Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2008/March

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


Image:Ur-Quan Kzer-Za.png

The above image is copyrighted and under a creative commons license according to the link on the image's page. Does it still need a rationale?--Rockfang (talk) 12:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ur-Quan Masters is a tricky subject, to be honest. I know they definitely open sourced the code a few years back, but the images and the old 3DO music, I'm not sure. Will (talk) 12:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The ship images are CC-BY-SA-NC[1] so not free for wikipedia.Geni 17:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I uploaded a bunch a few years ago, which recently got mass deleted per invalid rationale. If anyone wants the files and will prepare proper rationales, let me know. Andre (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Blu-ray covers

Should fairuse images originating from a Blu-ray disc cover use the Template:DVD rationale or some other template or are they even allowed? MBisanz talk 22:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think using DVD rationale is perfectly okay for Blu-ray covers. Megapixie (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Image Copyright

I have upload image of Rahimatur muncipal Council building Muncipal_corp_rahimatpur.JPG. I don't know what copyright i need to put because i took this image using my personal camera. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahesh kashinath gaikwad (talkcontribs) 04:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You can choose any copyright tag from WP:ICTIC. —teb728 t c 05:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
There are lots of options. The most popular (and most restrictive license allowed) is Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike. Basically Atribution means that anyone who uses/copies the image is required to attribute yourself. ShareAlike means that anyone who uses any part of your image must use the same type of license (so they can't copyright the derivative image. To use that license add {{Cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}} to the image description. Royalbroil 05:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Publicity photograph supplied by the subject of my article

Katharinemcmahon (talk) Hi, Article: Katharine McMahon, British Author.

The subject (Katharine McMahon) has supplied a publicity photograph for me to use on her official website ( and in her Wikipedia entry. I'm not sure which category this falls into. Is it 'fair use - living person?' Can you advise? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katharinemcmahon (talkcontribs) 09:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Katharine - unfortunately, to use an image of a living person on Wikipedia, you'll need to get it either released into the public domain or released under a free license, such as the GNU Free Documentation License. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
You may be able to convince the copyright holder to release it under a free license. See WP:COPYREQ for assistance. howcheng {chat} 06:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Filelinks Query

I want to ask a practical question on uploading images. I'm in the process of uploading an Alliance Youth image and want to know how on an image's page with rationale, licensing and file history can I put on a link to the Alliance Youth page under filelinks. This is practical information that can help me and anyone else using Wikipedia.Political Dweeb (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The "File links" section of an image page is not user-modifiable; it simply shows what pages are currently using that image. So if you upload an image, go to Alliance Youth and add the image to that page, a link to that article will automatically show up on the image's "File links" section. In other words, don't worry about it. ;) -- Hux (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Hux for explaining that the Young Alliance filelink is automatic however I have one final practical question to ask you. How do I upload that image of the Alliance Youth logo onto the Alliance Youth page.Political Dweeb (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, it looks like you had a go at this but didn't get it right, and then another user fixed it. In case it isn't obvious, all you needed to do was to edit the Alliance Youth article and add the following line at the top of the section where you want the image to appear: [[Image:Alliance_Youth_Logo_phpBB.gif|thumb|right|Logo of the Alliance Youth]]
Regards, Hux (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Vincennes shot.jpg

image on site

This image is rife with questionable copyright, it's supposedly {{GFDL}} yet has a watermark from from the site it was obtained from. That site makes use of images like this photo somebody took of a TV program

A discussion at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 February 4 was unable to determine the status but decided it could be kept nonetheless (despite not addressing the blatant misapplication of license). Since I figured discussion of its status was a bit pointless, (if the uploader was indeed the creator of the image I'd like to think he could manage a copy without another site's watermark on it).

Now I'm not asking for the image to be deleted here, as it's up for deletion elsewhere, but my question is what's the deal with this image from a copyright standpoint, is it really ok to upload stuff like this claiming it as your own? Anynobody 02:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I see two issues: First, it's entirely possible (albeit unlikely) that the site in question has released the work under the GFDL, but if not then the uploader has no right to release it under such a license (or any other license). Looking at the summary, it might be saying that the the site is indeed releasing it on those terms, but since I don't speak Farsi I can't tell for sure. Maybe you could find a Farsi speaker to translate? Second, as the licensing section correctly notes, Iran is not a party to any of the international copyright treaties that force people to recognize copyrights in foreign works, so any works produced in Iran have no copyright protection in the United States. As a result, Wikipedia can legally do whatever it likes with such works irrespective of whether or not the website has released it. It would be nice if we could get better source info but ultimately it's not a problem for Wikipedia, liability-wise, so the image certainly shouldn't be deleted on the basis of a copyright issue. -- Hux (talk) 02:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for responding :) Your answer prompts other questions though, like how can we know it's the site's image to release? They're also releasing photos of pictures on a TV and labeling it GFDL. (I've been told by the uploader the language is actually Persian.) And also, just because it's from an Iranian site, does that mean if the photo's owner is Israeli he/she can't sue us? Anynobody 02:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Therein lies the problem: is the Iranian site the real owner of the photo, or did they get it from someone else whose copyright is legally valid in the US? If it's the latter then yes, in theory that copyright owner could sue Wikipedia, so that's why in general we try to err on the side of caution. Sometimes, though, we have to make a judgment on the information at hand. In this instance, I think it's reasonable to assume that the work is Iranian, given the subject matter, in which case there's no legal issue at stake. It would still be good to try to attribute it correctly anyway though, for the sake of courtesy. Oh, and FYI, "Farsi" and "Persian" are two different words for the same language (the latter is just the name of the language in English). ;) -- Hux (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


This image was recently tagged with a db-I9 as a suspected copyright violation. I noticed that the artist of the image, Howard Coale, has a similar name to the uploader, User:Hcoale, so I figured this could be a legitimate creative commons license. I was going to ask the user to clarify if he was the same person as the artist and confirm the licensing. However, the user hasn't been active for some time, so it's unlikely he will respond on his talk page. His email appears to be enabled, so I could try emailing him. I guess my question is over how far we ought to go to validate the CC license claim, or do we accept it unless contacted by the artist?--Kubigula (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

For reference the copy of this image uploaded to commons, Commons:Image:Harold Brodkey-New Yorker.jpg, has also been nominated for deletion. —teb728 t c 05:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. Under the circumstances, I've gone ahead and emailed the uploader to see if we can confirm that it's the artist. I am still curious whether this kind of verification is usually considered necessary. I suppose it depends on the image, what other versions are available on the net, and the licensing of those other versions etc.--Kubigula (talk) 05:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
For users who are the subject of articles, it's best to verify their identity in some way. We don't want it someone just using a similar username. OTRS is your friend in this case. howcheng {chat} 06:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

how to enter info to get image to show up

I have spent several hours trying to find the right template to fill out re image "Rothkevflyer.jpg" so I can show it on the entry for Samuel Roth. I have no idea what to do to enter info on "determine the license and the source of the image." Where to enter it. The links only lead to long articles. It is an old newspaper image and I have had perm to use the image. It is clearly fair use to use it in this entry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgertzma (talkcontribs) 05:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Insert [[Image:Rothkefvflyer.jpg|thumb|right|Caption]] in the article where you want the image to appear. —teb728 t c 05:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Jgertzma, you have typed in the wrong image name in the article. Royalbroil 06:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, notice that the image name has an f both before and after the v. —teb728 t c 16:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

pic uploading.

how do i get back to the pic i up loaded for your site? i have the info but can't figure out how to get back to it so i can update it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by R B P J (talkcontribs) 08:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Your image is Image:Jamie Bell.jpg‎. (If you click on “my contributions” at the top of every page, you can get a list of all your contributions.) —teb728 t c 16:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


The image was created by the school's web team. I am a teacher at the school and have their permission to use it on the wiki page. How should I properly label the image. They have stated it should be public domain.

GateTree (talk) 13:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Tag the image with {{PD-because|reason}} replaceing reason with the reason it is public domain.Geni 14:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
In the reason, please also note the person/entity who released the photo, just in case there are any problems later on down the line. Thanks. -- Hux (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Images from

Are images available from the french government website copyright free? Can they be used on wiki, especially the image of Lucien Febvre? STTW (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I think french goverment images are protected by copyright. US fed goverment is unusal in that they are not.Geni 18:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Is a wikipedia logo that I modified for the purpose of an award (like a barnstar) allowed on wikipedia? Signed, Nothing444 18:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure. If it's Wikipedia created then it's freely usable and if your modification does not substantially transform it into a new work then it remains freely usable. -- Hux (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Correction: ironically it appears that the logo in question is copyrighted and not usable without permission. -- Hux (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

uploading an image of me

DevorahLeah (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)I am the woman who discovered the rock group RUSH and in Sept. 2006, I was keynote speaker at a British convention of fans. The organizer took a photo of me speaking and sent the image to me several months later. He said he hoped I enjoyed it, and that I could use the image if I wanted to. Since then, I have used it several times. Today, I tried to upload it to my web-page (I never did like the one photo that is currently on the page!) but I got an error message that I did something wrong and the photo will soon be deleted -- umm, I am a newbie and the pages and pages of instructions really made my eyes glaze over.

Please help me fix whatever I need to fix-- something about a tag? I don't know from tags. I was given permission to use the photo. An amateur fan took the picture at my request. He said I could use it. It was never published anywhere in a magazine or book or anyplace else. I tried to post it for use on my web page. What did I do wrong?

Unfortunately, just getting permission from the photographer is not enough for Wikipedia. In order for the photo to be usable here, that photographer must explicitly release it either into the public domain or under a free license such as the GDFL. See WP:COPYREQ for more info.
Regarding tags, every image must contain information about its copyright status. This info is placed on the "licensing" section of the image page. See this image as an example. If you click the "edit" link in the "licensing" section you can see that the uploader used the {{Non-free film screenshot}} tag. For more info about image tags check out WP:ICT. (However, don't add a tag until the photographer has released the image to Wikipedia!) -- Hux (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Police booking photo and fair use?

Some months ago I uploaded the image david hahn mugshot.jpgusing the Mug Shot/Booking Photo rationale for fair use, and explained it on the discussion page of the image. Now many months later I received a message from user Samuell stating that I did not provide a rationale for the fair use tag, and that the image will be deleted unless I do so. Anyone knows what else I am supposed to provide in such case? What am I missing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdsouza (talkcontribs) 20:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

A reason why you think it is fair use and the name of whatever article(s) it is meant to be in.Geni 21:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
To elaborate on what Geni said, you need to put a Fair Use rationale in the "summary" section of the image page itself. See this image for an example. Also, bear in mind that there needs to be a separate rationale for each article on which this image appears (which in this case is only one article). -- Hux (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Maas Brothers

I have scanned a copy of the Maas Brothers logo from my own credit card. How do I denote the copyright status of this? Thanks for your help Dma124 (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Use the template {{Non-free logo}}. Remember to write a fair use rationale (or the image will be deleted) instructions are here. Hope this helps Mr Senseless (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


I uploaded a pic under the name of Jenaveve Posing.jpg. from from and its located in my own account. It's been subjected to speedy deletion, how can I stop that since its from my account on

Have you relesed the image under a free license such as the GFDL?Geni 00:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


I uploaded a pic under the name of Jenaveve Posing.jpg. from from and its located in my own account. It's been subjected to speedy deletion, how can I stop that since its from my account on —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supper76 (talkcontribs) 23:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the comments of the deleting admin here, it's apparent that the deleting admin didn't realise that the image was your own work, and assumed you were uploading another persons work. The original image is apparently tagged as "all rights reserved" on flickr. Two suggestions, make it clear in the image description page that the photo is your own work, change the license on flickr to a compatible creative commons license - i.e. cc-by or cc-by-sa. Megapixie (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Deep sea pictures

The images Image:Nur04507.jpg and Image:Nur04505.jpg appear to have the wrong copyright tag, which includes: "This media file is in the public domain in the United States. This applies to U.S. works where the copyright has expired, often because its first publication occurred prior to January 1, 1923." I sincerely doubt the pictures were taken before 1923, since hydrothermal vent ecosystems were unknown, and I doubt the copyright has expired in any other fashion. If it is determined to be a work of the government or a governmental organization, it would be public domain and qualify to remain, but I see no justification for the current tag.--♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ (talk) 05:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I changed their licenses to PD-USGov-NOAA since the images were found at NOAA's website. Royalbroil 06:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

International copyright laws

Hey guys, I was hoping someone could give me some quick help over at the page, Tomorrow's Pioneers. The page contained many links to YouTube (and other website) clips from a Palestinian TV show which has been translated into English with subtitles. I'm not really up on my international copyright law, but it seems to me that this is very questionable material. I doubt, for instance, that the translation alone would grant the translator rights to the clip considering there are online versions of the translated transcript. Then again, I seem to remember that unless a country has signed a copyright treaty which the US is also a part of, copyright laws are not respected. Eitehr way, I deleted all of the links a few days ago but one of the editors who patrols the article reverted my edit. Rather than start an edit war I figured I'd defer to your judgment. Thanks so much, -Thibbs (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know (but don't quote me on this), Wikipedia policy is that editors should not link to any site that uses copyrighted works without the consent of the copyright holder. Irrespective of who owns the rights to the clips you're talking about, YouTube is clearly such a site given that it hosts millions of videos that people have uploaded without any permission, so on that basis Wikipedia articles should never be linking to YouTube (except perhaps on the article about YouTube itself). -- Hux (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, there are legitimate uploaders on YouTube as well, but I agree that the vast majority are just copyvios. howcheng {chat} 06:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
My question more relates to the existence or non-existence of copyrights protecting the original videos rather than the source they come from. Apparently there are two major groups who translate the videos for Western viewers. These two organizations are MEMRI and Palestinian Media Watch. MEMRI hosts videos on its website and it seems that PMW hosts .asx video files on its website as well as posts videos on YouTube under its own account name. My question is whether wikipedia should be linking to videos by either or both of these groups or if it should simply cite the original show which is broadcast by the Hamas-run Al-Aqsa TV station of Palestine.
In discussion on Tomorrow's Pioneers it has been suggested that since the US considers Hamas to be a terrorist organization, it doesn't consider that Hamas has any copyright protection. Is this true? Are there any intellectual property rights from Palestine which the US respects? Furthermore, is wikipedia legally considered to be a US website? It has also been suggested that Al-Aqsa TV is not a legal entity sanctioned by any country, and that there is no international licensing covering distribution of racist materials like Mein Kampf and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. My instincts tell me that this is incorrect. Thoughts?
Finally, if there are no copyrights protecting the original source of this material then what would be the best way to cite it? Should we use the YouTube clips? Should we link to .asx files? Should we go with the non-Youtube video links from MEMRI? Some combination of the three? Or if copyright protection covers this material then would we be allowed to cite transcripts? -Thibbs (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
To address your questions:
  • Regarding the "the US considers Hamas to be a terrorist organization, it doesn't consider that Hamas has any copyright protection" argument - AFAIK that's bogus. Hamas' terrorist status in the eyes of the US is irrelevant to whether or not Hamas-produced works enjoy copyright protection in the US.
  • Regarding Al-Aqsa's legal status, again that's not relevant in terms of whether its work has copyright protection. It's only relevant in figuring out who has such protection, i.e. is it the TV station or is it the individual(s) who created the work? If copyright is honored in the Palestinian territories then someone must be the copyright owner.
  • Yes, the English Wikipedia is based in the United States, so its actions are governed by US copyright law.
  • Whether or not works produced in the Palestinian territories have copyright protection in the US depends on two things, as far as I can see: 1) whether Israel is a signatory to the various international treaties governing recognition of copyright by foreign entities, AND 2) whether the Palestinian territories are considered part of Israel for such purposes. I'm assuming that since Israel is a WIPO member state, the answer to #1 is yes. I'm not so sure about #2 though, given that those territories exist in legal limbo: they don't constitute a separate country but then they're not in general considered a straightforward sub-entity of Israel either. It's a bit of a minefield really (no pun intended).
  • If the works in question do not enjoy copyright protection in the US then imo it would be better to avoid YouTube and link to MEMRI, or some other site that does not also host obviously infringing content.
  • If they do enjoy such protection then we can't link to complete transcripts as those are copyrighted as well. We could link to partial transcripts (and partial video clips too, for that matter) and use them in accordance with Fair Use though.
If I had to stick my neck out and make a decision, I'd say that works produced in the Palestinian territories likely fall under the copyright laws of Israel and that Wikipedia should therefore respect them as such, i.e. we would require attribution and the correct use of copyright tags on each work we use, just as we do with works from almost every other place in the world. -- Hux (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! That's exactly what I needed to know. Cheers! -Thibbs (talk) 04:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


I received a message from User:Nv8200p about Image:Chewstoke.gif saying "the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content". When I uploaded the file in April 2006 I included in the summary "with the permission of the artist Jenny Ireson and the parish council who commissioned it." Can you tell me what else I need to add to clarify the source?— Rod talk 08:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If you add that to the image description that would probably be sufficient. Megapixie (talk) 08:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks I've added that to the summary - is this what you mean by image description?— Rod talk 08:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Using an official promotional photo

I'm working on the page for Ed Feulner, president of the Heritage Foundation. This is my first project and I've never uploaded pictures before. It stands to reason that the picture on his official bio[2] would be appropriate to use, after all it is available for download in a high resolution. But I do not know if it violates Wikipedia policies anyway. Can someone give me a definitive answer, or hopefully explain what is the best license to choose if I can upload it? --Stargat (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but it doesn't look good: Wikipedia image policy generally is that all images should be licensed under a free license (or be in the public domain). Non-free images can be used only under special circumstances, including that they could not reasonably be replaced by a free image. An image of a living person is almost always replaceable, because someone could just take a photo of them.
The Heritage Foundation site says “All Rights Reserved © 2008, The Heritage Foundation”; so apparently the image there is non-free. You might try inquiring of the Heritage Foundation if there is a free image, or if this image might be freely licensed. (Note that “free” mean reusable by anyone for anything.) See WP:COPYREQ. —teb728 t c 22:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Guidance needed for non-commercial permission

I need some guidance - I work for the Institution of Civil Engineers and on the page List of Presidents of the Institution of Civil Engineers (and elsewhere) there is an image of William Henry Barlow. This is not the correct image (no idea who it is). We have an image which we own the rights to, and we would like it to be used on Wikipedia, but we would like to be notified of any other non-commercial use, and we would not allow it to be used commercially for free.

