Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2008/May

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


Scanned banknote

I understand that the copyright for banknotes will generally lie with the issuing bank/country. In some cases, scans of banknotes are on websites. These websites may or may not have copyright information for their scan. Is there copyright in the actual scan, or is the currency fair-use rationale sufficient justification to take scans of currency off other sites? E.g., this site —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumbuddi (talkcontribs) 22:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

A faithful scan of a banknote does not create a new copyright(a digitization of a coin might, however). The copyright status of the note itself varies from country to country; see Category:Currency copyright tags or Commons:Currency for more details. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 00:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

copyright image

I posted an image that my advisor and professor gave me. It is an image that he created in a PowerPoint presentation. He has given me written (via email) and verbal permission to use it and also provided me with the following: ©2002 Michael Young

and the following quote from him "This image has been released for use in the Sit Cog definition on Wikipedia."

What am I supposed to do so that the image I placed on the page, Situated Cognition, will not be removed??? I don't know what tag I am supposed to use, nor do I quite know how to add that to my image.

Vanessa Joy 2008 (talk) 03:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Vanessa Joy 2008

Wikipedia does not accept images which are released for Wikipedia only. They have to allow anyone to use them. To get the correct permissions, see WP:COPYREQ --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 05:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Wikipedia does not accept any license which excludes derivative works. Images with such restrictions may be used only under the highly restrictive non-free content criteria. Among the restrictions, the image may not be replaceable with a free image, and it must contribute substantially to the understandability of the article. Such non-free images require a non-free tag such as {{non-free fair use in}} and a non-free use rationale for each use. {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvided}} is free use tag not a non-free tag; so it cannot be used for a non-free image. —teb728 t c 02:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that however a statement of policy re non-free images does not necessarily answer the question. Are you saying so that all images portraying information content (such as census stats, research findings etc) rather than illustrations should be non-free? Also the non-free category states that the image must be published elsewhere not that the information portrayed must have been published. This would seem to preclude wikipedia contributors from developing visual illustrations of some aspect of the article they are working on. This to my mind defeats the purpose of having an encyclopedia. --Sf (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Quite the contrary: I’m saying that all images should be free except in special cases. Users are encouraged to create their own images, but they must license them as free content. (Wikipedia, however, does not publish WP:original research; I hope you not suggesting that.) —teb728 t c 22:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
If I'm reading the above correctly, I think you may be talking past each other. As far as I can tell, when Sf says that the images he's talking about "should be non-free", he's referring to the categorization of those images on Wikipedia, i.e. whether they should be indicated as free or non-free, given their content. However, when teb728 says that "all images should be free except in special cases", I believe he's saying that all images that are uploaded to Wikipedia should be freely usable (except in special cases) in order to comply with Wiki policy. Do I have that right? (Note: if one or both of you are "she" and not "he", then I apologize!) -- Hux (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
That is what I am saying. Let me try replying to Sf’s last post again in the light of your comment: All images on Wikipedia portraying information content (as opposed to illustrations) should be licensed such that they can be used in derivative works. Unlike illustrations there are probably no fair-use exceptions for such images, for they are inherently replaceable by a derivable image portraying the same information. This does not preclude Wikipedia contributors from developing visual illustrations of some aspect of the article they are working on, but it requires that they license those images under a license that permits derivative works. I have a concern, however, that he is thinking of images that would constitute WP:OR. —teb728 t c 02:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
It would seem the issue is the definition of "derivative" this implies that the licence allows someone to amend the image such that the information it portrays is other then that indicated by the published source i.e. that someone may misrepresent the information. If the stipulation is that someone must be permitted to use the unamended and properly cited image in a derivative work then that is clearly a completely separate matter. If the latter is the case then that should be clearly stated in the copyright policy. Re the original research query, and at the risk of sounding tetchy, what part of the words findings of published research were unclear? --Sf (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
A license to make a derivative work is not a license to commit fraud. Say the original image is a graph: A legitimate derivative might for example add (clearly indicated) data points, which for example point out a discrepency between theoretical predictions and actual measurments. Or the derivative might point out an error in the calculations or methodology of the published research. —teb728 t c 21:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it is my view that the use of language like "Wikipedia does not accept any license which excludes derivative works" would seem to be an open invitation if not a "licence" to commit fraud. If the use of the term "derivative" is in fact qualified under Wikipedia policy then the nature of such qualifications should be clearly stated and the implications set out. --Sf (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
PS I accept that it might be perfectly legitimate to amend a, properly acknowledged, image for the purposes you set out. But that would be the case in any scientific or academic discussion outside of wikipedia. That is not what is driving the question. What is driving the question is "is wikipedia seeking to place the use of such images outside any bounds?". If wikipedia refuses to be bound by such conventions of academic discourse then this would seem to introduce obstacles to the development of articles --Sf (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy requires that, with some very specific exceptions, everything on Wikipedia should be free content. However, it is worth noting that the freedom in question mainly refers to freedom from copyright restrictions. There are many other laws and conventions that limits what one may or should do with material published on Wikipedia, but, as a rule, we are not concerned with such limitations since they do not generally interfere with our mission to create a collaborative, freely available and extensible encyclopedia.
For example, our article on Google includes numerous phrases and logos that are trademarks of Google Inc.; these are not considered problematic in any way, since the restrictions put on their use by trademark law would only come into play if one were to commercially use them in a manner that competed with Google or sought to misrepresent oneself as being affiliated with them. Similarly, the fact that Wikipedia consists of free content means that I am free to print it out, give the printed out copy to my friends or even to sell it for profit — but if I took the printed out copy of Wikipedia and hit someone with it, I'd still be charged with assault. The freedom to create derivative works, which Wikipedia's license grants me, allows me to take Wikipedia's article on George W. Bush, edit it to express my own views on his policies and publish the edited version on my own website without having to worry about being sued for copyright infingement by Wikipedia or the article's other authors (provided that I comply with the attribution and other requirements of the license) — yet, if my edited version of the article were to claim that he rapes kittens, I'd still be liable to get sued for libel.
The issue with academic misconduct is similar. Wikipedia's policy of accepting only freely license content implies that, if you upload a figure showing your research results to Wikipedia, I can take that figure and publish it in any medium (on my website, on Wikipedia itself, in an academic article or on the back of a T-shirt) with any modifications I might choose to make to it (including but not limited to adding data points, cutting it in half, scribbling on it with a crayon or using it as part of an art collage), and, provided that I comply with the specific license you've chosen (which will typically at least require that I attribute you as the author of the original work, and possibly more), you won't be able to sue me for infringing your copyright on the figure. Even so, if I were to use the figure in a fraudulent manner, such as by claiming it as my own research (even if the license didn't explicitly require me to attribute it to you) or by trying to pass off a version with fake data as accurately representing your original results, I'd still be facing academic sanctions. Moreover, that would be just as true even if I were to do the same with a figure I'd drawn completely from scratch myself, without using your work in any way.
So, to recap, freely licensing your work implies that you retain only a limited amount of copyright protection on it. It doesn't, and indeed cannot, mean that you somehow authorize anyone else to do anything otherwise illegal or formally sanctioned with (or without) it, if only because such permission is not usually yours to give. And, even where it technically could, a normal free content license will not in any way limit your right to sue people reusing your work for defamation, privacy violation, trademark infringement, fraud or any other non-copyright-related offense, nor to raise charges of academic misconduct against them, should you believe them to have committed such. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that we finally seem to be getting somewhere. I apologise in advance if this information is already available but is there anywhere on wikipedia outside of talk pages where the explanation you have just offered regarding fraudulent use is stated? I have been going around in circles trying to find an applicable copyright license. Also the issue is wider than me taking court action against others for percieved infringements. If I purport via wikipedia to have re-published someone else's work without 'apparently' doing anything to protect that work from misuse am I not also potentially open to sanction myself? Essentially I am seeking a formula/wording for the copyright license that will encapsulate what you have just stated.--Sf (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
This is just my viewpoint and may not address all your concerns. First of all, facts cannot be copyrighted, only how they are expressed. Secondly, some free licenses, while they don't prohibit using the work in ways that you may consider misuse, prohibit claiming that the derivative work is endorsed by the original author. For instance, the Creative Commons Attribution license, popular with scientific work, states "You may not implicitly or explicitly assert or imply any connection with, sponsorship or endorsement by the Original Author, Licensor and/or Attribution Parties, as appropriate, of You or Your use of the Work, without the separate, express prior written permission of the Original Author, Licensor and/or Attribution Parties." [1] Third, it's not that most Wikipedia editors want to misrepresent this work, it's just that by using it on a wiki, it may be used in ways that the original author never thought of; for instance, it may be compared side by side with a competing theory, possibly unfavorably. Would the original author consider that misleading? Wiki editors don't know. Since the data or idea can't be copyrighted, only the expression, it's an easy choice for wiki editor to not take the chance and use the data or idea, but not the expression of it. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
No. We now seem to be raising points that are not at issue eg facts not being copyright, the motives of wikipedia contributors, the use of published and properly attributed data in comparisons, none of these are at issue. Published scientific data is not copyright but the work of those who obtained the data must be properly acknowledged and attributed and the original researchers have a right to expect that the facts that they have published will not be altered or amended in a manner that misrepresents those facts, and by implication their published work, as representing something else. In my view at the moment the manner and language in which the Wikipedia "may not prevent derivatives" policy is asserted represents an invitiation to fraud. In my view this is not acceptable. --Sf (talk) 09:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Your illustration of the Creative Commons licence may be starting to get us somewhere but you yourself had to go outside Wikipedia to illustrate the relevant points - this is unacceptable - the relevant guidance should exist here on wikipedia. --Sf (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The GFDL license which the text, and many of the images, of Wikipedia is licensed under also has similar wording: "The author(s) and publisher(s) of the Document do not by this License give permission to use their names for publicity for or to assert or imply endorsement of any Modified Version." --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 10:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Again with respect, we seem to be getting partial answers. OK the GFDL explanation that you linked does appear to contain a type of protection that relates to the issues being raised here. However, it does not immediately leap out as also being applicable to images. More importantly, the protection appears to relate to the author of the released document. If I am re-publishing someone elses work from the Scientific Literature then is it likely that they originally released their work under the GFDL? If not then where is the protection for them in this? The essence of the situation is this. If I, as someone who wishes to preserve my good reputation, wish to publish the work of other researchers via Wikipedia then in my view I have a duty to ensure that the reasonable interests of those whose work I cite are upheld, otherwise I risk my own reputation. (To eliminate this in advance, the obvious tactic of "protecting" myself by using a pseudonym is in my view unacceptable.) --Sf (talk) 11:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I assume you mean that you would be drawing a diagram or illustration based on data collected or theories formulated by someone else? In that case, the answer is simple: they have never given permission for their name to be used to endorse any modified version, so no such permission exists by default. The non-endorsement clause in the GFDL (and other similar licenses), as quoted by Rat at WikiFur above, is merely there to reaffirm that the license does not constitute such a permission, implicit or explicit, even on your part. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
With regard to your first question and again as already stated what part of the words findings of published research were unclear? With respect your assertion that no permissions exist by default, again that is not good enough or this thread would not have been started in the first place. Is there some way to escalate this issue to some higher authority? --Sf (talk) 12:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The reason I asked is that there is a difference here between a figure drawn by someone else based on their research and one drawn by yourself based on someone else's research. I assume, from what you've written so far, that your questions specifically concern the latter, but I wished to clarify that nonetheless since, if this was not the case after all, I might otherwise end up giving you misleading and incorrect advice. As for your counterquestion, what's unclear is how you think those words are relevant to the matter at hand (that being licensing of free content images). As far as image licensing is concerned, it makes no difference if the data portrayed in the image is published, unpublished, made up, found in a dumpster or divinely inspired — the data itself, whatever its source, is not subject to copyright, and the sole purpose of a free content license is to disclaim certain parts of copyright which are considered unnecessary and counterproductive to the free sharing and collaborative development of creative works. Everything else is just legal mumbo-jumbo to achieve that end.
As for the fact that one has no permission to use a third party's name to endorse a work without their agreement, I'm not sure what more you might want. Certainly no license can explicitly list every conceivable thing that one is not allowed to do with the work in question. You do not, by law, have the authority to permit the use of a third party's name to endorse a work — only the person in question can do that. Certainly you could include in your license an explicit clause stating that one is not allowed to use Person X's name to endorse any derivative works, but such a clause would be completely unnecessary (and, should Person X disagree and in fact wish to permit such use, probably void). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The question is not about endorsing anybody's work this was a distraction that I did not introduce. Your assertion regarding no licence explicitly listing every concievable thing that one is not allowed to do with a work is also a distraction. I have a strong sense that my time is being wasted and I formally repeat my request regarding escalating this matter to some higher authority. --Sf (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Anyway, I'd like to take a moment to respond to some specific questions and remarks that have caught my eye among your comments:

