-Brianreading (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

If the copyright wasn't renewed, {{PD-Pre1964}} may apply as well. For not publishing with a copyright notice, {{PD-Pre1978}} may apply. There are multiple possible Public Domain rationales, so my opinion is that it isn't a problem. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Brianreading (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)