Is there any kind of license that would allow us to do this?

--Mrussell78 (talk) 10:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure you own a copyright on the image? Considering that he died in 1902, I should think an image of him would be in the public domain. In any case Wikipedia does not accept permission for non-commercial use. —teb728 t c 20:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I am the original uploader of the above image which I got from here where it must have been erroneously captioned. I will remove it from the articles and delete it (as I have no idea who it is otherwise). I hope something can be worked out for getting more pictures of ex-presidents onto Wikipedia in the future. Thanks for pointing it out - Dumelow (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Image use in a magazine

Image:Anne-Louis Girodet-Trioson 005.jpg

Do you know what the copyright laws are for using this image in a magazine? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That image is in the public domain worldwide; so it may be used in a magazine. —teb728 t c 20:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Andy Hunter image

I've uploaded a picture of Andy Hunter. Image:Andy-Hunter.jpg It's a downgraded picture I got from the TV. What do I have to do to keep this picture here and how can I use it for both the Andy Hunter article and the Michael Higgs article. Michael Higgs is the actor who played Andy Hunter. I just don't know what to write where to keep at least one of my images on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rune Thandy (talkcontribs) 22:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You have the right copyright tag but your Fair Use rationale could do with being a little more extensive. Take a look at this image as an example of a solid Fair Use rationale. -- Hux (talk) 09:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright category?

The image upload form currently only really allows for two kinds of category: Your own work or Someone else's work (which requires a release). It seems to me that Wikipedia needs another category for people, like myself, who are copyright holders but not necessarily the original creators. This situation is quite common where the original creator has died and the work (and the copyright) are now owned by their Estate. I want to upload a number of images for which I (representing the Estate of the deceased) am the copyright holder. But since I am not the original creator, do I have to give myself formal permission to do so or is there a simpler way? Thanks in advance. --Wardsislander (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

In that case, use the "Your own work" form. howcheng {chat} 21:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Passports and ID's


i was wondering, if i wanted to submit scanned copies of my passports/ID's, what license would i chose in the list?

//Santiago —Preceding unsigned comment added by Santiagosilva (talkcontribs) 09:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Which country are the passports/IDs from? In some countries, official government documents cannot be copyrighted and are in the public domain by default (and Wikipedia typically has a specific template you can use). In other countries this is not the case. -- Hux (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

copyright of a photo of a relief statue

I was wondering if Image:Switzerland Zürich Grossmünster Zwingli Münch 1935.jpg could potentially cause a copyright violation for Wikipedia. The photographer has given permission to use the image, but is it not possible that the relief statue itself is under copyright? What are the copyright rules for using the photographs of (relatively) modern statues? --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"In Switzerland, works permanently installed at or on publicly accessible places or ground may be pictured, and such pictures may be offered for sale, sold, transmitted, or otherwise published. It must not be possible to use the picture for the same purpose as the original." [3] This is not the case in the US. Ty 15:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If publishing house have right to use wiki images?

Hello, could you please give me information on if the publishing house has right to use images from your website with copyright sign:"I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide.In case this is not legally possible, I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.

Thank you very much in advance. With best wishes! Alexandra —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's Public Domain, anyone can use it in any way. If it's GFDL or Creative Commons, certain conditions apply. Ty 15:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Photo for biography

I have just created the article for Moshé Machover. I wrote to Professor Machover, to request a photo, and he sent me one. What details do I need to quote in order to upload the photo and use it in the article? RolandR (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You didn’t mention anything about licensing from the photographer. In order to be used on Wikipedia the photo needs to be licensed under a free license (i.e. one that allows reuse by anyone for anything). See WP:COPYREQ. —teb728 t c 21:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


I upload my photo to insert in my page and somehow I met with problems. The photo is my personal work and I downloaded it directly from my computer. Can you pls guide me how to do it correctly without being obliged to visit all the sites related to downloading a picture. Thanks.Therese Dvir79.183.229.81 (talk) 03:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The image you uploaded appears to be a professional image, meaning it was taken by a professional photographer at a portrait studio. Even if you purchased the image as part of a package, you have not purchased the copyright. Therefore, this image may not be used without permission from the photographer. It would be best to instead upload an image you've taken yourself. Upload and freely license it. LaraLove 04:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

One Week (film) images in PD?

Hi. The screenshot Image:Keaton One Week 1920.jpg (from One Week (film)) was recently deleted due to "a non-free use rationale that is disputed". I contacted the deleting admin (at User talk:Maxim#One Week (film)), who has kindly restored the image temporarily.

The film itself is in the Public Domain (freely downloadable at Does this automatically mean the screenshots are too? Could someone help me with labeling the 2 images used at One Week (film)? Much thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 05:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Use {{PD-US}}. I fixed the image copyright for Image:Keaton One Week 1920.jpg. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 05:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Can I remove the (now superfluous?) fairuse statement, like this? Or does one need to be added for Image:Oneweektitlecard.png?
Also: Should they both be moved to commons, so that other languages can use them? and of the seeming myriad methods of doing that, is just tagging it with {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} good enough? (the large size of the PD image categories here at Wikipedia has me confused, and I don't know where to even begin looking for the history of why we have free images here at all(?!))
Thanks again. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 06:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes you can move them to the Commons. You should add proof that the film was released before 1923 and is in the public domain. The Commons is sometimes overly strict on copyright and will delete an image that does not have a good claim on public domain.
Simply state that the movie was released on September 1, 1920 in the United States. You could reference the Internet Movie Database
I also found a movie review in the October 25, 1920 issue of the New York Times. (I added it to the article.)
We have free images here because you have at get a separate account on the Commons. They also have a more international view on copyright. You will find people claiming an image must be deleted because in their country the image would be under copyright. For example a picture of a table with a copyrighted book on it. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


I'm having a really hard time buying that this image was created over 100 years ago, before the invention of synthetics used to create this gear. Not sure what to do with it though, since I don't really have any proof that it's a copyvio I didn't want to tag it for deletion just yet, but if the rationale is that the author of the photo has been dead for 100 years, I'd say that's a pretty bogus claim. Advice?
Cheers! --Peco! Peco!TALK 18:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no source. Tag it with {{subst:nsd}} to request that proof be provided that it is over 100 years old. --Yamla (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, now he's claiming he's the creator of the content. How dubious is that? He asserts that he picked it up at a flea market AND he's the content creator? Thoughts?  --Peco! Peco!TALK 23:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ペコペコ (talkcontribs)

how do you provide info and acqure a copyright tag?


i have been informed via my user page that two of my photos titled Bryce Cam.jpg and Uni Dun.jpg are in danger of being deleted if i can not provide evidence of a license for permission of my photo.

problem is how would you provide info and acquire a copyright tag so my photos can be salvaged.

thank you for bringing this to my attention Kilnburn (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Who took the photos? If you took them yourself, choose a tag from WP:ICTIC. If someone else took them see WP:COPYREQ. —teb728 t c 21:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
i personally took the pictures and nobody else had a part to play Kilnburn (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Bineth Max meir picture

You deleted his picture, It belongs to me and I have the copy write. Please put it back. I don't know how to. Michelle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gross55 (talkcontribs) 21:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you own the copyright to the picture? If so edit the image page Image:Meir reading1.gif and indicate that your are willing to license it under one of our free licenses (assuming you are). See answer to previous question for instructions.--agr (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

HOw do i know which pics are OK

How do i know which pictures are OK to upload and where do i found their source/ license?? HomieG2008 (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Almost all pictures you can find on the internet are going to copyrighted and not licensed under a free license, and therefore not uploadable to Wikipedia. Major exceptions are U.S. government photos (which are generally in the public domain, and therefore uploadable), very old photos (generally these are in the public domain if the creator of the image has been deceased for at least 75 years), or photos that, though copyrighted, cannot possibly be replaced by free images (corporate logos, photographs of deceased people, etc.). It's much more complicated than this, of course, but that's the short answer. I'd urge you to ask about specific photos here before uploading for a while, until you have a feel for things yourself. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Public domain of republished book?

Many older warship articles lack helpful pictures or diagrams. I have access to the 1914 edition of Jane's Fighting Ships, surely in the public domain, except that it's a 1969 reprint by a New York publisher. Are the contents all considered public domain because of their age? Nyttend (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Use {{PD-US}} — "for images published in the U.S. before 1923": Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Public_domain#General. Reprinting material does not constitute a new copyright. Ty 01:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Images being marked for deletion due to no fair use rationale

There are some images that belong to the City Life (computer game) article that have been marked for deletion due to no explanation of fair use. I don't know how to add an explanation as to why they are under fair use and was hoping someone could help out. The images are Image:CityLife Packshot.jpg, Image:Citylife screen01.jpg, Image:Citylife screen02.jpg, Image:Citylife screen09.jpg, Image:Citylife screen10.jpg. As each image description page says, the images were included as a fansite kit for promotional reasons by the game developers. I'm pretty sure that would count as fair use, but I have no idea as to the proper methods of listing it as such. Any help is appreciated, thanks. PoeticXcontribs 01:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Update, I was thinking about adding the following, please let me know if this is the proper way:
Fair use rationale for use in the article City Life (computer game) 

Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:

  1. It was released in a fansite kit by the copyright holder for promotional purposes.
  2. The image is only being used for informational purposes.
  3. Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because it shows the subject of this article.

PoeticXcontribs 01:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

For the cover art I would suggest using a {{game rationale}} tag instead of both the {{non-free promotional}} and the {{non-free game cover}} tags. It was designed for game cover images. (You also will have to reduce the image resolution: low resolution is required for non-free images. 300 pixels would be a good height)
As for the screenshots, I don’t think that any valid rationale is possible. The problem is that WP:NFCC#8 allows use of non-free images only if they contribute significantly to an article. —teb728 t c 03:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Melissa Theuriau photo

I found a photo of Melissa Theuriau on flickr, and I've contacted the author to ask permission to use it, and he said that I could do so as long as I gave credit and included his name as the photographer. This isn't an issue since wikipedia's image form asks for that anyway, my question is, what license might I be able to include it under? He states in his response that the photo isn't public domain, and that he doesn't know the difference between creative commons or GFDL.

It's been five days since I last emailed him, and he hasn't responded yet. Should I keep trying to contact him to get clarification/wait for a response, or publish it under one of those two licenses (CC or GFDL) and send him the link to the page like he asked, and if he has a problem, he can contact me? Just wondering about it. Please leave me a message on my talk page if you have any ideas. I think creative commons might be the best license choice, since he didn't want it to be public domain, so I think GFDL wouldn't meet his wants. Anyway, any help or advice would be appreciated.

I sent a message giving wikipedia's definitions of the creative commons licenses, as well as one asking him to change the licensing if he chose a creative commons license, however, it hasn't been responded to yet. --Jonjames1986 (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think which license to release it under is a decision that needs to be made by the copyright holder. Even if the spirit of his response was that he was okay with it being released under a free license, you need to wait for him to select one (note also that you don't say anything about derivative works, which is an important element of all free licenses accepted here). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I sent another email yesterday asking about the photo again, and I again included wikipedia's definitions of the accepted licenses, hopefully I'll get a response soon, it is a nice photo, and since he stated he's willing to allow it, I'm hoping one of the licenses will satisfy him.--Jonjames1986 (talk) 05:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Permission to copy and reproduce certain data, information, drawings , photos from the Wikipedia

Please let me know whether I may copy and reproduce selected literature,data, drawings and photos in my book wich I intend to get published. Of course, credit lines in favour of the source of information / Wikipedia shall be give by me.

Thanking you,

               Yours faithfully,
                    S. Saran  —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC) 
Anything on Wikipedia (except for content specifically indicated as being fair use) can be freely reproduced, except more of it (including almost all text) requires proper attribution. Read the GNU Free Documentation License for more information. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Text by wiki editors is released under GFDL, which requires you credit the main authors (up to 5 nominally), the source (wikipedia) and reproduce the GFDL licence in your book, as well as continuing to release that material under GFDL. Material can be modified, but that should be indicated. Many images are released under GFDL (check image page) under the same terms. Images released under Creative Commons (CC) usually require attribution (if CC-by). Some images on wiki are public domain (PD) and have no terms attached. Ty 08:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Why have book-covers been deleted and how can I get them back as easily as possible?

Hello, I have just today noticed that images I uploaded onto the biographical page about the author and illustrator Nigel Benson have been deleted. No-one emailed me to say this was happening. Apparently images can be deleted after one week of being tagged but some of us have lives outside of Wikipedia so don’t check every page every week! I think those that delete images, or make other radical changes to websites, should at least have the courtesy to contact the authors and uploaders involved.

Anyway, I now have the tedious task of having to correct this damage, so please help me do it as quickly and efficiently as possible.

According to the deleter, BetacommandBot:

‘…the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.’

The three images that have been deleted are all low-res images of book-covers, they are:

The last one is particularly important because the text in the article actually refers to the image on the book cover.

As a general prinicple, I think it is obvious that low resolution images of book covers are ‘fair use’ because they are freely used all over the internet, and beyond, by book reviewers and book-sellers (e.g. amazon). So wouldn’t it be much easier for everyone to assume that a book-cover is fair use UNLESS it is claimed otherwise by the publisher or author? I can think of few cases where a publisher or author would not normally be happy for a book-cover to be put on Wikipedia (e.g. a dispute about a cover between an author and publisher). In other words, ‘if it’s not broke, don’t fix it’.

Anyway, please tell me what I should do to get the images put back that have been deleted, and prevent this from happening again. The instructions given by BetacommandBot are long-winded and confusing. Surely I don’t have to justify every book-cover image with 10 detailed justifications, as suggested?

Susie Abbott —Preceding unsigned comment added by Susieabbott (talkcontribs) 11:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that BetacommandBot and many others persist in referring to non-free use rationales by the confusing name, “fair use rationale.” What is required in the rationale goes well beyond showing fair use. A Wikipedia non-free use rationale explains why non-free content should be used despite Wikipedia’s policy discouraging non-free content. See WP:NFCC.
For example, the covers of Introducing Psychology and the other trilogy books, although they are probably “fair use,” their use in Nigel Benson is questionable under WP:NFCC#8, because it does not contribute much to the article: They just illustrate the books, which require no illustration. The Dunstable in Detail cover would be permitted because that cover is actually discussed in the article.
Image:DunInDetail.jpg was deleted by User:Maxim. If you leave him a request on his talk page, he might temporarily resore it (if you don’t have a copy). Then you could add a {{non-free use rationale}} tag.
(By the way, neither fair use nor Wikipedia’s non-free content policy require the consent of the copyright owner.) —teb728 t c 23:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

how to add copyright tag?

how to add copyright tag? to this image —Preceding unsigned comment added by Czarek (talkcontribs) 13:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The tag for a non-free logo like this is {{non-free logo}}. Since it is a non-free image, you will also have to provide a non-free use rationale for each use. You could use a {{logo fur}} template for that. —teb728 t c 23:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Meaning of the word-'Mississauga'

Elsewhere in our Wikipedia, I learned that 'Mississi' meant in Ojibwe language, 'great'.Now I wish to know what are the meanings of suffixes to this word, like "sipi" and "sauga". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That’s not a media copyright question; so don’t expect an answer here. But you might be able to find something in the Mississaugas article or by asking at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. —teb728 t c 21:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:MATS.jpg

Source of image and proper copyright tags have been added :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

How do i make copyright work

keeps telling me i didn't do it right —Preceding unsigned comment added by The1edit (talkcontribs) 04:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I presume you're talking about this image; if so, the problem is that it's missing a fair use rationale. The easiest way to insert such a rationale is to add this template to the image page and then fill it out. I hope this is helpful, and please let me know if you have any other questions. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Clowns by Petar Mazev.jpg warning

Hi, I received a License tagging warning from User:ImageTaggingBow about an image that I have uploaded. This image is my still photo of the artwork. I have tagged this image as:


What have I done wrong, and which licence tag should I use?