  1. "If I purport … to have re-published someone else's work without 'apparently' doing anything to protect that work from misuse am I not also potentially open to sanction myself?"
    • Probably not. You are not required to protect other people's work from misuse; the law already does that. If the law forbids doing something to Person X's published work without their permission, and Person Y goes and does it, that's a matter between Persons X and Y regardless of how Y got their hands on the work. The only way in which you, as a re-publisher of the work, might be liable is if you outright lied to Person Y, saying that the work wasn't Person X's to begin with or that they'd granted permission when they hadn't.
  2. "Published scientific data is not copyright but …"
    • While scientific data indeed is not subject to copyright, any expression of that data, e.g. as an article or as a picture, is. If you tried to republish an article from a commercial scientific journal, there's a good chance you'd be sued. Indeed, that might happen even if you were the original author of the article, if you'd previously signed your copyright away to the journal. This is the crux of the matter, and probably the main reason why we keep talking past each other. Here at Wikipedia, we want our content to be free from such odious copyright restrictions, such that anyone may freely republish it, in whole or in part, and use it to create improved versions or even whole new works incorporating parts of the original. We do accept, and even encourage, some copyright restrictions as long as they do not interfere with legitimate reuse. Similarly, we do not generally have anything against restrictions outside copyright, since few of those (with the possible exception of some of the more questionable interpretations of patent law) affect the free use and distribution of creative works. Thus, issues such as misrepresenting academic research simply do not come up except in the most tangential manner. None of the commonly used free content licenses say anything to either forbid or permit such behavior — it is simply outside their scope.
  3. "Your illustration of the Creative Commons licence may be starting to get us somewhere but … the relevant guidance should exist here on wikipedia."
    • The Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, which Rat at Wikifur linked to above, is one of the licenses explicitly permitted for images uploaded to Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Commons. I'd strongly recommend you take a closer look at it — the CC licenses include quite detailed and explicit terms to ensure that they cannot be interpreted as permitting misattribution or other violations of the moral rights or integrity of the author. Furthermore, as CC Attribution 3.0 license is explicitly considered acceptable for images on Wikipedia, you may rest assured that any other license incorporating similar restrictions should also be acceptable, provided it does not include any restrictions that step over the bounds.
  4. "Essentially I am seeking a formula/wording for the copyright license that will encapsulate what you have just stated."
    • Do please take a look at the Creative Commons Attribution License, and its more restrictive ShareAlike variant, and see if those aren't acceptable to your needs. Note that, being well known licenses, there exists also a large body of explanatory material clarifying the intent of the CC licenses and explaining their use, including their application specifically to academic works as well as the various legal aspects underlying the way they are worded. If not, consider basing your own license terms (to be used e.g. in conjunction with {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}}) on the restrictions included in these licenses; this will make it more likely that such terms will indeed match the definition of a free license.
  5. "Is there some way to escalate this issue to some higher authority?"
    • If you would like to see Wikipedia loosen the restrictions on what license terms are considered acceptable, you should propose this to the Wikimedia Foundation, which is ultimately responsible for setting the licensing policy for all Wikimedia projects. If you're more concerned with discussing where the line mandated by the Foundation policy should be drawn with regard to specific license terms, it may be more appropriate to discuss the matter here or on Wikimedia Commons, though of course the Foundation remains the final authority on the subject.

Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I am out of time on this issue for the next few days. I will respond to your points in due course. Your user page states that you are an undergraduate student. I would suggest that you approach your Professor and ask them how he/she would like to have someone re-publishing their work on the apparent basis that anyone else could use it for any purpose they wished including derivatives. (And in a publishing environment where the issue of fraudulent misrepresentiation was only apparently addressed or even acknowledged on obscure and archived talk pages) Ask them how he/she would feel if a colleague did that - regardless of the fact that no formal legal sanctions were available against that colleague. --Sf (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Do feel free to resume the discussion whenever it is more convenient for you. In the mean time, I'd like to note that, these days, several academic journals do license their content under terms that are compatible with Wikipedia's licensing policy. For example, the PLoS journals are all licensed under the very same Creative Commons Attribution license as discussed above. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding CC-BY, there's a new Creative Commons blog entry relevant to CC-BY in educational institutions [2] --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
This has kind of gone away from the original issue. To answer that, the conditions attached to an image must not prohibit commercial use or the making of derivative works. I would suggest Sf and Ilmari Karonen take up the matter on their talk pages once Sf is back. I would note that the "speak to your professor" line has got a number of users banned for off-wiki activities so please be extremely cautious in that line of discussion. Stifle (talk) 13:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's assume good faith here, please. I am aware that many Wikipedia users would prefer to maintain a separation between their job or studies and their participation on Wikipedia during their free time, and might understandably view the idea of someone on Wikipedia contacting their superiors at school or work as potential harassment. However, I sincerely do not believe Sf meant anything like that by his suggestion. As it happens, I also know that my professor is quite aware of my participation on Wikipedia. As I edit under my real name, that much is also rather evident to anyone who might, say, Google for it.
As for the rest, I agree. Let's take it to our talk pages, or, if you'd prefer a wider audience, to one of the Wikimedia mailing lists. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I would also advise Stifle to be cautious, advice to seek input from a readily available academic advisor on a matter relating the publication of academic data is in my view entirely reasonable, attempts by third parties to construe other meanings might backfire very quickly. I have looked at the creative commons licence and sections 4.b and 4.c do appear to offer the kind of protection required for the creator of the image. The question which arises again in this instance is does this protection apply to the publishers of the data on which the image is based? If not then should this be explicitly stated in the copyright conditions and how should it be stated? This is a distinction between the primary authors releasing work under the creative commons and the makers of derivatives releasing work under the creative commons. --Sf (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
To pre-empt this, the reply that the primary authors already have the protection of the law is not good enough. It is already established that the Wikipedia licence conditions are an invitation to fraud. A typical example is Stifle's comment that "the conditions attached to an image must not prohibit commercial use or the making of derivative works". If in fact what is meant by this is "lawful derivatives" then why not say so? Why keep it a secret? The conclusion is invited that the reader should infer that any derivatives are permitted --Sf (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Re the legal issue you raise in point 1 above. In my view you need to take a broader view, if Wikipedia is to be taken seriously as an encyclopaedia then at the very least academic researchers should be entitled to expect that Wikipedia should show good manners in its treatment of their work. This goes beyond satisfying the letter of the law. --Sf (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Further to this I do genuinely think that you should approach your academic superviser and inquire how they would feel about having their work distributed under the terms specified by Stifle above. If your university has an internal staff e mail list I think it would be useful to broaden the discussion to that forum and seek the gut reactions of other researchers to the proposal.--Sf (talk) 09:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
My question above re creative commons and primary authors is badly worded. What I meant was what other statements must be put into the copyright licence to ensure that the interests of the original authors are seen to be covered?--Sf (talk) 21:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not a lawyer, but, at least for the specific case of the Creative Commons Attribution license, something like the following ought to do it:
"Diagram drawn by [Person X] based on research published by [Researcher Y]. Licensed by [Person X] under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. For the purposes of section 4 of the license, [Researcher Y] shall be identified as one of the Original Authors of this work. This diagram has not been endorsed in any way by [Researcher Y]."
(Delete or modify the last sentence as appropriate if the work has in fact been endorsed by the original researcher.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes an elegant solution - this seems to be one way around the issue. However there remains the issue that there are individuals proclaiming the Wikipedia licence conditions in a manner that in my view offers a clear invitation to fraud. Likewise I think that the issue of only lawful derivatives of images being permitted needs to be stated explicitly on one of the guidlines pages. So how are we to resolve this? Is it time to file an RfA? --Sf (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
It might be simpler to just take up the issue with the specific people and on the talk pages of the specific guidelines that you feel are giving incomplete or misleading advice. Also in case of guidelines or policies, if you can think of a good wording that make the guideline clearer you could just edit it and see if anyone disagrees. (Oh, and you probably mean something other than RfA.)Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
No I'd say I probably meant RfA - I have a natural dislike of veiled threats of banning - I tend to react badly. I will look into modifying the guidelines as you suggest. However, I have question - does this particular page get archived in a readily accessible form? I have a sense that this question is going to come up again and I would like to be able to link to the previous discussion if it does. Also as you have pointed out you are not a lawyer - these image copyright/information issues are such that they are likely to require the input of someone with a legal background. I assume there must be someone who advises the foundation on such matters? If so where might they be found?--Sf (talk) 22:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I also think that Stifle's mention of banning was a remarkable (and regrettable) overreaction. This page does get archived, specifically to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive, as noted at the top of the page. Whether that counts as accessible may be a matter for debate, but it's the best we've come up with so far. As for the Foundation's legal counsel, that would be Mike Godwin. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


Dear Sir/ Madam,

Please, help verify the acceptability and accreditation of the university information provided below.

The University of Springfied, Hampton MA 01107, USA has announced the international scholarship programs for all students applying to study a degree program - Bachelor, Master or Postgraduate, Doctorate Degree Program. The scholarship covers full tuition and are available to on-campus and distance learning/online students. No application fee on enrollment. Contact: Sarah Robert, Admission Assistant, Admission Office, The University of Springfied, Pack Campus, Hampton MA 01107, USA. Telephone: <removed> Email: <removed> Website:

This was responses from the university representative to me.

Thank you very much for your mail.

The University of Springfied is a household name of the Springfield College. The University provides equal educational opportunity to all candidates without regard to color, race, sex, national origin, or qualified disability.

Springfield is a registered educational institution in the United States, recognized and listed in the directory of Post Secondary Institutions by the U.S. Department of Education, National Centre for Education Statistics, Washington DC (1998 Edition Page 291). The Institution is legally empowered to award degrees to all students who meet graduation requirements as set forth in its Article of Incorporation.

Graduates are allowed to do Masters in any of their favourite schools. All students both on campus full time and distance learning online receive the same award certificate according to the University’s Article of Incorporation.

For further information please write to <email removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solomon Akenyin (talkcontribs) 10:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This page is monitored by people who know about media copyright questions, but that does not appear to be a media copyright question. Perhaps you could get an answer at the Wikipedia:reference desk. But do not post contact information. —teb728 t c 20:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Movie posters

A while back I uploaded a movie poster of the film Jetsam to the article page about the film (Jetsam (film)). Eventually it got hit with a "Fair Use Rationale" complaint, despite the fact that practically every other movie article on wiki uses the film poster in the article itself. So I went and copied the same "Fair Use Rationale" explanation as was given for the inclusion of the poster in the article Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope and used it for the Jetsam movie poster. But that wasn't enough for someone and the Jetsam movie poster got deleted anyway. So I have to ask why? I've yet to get a response on the talk page of Jetsam so I am asking here. If the Fair Use Rationale explanation I used wasn't enough for Jetsam then can someone please go and delete the movie poster from Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope (and, I suspect, most of the movie articles on wikipedia). If not, why pick on Jetsam? --Stenun (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

permissions? copyright?

I asked the following question.... However, if this image was also used in an article that he published, do I still need the same type of permissions?

I posted an image that my advisor and professor gave me. It is an image that he created in a PowerPoint presentation. He has given me written (via email) and verbal permission to use it and also provided me with the following: ©2002 Michael Young and the following quote from him "This image has been released for use in the Sit Cog definition on Wikipedia." What am I supposed to do so that the image I placed on the page, Situated Cognition, will not be removed??? I don't know what tag I am supposed to use, nor do I quite know how to add that to my image. Vanessa Joy 2008 (talk) 03:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Vanessa Joy 2008 Wikipedia does not accept images which are released for Wikipedia only. They have to allow anyone to use them. To get the correct permissions, see WP:COPYREQ --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 05:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Vanessa Joy 2008 (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless the article was published under a license Wikipedia can use, you'll have to get a permission e-mail as described at WP:COPYREQ. And remember, it is not enough to just obtain permission to use on Wikipedia. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification on how cultural property published before 1923, but still in use as a trademark, affects public domain both in "fact" and on WP:Public domain

In relation to these two images: Image:Uc seal black.png and Image:Notre dame coat of arms.png. Some discussion on this is occuring here, but I'd like more input. Ameriquedialectics 18:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The images appear to be correctly tagged: {{PD-US}} and {{Trademarked}}. They are no longer protected by copyright law, but they are still protected by trademark law, which is quite a different thing. See Wikipedia:Logos#U.S. trademark law for a discussion of how trademark law protects certain use of logos. Inasmuch as the images are not under copyright, their use is not restricted by WP:NFCC. —teb728 t c 00:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia generaly ignores things like trademark issues.Geni 00:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's where the question gets difficult: NFCC explicitly defines "non-free content" as "all copyrighted images and other media files that lack a free content license." From my quick reading of the relevant policy pages, Wikipedia's articles on intellectual property laws, and some outside sources linked from those articles, my impression is that trademarked intellectual property and the public domain are separate and mutually-exclusive domains. The fact that these images' copyrights have expired does not necessarily put them into the public domain; trademarks are a special case. Indeed, if something is just going to fall into the public domain anyway, there is very little point in getting it trademarked. Trademarks are inherently non-free -- they just happen to be "free'er" than copyrighted items. As a thought experiment, would you upload a trademark to Commons? --Dynaflow babble 01:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
trademarked images exist on commons.Geni 01:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
For example Commons:Image:Microsoft wordmark.svg. —teb728 t c 01:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Trademarks are restricted, but they are “free” within the meaning of NFCC. —teb728 t c 01:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
"Public domain" just means that the work is no longer protected by copyright law. Trademark law is a separate issue, one that the NFCC doesn't concern itself with. It's really not that complicated. -- Hux (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you know when and how it was decided that trademarks were free-enough content to use in Commons, template-space, etc.? I'm curious to know the logic that was followed, because it seems to directly contradict NFCC's paramount purpose, which is "to support Wikipedia's mission to produce perpetually free content for unlimited distribution, modification and application by all users in all media [emphasis mine]." Even though the trademarks under discussion are no longer copyrighted, until they genericize or lapse through disuse, they are not in the de jure public domain. We stand more chance in our lifetimes of being trampled and maimed by herds of twelve-headed unicorns than we do of, say, seeing the UC Regents put a Creative Commons or GFDL license on their official seal, or even allowing anyone to print it on t-shirts or coffee mugs without requiring a prior petition for approval (which they could refuse at their discretion). It's not in the actual public domain, in the sense that it could be used in an entirely unrestricted manner, and it doesn't have a free license, yet it's still, somehow, free content.
I apologize if I'm coming across as a hard-ass, but I'm just very surprised, after watching a year's worth of strife over images being deleted for not having separate fair-use rationales for each and every article in which they appear, after seeing images brought over from Flickr with CC Noncommercial licences being refused the status of free content because their license allows for everything except for commercial use, etc., that trademarks would essentially be treated with a shrug. I thought I had a decent handle on policy, but now I've been thrown for a loop. I'm just trying to understand. --Dynaflow babble 02:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Broadly speaking because if you start considering stuff other than copyright pretty much anything can be argued to be non free.Geni 08:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Though there is the point that we should be looking more closely at images marked {{trademarked}}, and making sure people aren't misusing those images. There is no real reason for using them in templates or in userspace or anything like that. Carcharoth (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, all, for responding. I must admit I am as surprised at this as Dynaflow, but it makes sense from a purely legal perspective, that no category is all inclusive or exclusive either in itself or in relation to other categories, as these are respectively defined under different laws that cannot supersede or contradict “other property rights.” Still, not speaking of the public domain in "real life," I also would think WP's prohibitions against CC images tagged "non-commercial" would also naturally implicate the "free use" of trademarks. Regarding the use of these marks in their respective university templates, an argument against this, other than the apparent violation of WP:NFCC, (which, apparently, is only "apparent") would be that this could "confuse" or "mislead" the public that the trademark owners have produced or sponsored the articles the marks appear in, as per WP:LOGO? I would argue against this, as other identifying marks appear more prominently in the infobox templates, and no one, I think, believes that their display implies sponsorship or even sanction on the part of their owners. Their use in this context would seem to protected as "unauthorized use of a trademark in a noncommercial setting such as an editorial or artistic context," however this all hinges on how WP functions as a noncommercial space, which I admit I don't completely understand. I assume it's status as a non-profit has bearing on this? Ameriquedialectics 17:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Specifically, see here for transclusions of images marked with the "trademarked" template. Far less than I thought. Either lots of trademarked stuff is untagged, or there is more on Commons than I thought. Or most of the trademarks are non-free. Carcharoth (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
On a lark, I just went through the motions of uploading an organizational logo at Wikipedia:Upload, and I've discovered why that template is so under-used. When uploading a logo, the user finds him or herself confronted with only two choices in the licensing drop-down box: {{Non-free logo}} and, "I don't know." The obvious choice for those interested in not having their images summarily deleted will be {{logo}}, even if it doesn't quite seem right. That's the furthest most normal uploaders will get, because it would take a much higher-than-average level of intimacy with Wikipedia's back alleys to get a hunch that there might be a better-worded template somewhere and then head over to WP:MT in search of it. I'd bet that {{Non-free logo}} currently appears on a lot of image pages where {{Trademark}} should be used instead, for the simple reason that the system essentially forced uploaders who didn't know any better to choose the less incorrect of two imperfect options. --Dynaflow babble 19:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
<hand meets forehead> Doh! Thanks for spotting this. Anyone have any ideas who to shout at politely ask to fix this? Carcharoth (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The {{logo}} template starts out with "and/or" phrasing, as in "protected by copyright and/or trademark," but then encourages treating the item as if copyrighted, which it might not be, as opposed to trademarked (which it still might not be)... Personally, I can see how treating both ownership categories the same would be simpler at the level of uploading an image, as leaving users only "one choice," as opposed to several choices, would seem to reduce the potential for mass confusion at that point. Of course, the problem of how to treat trademarked but not copyrighted images becomes more confused afterwards, for the reasons mentioned above. Ameriquedialectics 00:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
En informaly tends to take the position that trademarks are messy enough that it simplest to just tag them {{logo}} and stop worrying.Geni 20:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

copyright question?

Is it okay that a a web site out there is using copyrighted stuff from your site on their own website? The web address is "liberty" I tried to copy and paste but it wouldn't let me.

Just curious as this web site is the equivlent to the enquire.  

This is all I could paste from the website.  

Anonymous Tip line: 1-866-322-4747 Anonymous Fax: 1-888-273-II27 Email: USE CONTACT LINK

more . . . COMICS 

30.APR.08 Mr. Mike 'Hankey' Little, Liberty County DA 30.APR.08 Mr. Mike 'Hankey' Little, Liberty County DA- Song —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You're saying that someone else is using content from Wikipedia? If they follow the terms the content is licensed under(usually the GFDL), they are allowed to do so. They may also be able to use a small amount under fair use. Only the copyright holder (the original creator of the content) can take action if it is infringing. See Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks for more information. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 08:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Picture question

I am looking to use another picture for Spiral of Theodorus. I have already uploaded one of my own work, but I would like to have an extended version of one. One that looks especially good is located here. It is on the very last page. Is there any kind of fair-use or anything like that I could use? Sorry, I am not big on uploading other people's works. --pbroks13talk? 06:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the paper to indicate it's licensed freely enough for Wikipedia. Fair use wouldn't be claimable(unless you were commenting on something about the paper itself), because the diagram could be redrawn from scratch and placed under a free license. WP:COPYREQ may be worth a try. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 08:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

proper copyright tag

which would be the appropriate tag for the following:

1) I am credited as the author of the image 2) If image is allowed to be altered, I am credited as original author

what about if the same as above but no alteration allowed?

Yes I am here (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

If the only restriction you want to place is that you're credited as the author then the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license {{cc-by-3.0}} is what you'd use(yes it requires that altered versions credit you too). For no alterations allowed, you would use the Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 license(note, however, that media with a No Derivatives condition is not a free enough license for Wikipedia. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 08:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

image: down's_heart_group.png

I've just added my first ever page for our charity and included a logo. I understand that I need to add a rationale for using it but I'm going round in circles trying to find out what I need to say and where I include it in the image page.

Can someone help me with what I have to do please. The logo is copyright of the charity so I need to make sure I've done that bit correctly and obviously it's on the page which is about the organisation.


Looks like someone helped with the image. Let us know if you need any more help. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


Are stock certificates copyrighted? Nyttend (talk) 14:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Presumably yes, as they're printed by the company that issues them, not by the government. They may be public domain in the US, if printed before 1923 in the US (or if printed without a copyright notice or copyright being renewed, depending on the year). {{Trademark}} issues may still apply, though. Kelly hi! 14:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Question of permission to use copyrighted inages...

If I were to place a copyrighted image on this site, and successfully received permission from the owner(s) to do so (some don't mind since this is a free site, but the ones who do, worry that it could be copied into the wrong hands), would it be okay to use those images? Also, would I need to provide that proof of permission (such as a letter or email, etc) in my rationale (or somewhere else)? Please let me know. Thanks a lot! PS, as far as pictures go, I try to use as many of my own as possible and release them to the public (if anyone would want to use them. I wouldn't mind, they're not copyrighted and I don't intend to copyright them in the future). jeff (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Jeff - see WP:COPYREQ, which has the procedure for making sure the copyright holder has given us a correct license, and for registering the permission in the OTRS system. Kelly hi! 17:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

US military photo PD?

Is this main image PD? It's credited to a lady, and to Sesame Workshop, yet it looks like it would have been photographed by a military photographer. -- Zanimum (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe so...the .mil sites sometimes include photos that they didn't take, but they are pretty good about marking those photos as "Courtesy of...". Military photographers are nearly always credited by name, rank, and branch of service. This appears to be one of the courtesy photos that someone else let them use. Kelly hi! 16:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Yep - Here is Linda Spillers' site. She's not military. Kelly hi! 16:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Sigh, that's what I assumed. I guess I didn't Google her name to preserve the false hope that it was a picture I could actually use.
I love this photo of her's, so random. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

msurj journal front page

Hi I added this high-resolution image, but it was tagged. It's the front page of our most recent edition and I am one of the journal editors, I am wondering what procedure I have to go through in order to remove the tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M87 (talkcontribs) 21:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I added the correct tag for you. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyrighted Architecture

According to UK Law, architectural design and architecture falls under copyrightable material. There are many images of it which have been declared "GFDL" compliant on Wikipedia.

One such item is this. However, according to the London Eye Wikipedia page, it was designed in 1999 and would fall under copyright. Any pictures taken would fall under a 2D image of a 3D copyrighted image, which is "fair use" not "free use".

This is the same approach taken to any model, figurine, statue, and other such designs. Shouldn't the same thus apply here in accordance with UK copyright law? Without express permission from the architectural firm that designed the "eye" or the other buildings that have not yet completed their copyright, how can we justify having such pictures described under "free use"? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a touchy situation, and depends on where the image of the work was published. See Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama. See also this section on freedom of panorama regarding public structures in the UK. It may be better for images of the London Eye under free license to be moved to the Commons. Kelly hi! 03:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... that is for buildings, not entertainment, which makes the Eye a complicated matter. The Eye is deemed as a piece of art by the website (which is extremely copyrighted, if you look at how they handle their content). Their is one paragraph that seems to be important:
"The courts have not established a consistent test for what is meant by a "work of artistic craftsmanship", but one of the standard reference works on copyright, Copinger and Skoane James (15th edn, 2005), suggests that for a work to be considered as such the creator must be both a craftsman and an artist. Evidence of the intentions of the maker are relevant, and according to the House of Lords case of Hensher -v- Restawhile [1976] AC 64, it is "relevant and important, although not a paramount or leading consideration" if the creator had the conscious purpose of creating a work of art. It is not necessary for the work to be describable as 'fine art'."
I only bring this up because this is not a "building" but a piece of architectural design in the way the Eifle Tower is. Remember, "fair use" isn't part of the law, but a rule of thumb. Fair use has changed over time (remember the Free Republic case?). I think we need to define what a "building" is verse what an piece of amusement/entertainment might be. A rollercoaster is definitely not a building according to the US law. I don't know if it would be in the UK law.
Now, I want to note that the "panorama" does not extend to pictures inside of buildings or taken on non-public areas (whatever that may mean). This picture is from inside of a building. So is this, this, and this. Also, this is a "mural"/"advertising", which does not fall under the freedom of panorama. This one isn't taken on public property.
None of the pictures I have seen have followed this: "If you take a picture of a copyrighted item in a country where freedom of panorama exists and wish to use your photo on Wikipedia, be sure to note where the photo was taken and what the panorama freedom law of that locale states."
I think the best place to bring this up would be Commons:Licensing. There are some very smart copyright experts that hang out there, and Commons hosts the majority of our Eye images, including the one you initially mentioned. Kelly hi! 04:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there anyway someone could copy this over to Wikicommons? I do not have an account, nor do I dabble with the other Wikimedia groups. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
You defintion of public place is flawed. It is unlikely that stadium owners would be able to argue that they are not a public place. While buildings in the UK can be protected by copyright this has zero impact on Freedom of panorama. Only thing it impacts is if you want to build another building that looks that same. Thus regardless of wether the london eye is a building or work of artistic craftmanship Freedom of panorama still applies.Geni 10:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, if you read, even Wikipedia states that inside of a building cannot be considered a "public place". And if the work is a work of artistic craftsmanship, the law clearly states that you can't take pictures of it. I quoted that above. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia says no such thing. If you read your own links you would see "it is acceptable to upload to Commons not only photographs of public buildings and sculptures but also works of works of artistic craftsmanship" and "According to Copinger and Skoane James, "The expression "open to the public" presumably extends the section to premises to which the public are admitted only on licence or on payment"".Geni 16:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Copinger and Skoane are not the law nor do they adequately represent the law. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a parallel discussion on Commons here, that's probably the best place to centralize this discussion. Kelly hi! 16:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


The speedy deletion dead-line flew by while I was not logged in. Can I re upload this file, now with: Created by myself, public domain? Arnero (talk) 05:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely - let me know if you need any assistance. Alternatively, could an admin watching this page please undelete that image? Kelly hi! 16:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
It's been undeleted and the license is fixed, though it would be greatly appreciated if a description was added. Cheers! Kelly hi! 16:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Arnero (talk) 06:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sound Recording?

I have a sound recording that was made at a public location, a public protest, in the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Israwebmaster (talkcontribs) 12:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The simple answer to your question is yes. The more complicated answer is: what's your question ? Megapixie (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

DVD thumbnail

Hello, I recently bought a DVD and when i put it in the computer to play it a thumbnail comes up. I was wondering what the copywright status of this is. Many thanks . Could you reply on my talk page please. Bit Lordy (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I asume the thumbnail is just a still frame from the movie itself, in wich case it's copyright status would be the same as the rest of the DVD, you generaly get a un-skippable text crawl when you start playing the DVD with lots of details about what you are not allowed to do with it if it's a commercial movie. If you intend to upload it tn Wikipedia it would be considered non-free unless the DVD has explictly been released under a free license. --Sherool (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


This image's copyright information is VERY doubtful, but it's possible that it's a work of the US government. Can we get a check? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

license from wikimedia commons derived source with modifications?