I would say your photo is a derivative work of the original artwork, the copyright on which is presumably owned by the heirs of Petar Mazev. You can’t grant a GFDL license on it because you do not own the copyright. —teb728 t c 21:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
It is my painting, I own it.Crnorizec (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Ownership of the phyiscal painting does not mean you own the copyright on it.Geni 23:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
If I own the painting and I cannot publish my photo of my painting, I must say I'm a bit confused. Which licence applies in this case?Crnorizec (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
It is confusing, I grant you that. I don't know what the law is where you live, or under what legal conditions you acquired the painting, but it is true that at least in some countries (e.g. Germany), paintings are often sold by artists under the condition that the copyright, unlike the physical ownership, remains with the artist. Don't know if that was the case in your case. For the moment, I have re-tagged the image as "fair use", which I think should be no problem in this case. Thanks for your patience, and for your contributions. Fut.Perf. 19:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not aware of any such law as in Germany, the artist is dead for 12 years or so, I bought the painting from an art gallery, and I think there are no such liens. I will investigate and give you an update if I come accross anything. Thanks, Crnorizec (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Copyright will likely be held by the painters's heir and will expire in about 58 years time.Geni 14:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyright clarification

I had uploaded an image for a page I was going to edit, to place the proper image into place. I was notified I had to declare a copyright status. It's a city seal, established in the late 1800's. I finally figured it out, how to change the copyright status, and did change it the very next day. Now the image has been deleted. I just wanted to change one thing. I though this was going to be an easy process. Do I have to prove the image is authentic? How do I do this? Why was my image deleted? This is frustrating, and don't really understand the concept of deleting what someone has uploaded with pure intentions. I'm not uploading to break any copyright rule. Is this image gone for good? Do I have upload again? Will I get in trouble for attempting this again? Is there a image-go-to-guy that does this for wikipedia? The image was obtained by instruction the city clerk at that time, and was printed on paper for by the city's print department.

Years ago I took a picture for a friend of mine. It was his picture, taken with my camera, which he posed for. Just for his wiki page. He told me to upload it to his profile page, which he told me to do. That image was deleted, and I was given a very harsh warning to not change profile pages.

Anyway... any tip, trick, or idea on how to upload an image without having it deleted would be appreciated.

Could you indicate the filename of the image? I'll be able to provide you with more detail if I can see the image's history and the stated reason for its deletion. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by file history. Here is my talk page. Not sure if that helps. Everything is in there, except the image. But the link for the image still remains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gubmunt (talkcontribs) 08:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Your rationale looks like it was fine. The problem was that the image wasn't actually used in any article; since we try to minimize our use of non-free content around here, any non-free image that's not being used in the encyclopaedia is deleted. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


The source of Image:Spar.jpg appears to be I am not certain if the image is in the public domain or not. It is attributed on that page as a "NPS Photo by Bill Holmes". I am fairly certain that the user who uploaded the image is not the owner but simply copied it. Can someone comment on this particular image? WTucker (talk) 03:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've asked for clarification on his talk page; I strongly suspect that you're correct that he's not the copyright holder. I'll leave the question of whether NPS images are automatically in the public domain to somebody else, because I know nothing about American government copyright. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
NPS images are in the public domain "unless otherwise indicated". The attribution, "NPS Photo by Bill Holmes", suggests that it is in the public domain, so the tag should be {{PD-USGov-Interior-NPS}}. I'll change it. -- Hux (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Help with Associated Press copyright

Alright. I want to upload a picture of Patrick Kaleta but the photo is property of the Associated Press. How do I go about uploading the picture correctly and copyrighting it or what not so it doesn't get deleted? Thanks. Ryan (talk) 06:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is not possible. As Mr. Kaleta is a living person, no non-free images of him are acceptable for use on Wikipedia. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright. How exactly do I legally get a picture of Pat Kaleta on his page then? I'm a newbie when it comes to uploading pictures correctly. Ryan (talk) 06:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You would need to either take a picture yourself and release it into the public domain or under a free license, or find the copyright holder of an existing picture and persuade them to release it into the public domain or under a free license. And believe me, I know how frustrating it is to have an internet full of great pictures and be unable to use any of them in Wikipedia articles. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Thank you very much for the help. I'll try to pursuade but if I can't then I guess I'm outta luck. Ryan (talk) 06:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

help on image PLEASE

Image:J-denner01.jpg I am stumped. I thought I had done all that was required with templates and licensing but I keep getting it wrong. If I give you the information could you please tell me how to PROPERLY use the image?

the article is John Denner. The article was done at his request. The image in question is OF HIM and HE holds the copyright. Actually owns the copyright. He has given permission to use the image in all ways as long as it is attributed back to him.

Please give me simple steps to do this! He is definitely notable and deserves to have his image used!

thank you thank you thank you thank you!

Reageah (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)reageah

What was missing is an image copyright tag. If the copyright holder is fine with all use of the image, including derivative uses, they might want to license it under the GNU Free Documentation License; if so, you should re-upload the image and attach {{GFDL}} to it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sanity check request for possible "permission-only" image

On the talk page for Image:MARILYN MONROE.jpg, the uploader, Gouryella Tenchi (talk · contribs), posted this message on the talk page:

"To publish this painting, you must mention this name: Kay Johnson. It's not a photo."

I don't know about you guys, but to me, this makes this image speediable per {{db-permission}}. I was about to pull the trigger myself, but figured I ought to have a sanity look at this before I delete it. Blueboy96 20:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Requiring attribution is entirely consistent with a variety of free licenses. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
True, however the lack of sourcing, the way in which the licensing, author's name, etc., has jumped all over the place, plus the fact that sockpuppet is involved, leads me to suspect that it's not actually the uploader's own work, so the CC license that's currently there is probably not accurate. -- Hux (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
So should I pull the trigger on it as an I3? Blueboy96 01:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Imo, yes. Probable improper license + orphaned image fits I3 to a tee. -- Hux (talk) 01:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Paramedic Patch

One of my recent uploads was questioned: [Image:NYCEMS paramedic.jpg] What can I specifically do to resolve any concerns? Thank you. Alexfox29 (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You need to attach a fair use rationale. A template for this is available here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Adem Jashari

The picture that i just uploaded for Adem jashari does not have any copyright.So please iccept the picture and if you have any email feel free to email.thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usawashington2 (talkcontribs) 01:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It almost certainly does have a copyright. Where did you get it from? —teb728 t c 02:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Orsonwelles othello

Image:2007_05_22_Nomenclature_OrsonwellesOthello.jpg A genus of spider has been named after Orson Welles, I've found a picture of one of the species here to go in his trivia section through a google search but of course copyright is unknown - help? LamontCranston (talk) 15:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not ask the radio station where they got the photo? Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 17:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Image I created

I have been trying to upload an image that I created (a photograph of an object I own) and put it in an article. I have spent an hour trying to figure out how to meet the copyright restrictions and post it to the article where it belongs but after repeated failures, I am giving up because the process is too confusing and complex and I can't afford to waste more time. The image, if anyone cares, is MG_Beer.jpg. It would make a fine addition to the Morland Brewery article but I guess that won't happen.

<removed e-mail> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmelnick (talkcontribs) 22:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have everything working; what's the problem? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it might not be possible for Hmelnick to release that photo under a free license since the label on the bottle is likely copyrighted. -- Hux (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Good point; that really should've occurred to me. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

photograph in david thomson, lord thomson of fleet, biograp;hy

I am not sure who to talk to about my concern about the photograph used in the biography of david thomson.

this is a photograph taken by a corporate photographer paid by the thomson corporation used for publicity purposes. The photograph dates from the mid ninties. more recent photographs of david thomson taken during his appearances at the thomson corp annual meeting in may 2007 (used in the latest issue of forbes list of billionaires) shows a completely different person.

who should I contact to change the image or what to do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zipperbag (talkcontribs) 02:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you shouldn't have to worry about that photograph any longer, because it's due to be deleted March 15 for not including its copyright status (said status almost certainly being such that it would be unusable on Wikipedia even with the status included). With regards to using a newer photography, we would be happy to do so provided that they are either in the public domain or released under a free license. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Scanning Old Photos

Dear All

I wonder if someone would be kind enough to help me with regard to the correct information, license, etc. I would need when uploading scans of old photographs I have. In these cases I have a number of prints but do not know who the original photographers were, and consequently do not have any negatives. The pictures themselves would have been taken in the 1920s or 30s, so as their 'authorship' is unknown and they are over seventy years old, I believe the original images would be out of copyright. Obviously if I scan them then I assume I become the copyright holder of the digital images? An example would be good if someone has one, which I could then use as the basis for when I upload my scans. Many thanks.

Regards (Lepidus Magnus (talk) 13:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC))

Which is the country of origin of the photos? --Soman (talk) 13:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Soman
The original photographs would have been taken in England or Wales (United Kingdom). Does this help?
Regards (Lepidus Magnus (talk) 13:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC))
Generally, under UK law copyrights in photographs expire 70 years after the death of their creator, so the chances are high that the photographs in question are still under copyright. Unless you can find the person who took the photos and get them to release them under a free license we pretty much can't use them here, unfortunately (except under a proper Fair Use rationale). "Author unknown" is not, as far as I know, a valid reason to engage in an action that would otherwise constitute copyright infringement.
Also, just so you know, if we were talking about photos that definitely are in the public domain due to age, then you would not become the copyright holder by virtue of scanning them. Once something is public domain it remains public domain and freely usable by anyone. That doesn't look to be the case with these photos though. -- Hux (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Hux

Many thanks for your comments. I was interested to hear what you had to say about copyright for photographs lasting for 70 years after the death of the creator (i.e. the photographer), and particularly your thoughts about ‘Author unknown’.

My understanding of things was based on a book by Tim Padfield, the Copyright Officer at the United Kingdom’s National Archives. In his book he talks about photographs of unknown authorship, and the fact that the copyright duration on such photographs taken before 1 June 1957 ‘expires 70 years after the end of the calendar year in which the photograph was taken’ (Padfield, Tim, Copyright for Archivists and Users of Archives, 2nd Ed., 2004, p. 41).

I would imagine that this is why you find a great many old photographs being reproduced in newspapers, family history journals and local history publications here without any apparent information on original photographers or copyright. If I’m interpreting all of this correctly, photographs where the authorship is unknown and that have been created before 1937 would therefore no longer be in copyright?

I was also intrigued by your note that even if I create a digital copy of an old photograph, that say for arguments sake is definitely out of copyright, then I am not the copyright holder of the digital image I create. I recently bought a digital copy of an old photograph from my local archives which was no longer copyright because of its age, but the implication there was that the archives had rights on the digital copy because they had made it? I wonder what your thoughts are about all of this?

Regards Lepidus Magnus (talk) 11:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

SWV Picture

I always talk to Coko on her OFFICIAL myspace and she said other sites have not asked her or Lelee or Taj to use their it's ok. Plus this is a Photocopied pic from a magazine it is everywhere..

If you talk to the copyright holder of the picture, ask her if she's willing to release it into the public domain or under a free license, such as the GNU Free Documentation License. Unless she does, it can't be used on Wikipedia. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Book Covers

I have been sent many book cover images via email from a author who designed the book covers himself. I find that they are always deleted upon upload. How can permission from author be proven ? Boylo (talk) 10:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Two options.
  1. He can release them under a free license, such as CC-BY-SA. Information on this can be found here.
  2. They can be kept under copyright and tagged with {{Book rationale}}. LaraLove 16:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Thx for that Lara, i used the Book rationale tag as. After making some errors in where i was replacing rationale info i think i have it right now. Boylo (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Daniel Juslenius2.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Daniel Juslenius2.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 12:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I got the image from at and I tried to put the correct info on the page.

This image exists on Wikimedia Commons under Image:Daniel Juslenius.jpg. Your image is redundant as we can link to this one. LaraLove 16:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Author's Photo

I have been trying to get the answer to this question for more than a year. Instead of a clear answer, whenever I upload the photo, someone else deletes it, and it goes on and on.


I am an author. I own the rights to my author's photo, which is on the book jacket of my book and all over the Internet. I would like to upload the photo to Wikipedia, and give credit to the photographer. In other words, I want to upload my author's photo, WHICH I OWN, and still give credit to the photographer who took the photo, who is a friend of mine, Roberto Silva.

In the meanwhile, I will add a photo which is entirely my own work, but I prefer my official author's photo.

Thank you.

Cat Bauer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimeow (talkcontribs) 13:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

:Under what copyright license is the preferred image? LaraLove 14:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That was a dumb question on my part. Okay, so here's the only option. We don't allow fair use images of living persons, because a freely licensed image, such as the one you are currently using, can replace it. If you want to use the copyrighted image from your book, you'll need to have the copyright holder, whether that be the photography or the publisher, to release the image under a free license allowing commercial reproduction, such as CC-BY-SA. Information on this can be found here. LaraLove 14:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sky+ TV programmes

I fully understand that the above programmes cannot be shown in PUBLIC

Am I therefore allowed to show them to some friends privately?

We have formed a small club and enjoy listening to music etc, and would like to extend this to TV programmes eg. from the Performance Channel and Sky Arts.

My friends meet fortnightly and pay £2 all of which goes to the charity Childrens' Hospice Association Scotland.

Members may occasionally bring along a friend to the meetings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brocklebank1 (talkcontribs) 15:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. This page is for asking questions regarding the use of copyrighted media on Wikipedia. LaraLove 16:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Non-commercial use

Why Wikipedia doesn't accept images that are permitted by the owner for non-commercial use? Is Wikipedia or someone involve trying to use them for marketing? If there are entrepreneurs out there who needed pictures for their business, I doubt that they'll turn to Wikipedia for alternatives. Can't just showing on Wikipedia articles alone for readers to see be enough? Wubzy (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's license, the GNU Free Documentation License, allows works within it to be modified and sold commercially. To comply with the license as much as possible, we need very little non-com or non-deriv work. It's not banned, per se, it just needs to be tagged with a non-free copyright tag and pass our restrictions on non-free content. Will (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
To expand slightly on Will's answer (which is correct), Wikipedia quite deliberately allows for the possibility of others using its work for commercial purposes. Under the Foundation's thinking, if some entrepreneur wanted to take Wikipedia's best articles and compile them into a paper encyclopaedia, and then sell that for relatively cheaply (what with there being no intellectual property costs for the entrepreneur to worry about), that would be a Good Thing. However, such an activity wouldn't permit the use of images only allowable for non-commercial use. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me?

Is it just me, or do other people also find this image business hopelessly confusing? It's a wonder there are any images at all in Wikipedia.

Wanderer57 (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I found it overwhelmingly difficult when I first started, luckily I had the help of a great admin. What are you confused about? LaraLove 16:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Once you use it a little, it's really much easier than it seems. Everybody finds it overwhelming at first, but 90% of it can really be summed up by a few bullet points:
  • Almost all intellectual materials, except for very old material, some material produced by the U.S. government, and some material that is too simple to copyright (e.g. a blue square) are copyrighted.
  • To use any copyrighted material on Wikipedia, the copyright holder either needs to relinquish copyright or license it under a free license (which, while retaining the copyright, allows for the material to be re-used by anybody for any purpose).
  • The exception to this second rule is material which is useful for the illustration of an article's subject and which could not possibly be replaced by a free image (because, for example, the subject is deceased).
There's much more to it than that (for example, how old is "very old" in the first bullet varies by jurisdiction), but it's possible to answer more than half of all questions on this page even if all you know is the above. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm at the overwhelmed stage. How deep is the ocean? How high is the sky?
I'll be specific about one particular question. We have a BLP article. It has a not specially good photo of the person. There are many photos of this person on the Internet. If I want to try to replace the existing photo with a better one, what do I have to do? I know I can't just copy any photo and throw it into Wikipedia. How can I tell which photos on the Internet could properly be used (if any), and which ones can't be? (Taking a photo myself is impractical.) Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the third rule says "could not possibly be replaced by a free image", and the way that this is generally read for individuals is "...because the subject is dead, or a recluse who hasn't been seen in forty years". There probably is nothing you can do, unless you can persuade a copyright holder of one of the better images to release it under a free license. If the image that's there now is really bad (defamatorily unflattering, or something), you could probably get that image removed under BLP, but you still wouldn't be able to replace it with a non-free image. Sorry. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay thanks. Suppose one of the websites is set up to provide publicity images for use by media, newspapers, magazines, tv stations. Can Wikipedia use those images?
  • Suppose I can somehow "persuade a copyright holder of one of the better images to release it under a free license." Is that practical, or a big bureaucratic headache? Wanderer57 (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
To your first question, unfortunately not. Images used on Wikipedia (besides the exceptions listed in third bullet point) need to be re-usable by anybody for any purpose. To your second question, the copyright holder just needs to send an e-mail to citing the filename (in the form in which it's been uploaded to Wikipedia) and the license under which they release it (e.g. the GNU Free Documentation License). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for all the insight. Giving permission for an image to be used by anyone in any context and for any purpose is pretty sweeping. This is just idle curiosity, but have you any idea what percent of the images in Wikipedia are here with that blanket permission? Wanderer57 (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) No idea. This doesn't address percentages, but any image that says it's in the public domain, licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, or licensed under a Creative Commons Sharealike license meets those sweeping criteria. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

Hi, one of my images has been tagged as not suitable, i added it ages ago and was quite new to wikipedia, i think it should be deleted, how to i go about doing that ??? (Neostinker (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

Well, depending on how it was tagged, you may not need to do anything to have it deleted. Could you link to the image in question, so that we can better answer your question? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg

Resolved: Rationale split. Will (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:NFCC criteria 10c states that a "separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item" does this mean that multi-article rationales such as the one found in this image do not comply with policy? Guest9999 (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but not so much as they can be deleted; just removed from non-compliant articles. I've split the rationale up, however. 18:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. Guest9999 (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


I got a message saying that Image:Nightlinelogo2008.png might not meet the non-free criteria. The only possible breach that I could possible determine from the explanation given by the Betacommandbot was that my rationale was too wordy, because it is a low-res image that I made purely for illustrative purposes, and does not carry copyright. I have now put a new rationale up on that page. What should I do now? Cyril Washbrook (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that it lacks a fair use rationale, which all non-free images must include. However, I don't think this image is eligible for copyright, so you should probably just tag it as {{PD-ineligible}} and be done with it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Images from a book ?


please excuse me, i have a very basic question. I would like to upload images from a book or a scientific journal, are there any extendible copyrights for this?? is this posible?? how ?? thank you José Grau de Puerto Montt (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Those images will almost always be copyrighted and therefore unsuitable for use on Wikipedia. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Can i use this image from a website

Am i able to use this image from the biota website. I wanted to use it on the Biota! page to show what it is planned to look like. The image is of low resolution so i think it would be ok, but am not sure what license i would put on it. Chris_huhtalk 00:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a good question, and I'm not certain of the response. Whether it's usable hinges on whether or not an artist's conception of a not-yet-existent building is "replaceable". I'd be inclined to suggest that it would be appropriate to use that image (tagged as {{non-free fair use in|Biota!}} and with an appropriate fair use rationale), but I'm far from confident of that assessment. Other opinions? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The more I think about it, the more I think that it would be usable; presumably, anybody else drawing what the building is going to look like (which is the only basis on which I can imagine it being replaceable) is only going to be producing a work derivative of that one anyway, which would mean that it wouldn't be free, and that no free alternative is possible. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for getting back so quick. i've put it up with a FUR and {{non-free fair use in|Biota!}} at Image:Biota artists representation.jpg. I think this seems ok. Thanks again Chris_huhtalk 00:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Nikol lossky.jpg

[Image:Nikol lossky.jpg] Photo is almost 70 years old, is on the book cover an academic book for the study of political science, published by a University (Pennsylvanian State). Author of book has given permission and copyright holder Boris Lossky is deceased. LoveMonkey (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Russian copyright law for works published prior to 2004 is "life of the author plus 50 years" and my cursory Google search suggests that Boris Lossky was alive as recently as the early 1990s, so the image is still copyrighted and the owner would likely be Boris Lossky's next of kin, or possibly the publisher of the book on which the photo appears. Either way, you need to get the copyright holder to release this image under a free license ("given permission" is not enough) otherwise we can't use it, unfortunately. Take a look at WP:COPYREQ for info on how to request this release. -- Hux (talk) 07:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Another problem with your image is that although it is on a book cover, it is not a book cover but only a small part of it. An image tagged as a book cover should only be used to illustrate an article on the book.
Since the subject is dead, you might be able to use the image under non-free use policy.
If you have a copy of the book, look at it is credited in the book, and see how it is licensed there. Perhaps that might give you a clue on how to credit it and tag it on Wikipedia. —teb728 t c 07:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I have gotten permission directly from the publisher of the book but I don't know how he can give Wikipedia permission. As for Boris Lossky being dead I confirmed this from the author of the book. The license in the book is stated as used by permission. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

As Hux says above, unfortunately permission is insufficient for use on Wikipedia. You would need to get the copyright holder to release it into the public domain or under a free license, which is often difficult given the rights that are relinquished by that process. However, as TEB728 says, if there are no free images of Nikol Lossky you should be able to use this one under Wikipedia's non-free content policy. To do so, tag the photo with {{non-free fair use in|Nikol Lossky}}, and then attach and fill in this template by way of a fair use rationale. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I really appreciate you guys taking the time to talk to me. I hope this works. I had done the changes you suggested could you review them? Pretty please? LoveMonkey (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You had it basically right. I removed the 10c warning and the unnecessary book cover tag, and I fixed the spelling of the article title. —teb728 t c 23:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


Now that Image:Spar.jpg has been taken care of. Image:Spar3.jpg also appears to be a NPS image from [4], specifically [5]. I am not sure if it is public domain or not because of the attribution, "Photo by Peter and Ann Bosted." WTucker (talk) 18:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I put an NPS license on the image and cited the source. WTucker (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, unlike Spar.jpg, this one is not an NPS image since the caption is (as you say), "Photo by Peter and Ann Bosted", as opposed to, "NPS photo by Peter and Ann Bosted". Further investigation brings up Peter and Ann Bosted's cave pics site, on which it states in numerous places, "Photos copyright Peter and Ann Bosted". I'm going to tag it as copyrighted and list it for speedy deletion on that basis. If anyone wants it to stay then they'll have to justify it with a Fair Use rationale. -- Hux (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

adding an image that is not mine, but I have permission to use


I'm a novice editor seeking some assistance. I wanted to add an image to the page describing Salter Harris fractures, taken from the site

The image I wanted to use was the one that showed the six fracture types.

I contacted the author and illustrator for permission, and received this reply:

"Hi Dr Benny...

I understand that wikipedia cannot use CC-nc license (is that correct?)

If so, then you have my permission to use it as long as it is attributed to:

- (linked to and to... - myself Dr Frank Gaillard (MBBS, FRANZCR) (linked to

cheers Frank."

I then tried to upload the image, but faced stern copyright warnings, as the image was not my own so I could not label it as public domain.

Can anyone help me with any copyright advice?

Benweatherhead (talk) 06:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you'll need to contact Dr. Benny again to clarify the permission that he has given. The requirement for attribution is fine, but you need to clarify that anybody can use it for any purpose and that this includes derivative works. He seems to have some understanding of free licenses, since he mentions CC-NC (which he's correct isn't free enough for Wikipedia); try asking him if he's prepared to license it under CC-SA or the GFDL. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

An image with an improper license given its source

Please see Image talk:Five-legged-horse.jpg. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there's a question there; I agree with your assessment that it can only be licensed under Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 France. It will unfortunately have to be deleted unless the author agrees to license it under that. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

scan of 1570 engraving

I'd like to use this engraving in an article (engraving, p174, The morall philosophie of Doni). The engraving dates to 1570, but is reprinted in an 1888 book, the author of which (Joseph Jacobs) died in 1916. So, if I had a physical copy of the book it would be PD everywhere. However, this isnt a clear cut case of Bridgeman vs Corel; the donating library is in Canada, I'm in the UK, and Internet Archive says OCA licensing apply to this book (ie all rights remain with the donor; it was scanned before they changed to a blanket non-commercial license). Can fair use/fair dealing apply here? Bazzargh (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, no copyright is possible on two dimensional copies of two dimensional work, which means that the only relevant copyright would be the (long-expired) one on the engraving. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


Need a review for the status of this image. Claim is public domain from MySpace. The user in question is new and has a few image copyright tags notices on his talk page. — Κaiba 19:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, this picture is kind enough to provide us with photographic evidence of the author, so this is pretty simple. If the editor is the person in the picture, then she is entitled to release it into the public domain. If not, not. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
It is clearly not the same person. His uploades identifies the uploader User:Scottedgy as Scott Egerton. It is quite obvious that Scott is not the female in this photo. — Κaiba 20:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as an I9. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Finding The Picture Copyright

I uploaded the picture "Image:Nimue Age of Wonders.jpg" file and put in the website and copyright of the game(© Copyright 2001 Triumph Studios. All Rights Reserved.). Wouldn't the game's (Age of Wonders 2: The Wizard's Throne) copyright cover a picture of one of the characters? If not, why. If so, please tell me how to fix it so it doesn't get deleted. Thanks for any help --MerchantMarinus (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Because this is a copyrighted character from a computer game, you need to use the {{Non-free character}} template, then below it add a detailed Fair Use rationale for its inclusion in Lady of the Lake. You can use this template to do that. See Image:Gordon Freeman - Valve Concept Art - Walking with a crowbar - cropped.jpeg for an example of how this is done. -- Hux (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you misunderstand the meaning of the word “copyright.” A “copyright” is not what gives us the right to use an image: that would be called a “license.” A copyright rather gives the artist the right to prevent anyone but themself from using it without a license. Since Image:Nimue Age of Wonders.jpg is copyrighted and not licensed, we can’t use it (except under fair use). And I don’t think a non-free use rationale could justify the use of this image. It is just a gratuitous illustration of the statement that Nimue calls herself “Lady of the Lake.” Sorry. —teb728 t c 00:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Picture from Google

i got the pic off of google how would i know the copy right stuff? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vic Wat (talkcontribs) 01:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What site did you get it from? Anything you find on the internet is almost certainly copyrighted and unlicensed, and therefore unsuitable for use on Wikipedia. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Image of pig Salome Yokum

Dear Betacommandbot:

QUOTING YOUR MESSAGE: "Image:Salome Yokum 5-01-42.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, and so on.................. BetacommandBot (talk) 04:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)"

If the use of the image of Salome Yokum in the artickle about Salome Yokum doesn't make sense to you then perhaps you need to get into a different line of bureaucratic work. Wanderer57 (talk) 06:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
You need to include the name of the article on the image description page. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 10:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Stifle, for the response. I'd like to ask a followup question. I found the article only yesterday while wandering through some odd patches of Wikipedia. The bot note re the image is in Talk:Salomey. The image (and another one of the same character) are both gone now. Question is, can they be retrieved from somewhere to see if a rationale can be included, or are they irretrievably "gone"? Thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
They can be restored. LaraLove 16:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I've restored Image:Salome Yokum 5-01-42.png - you have 7 days to add a valid use rationale including the name of the article in which fair use is claimed, and add the image back to the article. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 19:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again. Aside from the lack of a fair use explanation specific to the particular article, do you see any defects in the general image documentation? Wanderer57 (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
No, but you still have to include it in an article and specify that article's title. I've removed it from your talk page because non-free images can't be used outside the main namespace. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 11:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


Please advise on acceptablity of Non-free / fair use media rationale for Takhli Royal Thai Air Force Base justication for image.

Also, if necessary, please advise on any recommended changes for above rationale if necessary.

Thank you in advance Bwmoll3 (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the image is too high resolution. Fair use images need to have resolutions of less than 300 px on the longer side. Second, I'm not sure whether something like this would be considered replaceable; I suspect that it would, but I'll wait for others to chime in. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've resized the image to comply with the 300px size limit Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that this is the image in question, this is kind of a weird one. Ordinarily, Fair Use would not apply since it would be possible (albeit difficult) for someone to get up in a plane, take a photo, and release it under a free license. However, since this is a military base one could argue that its restricted airspace makes it effectively impossible to do that, in which case Fair Use is justifiable. I'm going to edit the licensing to reflect that and we'll see what happens. (On a side note, Google Maps' "non-commercial use only" rules are not good enough for Wikipedia, so we can't use the image here based on that rationale.) -- Hux (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok as I'm considering this a test - as I'd like to load other images from google maps on military bases outside of the united states, once a consensus is reached by the editors/moderators, please advise on my talk page. Thank you for your consideration... Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I am getting tagged on this image by User:VegitaU stating this is Replaceable fair use Image:Takhli-rtafb-image2.jpg...

I thought we went all through this already ??

Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

For this image to be replaceable, a few things need to be declared. First, there needs to be absolutely NO possibility of any public-domain government photos (check the air base's newspaper). If the government has no photos of the base, can you take pictures of the base. Normally, this would immediately eliminate an unfree photo from being used (since most things are can be photographed), but with military bases, this is different. I definitely don't encourage breaking any laws to take a picture of the base (if it's illegal to do so). Third, there can't be any NASA photos of the base. If all the above are true, then this image may remain. Otherwise, a free replacement needs to be found. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Let's continue this on the image's talk page.

What exactly is a Fair use rationale?

Hi, I just posted a few images on the article Cabin Crew and i have been requested to post a fair use rationale, can someone please explain ind etail (easy detail) what this is and how to do one (maybe an example) thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Euphdance (talkcontribs) 07:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

A fair use rationale is basically an explanation of why a given image should be used notwithstanding Wikipedia's prohibition on non-free content. It needs to explain why an image needs to be used in a given article and why the image couldn't possibly be replaced by a free one. The easiest way to create one is by using this template. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
An even easier way to provide a non-free use rationale for an album cover is to add an {{album rationale}} template to the image description page. It includes a {{non-free album cover}} tag; so you could remove the existing non-free album cover tags. —teb728 t c 08:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


I just want to verify that I did all requirements the way they need to be. I did have a problem with an image and copy right that I think is fixed now. Can you please verify that there is nothing I need to do to this account. In addition when will the page be live for all to see?

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffersPetSupply (talkcontribs) 17:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The good news is everything seems to be good with your image. The bad news is that I doubt that the article you've written is on a subject that is sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia (see here for some elaboration of the concept of notability as it applies to companies). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Triumphant Achilles in Achilleion Cropped version.jpg

Hi guys, I left this on the talk page of user Iamunknown. I am copying it here because I know sometimes he gets busy and I would appreciate a reply as soon as possible. So I'll try my luck here with the local experts. Here is the problem:

Lupo, an admin in Commons after I asked him to delete a duplicate of the image Image:Triumphant Achilles in Achilleion Cropped version.jpg, now tells me that he wants to delete both. This image is covered under PD-50 but Lupo claims it was copyrighted again in 1996 and that the European Union doesn't recognise PD-50 etc. I have replied to Lupo here: diff. Lupo's original message was here: diff. Why in the links above does Lupo claim that the image was copyrighted in 1996 in the European Union? How does he know? Also can the image be used under PD-50 in the English Wikipedia? I would appreciate if anyone can give a reply to these questions. Thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see him saying anything about 1996. His contention is that it's not American copyright law that determines this, since it was painted by a German artist, and German copyright is life plus 70 years, meaning that it won't enter the public domain for a few years yet. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your fast reply. He says it here: Also, since the work was copyrighted in the EU on January 1, 1996, it is also copyrighted in the U.S. Lupo
But the artist died in 1942, so under PD_50 it became public domain in the US in 1992, 4 tears earlier. So I don't think the European 1996 directive cancels the US PD 50. Can I then use it on the English Wikipedia under PD-50? Thanks again. Dr.K. (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Please disregard this. Lupo replied. Thank you. Dr.K. (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If the painting is public domain, how can a simple photograph of it have a more restrictive "GNU Free Documentation License" or a "Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike license"? -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that under American law, a two dimensional reproduction of two dimensional work cannot be copyrighted (though I stand open to correction on this), so you'd appear to be right. It may be different in the E.U. for all I know, though. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

competing in the glabal maket place

In 2003 inward FDI accounted for some 78% of the gross fixed capital formation in Ireland, but only .6% in Japan. What do you think explains the difference in FDI inflows into the two countries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say it has something to do with the GFDL. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


Greetings. I would love to upload a scan of a 35 year old postcard that I own, of a boat that no longer exists. I'm writing to determine out how much effort this might entail. What sort of permission (if any) do I need from the publisher? Would I also need permission from anyone else (like the photographer)? What sort of copyright tag would be appropriate? How would I need to document the permission (assuming I got it)? By the way- the postcard publisher, the purchase location, and everything else is in the United States. Thanks, Riick (talk) 04:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that Wikipedia has an article on the boat and that no free images of it exist, you should be able to use it as a fair use image in the article about the boat. Just tag it with {{non-free fair use in|NAME OF ARTICLE}} and then attach a fair use rationale. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Copyright law is terribly confusing for me so I am glad to have someone steer me in the right direction. Thanks to your link I have now read up on fair use and am convinced it would be appropriate in this situation. I really appreciate your response! Riick (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
My pleasure - it's what we're here for. Let me know if you have any other questions. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Identifying copyright on old pictures

I have cut out and saved an image from an article in the Beyer Peacock Quarterly Review Vol 1 No 3 July 1927. The image depicts Richard Peacock who died in 1889. I want to use it to illustrate a wiki page on him. I found the orig article on My question is how do I know whether I can use it? The online original PDF makes no mention of copyright, its British, the orig image must be at least 120 years old, but if I understand the wiki guidelines properly because it is on a website and I do not know who owns the copyright I cannot use it. Is this correct and if not how do I justify using it on Wiki?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bethinger (talkcontribs) 18:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, given that the subject died in 1889, the photograph is probably in the public domain. However, I don't know anything about U.K. copyright law, so I can't be sure - if nobody else clarifies this, you might try harassing User:Megapixie about this, since I believe I've seen him answer UK copyright questions before. However, even if it's not in the public domain, the picture is usable in the Richard Peacock article under fair use as long as there are no free photos of him known to exist; just tag it with {{non-free fair use in|Richard Peacock}}, and then attach a fair use rationale. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Current British copyright law is, in general, life of the author plus 70 years - given the likely age of the photo we're probably still within that time period. On the other hand, for works of unknown authorship it's date of creation/publication plus 70 years, and we're obviously well beyond that coverage period. Without knowing more, though, it's hard to tell which standpoint applies. Probably best to stick with a Fair Use rationale. -- Hux (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
UK copyright law is a little more sticky than US copyright law. Copyrights on works published anonymously before 1989 expire 50 years after first publication (i.e. works published before 1957 anonymously are PD). Additionally the "Imperial copyright act 1911" only protects photographs for 50 years after the first "making of the original negative" - i.e. when it was taken. See for a set of very rough notes on early UK copyright. Given the photograph must have been taken pre-1889, copyright would have expired at the latest in 1940, before the 1956 copyright act came into force (possibly as early as 1903, but it's a bit difficult to tell). Either way it's public domain in the UK and has been for ages.
Being public domain in the UK for a long time is good for us, since it seems highly likely that the copyright for the photograph/magazine was never registered formally for copyright in the US. Since it was published in the UK before 1977, this means that it's in the public domain in the US as well (see the ever excellent hirtle ). PD-US, PD-UK. Megapixie (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Should a summary statement mention an article?

As discussed above at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Image of pig Salome Yokum

I'm trying to get this image properly documented. The image is now back in an article. And there is a rationale statement with the image which is highly relevant to the use of the image in the article.

The summary statement says, in part, :

  • It is representative of the topic since it shows: J. R. Fangsley kidnapping Salome (a not-uncommon problem for Salome), and Gives details of her status as the last female Hammus alabammus (with a zoot snoot and drape shape, no less).

Question: Instead of the vague reference to "the topic", does the summary statement need to refer more specifically to the article? Such as changing it to:

  • This image illustrates the article Salomey since it shows: J. R. Fangsley kidnapping Salome (a not-uncommon problem for Salome), and Gives details of her status as the last female Hammus alabammus (with a zoot snoot and drape shape, no less).

Thank you. Wanderer57 (talk) 14:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

PS There is a spelling discrepancy (Salome/Salomey) which I will fix.

Yes; the fair use rationale needs to refer specifically to the article in which the image is being used. As well, it needs to explain why the image is not replaceable by a free alternative (which I admit is obvious in this case, although it still needs to be stated). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, the image is currently of too high a resolution; I've tagged it to have its resolution reduced. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm new to this weird business so I have more silly questions.
  • I can state "that" the image is not replaceable by a free alternative but I don't really know how to say "why" it is not replaceable by a free alternative. For example, would a hand-drawn facsimile be a free alternative or a violation of copyright?
  • There is a lot of overlap between the Summary and Licencing sections. I gather they are both necessary despite the overlap but I don't understand why. For whose benefit is the licencing boilerplate?
  • "I've tagged it to have its resolution reduced." It is currently 391 × 446 pixels. How much reduction is needed? Would 260 by 298 for example, be small enough? Wanderer57 (talk) 05:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
No free alternative is available because it's an image of a specific copyrighted character for which no free alternative could possibly exist (drawing it yourself and publishing that drawing would be copyright infringement). As for the overlap between the two sections, that is true in this case because the tag is so specific. If you'd just tagged it with {{non-free fair use in|Salomey}}, which would also have been an acceptable tag, very little of that information would be included. Finally, as for resolution, non-free images need to have a maximum resolution of 300 px along the longer side. I hope this is helpful. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and as for the resolution, if you have the means and the expertise to do so, by all means reduce it. But the tag I put on there is designed to get the attention of another editor who does have the means and expertise to do it for you; unlike the disputed fair use rationale tag that's on there and the oprhaned tag that was on there before, that tag isn't a warning but rather a request for help. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I resized the image and was trying to figure out how to get the smaller version into the right place. In the meantime, someone else dealt with it. Based on their contrib list, they have it down to a science.
Thank you very much for all the help. Wanderer57 (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Image supplied by person in article with no copyright

I am trying to upload a photograph of Carla Boudreau for the article I have written. The photo supplied to me by her, is owned by her, is not copyrighted, and is displayed on her IMDb page. I have sent a letter of permission to you at OTRS and having trouble understanding what to do about the copyright warning page. Michael81753 (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Michael - what is your basis for saying that it isn't copyrighted? Has the copyright owner released it into the public domain? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a photo that she owns and uses for her modeling. She gave me permission herself to use it as stated in my letter to OTRS. Michael81753 (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so it is copyrighted, with the copyright owned by her. Is she comfortable releasing it either into the public domain (which means that she'd be relinquishing all rights to it) or under a free license (in which she would retain the right of attribution, but that's more or less it)? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. She already has done that in the form of a letter which I have sent to OTRS, but when I uploaded the image, I got a warning that said it would be deleted if I didn't put in a copyright tag, and none of the copyright tags on the list seemed to fit my situation. Michael81753 (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Has she released it into the public domain or licensed it under a free license? I don't mean that as a yes/no question, I mean which has she done? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

She has released it to public domain. Thank you. Michael81753 (talk) 03:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Then tag it as {{PD-author|Carla Boudreau}}. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Photoshopped 2 pictures together: what license should I use?

I'm not amazingly knowledgeable with this stuff, so if anyone can help, that would be great. =) I "photoshopped" together 2 different pictures (this image under "GNU Free Documentation license"/"Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License" & this image in the public domain), under what license would I put the new image?

You can't release it into the public domain, because one of the photos isn't in the public domain. You can release it under the GFDL or CCA 3.0, though. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. нмŵוτнτ 07:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Disbanded organizations

If the governing body of a particular sport is disbanded, could this mean that their logo is in the public domain. Because those organizations don't run and no longer exist, the logos wouldn't be any use to them. (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I asked a very similar question here months ago. Unfortunately, the answer is no. As with any other asset, the copyright on the logo would have passed to somebody else upon dissolution of the corporation. What is more, it can be very difficult to figure out who. The good news, though, is that depending on what you want to use the logo for, there's an excellent chance that it would be fair use. What's the logo, and what do you want to use it for? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Can i post a screenshot of an actor from TV Program for his Wiki page?

Well....i uploaded so many pics of actor Kyle chandler for his profile page on wikipedia and everytime it gets deleted,even when i put appropriate license for the pics i found on website.Now i have ceated a screenshot of Kyle chandler form TV Show "Early Edition"...i want to know can i put that pic in his Wiki[edia page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prashantnasa (talkcontribs) 15:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Such images are copyrighted and not released under a free license ("non-free"), and non-free images of living people are never acceptable. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
"Never acceptable" is not quite correct. On a living person's bio page, non-free images of an actor's portrayal of a role is extremely highly discouraged unless that role is of an extremely notable aspect of that person, otherwise only free images of living people should be used. Within the context of a show starting that actor, such individual pictures are highly discouraged over complete cast pictures if necessary at all, unless there is some major appearance alteration of the actor (sfx makeup, for example) in which a picture of the actor in character can be used. --MASEM 15:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
That said, the original question's answer is definitely "NO"; such a picture is unacceptable for the actor's page. --MASEM 15:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


I have bought GOOGLE EARTH 2008. and zoomed in on Dalousie New Brunswick to take me back to the
the first place I stepped ashore on foreign soil.This was whilst I was a Merchant Navy officer
in 1972. I pressed on a button to show me information and maybe a photo of Dalousie dock area
and found that the information belongs to Wikipedia.I did not realise that anything from
Google Earth would involve copyright etc.
                                      GREG NICHOLAS  —Preceding unsigned comment added by GREG NICHOLAS (talkcontribs) 21:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 
I think you must be mistaken; the content of Google Earth 2008 certainly does not belong to Wikipedia. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
It's usually spelt Dalhousie, not Dalousie. (I realize this doesn't answer your question.
For example:
Wanderer57 (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Google does display information from wikipedia as part of it's google earth package. This is allowed under wikipedia's free content license (in fact the wikipedia stuff is rather more free to use than most of the other stuff on google earth).Geni 00:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Still, it's not material that belongs to Wikipedia. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Which URL to use?

Which is the best wikipedia page to link to, to indicate to a flickr image holder that wikipedia will only allow cc-by-sa-2.0, not cc-by-sa-nc-2.0? (non commercial)? Timeshift (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Good question. Here, maybe? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


I sent the letter today, now I have another error, and no account to wikimedia. What do i do?
Re: [Ticket#2008031310018777] Permission for Denise Mortillaro portrait from photographer Catrina Genovese

Can you link to the image? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Image from British Library

This particular photograph on the British Library website was taken in 1880's by a "Indian" photographer who died in 1905. My question is whether I can upload this and similar images onto wikipedia as public domain content under (say) {{PD-old}}, {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, {{PD-art}}, {{PD-India}} or some other category ?
PS: The British Library page has a copyright notice at the bottom of the webpage that links to [6], but that may just indicate copyright over the web-design and, as we all know, museums and libraries often make blanket copyright claims even when they are not eligible to do so. Abecedare (talk) 01:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd go with {{PD-old}}. {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} is more restrictive than {{PD-old}}, so there's no point in using it in this case. {{PD-art}} is for images depicting art (it's for images where the photograph itself might be quite recent, but in which the art itself has an expired copyright - putting the entire image in the public domain). {{PD-India}} isn't really appropriate unless you know when/where it was first published, which isn't an important question anyway since we know that the author died more than 100 years ago. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, SarcasticIdealist. I mainly wanted to double-check that the images are indeed PD, and that I can ignore the British Library tag. I'll upload the images onto commons under {{PD-old}}, as you suggest. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 04:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

How To Get A Copyright Tag

How can I get a copyright tag for my image I just posted? The King Gemini (talk) 06:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Assuming you're talking about this image, it depends where you got it from. Looking at it, I suspect it's a copyrighted image, in which case we probably can't use it on Wikipedia unless you can get the copyright holder to release it under a free license. If you're interested in doing this, take a look at this page. -- Hux (talk) 06:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Image from magazine

I wasn't sure if this image is allowed or not.
The group of people that the article is about have their link on the Kurtis Trent page ... so I was thinking of putting the image there. (talk) 12:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not allowed; sorry. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

pictures and copywrights

i do not know anything about the importance of picture files being used in articles. can you please explain to me? thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Okram 09 (talkcontribs) 03:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Image#Image_choice_and_placement?Geni 17:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

CC-BY / CC-BY-SA photographs of copyrighted content

I am interested in using this image on the "Media" section of the Dubai article. The Flickr image was released as CC-BY-SA and depicts a portion of a page from Gulf News, a newspaper in the UAE. Since Gulf News content is copyrighted, I wasn't sure if this image, did infact, qualify as a CC-BY-SA work or if it inherited the general copyright around Gulf News content.

If such an issue has been previously discussed, I'd greatly appreciate a link to the archived discussion. Thanks AreJay (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that it would inherit the Gulf News copyright. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Google-mini.jpg and Image:GSA.jpg

I went through the fair use dispute about three times on this image and each time it was approved.
What's wrong now?
I was overseas for a while and could not check my messages.
Please reply to my talk page.

-- Yakatz (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Responded at user's talk page, per request. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I had one, and someone else removed it.
Is there a way to see the diff on images?
-- Yakatz (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Videogame snapshot

Hi, I would like to upload a snapshot of a videogame (Namely Nintendo's The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask) in order to indirectly complete a mising bit of information on the List of characters in The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask article, but my doubt is: Is it OK to just take a picture and upload it legally, or should I refer to an external source for some kind of permission?

I don't know enough to fully answer, but here's at least some information for you: A screenshot of a video game is something called a derivative work (read the second paragraph of the wikimedia commons article which explains this). As such it can't be uploaded as a free image. But can it be uploaded under fair use in these circumstances? This much I don't know. By the way- at the end of your question don't forget to type four tilda's ( ~~~~ ) which will turn into a dated signature. Riick (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

48 hours template

I was wondering if there is a template that can be placed on images indicating that they will be deleted 48 hours after the uploader has been informed of a fair-use rationale problem (per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#Enforcement for images uploaded after 2006-07-13 failing WP:NFCC criteria 10) and an equivelent template to inform the uploader. Generally the templates given at WP:CSD, WP:IFD etc seem to refer to the seven day limit for images uploaded before 2006-07-13, have I missed something or do the templates change automatically. Guest9999 (talk) 12:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Artwork with Copyright line.

I am building a Wiki site for a nationally recognized painter, Stephen Hannock, who would like several of his paintings (all under copyright) included on the Wiki site. I have already uploaded one image: Image:2001.153.L.jpg which also appears on the artist's website and the website of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. The artist, with whom I just spoke, is happy to provide additional permissions if Wikipedia requires them. Kindly advise what he need so say if, in fact, I need more than the full copyright line on the images we include. Thank you. --Mythico (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)mythicoSmall Text

The only permission that Wikipedia accepts is a free license (like Creative commons or GFDL) which allows reuse by anyone for anything, including commercial use and derivative works. See WP:COPYREQ if you think you can get that kind of permission. But offering the paintings for sale is a big no no. —teb728 t c 18:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


For this image, the author put "creative commons" in the comments section, so can I add {{cc-by}}, the bare bones creative commons license as a copyright licensing information? SpencerT♦C 02:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

No. There are several Creative Commons licenses, some of which are too restrictive for Wikipedia. So we can’t tell which if any just “creative commons” means. —teb728 t c 03:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Beech with branches.jpg

I added Beech Tree with Branches to illustrate the Ohio State Route 732 article. It is my picture

Marqqq —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marqqq (talkcontribs) 03:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You must license it with one of these license tags. —teb728 t c 03:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


Could someone please comment on the status of the image? This is a photo of a 2-dimensional work that is part of an official document in Slovenia. The uploader surely does not hold any copyright to the work itself. Perhaps it could be used under the fair use reservation but then I doubt it could be included in such general article as is Health care. --Eleassar my talk 10:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Since it (i.e. the design on the card) is an official government work, the uploader does not have the right to take a photo of it and release it under a free license. In some jurisdictions (e.g. the US), works created by the government are public domain by default, but without knowing more about Slovenia's copyright law it's impossible to say whether that applies here. Absent that knowledge, it could in theory be used under an appropriate Fair Use rationale, but only if that use was tied specifically to discussion about the card's design. As it stands, it's currently being used merely as decoration in the Slovenia section of the Health care article, which would not be justifiable under Wikipedia's non-free content policy. -- Hux (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll delete it then. --Eleassar my talk 15:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Governor David Paterson

Hi, Does anyone know the legality of uploading a file taken by the New York State Government? I ask because I have a feeling the disputed picture on Leutinant Governor David Paterson's page, currently (, is going to get a lot of discussion when he presumably will take over as governor of that state today at noon (EST). To attempt to avoid this major discussion, would this picture be able to get uploaded and placed on his Wikipedia page: ([7])? The picture is also listed in the USAsearch;gov archives: ([8]) A larger copy of the same image can also be found here: ([9]). Thanks (AContributor (talk) 03:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC))

Unlike the federal government, it looks like the state of New York doesn't have any laws dictating that all works it produces are public domain by default (see the copyright notice for the Dept. of Environmental Conservation, for example), so that would suggest that we can't use your suggested photo since a free version could reasonably be produced. We definitely can't use the one that's disputed, imo, since it's clearly a professionally produced photo and is currently lacking any source information. -- Hux (talk) 07:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, Thanks Hux. I think I found one from the FAA. The photo is low res and has interesting lighting. I will upload that one if no one else uploads a more suitable one by the 24th (when the current one will be deleted), just to give a face :) to the article. Just to know in the future, do you know the laws of using a program like Genuine Fractals ([10]) on a government image to make the photo at least 640x480 if the starting resolution is 320x240? Also, is it legal to crop a Federal Government Image down to the desired person to illustrate? Thanks. (AContributor (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC))
Note that there's a difference between images that are produced by federal government employees (which are public domain by default) and images that are hosted on federal government web sites (which are not necessarily public domain). You need to check with the FAA to ensure that the photo in question was produced by a government agency. Sometimes this is straightforward since some federal sites state clearly that all images are in the pubic domain "unless otherwise noted". That doesn't look to be the case with the FAA though and we can't assume that it is, so you'll need to dig further.
Regarding your question about Genuine Fractals, AFAIK what tool one uses to manipulate a photo is irrelevant to copyright law.
Regarding the cropping question, any photo that is in the public domain can be freely altered. As long as this one is definitely PD you can crop it in any way you see fit. -- Hux (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay. I appreciate the help. All the Best, (AContributor (talk) 05:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC))

Olympic image

Can someone tell me why Image:LondonParalympicLogo.png was tagged? It had a FUR, with backlink as far as I can tell. MBisanz talk 05:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the bot screwed up - I see nothing wrong with the copyright tag or the Fair Use rationale. FWIW, the Fair Use tag was {{Non-free media rationale}}. I changed it to {{Non-free use rationale}} as per WP:FURG#Template - don't know if that makes a difference. I also removed the bot's message. Hopefully it won't come back. -- Hux (talk) 06:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
What about Image:686_Logo.jpg. MBisanz talk 08:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Same things, by the looks of it. Apparently this happens when fair use images are used in articles whose names start with numbers. Presumably, the bot operator is on it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Image from 1890

Can we assume that is out of copyright? Corvus cornixtalk 18:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Virginia Bernhard's book, "Ima Hogg: The Governor's Daughter" has this item.
Page 51: after Hogg's death, Ima collected his speeches and state papers and had 5 10-vol sets privately printed gave 1 to Rice University, one to Texas State Library, 1 to SMU and 2 to UT
The caption on the photo is from the "James Stephen Hogg Papers" at the University of Texas. James Hogg died in 1906 and his papers were published soon after. (Before 1923.) -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 02:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Jewish encyclopedia

Can I upload a diagram from Jewish Encyclopedia icluding its source? Shoteh (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC) says on its home page, "The Jewish Encyclopedia, which recently became part of the public domain, contains over 15,000 articles and illustrations", so if the diagram you're talking about was in the encyclopedia then you can take it from that site and upload it here. In fact, a better choice would be to upload it to Wikimedia Commons, so that it can be more easily used on other Wiki sites. -- Hux (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

china and tibet??