I have made small fixes to this image which is identical to the original except a tear and some scratches have been removed. I simply copied the license but the license says "I am the copyright owner" when, er, I am not. It is not an entirely original work, obviously, either.



—Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelrayw2 (talkcontribs)

I don't know of a standardized way to do it. It's probably good to just use the basic {{cc-by-3.0}} and then explain the situation. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually the {{self}} license template has an author option, so you could say {{self|author=[[Commons:User:Bob|Bob]] at [http://commons.wikimedia org Wikimedia Commons]|cc-by-3.0}} Kelly hi! 00:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Old paintings

I have read the various copyright, public domain, image use policies and so forth, and must confess I am still uncertain of the regulations regarding old paintings. As I understand it, even if the painting is in the public domain, the image might not be (say a scan or photo of the original). If, for example, the British Library holds an image, can they assert copyright on their reproductions? Specifically, I am working on James Graham (soldier) (1791-1845), the "bravest man at Waterloo", and would like to illustrate it. Can anyone advise me on the likely copyright status of the following images:

  1. A watercolour portrait exists at the National Gallery of Ireland and is reproduced here.
  2. Robert Gibb painted the scene at Hougoumont in 1903. This is held by the National Museums of Scotland but can be seen reproduced in forums, art sites, history sites and so forth. Various examples: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
  3. 1915 Cigarette cards here

Many thanks for your help. Gwinva (talk) 00:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This has been the topic of a lot of debate. See Template_talk:PD-art if you haven't done so already. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the link; I see it is even more complicated than I thought! Gwinva (talk) 09:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
And I think the consensus is that there is no US copyright on photographs of images published before 1923, no matter where the photographs were taken. There may be illegal to upload them, depending on your location, but it's legal for Wikipedia to use them, and we do.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)



Would is be okay to, say, redraw an image (maybe a logo) in AutoCAD, so it is technically a new work? Just wondering. -Kanogul (talk) 00:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Redrawing would not make a new work: It would be a derivative work, subject to the same copyright as the original. —teb728 t c 03:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I had always wondered about that. It makes sense. -Kanogul (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Disputed" rationale for my image file.

I revised the description for Image:Egg-man+q-mark.jpg. Is that OK? Please respond in my talk page. Thanks. --Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 01:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Restricting use of the image to Wikipedia only makes it absolutely unacceptable to Wikipedia. —teb728 t c 03:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's patch the gap.
As to this image, I'm going to lift the copyright claim.
For uses in user pages (including user talk pages), an image should be uploaded only as a free content, is that right?
If I lift two restrictions, 'only in my user pages' and 'only by myself' is it still OK to upload an image as a copyrighted work for uses in articles?
Which copyright tag is most appropriate, if I'd like to permit other editors to use an image in articles as long as the copyright and the originality are fairly regarded?
If I can upload an image under this condition, where could the image be used? Only in the English-language Wikipedia, or in Wikipedia of plural languages, or in plural Wiki projects including Wikipedia?
My understandings are:
it's OK to claim copyright on an image work unless the work is released into the public domain.
images uploaed to Wikipedia are to be materials for pages including articles.
a Wikipedia server doesn't work as a briefcase for image files for limited users.
If a misunderstanding still remains, point it out concretely. Thanks. --Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 07:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
User-created works have to be usable by anyone, both on and off the wiki, including for commercial purposes and modifications. However, it is acceptable to require that you are credited as the copyright holder for any reuse. The page WP:ICTIC gives licenses that user-created works can be uploaded under. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto 4


On the new video game Grand Theft Auto 4 the company rockstar made it only for Play Station 3 and Xbox why wont they make it for Play Station 2? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What is your media copyright question. —teb728 t c 03:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I think there was no PS2 verson of GTA IV due to the sheer size and detail of the game being too demanding for the PS2 hardware and memory. I haven't played it yet, but one of my girlfriend's apartmentmates has it and from what I've seen it's so big that it only could run on a Seventh Generation system. Hope that answers your question, for future reference though, this page is for questions about media copyright issues. Next time, it would be more appropriate to ask this type of question at the reference desk. Cheers Mister Senseless (Speak - Contributions) 19:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


can someone help me with the copyright tags, I own the photos on the page but don't know what to do to stop them being removed.

I am new to the photo side of this and have no idea.

HOW DO I UPLOAD A IMAGE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baidyanath ghosh (talkcontribs) 15:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Read the instructions at WP:IMAGE. Mister Senseless (Speak - Contributions) 19:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Image deletion


What licence do I need to add to an image I got from a magazine I bought in my country? Afterall, I bought it and it wasnt stated it belonged to anyone, as the actress(stella damasus aboderin) had allowed the pictures to be taken also. I own the pictures, why is it always deleted?

Answer: Purchasing a magazine does not endow you with 100% rights to images contained in it. You must contact the production company of the magazine to find out who is the copyright holder (who owns the rights to the image) and purchase a license from them. Hmsfrench (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

-Question resolved

LOST image

Would the image found at [8] be acceptable for a title image for the LOST page? Is this image copyrighted? Where can this information be looked up? Hmsfrench (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's almost certianally copyrighted. However, it would probabally qualify as fair use if its the only LOST logo image on the article. You'll need to tag the image appropriately and write a fair use rationale in order to use it though. See WP:FAIRUSE for more information. Mister Senseless (Speak - Contributions) 18:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Pictures from Uncyclopedia and SAS Wiki

Can I put pictures from Uncyclopedia and SAS Wiki on Wikipedia? At the bottom left of of main pages of both sites there is logo and link of creativecommons 2.0, 2.5 so I suppose that it can be used here but I'm not sure. GM Red Wing (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Both of those wikis contain the noncommercial restriction in their Creative Commons licenses, so unless the image explicitly doesn't have that restriction, or it falls under the Non-free Content Criteria, they're not usable on Wikipedia. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
For example I want to put this image on Wikipedia - and how I can know that this (or other) image from those sites do not have noncommercial restriction or they fall under the Non-free Content Criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GM Red Wing (talkcontribs) 20:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, on Wikipedia, the assumption is that images are copyrighted and not licensed freely enough until shown otherwise. For images that don't fall under Wikipedia's definition of free images, the NFCC lists exactly what conditions need to be met to use such an image on Wikipeida. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ref: DSA10_Front_0207.jpg (copyright and source warning)


I have just seen a warning box added to DSA10_Front_0207.jpg - I recently uploaded this.

Unfortunately I am unable to understand the jargon that the warning box says - can you please advise me what information you require, in simple terms!

Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rplyons (talkcontribs) 22:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Assuming you mean this image, the notice in the orange box is asking you to provide information about where you found it. However, there is another, more pressing issue: you released the image into the public domain but unfortunately you don't have the authority to do that since it's a copyrighted work (see the "Crown Copyright" notice at the bottom). Because it's copyrighted, it can only be used under Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. The correct copyright tag for the "Licensing" section would be {{Non-free fair use in|article name}}. Then in the "Summary" section you would add a Fair Use rationale using this template. Left as is, the image will have to be deleted, unfortunately. -- Hux (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Romainia Please help

I am doing a report a Romainia i was wondering if i should do it on like the culture Religon Eductaion. I have a Romainiain Fried that will help me but i need to pick something please he;p soon. i need to know now.thanks

You may get an answer if you ask the Reference desk
Adding time stamp so this section gets archived —teb728 t c 09:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

jhangir khan

<who mad the first documentry programme on jhangir khan who is a squash player of pakistan?>

Adding time stamp so this section gets archived —teb728 t c 09:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you please delete the wjmk logo I uploaded.

Adding time stamp so this section gets archived —teb728 t c 09:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Wright picture so for a bit, this lacked a fair use rationale, I just added one, so when will it no longer be a candidate for speedy deletion?Tallicfan20 (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The template tells you how to dispute it, and it looks like you've figured it out. Let us know if you need any further help. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

So when will it no longer be a candidate for speedy deletion?Tallicfan20 (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The admin who does the deletions will look at it on May 4 or later (according to the tag) and make a decision then. If they delete it, and you feel it was in error, then you would take it up at deletion review. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to know why the picture keeps getting deleted, even tho it meets the guidelines of fair use, as the picture IS "the subject of sourced commentary" of the article Jeremiah Wright, and AP photos can be used if "unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article" and this is. The picture is everywhere whenever popular media, be it newspaper and TV mention the Wright controversy, this picture is not only ubiquitous, but the universal symbol of the controversy. I would like to know why the admin ThesIB keeps deleting it, even tho he knows damned well that the picture belongs on the page. The picture has meaning, as the guy was Obama's "moral compass" for 20 years, baptized his kids, and married him, which is FAR more significant than Bill Clinton meeting him once. this picture symbolizes their relationship and the "controversy" section under which I posted the image. Why does my pic keep getting deleted from the page by the admin, ThesIB?Tallicfan20 (talk) 05:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"The P files" copyright/trademark problems?


The WP:WikiProject Paranormal logo shown seems very similar to the X-files logo to me, which is trademarked and possibly copyrighted (I'm not sure if it's complex enough). There was already one stupid lawsuit over this involving The Why Files a while back; though that as I recall favored the punster this might be a little worse of a position. The image is linked from anywhere but good spots for "fair use", so that won't help either. Last but not least I just don't like the thing - it smells like an ad to me. Should it be nixificated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wnt (talkcontribs) 20:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The X-Files logo would likely be considered complex enough to receive copyright protection, imo, and this logo is clearly a derivative of it, so I don't think we should be using it on Wikipedia. Nixificate away... -- Hux (talk) 06:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Creative Commons "Work"

Lets make this short, in CC, it said, the "Work" is going to be release as , let say Attribution and sharealike. My questions is, when i upload it on wikipedia, does "WORK" means, the file itself, or someday some company can send me a legal letter and tell me to surrender the full resolution. I think "WORK" in CC is poorly defined. I need some legal expert to answer me on this one.

Thanks in advance

Derek —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dehk (talkcontribs) 21:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Work is whatever you're releasing under the license, as you release it. The CC license gives no one the right to demand you release anything; it just gives them rights to do things with the copy they have of what you released.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The reason why CC and other licenses don't go into detail about what "work" means is because the term already has a specific meaning in US copyright law: a work is the creative expression itself, as distinct from the medium that contains it. For example, the movie Gladiator is a "work", but the physical DVD on which it is contained is a "copy" of the work. Similarly, a novel is a work, but a book is a copy of the work; an album is a work, but a CD is a copy of the work, etc. etc. So from your perspective, the work is your creative expression itself and that expression becomes copyrighted the moment you store it in some tangible medium. As long as that work represents original authorship and is not a derivative version of an existing work for which someone else owns the copyright then nobody can demand that you surrender any rights to it. Of course, in order for your work to be usable on Wikipedia you have to voluntarily give up almost all your rights to it (other than the right to be recognized as its author) because Wikipedia's purpose is to provide freely usable content to its readers. If you're happy to do this then great, but if not then you should not upload your work. -- Hux (talk) 06:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

this is a math problem i need help ansewring.

Lake Superior is the deepest of the Great Lakes. The deepest point is 1,333 feet. Write the depth in miles rounded to the nerst hundred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

1333 ft = 0.254 mi even though you are asking that at the wrong place i believe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dehk (talkcontribs) 21:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not provide one-on-one assistance with homework. LaraLove 22:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know which is more sad: the fact that the poster totally failed to understand what this page is for, despite its title and, more obviously, the large explanatory box at the top of the page, or the fact that it took far longer to type the question than it would've done to simply type "1333 feet in miles" into Google. ;) -- Hux (talk) 05:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


This photo on your site is My photo please delete

I'm the photographer who took this photo and it is being used without my permission Here is my photo that was stolen —Preceding unsigned comment added by TornadoAlleyHoops (talkcontribs) 21:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have flagged the photo for deletion, thanks for getting in touch with us. Kelly hi! 22:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
All apologies. The image has been deleted and the uploader warned. I'm watching his page. Any further inappropriate uploads and the user will be blocked. I also removed your personal information from this post. LaraLove 22:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

User's Copyright question

User: Political dweeb here has a question on the suitable use of copyright. I may have said this question previously but how do I put a copyright tag on an image description page so that there is nothing practically wrong with the image. Political Dweeb (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no simple answer to that, unfortunately, because it depends on the image and on how that image is being used. If you can let us know what image you want to use and on which article you want to use it then we can help, otherwise there are just too many variables to give you a useful answer. -- Hux (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Political Dweeb says the images needing copyright tags are Image:PUP Logo.gif for the Progressive Unionist Party article,Image:40078028 sinnfein 203.jpg for the Sinn Fein article and finally Image:Shimpu.JPG and Image:JN.JPG for the article on the political party Ishin Seito Shimpu. What types of copyright tags are needed for these images I've listed? Do there need to be particular copyright tags for political party logos? Political Dweeb (|talk)

All those images already have the correct copyright tag, which in this case is {{Non-free logo}}. That template can be used for all non-free (i.e. copyrighted) logos, not just political party logos. -- Hux (talk) 06:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Cult Icons Imitations: Are they breaking copyright laws?

Hi there. If one was to use Marilyn's or any other cult icon's memory in some posters in the following way, would they require to pay rights to someone? or would they be infringing on any copyright laws?

e.g. The classic "white dress pushed upwards by wind blast" poze: Assuming someone emulates that photo, using NONE of the original elements (including marilyn herself) BUT has instead a marilyn lookalike, a similar white dress, a similar background but all this being new & originally produced artwork/photos etc, would it be necessary to get any rights clearance from anyone? Or the fact that none of the original material is used makes it fair public domain use? Been thinking about is ever since I saw an advert for Silk Cut that had an upright pair of Scissors in a similar background, wearing a white silk dress (thus making the scissors look like a person) that is pushed upwards by a wind blast from below, bringing it closer to the sharp edges of the blades (hence the play with silk cut brand name). Did Silk Cut have to pay someone to produce and use that imagery? I also saw an advertising poster for a Canadian (I think) short film festival, with a female-midget, in a similar background, with the similar white dress, hence advertising the "Short" film festival.

If anyone was to do something similar with cult icons like Marilyn or Elvis or James Dean, to create that is, ORIGINAL artwork that is however similar to cult icon classics, would they break any copyright law?

<email removed>

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like you are asking for legal advice. Wikipedia does not give legal advice; consult a lawyer for that. In any case your question is off-topic for this page. This page is for questions about how to tag media uploaded to Wikipedia (or by extension reusing media on Wikipedia). It is not a general forum. —teb728 t c 08:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Silver Snoopy award picture

I am writting an article on the Silver Snoopy award, and I've found an image depicting the award pin, but I'm not sure if the image is eligible to be copyrighted or if it's eligible for uploading to Wikipedia (as a free or fair-use image). This is the picture in question, and this is the context where the image was found. I understand that images found on the internet are generally copyrighted, but since this is a photograph of an award pin given by NASA, I'm not sure what (if any) copyright applies. I'm fairly sure the original "work of art" is copyrighted by United Features Syndicate, but it was given to NASA (I doubt the NASA/US-governament-public-domain rule applies here). I totally don't understand the two-dimensional depictions of 3D art stuff and what could apply here.

In short, can I upload that picture, and if so, what license would apply? (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I would expect it is almost certainly subject to copyright, however when writing about the Silver Snoopy Award it seems like a natural case for fair use. Please see WP:FURG for how to justify fair use uploads on Wikipedia. Dragons flight (talk) 08:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. (the IP user was me thinking I was logged in) – jaksmata 13:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Images for sandbox experimentation

I've been experimenting with Wikipedia's tools on a sandbox page (sub-page of my user page). I wanted to use images that I created in the experiment. The images belong to my company, and I have permission from my boss to use them, either in the sandbox or publicly, as long as the company retains rights to the images.

So, I added the images with this in mind, listing them as non-free, to be used only on Wikipedia, but I received automated warnings, and then the images were removed.

So, my question is this: assuming an article is Wikipedia-worthy, what sort of hoops do I need to jump through to use images that I created on behalf of my company in said article? And why am I not allowed to experiment with the images (they get listed as orphaned and are deleted)?

Thanks in advance for advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rettstatt (talkcontribs) 15:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia only accepts images that can be reused or modified by anyone.Geni 16:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but Wikipedia does not accept any permission except a free license—one which allows reuse by anyone for anything. Images which are not free in that sense are severely restricted. See WP:NFCC. Permission of the copyright owner does not mitigate these restrictions. By WP:NFCC#9 a non-free image may be used only in an article. By WP:NFCC#7 a non-free image may not be hosted on Wikipedia unless it is used in an article. By WP:NFCC#8 a non-free image may be used in an article only if it is essential to the article; I looked at your use of the images in your sandbox, and I doubt it would fulfill this restriction. If your company is willing to give a free license, see WP:COPYREQ. If not, sorry but there are no other “hoops you can jump through.” —teb728 t c 20:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed and very helpful answers. I had assumed that non-free images were more commonly used. Thanks for clarification. Rettstatt

On almost ever university or college page, their logo is used as the primary image. I would like to upload a college's official logo to their wiki page like all the others; currently, an amateur photograph of their front lawn is the default. I scanned their logo onto my computer via a letter sent to me, cropped it and saved it as a .png to my desktop. What do I do now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pellsk (talkcontribs) 21:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

See WP:UPI for how to upload it and use it. Be sure to tag the image with {{non-free logo}} and provide a non-free use rationale. —teb728 t c 21:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Tree photo

I am doing an article about Old Tjikko, which is the world's oldest tree. I have found one photo on several news websites, which are all sourced to the researcher who found and dated the tree. I have e-mailed the researcher asking for permission to use the photo, but for now my question is... since there is no explicit copyright claim on the photos, is it copyrighted? Also, the image is used in several news articles which all feature the same photo, so I'm wondering if I can claim fair use even tho it is just a tree and the image is certainly replaceable (by anyone who happens to live or travel to Sweden). Sorry to be long winded but I normally stick to free photos so I don't know much about fair use rationales. The photo is here. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 05:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, all photos are automatically copyrighted as soon as they are taken. Just because it's used in multiple news articles doesn't mean it's free to use; for all we know, the photographer could be receiving royalties each time a news organization uses it. And since it's still standing, it's replaceable with a freely-licensed image. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 05:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I thought so, thank you for the quick reply! --ErgoSum88 (talk) 06:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I want to place a picture of my deceased grandfather -- the picture is his selfportrait - can I?

I want to place a picture of my deceased grandfather -- the picture is his selfportrait - can I? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inettom (talkcontribs) 07:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If the copyright was passed down to you through, for example a will or legal ruling, then yes. Usually the copyright is passed down along with the physical property unless stated otherwise. (Note: This is a complex area of law, and could vary depending on the jurisdiction. I am not a lawyer.) --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 07:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I should clarify one thing; ownership of the physical copy is not always ownership of the copyright, but in the case of passing down property, it doesn't make sense to pass on the physical copy to one descendant and the copyright to a different descendant. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 08:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

How do I avoid that the image is removed from wikipedia?

I have received authorisation from UNRIC to use the logo.

Is it something with a fair use rationale - In that case where can I see an example of such one? Dinadk (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The one there right now looks like it meets the requirements. If you need any help with it still, reply back. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

LICENSE on old commercial brochure photo -HELP

I wish to include in an article images from commercial brochures publicly distributed about 20 years ago. The company no longer exists as it was bought by another company which has been bought by another one. The original source is shown on the images but no other information is provided in relation to wikipedia type licensing requirements. What sort of license is required to upload the images to wikipedia. If not sure, please refer this question to an appropriate administrator. Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esem0 (talkcontribs) 11:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC) (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

About 20 years ago is to recent to be expired from copyright, so it can't be used on Wikipedia. If you are using the brochure in an article about the company that made it, then usage may be fair use and you can use it with a fair use rationale. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

School Logo at St. Bernard's School

The above article has recieved a notice that the image of the school shield is pending deletion. If there is a proceedural step that needs to be taken, or some sort of permission that needs to be granted, please spell it out so the editors of the article know exactly what to do. It seems logical that an image of the school shield should be OK to use in an article about the school. The various guidelines that have been pointed to in the notice are confusing for those of us who do not understand copyright law... and they do not help us to understand what is required in our specific case. Please pop over to the page in question and let us know exactly what we need to do. Blueboar (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone else took care of it. Let us know if you need any other help. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Collage of fair use images

This image is a collage of copyrighted images compiled by the uploader and uploaded under the fair use criteria. Is this sort of creating an image by compiling copyrighted images considered original, or is it a violation of copyright? It is used in an article called Che Guevara in popular culture. –Mattisse (Talk) 22:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The creator of the collage could claim copyright to the collage, but as a derivative work, the copyright of the original work still exists. I believe the usage of the collage fails the criteria "3. Minimal usage" Is the use of all the items necessary to convey the information? Maybe the fair use rationale could explain it. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 23:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I do not know the answer to your question, as I have never had any luck with fair use unless it specifically applied to the article, e.g. an album cover for article on album. –Mattisse (Talk) 23:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair Use Rationale????

OK so I uploaded two images but it said that there needs to be a "fair use rationale" or else it would be deleted. What the heck it a fair use rationale??? Greekpimp (talk) 01:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I added the right rationales and templates. Feel free to fill in any additional information that is necessary. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 02:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Battlestar Galactica Season Four Ad

I'm wondering if I might be able to use the Last Supper picture from the Battlestar Galactica season 4 marketing campaign in the Last Supper - Drama and Film section. I downloaded it from the website upon its release and haven't been able to find it since.

Myndaen (talk) 05:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that's ok, as long as it meets the WP:NFCC --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 05:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Photo copyright question

I have a 60 year old photograph of my inlaws that I would like to make copies of for my children. There is NO copyright or photography studio logo on it. I have tried to research the studio that took the picture, but they are out of business and have passed away.

How do I go about getting the ok to legally make copies of this photograph?

Thanks, Lynn Leopard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lep1948 (talkcontribs) 14:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I assume this is in the United States. If it did not have its copyright renewed, or it was originally published without a copyright notice, it has fallen into the public domain by now. See {{PD-Pre1978}} and {{PD-Pre1964}} for the conditions where this can happen. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


I really can't work out which copyright I should be using. I got my image from google images, and I presume that's public domain but I really don't know. Please help and point me in the right direction.

Actually nearly all images found on Google Images are copyrighted. Thanks for the question. Anonymous101 (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Also Google images is not a source, it's a search engine. You need to click though to the site the image is actauly from and look for copyright information there. Keep in mind that the way copyright law works these days the copyright holder is considered to reserve all rights unless he or she have explicitly stated otherwise. So if there is no information about copyright to be found the default is always "all rights reserved", not public domain or free to use or simmilar. You won't have copyright lawyers kicking down your door for using random images from the internet in most cases naturaly, but here on Wikipedia the project's own rules (see Wikipedia:Non-free content) severely restrict the use of any work that doesn't meet the definition of free-content. --Sherool (talk) 21:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

copyright on pictures

hi i got a message saying that my pictures were copyright buti took them off the web from other sites and i was wondering how to delete an uploaded file or mark the copyright for the picture —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianb824 (talkcontribs) 19:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I assume this is about the pictures of correctional facilities. If the buildings still exist, it would be possible to get a freely licensed photo, so unless they are freely-licensed or public domain photos, we can't use them. There is one possibility; if you know for a fact any of the photos are works of the United States federal government, they will be public domain. If they were published before 1978, there may be certain conditions where they may be public domain. Tell us if either is the case. Otherwise, they will get deleted automatically if you don't do anything, but if you want them quickly deleted, you could tag them {{Db-imgcopyvio}}. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yearbook picture

Chuckjav here.

I have no way of obtaining permission to post the 1955 yearbook picture of dear old (Detroit) Mackenzie High School; the school is closed...there are no students in the picture - just the building.

Do what you must; delete the photo as appropriate.


If they were published without a copyright notice or copyright was not renewed, they may be public domain now. See {{PD-Pre1978}} and {{PD-Pre1964}} for conditions where this could happen. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


What's the copyright status of this screenshot - is it PD-textlogo and trademarked, or is it a copyrighted still? I'm leaning towards it being PD-textlogo because the show's logo is just the number 24 in a seven-segment display configuration - if it were copyrighted, our alarm clocks would violate copyright twenty-four times a day. The use of a very similar icon as the WikiProject's logo is further pushing me towards PD-textlogo. Sceptre (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks this is a pretty clear case of {{PD-textlogo}} --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

proper licensing question

I received the following notification: (see also:

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Ajl772WikiExample.JPG)
You've uploaded Image:Ajl772WikiExample.JPG, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

However, this image is used in User talk:Ajl772/Archives/2008/April. If I do intend to keep the image, then I need to figure out what licensing to place it under... Can anyone help me here? I had thought I chose the right one.

Thanks, Ajl772 (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC).

Unfortunately for cases like this, Wikipedia requires fair use images to be used on an actual article page. Here's my suggestion: crop out the Internet Explorer icons and then you should be able to tag it as a free image without claiming fair use. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Question about user comments on images

On Image talk:CGproducts2.jpg another user reverted and therefore erased my discussion comment questioning the fair use rationale of the image because he disagreed with it. Is this behavior correct in the context of fair use discussions of images? Sincerely, –Mattisse (Talk) 20:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I reverted the other editor's removal of my comments. Was this correct on my behalf? –Mattisse (Talk) 20:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the other user's behavior is correct. If they don't make it possible to have a discussion there, you can bring it up on images for deletion --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
What an insult to my and your own intelligence Mattisse. You are not disputing anything here ... you are attempting to harass me WP:POINT as you have been for months. (Something you were warned about before). I know that what you are trying to do here is aggravate me to the point where I revert you 3 times ... but I will not. Any editor can read Here how I have repeatedly requested you to stop harassing me and my contributions as early as this morning. Also you received an answer on this particular image here yesterday, but yet undeterred as you usually are with regards to your unrelenting harassing of me, you challenged its use today anyway. Nothing you do in relation to me is in WP:GOODFAITH as the last few months have painfully shown me.   Smile icon.png Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 20:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

scans of other people's work

I have a sticker created by the 1990s activist group Queer Nation that I've scanned in. I have no idea what the copyright is, and I don't know if it's legit to upload (it's just text on a green background).