Wy is China bothered with Tibet when it does not gain them any inncome and the people do not cause them any harm they are peacefull people,as an English man I find it offensive. They are not doing the olympic's any good at all. China to me,and I think I speak for many people is very daft!!! not to be ignored but be warned the world is watching. This is not in anyway a threat but a comment from a member of the British public,who in the past has not allways been wrong but sometimes right. I wish your Chinese govenment all the best,but I am affraid you will not make the humain choise,all the best from an English man G.C.Roberts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:59, 17 March 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 04:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Photos of boat

Hello, I have a photograph of a ferry boat, taken by me. Can I upload it as a free image? (I got concerned because I think such things may be considered derivative works.) How about my photographs of the interior of the ferry boat? Thank you, Riick (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I confess to not being clear on exactly where the line falls on these things, but I'm about 99% certain that both the exterior and the interior of the boat would fall on the non-derivative work side (I know, for example, that buildings do). Would somebody else like to corroborate and hopefully explain more clearly where the line is? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
We need a lawyer type; I can't figure it out! On the one hand, there are plenty other pictures of boats that are uploaded as free images (for example, in the Staten Island Ferry article). As for your analogy with buildings, I was looking at the derivative works page in wikimedia and I agree that in the USA photos of buildings don't violate copyright in some cirucumstances. I guess part of this is because buildings are considered artwork that is "permanently installed". Is a ferry boat artwork that is "permanently installed"? In addition, the freedom of panorama page in wikimedia says that in the USA photographs of buildings completed after 1990 can be subject to copyright violation if the image is not taken from a public place. But I don't know what constitutes "a public place"; is that the same thing as "publicly-owned property", or is it broader than that? Riick (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
A "public place", when it comes to freedom of panorama issues, is any place open to the general public. This can certainly include private property, such as a college campus or a museum lobby or even a restaurant. Powers T 14:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

note: I've also posted this question in wikimedia commons help. Riick (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


I uploaded this image GrandpaGeorge.jpg which was found at the

The web site does not clear attributions but the photo was taken in 1908 in Ceylon.

Could this photo be copyright free? How could I go about determining copyright status.


MDaisy MDaisy (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I won't comment on the copyright issue, but I will say that you should upload a new version of the photo: the huge, white border around the existing version will pretty much make it unusable, from an aesthetic standpoint! -- Hux (talk) 04:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Personal Image Upload


I wish to upload an photograph taken by someone else who has given permission for it to be used on and around Wikipedia, however doesn't want it free for use outside of Wikipedia. Is this possible and what would the license be, etc. Thanks! T.carnifex (talk) 07:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia accepts permission only if it permits reuse by anyone for anything, including commercial use and derivative works. —teb728 t c 08:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Photo of SS Mareeba

Greetings, I need help regarding this image I have emailed the Australian War Memorial about the photo, here is their response:

Thank you for your request seeking permission to use material from our photographic collection.
We are happy for you to take a copy of 303588 directly from our website to be used for your article about the SS Mareeba located on the wikipedia website.
We ask that you to please acknowledge the Australian War Memorial below or adjacent to the image with a link to the Australian War Memorial website as well as the following statement: “Australian War Memorial Negative Number 303588”
It is not permissible for this image to be distributed by anyone other then the Australian War Memorial, if any one wishes to ascertain a copy of this image they are required to contact the Australian War Memorial.
If you wish to use this image again or alter the image in any way including cropping the image you must first seek written approval from the Australian War Memorial.

(Their emphasis, not mine) So, how do I upload it? Fosnez (talk) 11:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, their answer indicates that it definitely isn't free enough for general use on Wikipedia. However, since the ship no longer exists it's definitely usable under fair use on SS Mareeba. To do that, just upload it (selecting "Other" from the dropdown menu), and then edit the image's page to insert {{non-free fair use in|SS Mareeba}} and then insert a fair use rationale (This template can be helpful with the latter part). Let us know if you have any more questions. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. I have one more question. The photo was obviously taked before the ship sank in 1941, so am I correct that, regardless of the opinions of the host of the image, it would be in the public domain according to Australian Copyright law:
I have emailed them asking the same as I am asking here, but does anyone have any ideas? Special note that the Australian War Memorial would appear to be an Australian government department, so would 'E' apply? Fosnez (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, you appear to be quite correct; good catch. You can ignore everything I said about using it under fair use. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Rider University Images

Hi. I'm trying to work on the Rider University page to meet some of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Universities standards and I wanted to upload an image of the school seal and an image of the new Broncs logo. I'm not sure about the licensing type for either. I'm assuming "logo" for both, is that correct? I'm also not sure if using either of the images on the Rider University page constitutes the free use rational policy. If it does, what would the rationale be?

The seal was found here: Commencement 2004 and I cropped and cleaned up the image in Paint to show only the logo. And the Athletics logo was found here: Rider bronc

Sorry for asking obvious questions, but I've never done something like this before and I'm a little lost in the legal jargon. Thanks! --AngelSilence (talk) 17:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't apologize for asking - we much prefer editors who ask when they're not sure to those who blindly upload, don't tag properly, and then are all like "OMG the evil bot is driving people away". Anyway, in answer to your question, logo seems fine. It's important, though, that after uploading you also provide a fair use rationale for each image in each article in which you want to use it. As for whether they're usable in the article, I would say yes in each case - the school's logo will always be usable in an article about the school, while I think the athletics one is justified by the fact that there's an athletics section in the article (if there wasn't, my answer would be different). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. Very much appreciated! AngelSilence (talk) 23:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

RADURA-logo was free from the beginning

I have up-loaded the international RADURA-logo in two attempts File:RADURACX.JPG and RADURAcx.JPG; both failed to meet the copyright criteria for reasons I could not follow. This symbol was free from the beginning, see the given reference to R. Ulmann. It is also contained in the labelling standard of Codex Alimentarius, with comes through FAO under the UN. I could not find an appropriate copyright-tag for this situation. See the alternative: the US RADURA-logo as found in the article on food irradiation ( is a version slightly different from the international one and, hence, comes under licence from the USFDA. Can someone advice me? Dieter E (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm having trouble following what you're saying, so please bear with me. The logo was developed by R. M. Ullman. Did he develop it as work for hire, or did he retain the copyright? If the former, for whom was he working? If the latter, what did he do with the copyright that resulted in it now being free? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The full RADURA-story is found at Ulmann was the then dircector of the irradiation company Gammaster at Ede/Wageningen, The Netherlands. Later on his successor was Jan Leemhorst. Today the company is named Isotron. The logo as proposed and provided free of copyright reservations was already used worldwide since the invention until today; many times with slight variations. For example the USFDA changed the 'leaves' from filled to empty and made use of this free copyright; the symbol was regularly used in South Africa amended with the text 'radurized' in the lower half of the circle; Thailand uses a variation of colours; and in plain green it is part of the labelling standard of Codex Alimentarius. (I hope those explanations help to judge the case; I had uploaded this logo to the German version without this copy-right problem!)Dieter E (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dieter - I really am very sorry, but I'm still having trouble with this. The article doesn't seem to say anything about the copyright status of the logo, so I'm still not clear: why is it that Ullman (or his employer, if he created the logo as work for hire) does not hold the copyright on the logo? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason is quite clear, at least for me: immediately after the creation of the RADURA-logo it was given free to everybody by M. Ulmann and his company. It is for this reason that this logo could be implemented without any special permission into the Codex Alimentarius standard on labelling (cf. CODEX-STAN - 1 (2005) labelling of prepacked food And at least for this latter reason, a free copyright can be derived from Codex Alimentarius; however, I have been unable toi identify the appropriate copyrignt tag. Dieter E (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

According to the article, the copyright is owned by the Pilot Plant for Food Irradiation, Wageningen, Netherlands. And “the use of the logo was permitted to everybody adhering to the same rules of quality.” This permission sounds too restrictive for free use on Wikipedia. Free use allows reuse by anyone for anything.
However it would certainly be permitted as a non-free use. I have restored the {{non-free logo}} tag and added non-free use rationales. —teb728 t c 23:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

THANKS for your help; this will resolve the problem for the time being. However, using the RADURA-logo under the provisions of Codex Alimentarius would be a real 'free use' as no copyright permission is required.Dieter E (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair-use opinion sought

Before I upload it, I would like some additional opinion as to whether this image on Flickr could be justified for use on List of participating nations at the Winter Olympic Games per WP:Non-free content criteria. I am unsure about the "no free equivalent" criteria. This photo is a snapshot of a past event that cannot be recreated, and I have been unable to find any photographs published under Creative Commons (for example) of that same event. Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say no. While I think the image does meet the replaceability threshold (in that a comparable free image could not be found or created), I don't think there's anything in the article that would justify inclusion of that image (i.e. there doesn't seem to be anything in the article about that specific event, although I only gave it a cursory read). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I am working to make this a featured list, and the WP:Featured list criteria includes having appropriate images. The most appropriate image (in my mind) for a list of participating nations is a photo of all the athletes, arranged by nation, from the opening ceremonies for any of the 20 Games listed. If there are other suggestions to represent this concept with an image, I am open to them! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that an image is needed for Wikipedia's featured list criteria does not, in and of itself, justify its use on Wikipedia. Sometimes this means that it is impossible to make an article or list featured without free images becoming available. Sorry for being the bearer of bad news (although other editors are welcome to provide other opinions on the fair use of this image). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course, I realize that. I'm not suggesting that the FLC is justification for fair-use! I'm stating that I want to illustrate the concept of a list of participating nations by a photo of the "Parade of Nations" from the Opening Ceremony of an Olympic Games, and I'm asking if that is sufficient justification for fair-use. I understand that this image would have a stronger fair-use rationale for the 2006 Winter Olympics Opening Ceremony article, for example, but I'm asking if there would be any acceptable rationale to use it on the List of participating nations at the Winter Olympic Games article. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
In my view, there would not. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I concur. Fortunately, while that particular event is indeed past, there may yet be free images that could illustrate the article just as well -- even if it means waiting to take one in 2010. Powers T 02:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I too concur. The significant Fair Use criterion here is that the image must be used in an article (or article section) that is specifically about that particular image. In this case, the proposal is to use it simply as an illustration of the general concept of the "Parade of Nations", which unfortunately isn't sufficient. -- Hux (talk) 04:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
You know, I was fairly sure this would be the consensus opinion, but it's always useful to have that reinforced by additional voices. Thanks to all who commented here. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bt team ellen 20070828 138B.jpg

This is an image from Commons uploaded as copyright holder releases to public domain. However on the image itself there is a copyright notice (©Lloyd Images/DPPI/BT Team Ellen) and I can't see any evidence that the user has permission to release the image. I don't exactly know how Commons works and I'm sorry if I'm missing something very obvious. Would someone mind enlightening me. Guest9999 (talk) 07:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That particular upload looks a little fishy to me. I've nominated it for deletion. Megapixie (talk) 07:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

How can I use an image found on the official website?

How can I use an image found on the official website? --Viz naren (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Images can be used on Wikipedia if the have been released under a free license (GFDL or compatable]] or have been released into the public demain - this means that they can be reused for any purpose - including commercial - although certain restrcition such as attribution of the original author can apply. Non-free images can be used if they meet all the criteria set out in WP:NFCC for a living person this is unlikley to be the case as a free equivelent will likely be possible (criterion 1). An exception to this might d be if the image depicted a significant time or event in the persons life of which there was likely no free equivelent. I hope this helps, it might be relevent to note that Wikipedia specifically does not allow images "by permission" unless those images also meet with all the criteria set out in WP:NFCC (and then those images could be used without permission anyway). Guest9999 (talk) 11:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


Hello. In the course of a BRFA we came across this image (Image:NewarkHawks14d.gif). It is not displayed in article space, rather linked to from a reference. Any advice on the applicability of fair use/non-free use doctrine on this particular case would be appreciated. I am thinking it is an invalid use, but couldn't find any text directly on point to confirm. Thanks. - AWeenieMan (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Lets link to the specific BRFA :) Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/ImageResizeBot. I'm also stumped, but I'm also leaning to invalid, as the proper way to do this is to cite the article. We don't include verbatim copies of other non-free reference works... —— Eagle101Need help? 18:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair Use law frowns on the use of an entire copyrighted work, so I doubt this would satisfy Wikipedia's non-free requirements. The image should probably be deleted, especially since it's not even being displayed int any article. -- Hux (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Laon Cathedral's regulator lines.jpg

In which way are that images not ok. I'm not getting it, how is that any worst than the millions of screenshots in Wikipedia? I'm just using a portion, I'm specifiying source, I think the copyright tag is in order and are basic for the article in which they're used, what can I be possibly missing?? All of those are scans that has to be way better than the average taken-from-some-site-X pictures all over wikipedia. What about screenshots? Why comic book pages and not regular book pages or book images (I think a comic book author would care even ore than a book author)--20-dude (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Please see my response at the image's PUI listing. -- Hux (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


I've just put up this image and received a message to say that it needs to be copyrighted. It's my own work which I'd like to be freely available to Wiki. It looks as though I did something wrong in the form-filling when I uploaded it. Can someone tell me what I should do now, please? abafied (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If it’s your own work then you own the copyright. In order for it to appear on Wikipedia, you need to license its use by Wikipedia and anyone else for anything. Add a license tag from this list. —teb728 t c 23:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks.abafied (talk)

UCLA digital library program

User:Ucladiglib has uploaded numerous images from the UCLA digital library/Los Angeles Times archives [11]. Here's an example image. Issues: 1) their website claims CC-Attribution ShareAlike Non-Commercial [12] and Non-Commercial is not acceptable. 2) The user sent me an email after I marked that example image as a copyright violation. I asked how they can claim Creative Commons for images that they did not take. This person told me they were doing what they were told. It sounds like copyfraud to me. Royalbroil 05:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It may be as simple as the LA Times having donated the images to UCLA, thus handing the copyrights over. Regardless, CC-BY-NC-SA is still unacceptable. howcheng {chat} 06:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm going to revert the copyvio you placed at Image:Wiki uclalat 1429 b18 N20.jpg. I think that all the images uploaded by Ucladiglib need to be handled en masse and not picked off one by one. They all share the same problem and they may all have the same answer. As for, "doing what they were told" and copyfraud, it may be that they have a misunderstanding of how things work here. In any case, the solution should be global. --evrik (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good - I agree. Would you contact me with the link to the discussion so that I can continue following up on this topic? Royalbroil 16:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure ... for now, let me list the images:

That's all I could find. --evrik (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Evrik and I have been in email contact with the uploader, and Non-Commericial doesn't appear to work. Royalbroil 16:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The biggest problem is they want to use {{Cc-by-sa-nc-3.0}} which is not compatible with wikipedia. Don't know what to do ... --evrik (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
They must all be deleted. Non-commercial images aren't acceptable here. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 18:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The UCLA site shows a non-commercial license as well. It's not clear, especially with communication having been done through E-mail and no OTRS ticket(s), if LATimes gave permission for UCLA to use, or transfer of copyright (which seems would be odd to me). But either way, both websites state a non-commercial use, and further it is doubtful the uploader knew what they were doing (granting commercial use) and had the authority to do so. I've deleted all the above listed images, including the one that found it's way to Commons already. MECUtalk 17:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Evrik & I were unable to resolve the issue through email contact. Mecu speedy deleted one of the images by WP:CSD#I9, and I asked him to review the rest. Royalbroil 19:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Marion Zimmer Bradley

Her article needs an image, and the one being used at this website is very nice. It's not in English, but it does list the ownership of the photograph, and because she's deceased, there's little possibility of a free alternative being found. I'm pretty familiar with doing image uploads of logos and screenshots and things, but I'm confused by this one. It's not a book cover, screen shot, or postage stamp. Is there a "fair use image of deceased person" tag? Or what? --Masamage 23:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Not on the dropdown menu. Just skip the dropdown bit, and manually tag it with {{non-free fair use in|Marion Zimmer Bradley}}. And attach a fair use rationale, of course. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Aha, a generic. Okay, thank you! --Masamage 17:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


Hello, I would like to use a foto to illustrate the Castlemorton Common Festival page. It is a famous illegal festival and it was featured in the newspapers of the time (1992). Would it be possible to use an image from a newspaper under fair use rationale? I will check back here for answers. Examples of possible fotos can be found via this page. Thanks! Mujinga (talk) 08:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think so, iff there are no free images of the event known to exist. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
hmmm, ok, thanks! Mujinga (talk) 09:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Question about permission to use wikipedia images in research articles

I want to use images from wikipedia in a research article which will appear as a book chapter in a book entitled Anticancer Therapeutics edited by S. Missailidis and published by Wiley.