I also wanted to use this image, which was scanned by someone else. It's a scan of a page out of a book that uses a copyrighted image from the 1950s. I think it would fall under fair use because the article directly discusses this image, but I don't fully understand all of the copyright issues around images. Thanks.-- Irn (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The latter is okay, provided it's properly tagged and a Fair Use rationale is provided for its use in that article. The former might be {{PD-ineligible}} if it's literally nothing more than basic text with no original creative authorship. -- Hux (talk) 03:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Release for use on wikipedia only

As I understand it, images can't just be released for use on wikipedia only. However several images such as Image:Pingat Pentadbiran Awam (Tentera) ribbon.png have been released by the uploader under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 with permission from the copyright holder for use on wikipedia. I am also not sure that the attributed copyright holder, who runs, is the actual copyright holder as she only claims to be the owner of the image collection and asks for contributions from elsewhere. Million_Moments (talk) 09:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen what the permission e-mails say so I can't comment on that. But I can make a couple comments on the case. The specific example you give may be simple enough to be ineligible for copyright {{PD-ineligible}} - I can't say for sure; it's kind of borderline. The second is that if it is copyrighted, it probably would belong to the Singapore government, not a website owner or its contributors. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 10:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I can see how the ribbons might qualify for {{PD-ineligible}} but there are also images of medals as well. Is it known if works of the Signapore military are in the public domain or could all these images need to be changed to fair use? Million_Moments (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I looked at the page on the Singapore government web page and they claim full "All Rights Reserved" --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I assume a case for fair use can be made? Million_Moments (talk) 08:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
If it meets the criteria, then yes. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Your primary results map

Question about your map: why is Missouri in grey? Was it not won by Obama?

Victor Nicolas, Ph.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This page is for copyright questions about media that is to be used (or is already in use) on Wikipedia. For answers to general questions such as yours, try asking at the Reference Desk. (And if you ask there, be sure to provide a link to the map you're referring to.) -- Hux (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


I contacted a few flickr users about pictures I need for some articles I'm working on. The user said:

"I am flattered that you would like to use these photos. Feel free to do so. All of my photos are published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareALike license so you should be in the clear to use them as long as there is some link-back (e.g., like with the photo used on the Pullen Memorial Baptist Church article).

If there is a particular picture that you had in mind which does not (for some strange reason) have this license, please let me know. It may be a mistake or else there may be a particular reasoning there."

This picture, for example, that he took has the dollar symbol next to "some rights reserved." Someone told me this means it can't be used. What does he need to change for it to be available on WP? I've never uploaded anything to flickr and I don't know what to tell him to change for it be WP legit. APK yada yada 22:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You remember correctly; the NonCommercial family of licenses are not allowed as a justification for inclusion on Wikipedia. To be usable on Wikipedia, they would have to be licensed under the Attribution or Attribution-ShareAlike license. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
If they don't want to change the public license on the photo page for whatever reason, have them e-mail permission for use of specific photos under CC-BY-SA (or GFDL, or whatever Wikipedia-compatible license they can live with) - then you can forward that e-mail to the OTRS folks. Kelly hi! 22:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I just e-mailed him and hopefully I explained it correctly:

"Thanks for the reply. The dollar symbol next to "Some rights reserved" on your pictures means they're not allowed for commercial use. Although the Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization, it's considered a commercial site. To be used on Wikipedia, a picture needs an Attribution or Attribution-ShareAlike license. If you want to change the license for a few pictures related to Orton Plantation, Brunswick Town, and the St. Philip's Church Ruins, let me know. Otherwise, I'll be more than happy to explain how you can upload them to Wikimedia Commons.

I'm basically finished with the Orton article, but I'm currently working on several articles related to Brunswick Town. (Russellborough ruins, St. Philip's Church Ruins, and Brunswick Town Historic District) If you can change the license for any of these, let me know. I appreciate all of your help.


APK yada yada 23:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

One clarification is that while Wikipedia probably could use NonCommercial licenses as a non-profit, they don't want to. For more background, here is an essay written by someone high up in the Wikimedia Foundation. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok. On a side note, when it rains, it pours. (in a good way this time) Another person I contacted has e-mailed me saying they would allow their picture to be used: "I'm glad you like my picture. I would be very pleased to contribute to your article. I'm not sure if you can credit me or not, but it would be nice. I will change the rights to the picture." They didn't change it to the correct license, but I'll inform him of the Attribution-ShareAlike license requirement. That driveway picture is my new desktop background. APK yada yada 00:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


I recently uploaded this image and am unsure as to which license applies to it. I took it from the Bulgarian Wikipedia here. It's a panorama of a village from around the time of the First World War. The license on the Bulgarian Wikipedia states that it was published by an anonymous or obscure author more than 70 years ago (and therefore in line with their copyright laws). Which license, if any, would apply to this image on this Wikipedia? Many thanks, Hegumen (talk) 05:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Possibly {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, maybe {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}? --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 06:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-free images in artist/actor/user pages

Why doesn't wikipedia allow users to put non-free images in these types of pages, even with valid fair use rationales? JayJ47 (talk) 06:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of policy Wikipedia strongly discourages any use of non-free images. Indeed, some people think they should not be permitted at all. As a compromise, their use is permitted under highly restricted circumstances. Restrictions include:
  • Use is permitted only when it is essential to readers’ understanding of an article. Since use on user pages or talk pages does not contribute to readers’ understanding of an article, it is not permitted in such places.
  • A non-free image may be used only if a free substitute is not possible. Since a free photograph of a living person is almost always possible, a non-free image merely showing what a living person looks like today is usually not permitted. —teb728 t c 06:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

What's the correct option for a picture taken by a US state camera?

They are free, but what option do I use?--Eckre (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

CC license on yearbook cover?

Image:EVHSyearbook 2008.jpg is listed as having a CC-license, but it's a photo of a high school yearbook cover. I don't think the uploader could release that as CC, can he? Maybe it should be fair use? Aleta Sing 02:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless the uploader designed the cover or got authorization from the designer, no he can't release it as CC. You could list it at WP:PUI if you'd like. It's possible that in some circumstance it could be fair use if it meets WP:NFCC --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 05:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! WP:PUI is exactly what I needed. Aleta Sing 15:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Public domain?

Hello. I'm interested in uploading this image from this website based on this criteria. The image in question was taken/published before 1892 (possibly 1875) Do I still need to ask for permission from the webmaster? My understanding is that the image is currently in the public domain. One interesting thing is that the photo might qualify as a "Work Published Outside the U.S. by Foreign Nationals or U.S. Citizens" since Hawaii was a sovereign nation at the time it was created. Viriditas (talk) 07:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless the webmaster added something that would be considered a creative act(ie. retouching), they don't create a new copyright and the image is still public domain. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 07:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. How do you define "retouching"? Viriditas (talk) 07:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:PD#Derived_works_and_restorations_of_works_in_the_public_domain gives some examples. Hopefully this gives some ideas of what would be copyrightable. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Beautiful, thanks again. Viriditas (talk) 08:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

BBC Image


I'm new to this uploading image-thing since I'm always unsure if the image I have is allowed to be on here. But now I really need to get the map from this BBC article. I looked at the Creative Archive License but am not sure if it applies or what license it is. I really need the image of the map so if anyone could help, it would be appreciated. Thank you. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The BBC terms of use is inconsistent with Wikipedia requirements, which require reuse by anyone for anything. —teb728 t c 23:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Well thats disappointing. Thank you for your help. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I upload this image on a page? If so, what license tag do I use?

this image is copied from an article that can be accessed for free at pubmed. The pmd= 17476347 Image:cytokine_figure.jpg


I don't see any sign that it's under a free license. We have to assume it's not free until shown otherwise. If you want to try getting it under a free license, see WP:COPYREQ --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 08:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Unknown Source

The picture here cites the Inter Services Public Relations (which is a public relations branch of Pakistan's armed forces) as a source for the image. I have looked for the image on their cite(even googled the cite) but can't find it. I am sure this is the primary source for the image. Can I claim it as fair use rationale anyway? --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 03:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

If it meets the conditions at WP:NFCC, you can claim fair use regardless of the source. A public relations branch may even be willing to release under a free license, see WP:COPYREQ --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 08:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Referencing image from Russian Wiki

I found an image (link) on Russian Wiki that is declared free from copyright there. How do I reference this image on English Wiki page?--Moidodyr (talk) 07:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it possibly {{PD-RU-exempt}}? I don't read Russian so I don't know for sure. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 08:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I don’t believe there is any way to include an image on Russian Wikipedia directly from English Wikipedia. You would have to upload it to English Wikipedia or (if it is indeed a free image) to Commons. This means you would have to provide a copyright tag for it, which is the point of RaWF’s question. —teb728 t c 20:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
It's tagged PD-RU-exempt on the Russian Wikipedia, and English Wikipedia also has a {{PD-RU-exempt}} tag. I don't know if stamps are actually exempt in Russia though. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I am lost

I got this message:

==Image copyright problem with Image:Vase3r 480.jpg==

Thanks for uploading Image:Vase3r 480.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

There are two of the same now. I only wanted one, and I wanted that on my used page, not a separate page, and smaller image size. Sorry, but computer savvy I lack.

You want it deleted? It'll get deleting automatically if you don't do anything, but if you want to hurry the process, tag it as a duplicate with {{isd|Full name of other image excluding the "Image:" prefix}} --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
What I want is to move one to my user page. How can I do that? I did not intend to create a separate page. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
They're the same image right? Why don't you use the one image in both places? --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Malcolm, images on Wikipedia always have a separate page in image space. You can include the image on your user page (or other page) by inserting [[Image:Vase3r 480.jpg|thumb|right|caption]] or [[Image:Vase3r 480.jpg|caption]] where you want the image to appear. —teb728 t c 20:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC) But as it says in the original message on your talk page, you have to add a license tag on the image description page, giving Wikipedia (and everyone else) the right to use your image. If you don’t do that your image will be deleted. Choose a tag from WP:ICTIC. —teb728 t c 20:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the helpful information. I think I have it right now [9]. If not let me know and I will try to make what changes are necessary. By the way, how can I get the image smaller? There are two more images I want to add.
If it's not a fair use image, upload it at the highest resolution you have. Then add it on the article with [[Image:PictureNameHere.jpg|100px]]. The option "100px" tell the MediaWiki software to display it at 100 pixels; it does all the resizing when needed. See Wikipedia:Picture tutorial for more information. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
If Malcolm Schosha created the image anybody known why the Meta data says that it is a scanned image from 2004 authored by Johansen Krause who appears to be a professional/commercial photographer? MilborneOne (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
That was my daughter's friend who scanned my photographs while he was working for New York Magazine. I made the pottery, while in Oregon, on the potter's wheel and hand painted the original design. I can give you more details if you want. I was a potter for twenty years, but no longer make pottery. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply - it would be useful if you explained that on the image page just so it will not be questioned in the future. MilborneOne (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You’ve almost got it right, but the copyright tag (and the explanation which MilborneOne suggested) goes on the image description page—not on your user page. —teb728 t c 20:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I found an old book...

And I was wondering, since there are old images in it, could I scan them and put some on wikipedia.

The book is estimated to be 100 years old and was printed in London.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roketjack (talkcontribs) 20:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you can put them on Wikipedia. You can tag them {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. If you know it's public domain in its source country as well, you could tag it {{PD-UK}}. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use of images with unknown copyright status

Apparently it is possible, under certain circumstances, to claim fair use for images that are subject to copyright, but for which no free alternative exists. Question: what about images for which no free alternative exists, but for which the copyright status cannot be ascertained? The tag placed on Image:Aziz nesin.jpg appears to indicate that in such cases an appeal to fair use is of no avail, but isn't that a bit paradoxical?  --Lambiam 10:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Images of unknown copyright status can be used under fair use. Images of people to show what they look like usually can't be used under WP:NFCC, which is stricter than fair use, because a freely licensed picture can usually be taken. However, since he's no longer living, obtaining a freely-licensed picture may not be possible, so claiming fair use may be the only option. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Then what should I do to avert the scheduled deletion of the image (the image will be deleted after Wednesday, 7 May 2008)?  --Lambiam 19:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't find a more specific tag; so you could use {{non-free fair use in|Aziz Nesin}}. —teb728 t c 20:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
So to keep an image whose copyright status is unknown from being deleted, it is necessary to assert (possibly falsely) that the work is copyrighted. I find that weird.  --Lambiam 08:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Strange, but that is one way to go about it(you can explain the situation in more detail on the image description page). The other option is to try to find another image with a known-free copyright status. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 09:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I've got exactly the same problem with Image:Trenchard as a militia cadet (low res).jpg. I am deeply averse to asserting the the image is copyright when I don't know that to be the case. Apart from engaging in the disreputable practise of boldly proclaiming something to be true which one is uncertain about, this might hamper others with more knowledge than me in determining the copyright status of the image. Where might one challenge the current policy which seems flawed? Greenshed (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If you don't know if it's copyrighted, you need a fair use rationale in case it is(and you can explain mitigating factors in there). If images were allowed to stay solely on the basis of "don't know if it's copyrighted or not", that would get massively abused. I suppose you could bring it up in say, village pump if you wanted to. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I am certainly not trying to get round the law on the basis of "don't know if it's copyrighted or not". I had put a fair use rationale in place from the outset, but this has not prevented the image from being nominated for deletion. Greenshed (talk) 20:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

copyrights in Hungary

Is picture published in 1961 in Hungary copyrighted ?


Wiktor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkobylinski (talkcontribs) 21:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It may be public domain now {{PD-Hungary}} --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
It is not in the public domain. The earliest it could be in the public domain is 2011, if the author died in 1961, or if it was an anonymous work. See the Berne Convention. So the answer is yes, it is copyrighted and protected by international copyright law. Legis Nuntius (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
According to Hungarian Copyright Act, Chapter XI "Protection of Photographs, Illustrations and Other Visual Aids", "(2) The duration of protection shall be 15 years from the end of the year of publication or disclosure." [10] --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
But not in US. Sostill copyrighted here. SYSS Mouse (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"Royalty Free" pictures

I have a copy of this Dover Publications book. The linked publisher's site mentions that it has " 400 royalty-free illustrations". The book itself mentions the illustrations are "copyright free". Presumably, this means I can make copies for use on WP. If I were to do so, would I tag them "public domain"? Or is another tag appropriate? Many thanks. Gwinva (talk) 08:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If it just says "royalty free" it doesn't always say whether whether it allows unlimited distribution, commercial use, and modification, which must be granted in order to be considered free enough for Wikipedia. "copyright free" should be okay, as long as they have the authorization to declare that; it would be public domain if so. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 09:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. It's not public domain by age: The book is: Wagner, Eduard; Drobiná, Zoroslava; Durdik, Jan; (2000) Medieval Costume, Armour and Weapons, trans. by Jean Layton, NY: Dover Publications ISBN 0486412407 (first published in 1956 as Kroje, zbroj a zbrane doby predhusitské a husitské; first published in English in 1958 by Andrew Dakers, London), yet the back-cover says "Accompanied by a scrupulously researched and well-documented text, these copyright-free illustrations not only offer general readers an intriguing and authentic insight into a past age...[etc]". Dover Publications do specialise in publishing old and public domain books, so presumably they know what they're talking about. Gwinva (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Which p-d tag is appropriate? The illustrations are sketches of medieval art and artifacts, made by Eduard Wagner, who died in 1984. It was first published in Czechoslvakia in 1956, then English language edition published in London, 1958. The US edition, from which I wish to make copies, was published in 2000. Many thanks for your help so far. Gwinva (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I have to admit, I don't know what their reason for declaring it copyright-free is. Does not seem to be by age. Possibly the author dedicated them to PD, or sold the rights and the new owner dedicated to PD. You may have to ask. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 02:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

'Innovation in Science & technology'

(I deleted some text that was copied from [11] - Ksero)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravindra nath sharma (talkcontribs) 09:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC) 
Did you have a question on copyright? — Ksero (talk | contribs) 11:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Avast! 4.8.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Avast! 4.8.png. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from ""

well i didn't understand what iam supose to do ?

i took a screenshot of the software and i type all the needed information

what description should i change and how can i change it ?

It needs a fair use rationale. See Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline for how to make one. We may be able to help if you're having difficulty, but we need to know how you're going to use it(ie. which article it's for). --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


Hi, I have uploaded the image below, but am unsure how to set up the copyright status. It is sourced from the Victorian State library with permission to use. Please assist. -E! 22:30, 12 May 2008 (EST)

Their reasoning for believing it is out of copyright is probably either {{PD-Pre1964}} or {{PD-Pre1978}} or both. Check if either of them meets your situation. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Oops, I didn't realize we were talking about Australia. The criteria for Australia public domain is {{PD-Australia}} --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Rat at WikiFur, Much appreciated. I put in that template and removed tha other one. Can someone confirm I have done this correctly.--E! 9:52, 13 May 2008 (EST)
As you can see in the template, there are a few reasons that a work could be out of copyright. I'm assuming that the State Library is correct in advising that the work is out of copyright. If you know, please put in the description page which of the conditions the work matches or ask the State Library for their reason. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Very bad skin condition.....


We have been fighting Sean’s skin condition for many years - he has been on steroids for about 8 years (every day). We are now living Cape Town, doctors took him straight off steroids, and he is currently having light therapy treatments along with various creams. We are hoping his situation will improve as this is all over his body and in his eyes. (He is finding the condition very frustrating as one could only imagine.)

I am especially looking forward to receiving information on mindfulness we had seen this on a program in SA, and believe the doctor is some were in Cape Town at the moment. (Would I be able to get a CD?)

Kind regards <e-mail removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:48, 12 May 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 20:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


why is biodiversity important to us? are there any negative effects that will affect us? PLEASE ANSWER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!!!

                                  THANK YOU  —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC) 
1. Is this a homework question?
2. Shouldnt this be asked in the Refrence desk?
3. Shouldnt you research a better place to ask this question.
4. Mabye a little research here might be in order? Artoftransformation (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

trying to add a picture

I added a picture at the bottom of the article on Justice John Paul Stevens, and I got a copyright notice. Well, I am trying to indicate that it is public domain, Dept of Justice. Could you check to see if I did it right so it does not get deleted? I am at <email removed> or you can talk to me on my talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Houstoneagle (talkcontribs) 01:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Assuming it is an official photo, the tag is {{PD-USGov}} --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 01:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Replying on the user's talk page. —teb728 t c 02:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

question about PD-art-3d and PD-art

Does a picture of a tapestry fall under a 3D art license or 2D license? I only want to upload an image of a particular detail upon the tapestry (an image of a coat of arms). Its basically an image and 2d, yet the tapestry as a whole is 3d (though i dont want a pic of the whole thing only a small part). Anyone know what category this would fall under? Thanks. (Sorry if this is the wrong forum to ask this question).--Celtus (talk) 06:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I looked at previous uploads for guidance, and it looks like {{PD-art}} is acceptable. If there were things like pleats or tassels included in the photo, things would be less clear. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 08:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I'll go with that then. :)--Celtus (talk) 07:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

A few problems with uploaded images...., a proposed procedure...

I uploaded three images, and was notified of their copyright status, I updated all the copyrights, and noticed that the DRM GDFL is still up in the air, ( i.e. how can a DRM not be a DRM, and why an anti-DRM is still a drm ), as well as, two of the three images were deleted by two seperate admins, WHITOUT CHECKING the copyright info, or WITHOUT Posting on images to delete, they simply:

Marked the images for speedly deletion, and
Deleted them without warning

00:35, 26 April 2008 (hist) (diff) N Image:Rogue Unix Screenshot Thumb.JPG‎ ({{Information |Description=Rogue (computer game) Unix Screen Shot |Source=self-made |Date=2008-04-25 |Copyright (c) 2008 |Copyleft (cl) 2008 GFDL |Author=Arthur_Transformation |other_versions=None. |Note:Parts of the software used to create this image are) (top)

Then an admin (East713)wrote:

You cannot make up a license of your choice for screenshots of a game, only the person or company that holds the intellectual property rights to the game has the authority to do that. And since myself and ^demon seem to be on your "*ssholes" list, I don't want to discuss the issue further. east.718 at 04:13, May 11, 2008

SO: I understand that

1. I should make CARs, Creative Artist Renditions files of the pictures,
2. Upload them with the copyright in the name
3. Mark them as 'HOLD ON' so that they dont get speedily deleted
4. Keep an eagle eye on the files, and the article they go with
5. Notify the Games group that a lazy admin has invalided the images, despite the games group using images under this:

This is a screenshot of a non-free copyrighted video or computer game, and the copyright for it is most likely held by the company or person that developed the game. It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots:

  * for identification and critical commentary on
        o the computer or video game in question or
        o the copyrighted character(s) or item(s) depicted on the screenshot in question
  * on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law, as such display does not significantly impede the right of the copyright holder to sell the copyrighted material, is not being used to generate profit in this context, and presents ideas that cannot be exhibited otherwise. See Wikipedia:Non-free content."

My question is this:

1. How can you *honestly* request images, with these barriers in place?
and do you really wonder *why* you dont have a dearth of contributions?
2. What liscense will images NOT be tagged by zealous killer admin bots?
3. What file formats are liscensed under GFDL? Not jpg, and certainally not GIF?
4. Why has the question of DRM gone unanswered on the images policy page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artoftransformation (talkcontribs)
I'm only going to address the issue of the Rogue screenshots, as I'm not qualified to answer the rest. First of all, as I can see in Image:Rogue_Spash.JPG, it explicitly states near the bottom of the screenshot that it is public domain software. A screenshot of public domain software will be public domain as well(unless the screenshot includes some elements that aren't public domain which isn't the case here). You tag public domain screenshots with {{PD-author|name}}, where name is the author of the software. The second is that a screenshot of the non-graphical Rogue may be too simple to be copyrightable. In that case you'd tag it {{PD-ineligible}}. The last possibility is that the version of Rogue is copyrighted, and the screenshot contains enough of the programmer's copyrighted material that it's copyrighted as well(this is what will apply to most games). Add {{Non-free game screenshot}} and a fair use rationale; you can use {{Vgrationale}} to fill in all the rationale automatically. In none of the cases are you the creator or copyright holder, so you do not have a choice in the license, but you may write that you are the one who took the screenshot, as a matter of factual information. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 01:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Artoftransformation, you apparently confused the admin with your claim of a GFDL license on the screenshot. A screenshot of a game is not copyrightable, being a mere derivative of the game. The admin naturally thought the license was claimed for the game rather than the screenshot. The admin was right to delete the image, for the copyright tag was invalid.
In answer to your question #2: The licenses discussed above by Rat at WikiFur would be good licenses on games, depending on the circumstances. A claim of a license on a derivative screenshot, however, is not valid.
In answer to your question #3: Acceptable image formats generally include png, svg, jpeg, and gif. The preferred format for a screenshot is png. See Wikipedia:Image use policy#Format. —teb728 t c 06:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, in answer to your question #1: Wikipedia does not *seriously* request images. With regard to non-free images at least, it seriously discourages the images that some editors try to dump on Wikipedia. That’s the reason for the barriers in WP:NFCC. —teb728 t c 19:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Olympian images

Background: Library and Archives Canada is objecting to many Commons images on the somewhat confusing basis that they say "Restrictions on use: nil" but then restrict use. One major point there is that they want written request/approval for each use of an image. That's fine, they own the images, so they have to come off commons. We can develop FUR rationales as appropriate to use the images on en:wiki, hosting them here.

Now if I understand correctly, fair-use of images of living people is not permitted on en:wiki, right? However, there is a special category of images at LAC which don't require the written authorization, see here. One of those categories is Canadian Olympians, and the pre-authorized license is here. The key passages from that last link are "may be reproduced for non-commercial purposes", "does not allow images to be used for publication...or...any purpose other than personal consumption".

So do images of living Canadian Olympians obtained from the LAC qualify as fair-use images? Thanks! Franamax (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Images with the non-commercial restriction aren't considered free enough for Wikipedia unless they fall under fair use. Also correct is that images of living people are usually not allowed as fair use, but there could be exceptions; for instance if the person is reclusive, or if the photo itself is the subject of commentary. See Wikipedia:Non-free content. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 08:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec) They could not be used generally. They couldn’t be used just to show what the person looks like. Possibly a few images may show some notable event, where the image would add significantly to readers’ understanding of the article. —teb728 t c 08:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Specifically, Image:Ben Johnson Seoul 1988.jpg and Image:BrianOrser1988Olympics.jpg, these both are notable, one being the fastest man in the world at the exact moment, the other leading the C/Olympic team into the Olympics in Calgary, nationally significant events as opposed to being used for identification. Do these qualify? Thanks! Franamax (talk) 12:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, fastest with dope. :p Ben Johnson one is definitely notable enough and would allow fair use here. SYSS Mouse (talk) 17:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 Generic

Is it true that I cannot use an image with this CC licence?

Why not - if WP is not commercial and no-one will make money from it?