For example, I use 2 photos from the english article on "Taxus brevifolia". These are under GNU Free Documentation License. If I write::

Photos by Walter Siegmund, retrieved from on December 01, 2007.

Is it O.K.? How should I cite these?

Sincerely yours,

Dr. Fotini N. Lamari Foteini (talk) 08:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You would also need to include the test of the GFDL and a statement that the images are so-licensed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding fair use to image that is already loaded

I am unsure how to add fair use to image that is already loaded. This is the image.

Image:1964 Anonima Panel, April 1964, Anthony Hill, Charles Parkhurst, Ed Miczkowski, Donald Judd, Ernst Benkert.JPG

This is my image.

Sincerely, east corinth

When you say that it's your image, do you mean that you hold the copyright for it? If so, where did you get it? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Photographs for Holsinger's page

I have several photographs that I would like to use on Holsinger's page. My school librarian looked in her copyright book, and thought the copyright for the first two would reside with the subject. I would like to know if others agree and if I can post them on his page:
1. A photo of Holsinger with his wife and two people from University of China taken at his house by a party guest on Holsinger's camera.
2. A photo of Holsinger with C. Everett Koop taken at a restaurant with Holsinger's camera by an individual at the restaurant.
3. A photo of Holsinger with a child on a mission trip taken by his wife.
4. A photo of Holsinger with his mother taken by a niece at a party.
5. The official University of Kentucky photo of Holsinger taken by a state employee.
6. The official Military photo of Holsinger, which I already know has no copyright.

I was emailed the UK photo by a University employee to be used on the wikipedia page, and a I have a release to use the photo. I can get a release from the wife and niece (if necessary), but since I do not know the photographer of two of these photographs I was not sure how to proceed.--Maryrebecca (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Technically, even if it's the subject's camera, the copyright resides with the photographer, but we overlook that for the most part, so I think a release from Holsinger himself will be sufficient. howcheng {chat} 23:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Insert Picture and Copyright

Dear Wiki I tried to insert a picture of my grandmother on the Wikipedia page for 'Suzanne Olsson.' I git the message that the picture does not have a copyright (I took the picture so it is mine). The picture does not appear on her page. All I get is a warning that the picture will be deleted. Please can you help me properly insert the picture there? Thank You. Kashmir2

Hi! Assuming that Image:Sue2001.jpg is the image in question, there are a couple of things going on here. First, when you hit "Upload file" and follow the pages to upload a photo, all that does is upload it to Wikipedia. It doesn't add the photo to a specific page - you have to do that separately. To do that, just go to the relevant page, click "edit this page" at the top and add this to the appropriate place:

[[Image:Sue2001.jpg|thumb|250px|right|YOUR CAPTION HERE]]

Second, the reason you're getting a message about a copyright problem is because you didn't add any copyright info when you uploaded the photo. Since it's your photo you can release it under a free license (e.g. GFDL) or into the public domain. If you want to do the former then just go to the image click, "edit this page" and insert {{GFDL-self}}. If you prefer the latter, insert {{PD-self}}. (Also, you can go ahead and remove the {{di-no license|date=March 21 2008}} tag once you've done that, which will remove the copyright warning message.) Finally, while you're editing that image page, you should add a description of what the photo is next to where it says "Description=". Regards, Hux (talk) 02:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

how to remove robot tag

can't seem to figure out how to remove the "robot tag". tried "edit" to find the tag source but couldn't. Is the solution even more obvious than that?

Thanks again

Tag looks like this: {{di-no fair use rationale|date=March 21 2008}} (in edit mode) and is located at the top of the edit field. Just take it out. Dr.K. (talk) 05:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use of a photo

I wished to add a photo to an existing biography page so there will BE a photo of the subject. The subject is Acker Bilk, a well-known British Clarinetist. The photo I wanted to use was one that is offered free for download to the public from Mr. Bilk's website, so I assumed that constituted fair use. When I tried to do this, Commandbot gave me some advice and the photo was disallowed. I'm trying to understand how exactly to do this correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerR00 (talkcontribs) 05:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but Wikipedia policy allows fair use content only if free content (i.e. allowing reuse by anyone for anything) is not possible. Since Blik is alive, someone could take a free photo of him. Or perhaps he might be able to provide a free image. —teb728 t c 06:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I must just be dense, here. From what you say and from what I see elsewhere on this subject here, it appears to me that the ONLY photo image I could put on Acker Bilk's page, to represent him, would be a completely unique one that he provides to me specifically for this purpose. Since he is still living (in England) I suppose I could, with a lot of work, get him to do that. However, since my original purpose was simply to make sure that the Wikipedia page about one of my favorite instrumentalists was complete, i,e, showed a picture of him, makes me wonder how many thousands of Wikipedia pictures of people (one example: Any recent presidential photo) meet your criteria. I understand why you do not want to run afoul of copyrights, and agree with the sentiments, but it seems to me that this level of control is counterintuitive to the Wikipedia concept. Quite simply, I challenge any Wikipedia admin to actually put a picture of Acker Bilk on that page that complies, and demonstrate to me how you got there. Please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerR00 (talkcontribs) 04:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

People release free images to us all the time. I know because I've processed hundreds of the images. See WP:COPYREQ on how and what to ask and some e-mail templates. It's quite simple to e-mail the subject (see the contact email/page on their website) and ask. Most people are flattered and agree. It would take to less time than it took to write your response above. MECUtalk 14:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I must be even more dense because I too am trying to understand these rules and it seems failing miserably. I used a tool I found on Wiki to help me find image that comes under the cloud 'creative commons'. I was directed (by choosing Google) to the artists official website where I found the photo I am wanting to use on the artists page. The photo I want to use is also a publicity photo and is in fact a still from a promo music video. I could also of course take a screenshot of this or of any other image myself. Added to which I have been sent this photo by the artists manager who has given me permission to use the photo on Wikipedia. So surely one of these options enables me to use the photo without having to obtain further permission? If I am correct, I would be grateful if you would tell me what of the many options I shuld select to inform of licensing. If not, please explain for the benefit of all of us in plain and simple terms what sources are acceptable to use for the purpose of obtaining images for inclusion on artists pages without hassling artists for express permission.
  Яєdxx Talk 15:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The image needs to have been released under a free license by the copyright holder. Examples of free licences include the GFDL and creative commons Attribution ShareAlike.Geni 16:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Self-drawn maps

This question relates particularly to UK maps, where we have to beware of Crown Copyright. I would like to be able to illustrate articles on geology etc with self-drawn thematic maps. A good example of such a map (not produced by me) is at Image:Bowerchalke Inlier v11.jpg. Can such an image be regarded as free of Crown Copyright, given that the basemap (contours, roads, buildings) is clearly a copy of a copyright map (in this case Ordnance Survey Landranger 2nd Series Sheet 184, dated 1983 or later)? Pterre (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Still looking for a response on this - anyone? Pterre (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

BetacommandBot and grammar

I haven't been able to find a more appropriate forum to address this, but would someone please update BetacommandBot's grammar? Quite a few of his boilerplates include a sentence that begins "If there is other media, ..."

The correct English usage is "If there are other media, ..." since in English, the term "media" is a plural of "medium," which is a singular noun. Radio is one medium of information exchange. The Internet and television are two more media. It's a simple and obvious fix, assuming one has access to the boilerplate files. Please expedite. P.F. Bruns (talk) 06:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Try User talk:Betacommand The template is both subst'd and located on BC's servers, so only he could change it. Sounds like a good idea though. MBisanz talk 07:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


I have added the non-free tempalte. So can u remove it know ? and by the way , what do you mean "bad images" ? --Roaring Siren (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


can u know remove the deletion tag from please ? I had a template and description added. --Roaring Siren (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

That image is from a stock photo collection that sells for $339. [13] The image is definitely not free and is not allowed on Wikipedia. It would not be allowed under "Fair Use" because it is easy to recreate an equivalent image. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Derivative (vectorized) version of a fair use image

I have made a vector version of a raster image...

The original is "fair use" without a rationale.

  1. Is there a way that I can put a free license on my changes (or does this even make sense to consider)?
  2. I could use assistance in writing up a free-use rationale for this image.

Booya Bazooka 05:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

In answer to the first question, no. Derivative works of unfree images are always unfree. As for the second, I'm afraid that I don't think any use of that image in any Wikipedia article is possible, due to replaceability. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Quite a shame. I suppose both images should be tagged for deletion, then? ~ Booya Bazooka 05:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, seems like it would have to be deleted. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


Good day

I was in Sudan in April - October 2006, as a Military Observer, working for the UN. I started in Khartoum, proceeded to Kassala, then on to Kadugli before my six month tour was over. It was quite an experience. I am hoping to supplement some of the information you have about the country, the people, based on my own experiences, observations, and of course, more pictures than you can possibly imagine. I have never contributed on line to anything before, I am very much a novice. Any assistance you can give me in this regard, i.e. how to post comments, pictures, etc, I would be grateful. Thank you Zsuzsa

°Zitoth (talk) 07:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The people at Wikimedia Commons can help you with contributing a large body of work. See --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

how to remove an image

how to remove an image —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micksmithagain (talkcontribs)

See Wikipedia:IUP#Deleting_images --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The Mummy's Curse

Hello. I have just added an image for The Mummy's Curse. I hope I have added the correct template as other ones are similar. Please get back. Electric Japan (talk) 10:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You mean Image:The Mummy's Tomb.jpg ... looks good to me. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Collectors Cards

Someone wanted to upload an image they scanned of a Harry Potter Collectors card. I'm not exactally sure what copyright would apply to that. Any ideas? ~ Bella Swan 00:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The template to classify it would likely be {{Non-free 2D art}}. Then you'd need a fair use rationale for each page you use it on. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Can I use this logo?

I would like to use a cropped version of this logo [14] as part of a clean up for the article Lifeline Expedition.

I frequently have difficulty working out what is fair use. Would I need express permission from the organisation itself?

Thanks Annatto (talk) 10:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a specific policy page on how to use logos in articles. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Multiple licensing/copyrights on Image:Free-software-badge.png, nominate for deletion?

I'm not sure if this image should be nominated for deletion. It has been nominated on commons Commons:Image:Free-software-badge.png, but I'm not sure how this combination of licensing/copyrights works on this end of the project. -Optigan13 (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The Commons contributor makes a good point. Since it's not significant in the article, it's probably best not to take the chance. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I've nominated the image here Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 March 25#Image:Free-software-badge.png. Also to ensure the above image link stays valid, the deletion request I'm referencing is here Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Free-software-badge.png. -Optigan13 (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Tokaimura Nuclear Accident

I don't know how much like-ness becomes a copyright violation --- but this article

seems to lift passages from this page

with only minor rewordings. Is that wrong? (talk) 04:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. According to Wikipedia:Copyright violations, the first thing to do is bring it up on the article's talk page. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Changing copyright info on an image I have uploaded

Ive added an image of a CD Single called: Image:East_17_It's_Alright.jpg

I am not sure how to change the copyright thing you asked me to do. The image has been taken from the website link:

If this is violating copyright law on this site, I would like to know how to put in a safe picture that is presentable with the article I have added about the song the image is featured in. I have read some info that a few images are snapshots of the original image, so could this be the way to add an image of single cover without violating copyright laws?

I've replaced it with the Template:Non-free album cover tag. Currently, fair use images need a copyright tag, as well as a rationale for each use. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

uploading photo

Tony Deifell took a picture of Eve Carson, see I wrote to Tony to see if we could put it up on Wikipedia and he responded,

"[Her] wiki page is great. If you want the high-res photo of her, it's on the Ning site. Go to her photo and chose the "All Sizes" button. I'm happy with the photo being used in any way to honor her."

How do I proceed? Jwulsin (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately Wikipedia does not accept permission for use only on Wikipedia; Wikipedia requires a free license—one which allows reuse by anyone for anything. To request such permission, see WP:COPYREQ. —teb728 t c 21:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

My Uploaded Chemdraw Structure tagged as copyright violation

I am trying to upload a number of self-drawn ChemDraw chemical structures for inclusion into two articles. Message from Wikipedia indicates a copyright violation. It can not be so since I drew them and uploaded one by converting into JPeg. Advise. I never thought that it will be so difficult to write for Wikipedia. Do not even know how to ask and who to ask about these strange problems.

Every image has to have a tag, indicating its copyright/licensing status. I suspect that this image is so trivial that it is not copyrightable, in which case the tag would be {{PD-ineligible}}. Does someone have a second opinion on that? Otherwise, since it is your own work, you would select a tag from this list. For reference, the image is Image:DPO Structure .jpeg.jpg. —teb728 t c 20:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with PD-ineligible. If the author wants to head off future debates over whether it is ineligible, they could replace it with {{PD-self}} if they wish. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Map from 1886 publication

I would like to make sure I can upload the following image:

The book it originaly appeared in (Allgemeiner historischer Atlas by Johann Gustav Droysen) was published in 1886 in Bielefeld and Leipzig.

I would like to have this image uploaded to help improve several article under European ethnic group stubs (such as Adrabaecampi), where most or all of the information in them is derived from the same source (Ptolemy). Thanks Aryaman (☼) 01:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

German law applies here, which states 70 years after death of author. Johann Gustav Droysen says he died in 1884, plus 70 means copyright expired in 1954, so it's public domain now. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 01:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

questions about album cover images

I'm using one album cover image and one image of a band for two seperate informative articles about each item. The record companies that owned the copyrights to both these images are defunct and non-existent as of the present. Do I still have to include a rationale for said images?

images in question:

[| Bwa-bandbig.jpg]

[| Dadalbum.jpg]

These two images both have tags that say I've not included sufficient rationale or explaination. However, the third image i uploaded, another album cover image by the same band and defunct record company, does not have the tag that the other two images have. What's the difference between the two with disputed tags and the one without?

this is the image without the tag: [| Everythingwasbeautifulandnothinghurt.jpg]


Yes you have to use the Fair use rationale in any case. The [| Bwa-bandbig.jpg] doesn't have a Fair use rationale. The [| Dadalbum.jpg] had an invalid Fair use rationale at the time the bot discovered it. You then fixed it by adding the article name. Now you can remove the robot tag. The third pic is ok because its rationale is complete. Dr.K. (talk) 05:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't necessarily matter whether the record company is now defunct: somebody inherits the company's assets, including the company's intellectual property. — Walloon (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


what if the image is just a photograph from around the school and there is no copyright linked to it at all?

The copyright to a photograph is owned by the person who pressed the shutter. If the author wants to relinquish copyright, the tag is {{PD-because|reason}} --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, if you are the one who pressed the shutter, you tag it {{PD-self}} --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean by "from around the school"? Who took the photograph? When? What is in the photograph? — Walloon (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyright of text..unsure

Looking at: Image:2003-2007 Browns Script.PNG , it seems that it has an incorrect tag of {{Non-free logo}} and should instead be {{PD-textlogo}} Is this a correct assumption? Thanks. §tepshep¡Talk to me! 04:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems fair. Someone has already changed it. Stifle (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

reusing articles

I have read GFDL and the instructions for reusers, however, am not sure I can make references properly. The following line from the instruction confuses me "You may copy and distribute..... provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies..." Can I see a temlate of how to make a reference in my textbook (I have found a template of citing only) properly not to violate copyright? Please, help me. Amy

The easiest path would be to contact the author, and ask what would meet their requirements or if they would release it under a more permissive license. If that's not possible remember that the text of the GFDL is the only applicable legally binding document and if it's not clear to you, you may even need to consult a lawyer. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Rat at WikiFur: I think you may have it backwards. As far as I can tell (although admittedly it's somewhat ambiguous), Amy is asking how to correctly cite something from Wikipedia in her own work and is confused by what the GFDL requirements for this are. Unfortunately, I lack the knowledge to advise on that (although Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia may provide some insight, depending on what kind of Wiki content is being used). Perhaps someone else can help? -- Hux (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Main screenshot for Mozilla Firefox

There is currently a discussion at Image talk:Firefox on Ubuntu.png, a talk page about a Non-free version of Mozilla Firefox that it's replaceable-non-free status is being disputed and Talk:Mozilla Firefox about the Mozilla Firefox article's main screenshot. As of this writing, the image that is being used for the Mozilla Firefox article is Image:Wikipedia Main Page in Firefox, an image that has all the non-free images removed or replaced by free alternatives. The dispute is to whether or not the new screenshot is encyclopedic or misleading because it does not show the browser in its abosolute default state, but has been shot with customizations to both the browser and Wikipedia logo. Those who support the old image say that it doesn't represent what Firefox is, because it doesn't come out of the box, however those who support the new image feel that if there is a Free screenshot, replacing it with a non-free violates the WP:NONFREE policies, as there is a free screenshot that demonstrates the browser. --wL<speak·check> 21:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The page is long enough; you could include both an absolutely free-as-possible screenshot, and a fair use screenshot showing the defaults. Either way, the use of the Wikipedia page(with or without the correct logo) seems unnecessarily self-referential. It would make reuse easier to use a public domain web page. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Or, better yet, why not just use the default "Welcome to Firefox" page you get when the browser starts for the first time? As far as I'm aware that would be a freely usable image, plus it would represent Firefox without confusing anyone by showing some other web page. If the point of the image is to show what Firefox looks like then we should keep it as unambiguous as possible. -- Hux (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

David Zeisberger

Hi there. I'm working on the David Zeisberger article and I'm considering adding some vintage pictures to it's infobox. I found a collection of old paintings of him (he died 1808) here. How would I go about securing permission to use these; or can I use them? Loaves (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Any of the images with a creation date of before 1923 can be used under the {{PD-US}} tag. Megapixie (talk) 04:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it's the date of first publication, not the creation date, that matters. The two are usually fairly similar, though. --Carnildo (talk) 06:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanx much for your help. Loaves (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The creation date matters if it is an unpublished work created for hire, in which case the U.S. copyright lasts for 120 years from the date of creation. "Published" means published by authority of the copyright owner. So the rule of thumb is: works published before 1923, or unpublished works created for hire before 1888, are out of copyright in the U.S. For unpublished works not created for hire (which includes most paintings), the U.S. copyright term is for the life of the author plus 70 years. — Walloon (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

comic book covers

You know how you aren't supposed to use magazine covers with a person on them in that person's article unless making a point about that cover? Does the same apply to comic book covers? For example could I theoretically and hypothetically use a cover of a Batman comic book that had Superman on it in Superman's article in the main infobox?--Rockfang (talk) 10:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The main reasoning for the discouraging of using a cover for the picture of a person, is that a freely-licensed image would be preferable to a fair use image. With comic characters, no free image could be made. For illustrating a character, all else being equal, both the cover and an inside page, are both equally acceptable. Assuming it otherwise meets the NFCC --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 10:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


Hi there can you tell me where i can get a aerial photoghraphy map of helmand province centred around musa qala and street maps of the area and to include camp bastion at 1:5000 and 1:2500 mapping or even a website where i can down load the mapping onto a satmap im a member of the british army soon to be deployed there

Well, if you're looking for a map, you can ask WikiProject Maps to create you one. Otherwise, you'll probably need to create the image yourself. --wL<speak·check> 21:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The Musa Qala article contains a map source link for the coordinates 32°26′36″N 64°44′40″E / 32.4433°N 64.7444°E / 32.4433; 64.7444. Perhaps that will help you. —teb728 t c 22:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Six Flags of Texas

I'm currently working on a template for Six flags over Texas to list the flags that have flown above the State of Texas at some time. I found a photo that I want to use on a website and have asked 2 weeks ago for permission, and haven't recieved an answer on it. Would this image be able to be used? The image is at the site Thanks in advance.

Leobold1 (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If you receive an answer that they are releasing the image under a free content license wikipedia can use, then yes. (like the gfdl and some creative commons licenses). If you don't receive an answer or they just give permission to wikipedia, then no. Garion96 (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
And if I'm waiting more than 2 weeks than I can assume that the e-mail addy is defunct and I won't get an answer. Therefore, the answer is "no". Thank you. Leobold1 (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


On the image page the tag says that the image has been released into the public domain but there is also a written description saying the "He had explicitly granted me permission to upload this photo on Wikipedia and to link it to the page of Mount Rushmore". It seems likely that the image is currently on Wikipedia by permission and not actually in the public domian (or under a free lisence), the web page given as the source[15] states "All Photographs Copyright Vincent K. Chan. Use without permission is prohibited.". I don't see an OTRS ticket, is there something I'm missing or is this an I3 candidate? Guest9999 (talk) 23:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Image deleted as having an invalid by permission license - speedy delete criterion I3. Guest9999 (talk) 03:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Buried Lithanie Undead (2007) thumbnail.GIF

Hi all, it's been a while, better months, since the last time I've logged in and what do I find out ? The whole page [named "Gothic (Gothic Multimedia Project)"] I created more than one year ago was deleted some months ago because of a supposed copyright violation concerning the above mentioned image. The curious fact is I'm the exclusive owner of that image ! It could be I typed the wrong copyright tag for this image, ok, that's not a problem, btw I don't understand why the whole page was deleted instead of the single "controversial" image. So I'd like to ask the person (PhilKnight or STBotI or whoever else) who deleted the page "Gothic (Gothic Multimedia Project)" the template of the whole page so that I could upload it again with the right copyright tag. Thanks. Gothic JJ (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC+1)

The article Gothic (Gothic Multimedia Project) was deleted because it was inappropriate for Wikipedia. I am not able to see the reason for the deletion, but it is likely that the subject of the article was not notable. In any case it was not due to any problem with an image.
Image:Buried Lithanie Undead (2007) thumbnail.GIF was deleted because it was a duplicate of Image:Buried Lithanies Undead (2007) thumbnail.GIF.
Image:Buried Lithanies Undead (2007) thumbnail.GIF was deleted because the page it was used on (presumably Gothic (Gothic Multimedia Project)) was deleted. —teb728 t c 06:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The most recent version of the page was deleted for being a copyright violation. [16] Corvus cornixtalk 18:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

album covers on artist's main page

long story short: on the Fleshcrawl page, i used the covers of their albums on their release chronology, but a different editor keeps removing them (without first discussing it with the community), and when i inquired, he/she claimed that the cover images' copyright/fair-use/whatever doesn't include the band's main entry... i have attempted to use logic with the other editor, but it feels like i'm trying to teach the cuman language to a sandbag.


so, my question is this:

if i uploaded second copies of all of the cover images (from the same source, the ban'd official website, cited, of course)

and if i selected "It is the cover of an album or single"

then selected "in an article about the album's artist, used to identify the artist's work"

would this fly?

i.e., would the other editor be able to justify removing the cover images from the bands main entry, even if the lisencing is corrected on these images?

if it helps, i have the source, owner, publisher, and artist (the person who drew the images), and i can easily gain access from the band itself to use the images.

(also, if it's not too much of a bother, could whoever answers this please post on my talk page, either that my question has been answered, or the answer itself?)

thank you,

AeturnalNarcosis (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say that the other editor was right. Wikipedia policy strongly discourages the use of non-free media. Typically album covers are accepted only to illustrate the recording in question. Any other use would require a strong justification of why its presence would significantly increase readers’ understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding, as required by WP:NFCC#8.
You mentioned getting the copyright owner’s permission: That would not be useful unless they were willing to grant a free license, permitting reuse by anyone for anything, including commercial reuse and derivative works. Wikipedia does not accept permission for use only on Wikipedia.
Replied also on user’s talk page. —teb728 t c 23:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
teb728 is right: Under our non-free content rules, an album cover can only be used in the article about that specific album. There are exceptions to this rule (e.g. when an album cover becomes so notable that it can reasonably be used to illustrate discussion of it in the artist's main article) but in general that's the way it works. Also, I'm guessing that the chances of getting the copyright holder of the artwork to release the album covers under free licenses are probably somewhere between "none" and "a snow cone's chance in hell", but I guess you could give it a try! -- Hux (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
It's also highly unlikely that the band is the album cover's owner, it would probably be owned by the recording label and/or the person who actually drew or made the image/s on the cover. Corvus cornixtalk 18:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Creative Commons tag

I uploaded this image, I forgot to add the creative commons 3.0 tag. I don't know, could someone add it for me? Alaskan assassin (talk) 02:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Which Creative Commons 3.0 tag? There are several --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 02:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The source states that the image is released under a non-commercial license (Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License) - I've listed the image for speedy deletion - criterion I3. Guest9999 (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Would a screenshot of Wikipedia fall under free content?

I was making an edit to a talk page earlier, and got the edit conflict window, but it appeared that the conflict was with myself! The diff shown was between four tildes (~~~~) on the left and my actual signature on the right. I thought this was so unusual and funny that I took a screenshot of it, and would like to put it on my user page. But first I need to know how to upload it properly. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 04:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia is under the GFDL, so as long as the screenshot doesn't include any logos(including the Wikimedia logo), the screenshot is under the GFDL as well. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 07:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, okay, so I uploaded it using the "entirely my work" link, though technically it's not, but that seemed the most appropriate link to use. The image is at Image:Edit conflict-with-myself.png, so if someone could check to see if I've done it right, or if I need to change/add anything, it would be much appreciated. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 20:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks good to me from a copyright POV. MBisanz talk 22:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I am having a hard time sizing the logo I have it uploaded but an stuck not having any success getting it to appear correct.Image:fia-color.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Volunteers2502 (talkcontribs) 15:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You could put it on an article page with [[Image:Fia-color.jpg|thumb|right|caption]]. But you have two other problems: You can put a non-free image only in an article—not on your user page. And 1,350 × 1,950 is way too large for a non-free image. You will have to reduce its maximum dimension to 300 or less. —teb728 t c 21:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


what is the last year this page was copyrigthed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem

if my friend personally made this image on his computer and it is not copyrighted and i have full permission to use it from the author himself, what do i do about copyright? Image:YBC.jpg

Any original image is automatically copyrighted when it is created. If the author wants to relinquish copyright, the tag is {{PD-because|reason}} --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
To clarify what Rat at WikiFur said, only the creator of the image has the authority to release it for use on Wikipedia. You can't just put a free license tag on the image page yourself and claim you have permission; you would have to prove to Wikipedia that you have that permission (which you can do by following the instructions at WP:COPYREQ). Alternatively, a more straightforward option would be for your friend to register an account at Wikipedia, upload the image himself and tag it with {{PD-self}} or {{GFDL-self}} (or some other free license). -- Hux (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Or you could have your friend create a free account and upload the image themselves and license it freely. MECUtalk 19:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Reinstating an image

Hi I have had an image deleted because I did not fill out copyright status> how can I reinstate. and how do i make the page i wrote go live? Martin Couzins (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You have to have a good reason to request an undeletion at deletion review. You should just reupload the image (under the same name will be fine, you'll get a notice during upload but can continue to save) and provide all the correct licensing information (source, license, permission if needed). If you will use the image under fair use, you should also provide a rationale and ensure you are complying with our WP:NFCC. There is no way to make a page "go live." All pages are live from the second they are saved. If you are talking about the article you seemed to have prepared on your userpage, you can just copy and paste it into an appropriately named title of an article. Good luck! MECUtalk 18:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


i lost my pastelcoads wat du i du cose i can't use it withuot the coads. wer can i get them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you translate your question into English please? —teb728 t c 18:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hot Springs HABS drawing

There are two images at [17] where the image on the right was drawn by "Michael Peters" and credit should be made to HABS, NPS. The image on the left says that drawings were made at the HABS office and Peters was associated with the University of Texas. I know work done by government employees is US Gov public domain; is this sufficent information for these drawings to be considered public domain? -- SEWilco (talk) 03:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that Peters is/was a federal employee? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Says HABS undertook the documentation, cosponsored by southwest regional office, "... National Park Service and the Arkansas State Historic Preservation Office." Stuff about HABS architect and "... The measured drawings were produced during the summer of 1984 in the HABS' Hot Springs field office by project supervisor, Michael Peters (associate professor, architecture, Texas Tech. University), and architecture technicians, Leonard Kliwinski (School of the Art Institute of Chicago), Gregory McCall (University of Kansas), Brian McCormick (University of Illinois), and Daniel Wininski (University of Wyoming)." Hmm. Peters was the project supervisor; the technicians might have been college students. No paycheck stubs provided. -- SEWilco (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
If HABS is part of the NPS and these drawings were commissioned for a project then would they not be considered works for hire? If they are then irrespective of who actually created the drawings, NPS would own the copyright, which would obviously mean they're public domain since they are works of the federal government. -- Hux (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
If the work was done by a federal employee as part of their work then US Gov PD applies. For contractors it depends upon the terms of the contract. I think Peter's status applies to the works which carry his name. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Image Copyright

I provided an addition to page and found the included image Abacus Usages.jpg was removed due to missing copyright tags. I then added the required tags as this image was created by me. This did nothing to change the deleted notice on the web page in question. Since I am obviously incapable of following the required instructions to verify my copyright to the image and since the text description I added to this page relies heavily on this image, I have now removed the whole of my contribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruthe (talkcontribs) 11:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ruthie - unfortunately, when you added to the page you agreed to license your contributions under the GFDL, which means that anybody may use them for any purpose provided proper attribution is maintained. Accordingly, you do not have the right to remove your contributions (at least, you have no more right to do so than any other user). I'd be more than happy to help you get that image copyright sorted out, though, if you'd like to re-upload it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

tagging images as Otrs pending

I have sent pro-forma emails to the copyright holder to confirm that t he images are free to use, but cannot see how to tag them as {{Otrs pending}} once they are uploaded?? Thanks Caz --Rita gorman (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You should put that on the image description page once you have sent the permission into WP:OTRS per WP:COPYREQ. Just click "edit" when viewing the image like you would any other page. MECUtalk 16:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


I have an image at: [18] that has been placed with a tag saying that it is going to be deleted because it is not used in any articles. The problem is that it IS used in an article, this one: [19]. The weird thing is that if you look on the image page in the "File links" section, it says "No pages on the English Wikipedia link to this file. (Pages on other projects are not counted.)" Again, the image IS used in an article and I just do not understand what is going on. Comments? CAPTAIN: FOR GREAT JUSTICE. (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm as mystified as you are. I've reported it here. In the meantime, I'll remove the orphaned tag, although it might be re-added. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I did a WP:null edit on Trance Around the World. Either that or Sarcasticidealist's edit on the image page seems to have fixed the problem. —teb728 t c 18:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Huh - well, now my bugzilla report is going to look stupid. I'll update it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help people! CAPTAIN: FOR GREAT JUSTICE. (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

How is this nonfree?

How is that nonfree except for the wikipedia part???? Kubuntu and konqueror are free software.--Tuxthepenguin933 (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Your screenshot includes the Wikipedia logo, which is copyrighted and not licensed under the GFDL or any other free license. Including that part makes the screenshot as a whole is not free. —teb728 t c 18:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Besides that, when you say Kubuntu is free, do you mean that it's free to download? Or that it's in the public domain? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Apparently the Kubuntu logo, Image:Kubuntu-feisty.png, is free but not GFDL. Its license is: {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} —teb728 t c 22:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
We have existing mainspace articles that show images licensed under {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}. So there is no problem that I can see showing the Kubuntu logo in our pages. It is only showing the *Wikipedia logo* that gets into problems. Just consider taking a different screenshot, one in which the WP logo is not visible. EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Notwithstanding the free/non-free issues, an image like this really shouldn't be showing a Wikipedia page anyway since it's unnecessarily self-referential and potentially confusing. Since the purpose of the image is to illustrate the Kubuntu article it would more appropriate to use a screenshot of the desktop. If you really want to have an open browser in the screenshot then consider using one that just shows the welcome page (example), although that might also be a tad confusing since it would give the impression that the browser is part of the OS. Either way, both these suggestions would obviate any copyright issues. -- Hux (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

need help

[[20]] I have asked the owner and he has allowed me to use it. But he speaks Persian and I am wondering what can I do? --alidoostzadeh (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, just being allowed to use it is not enough. He has to release it under a license that allows anyone to use it for any purpose. If that's what he wants, he can release it under the GFDL [21], Public Domain[22], etc. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 03:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's a page on how to request permission WP:COPYREQ. It doesn't matter what language the owner (or you) speak. Send it in to the fine folks at WP:OTRS and they'll find someone to translate the language. It may take a bit longer if it's a less common language (like a month), but they will eventually get it done and taken care of. MECUtalk 13:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Owens

I would like to ask David Dbiv a question about Arthur Owens, I dont seem to be able to get logged on to the web site. I have tried different users names as passwords and not been succesfull. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should ask about that on their website... And I don't see how this is related to copyrights at all. flaminglawyerc 19:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Also try creating an account. flaminglawyerc 20:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


I want to upload an image. It seems to me that it could be usable on Wikipedia because the owner says that "Educational or research use or modification is welcome." Is this OK to use? I couldn't seem to understand the description at WP:Upload. flaminglawyerc 19:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. Releasing an image for "educational or research use" is not sufficient for Wikipedia, which in general requires uploaded images to be freely usable by anyone for any purpose, including commercial purposes. You have two options here:
  • You can contact the copyright holder and request that they release the work under a free license, or into the public domain. If you want to try this, see WP:COPYREQ for more details.
  • Depending on the type of image and the nature in which you intend to use it, you may be able to use it without permission from the copyright holder, as long as that use fits Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. See WP:NFCC for more info about that.
-- Hux (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Which pages from the web can I upload ?

It is getting more and more dificult virtually every image I upload (excedpt photos I took by my own) I get some copyright messages. But everything on the web is public ? So posting is free when the source and a opyright notice is mentoned. But still then the image is marked for copyright problems. I don't know what is the right way to publish a picture. The page Electric arc furnace contained a request for a diagram, I searched the web for a noncopyrighted EAF diagram, posted a picture and somebody is messaging me that the image may have some copyright. Are there no copyright free images on the web ??

S k a t e b i k e r (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Images are automatically copyrighted when they are created. There are very few recent images which are actually in the public domain. To be usable in Wikipedia, they have to be explicitly usable by anyone for any purpose (fair use is a different matter, which doesn't apply in this case). If you think the creator did intend to release it for any use but you need an explicit statement, see WP:COPYREQ. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

my photo in my profile

the photo i put in my profile is courtesy of mine. since it shows myself. it should be copyrighted? since it is owned by mine?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hakkon (talkcontribs) 14:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If you created it then you own the copyright. I saw you put a free license on there, so I removed to "no copyright" tag. MECUtalk 16:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)