--  Chzz  ►  15:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

We do not accept images with this license as our aim is to have content that is free for others to use- Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. If it can only be used non-commercially, then the content is not reusable by some groups/people, including some of our mirrors, meaning that we have failed. J Milburn (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Help with Image:Comaneci05.jpg

This used to be a public domain image of Nadia Comaneci from the US Department of State. However, a user has replaced the image--as in, uploaded a new jpg and erased the old one-- with what appears to be a completely non-free image and has not updated the copyright tags, etc. [12] Is there a way to undo this and retrieve the old image? Should the user be warned? Etc.? Thanks, DanielEng (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed- reverted and deleted the copyrighted version. Feel free to explain what happened to the user if you like- it was a good faith upload, they just seemed to not understand the copyright issues. J Milburn (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your help here! I've left a note for the user, which hopefully will explain things. DanielEng (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Proper image copyright for Musical Artist Infobox

I have been given an image from the artist to be used in an Infobox on his article. What copyright is appropriate in this case? Rwl10267 (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless they specified a license when they gave it to you, it's probably not under a license suitable for Wikipedia. See WP:COPYREQ --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The image was given to me specifically for use in the article. Does that allow me to use it? If so, with what license? Rwl10267 (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Did he say anything like "public domain", "free for any use", "GNU Free Documentation License"? If not, then no, that doesn't allow you to use it. See WP:COPYREQ. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I did read WP:COPYREQ, but jeez, I'm not an attorney. Assuming that I can get him to say that he releases it as free for any use, is that sufficient? Thanks for your patience here. Rwl10267 (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, if he says free for any use, without trying to make any loopholes, that sufficient. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I think I can handle that. Thanks so much for your help! Rwl10267 (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. One more thing. Assuming that I get his "free-for-any-use" approval, what license should I use when I upload the image? The GNU FDL doesn't seem to apply to images. Rwl10267 (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
If they say "free for any use", the tag to use {{Copyrighted free use}}. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't find that license option at Special:Upload.Do I simply specify {{Copyrighted free use}} in summary?Rwl10267 (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Perfect. Thank you. This is the first time I've uploaded an image that didn't originate with me. Rwl10267 (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
You say “the image was given to me specifically for use in the article.” I hope you don’t mean by that that the permission is only for use in Wikipedia. Because in that case {{Copyrighted free use}} would not be an appropriate tag. —teb728 t c 23:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC) Oh, I see. Later on you say you will try to get additional permission, per COPYREQ. —teb728 t c 23:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Right. I will get permission in the form of "free for any use". Thanks.Rwl10267 (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
And the GFDL is an acceptable, if not particularly good, license for images. The {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} is far better. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Adding copyright tag to the image description page

Hi there, I was asked to add a copyright tag to the image description page. I'm a new user and am not quite sure if I have done so correctly. Can you please inform me if all is correct. This is the image concerned: Image:WILD RADISH.JPG.jpg

Thanks Signature_icon.png‎ Joanna Voulgaraki Joanna Voulgaraki

You didn't manage to add a copyright tag.
Who created the image? Was it you? Stifle (talk) 09:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

i don't have a question

i just didn't know where to put this kinda of thing but this is fake —Preceding unsigned comment added by DignityWithLove (talkcontribs) 23:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've tagged it {{hoax}}. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
And, as it is non free and not used in any articles, I have tagged it with {{orfud}}. J Milburn (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Philatelic Covers and Stamps

I recently questioned an Image of a Philatelic Cover Image:EAA SoSL 1977.jpg as it had been uploaded as GFDL as it had been scanned by the uploader. The uploader asserted that as it had no copyright notice printed on the cover it was OK to use, although he added a contradictary non-free use rationale. The uploader has now shaded out bits of the cover and re-uploaded with a pd-stamp licence (a pre 1977 US). The images and writing on the cover can still be seen and show more than just the stamp. Other covers have been uploaded so I was just interested what was the guidance on philatelic covers and stamps. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Scanning doesn't affect the copyright; the scan has the same copyright as the original. US stamps prior to 1979 are public domain according to Commons. Everything else besides the three graphics on the left is probably not even eligible for copyright. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Self-portrait of Geneviève Brossard de Beaulieu

Geneviève Brossard de Beaulieu died in 1815. I don't read or understand Hungarian, but would this image by copyright-free? Corvus cornixtalk 02:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The image would qualify for {{PD-Art}} (at least in the US) via Bridgeman v. Corel, but you ought to crop the frame because that may be new. A caveat though is that you probably ought to upload it here rather than Commons, because the status of Bridgeman v. Corel style rules has not been determined in Hungary. Dragons flight (talk) 02:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll do that. Corvus cornixtalk 03:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Vectorized Symbols for Fictional Groups in TV shows

I have created a vector image of the emblem for the Fire Nation in Avatar: The Last Airbender. The closest thing to this emblem on the Fire Nation article is a flag with the emblem on it and a very low-quality image which was not even the real Fire Nation emblem, taken from some fan (I think) site. I went onto Google search and eventually found an image of the Fire Nation emblem, modified, stylized, and effectified. Because I did not like the fact that it was a fairly small raster graphic, and was not the true emblem (colors and all), I vectorized it, and colored it using the colors of the flag image. Image:AvatarFireInsignia.svg
My issues are these:

  1. I do not know if it is okay to post the image, since it was based off artwork by somebody else, and the symbol could possibly be copyrighted by the makers of Avatar: the Last Airbender.
  2. I have no idea what license I would post it under, since it seems to be one of those border-line cases, fitting into the logo category, and the original artwork category. It doesn't fit into the latter, though, since I used somebody else's artwork in the process, right?

I really feel that this image could be a nice addition to the article, and if it is okay, I will start work on the emblems of the other nations too. Nuck Chorris (talk) 01:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If it's part of a copyrighted show, it's still the same copyright, even if you redraw it. If you're using it for commentary about the show, it's pretty clear fair use though. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 01:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I will assume that that means I can put it in the article, then. And as I asked before, is it original artwork or what license? --Nuck Chorris (talk) 02:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd suggest you start with {{Non-free logo}} and write a full explanation of what you have done as described above, as well as a fair use rationale. We don't have templates for everything, so unusual cases need longer explanations. Dragons flight (talk) 02:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I did what you said, and I posted it to the article, so my work here is done (I hope). I was a little unsure about the fair use rationale part, but I think I got it okay. Just to be safe, I put a note in the description that if there are any problems, to either fix them or post them on the talk page. Thanks for all your help! I will begin work on the other nation's symbols in the next few days, and hopefully I'll be done by the end of the weekend!--Nuck Chorris (talk) 02:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Official logos using Copyrighted free use license

How can an official school logo be licensed as Copyrighted free use? see Image:USDHScrestred.jpg This is currently a common file. How does one get this fixed? Dbiel (Talk) 05:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it could be out of copyright, but still trademarked. Since the school was founded in 1957, it's possible that either {{PD-Pre1978}} or {{PD-Pre1964}} apply. Otherwise, the copyright release should be archived in OTRS to archive who said it(whether they have the authorization to do so) and exactly what was said. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 06:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The user's statement with the upload was "This is the official crest for the University of San Diego High School, uploaded with permission from the school's website administration" Which tells me he got permission to use it in the article about the school, not to claim the following:
The copyright holder of this work allows anyone to use it for any purpose including unrestricted redistribution, commercial use, and modification.
Dbiel (Talk) 07:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's why I hope he'll archive "exactly what was said" with OTRS. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 07:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I posted a request on the following user page User talk:Dyuvi#Image:USDHScrestred.jpg Dbiel (Talk) 19:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC).
I uploaded the image of the USDHS school crest directly from the school's server, when I edited this article at school. I don't know how else to describe the fact that I was permitted to use this image, especially considering that the school is now defunct and it's rights have been transfered to Cathedral Catholic High School, which is the school I attend. dyuvi (talk) 05:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

LA County Sheriff's Department - public domain?

Already posted at Wikipedia talk:Public domain image resources, but I subsequently found this page, and it may be a better forum to ask the question:

I've just authored William Queen, and article about the author and former ATF agent. The NYT review of his book includes two photos of him, and one of them is credited to "The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department". Is this public domain, and can I therefore filch it for the article? Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I checked their web page, [13], and it says pretty much All Rights Reserved, so there's no reason to think Public Domain is the default for them. Possibly you could try to get that particular imaged freed per WP:COPYREQ --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 07:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The Human Wellness Methods


1. I am making writing small Book, concerning Holistic Methods for Wellness, based on Indian Vedical Systems, Ayurveda, Acupressure and Human Blood Groups.

2. I find very useful materials, write ups and photographs that can be down loaded and used, subject to your permission and copy right terms.

3. May I request your guidance please?

Y. G. NEVHREKAR. Tel +[removed for privacy] email : [removed for privacy] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yash14 (talkcontribs) 11:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Reference desk. This noticeboard is for questions about using images on Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Screenshots of Wikipedia used on Wikipedia

Is it correct that screenshots of Wikipedia pages used on Wikipedia to illustrate technical problems on Wikipedia are not allowed under Wikipedia's fair-use policy? I ask because an image I uploaded for the village pump is soon to be deleted because it is not in an article. DuncanHill (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It depends.
It appears you're referring to Image:Bizarre.jpg. If the screenshot doesn't include proprietary material (which this one does) then it can be released under the GFDL. For this to be usable you would need to remove the Wikimedia logo and all of the proprietary software. Stifle (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is annoying

I went to considerable effort to indicate the copyright status of a family image per the not terribly clear instructions. Image:albertjgebert.jpg Some robot removed it. Fine, I don't care if Wikipedia has an image or not. So glad I bothered. Last time.

You went to considerable effort to indicate the copyright? The entirety of your description of the image was "Family photo", and it was tagged as having no source for over seven days before being deleted by a human. The deletion was not at all unreasonable. Would you like some help determining the copyright status? J Milburn (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Well actually, East718 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is more a cyborg. Dragons flight (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh come on Milburn, the instructions are not clear and there are many instances of images being deleted for questionable reasons without any help being offered. Robots tag images all the time for failing to use a particular style of template and then admins go and delete the images en-mass without ever checking to see if the robot was correct or not. Maury (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to do some work on the Royal Academy of Art (The Hague) page and tried to upload a logo (kabklogo.gif), from their site, to go at the top, just like the one of The Roayl College of Art page (rcalogo.gif) It has been detleted because I don't really understand all your copyright stuff and don't know what you want me to put to allow me to have a logo on the page. If it works for the RCA why not for KABK? What am I to do? I am not a Wiki-god, surly someone can see what I'm trying to do? Help!

Thank you

Mrdinwiddy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdinwiddy (talkcontribs) 18:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll deal with it for you. J Milburn (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
New image uploaded to Image:Royal Academy of Art (The Hague) logo.gif and added to the article. If you would like an explanation of what is required when uploading an image, you can take a read of this page. The original image was deleted because there was no fair use rationale- fair use rationales are explained here. J Milburn (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Photos from a 1902 publication

Would you give me a steer on the copyright status of pictures in a 1902 book (published in the UK - not sure if it was published in the US). I have no information on the date of death of anyone associated with the book. appear to think it is copyright cleared (at least in the US). Where do we stand on it? Can images be loaded to en.wikipedia? To the Commons? Under which license? Thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

See {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} for one option. Dragons flight (talk) 23:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
That's excellent; thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


Can somebody look at this please and tell me what I'm doing wrong?GDD1000 (talk) 00:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You fixed the issue in this diff. After which, the only thing to do was remove gthe bot tag, which I have done. if the bot still thinks there's a problem, it'll get back to you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Does PDGov "leak out"?

I'm trying to understand exactly what US Copyright law for Federal Government images applies to. This is a bit complex, bear with me...

The US Department of Energy runs a number of labs as part of the DoE National Laboratories system. Generally these are run consortiums of universities and large companies, or new LLCs set up as fractionally-owned partnerships of similar groups. A good example would be Argonne, which is run by UChicago Argonne LLC, which, as the name implies, is a LLC set up by the University of Chicago.

My question is whether or not the existence of these "middleman" companies invalidates the PDGov that would otherwise apply to their media. The companies are wholly funded by the Feds, which is usually the criterion for whether or not the media in question is PDGov. However, all of the labs also have disclaimers stating that all media is owned by them.

I'm not looking for opinion here, does anyone know for sure what the deal is here, or have suggestions on how to find out? I have written to the labs in question, and always receive the e-mail version of a blank stare. Further requests go into a black hole.

Maury (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The Federal Government exception applies to US Government employees only. Contractors are not covered. Most National Lab employees are contracted employees of the management organization and hence not copyright exempt. Consequently, national labs are mostly able to set their own copyright policies. See also Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE. Dragons flight (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
This doesn't make you stop and go "huh?" So I'm a federal employee who has a hobby taking pictures. I want to copyright them even though I'm not allowed. So I make a numbered company, assign my employment contract to it, and presto! Is this really legal? Would it stand up in court? Maury (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
See: [14] and Schnapper v. Foley. Incidentally, the copyright exemption applies only to federal employees acting in performance of their duties. So a Federal Employee with a "hobby taking pictures" isn't covered either, unless photography is actually part of his job. Everyone else creates copyrights automatically. As a condition of contract with the Federal Government one may be required to license or assign those copyrights to the Federal Government, but a contractual relationship isn't sufficient to eliminate copyright. If you want to continue through the looking glass, consider this: The Federal Government may own and exercise control over copyrights that it has been assigned, even though it would not be legally allowed to create those copyrights. Dragons flight (talk) 23:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Sigh. Well I guess I shouldn't be too surprised, here in Ontario the gov has a provision in their crown copyright that limits use for 75 years after first publication, but there are no records of first publication, so it's basically forever. Your tax dollars at work. Maury (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

On Logos

Why does the new logos put in article on radio, even in Fair use rationale? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aztegdude (talkcontribs) 07:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Which image are you talking about, and what is your question? J Milburn (talk) 10:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Chiari Malformation type 1

Iam 35yrs old and have tpye 1 chiari malformation,I was hoping someone who has it could tell me more information on it, you can email at just post it regards chiari anything would help alot thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiritwood (talkcontribs) 19:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The science reference desk would be the appropriate place to ask this. J Milburn (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


What is an image source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fangusu (talkcontribs) 19:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Where the image originaly came from (website you got it from or if you took it yourself).Geni 19:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


Hello, I'm not sure if this is the correct place to ask this question but anyway, is it allowed within copyright law to use information from MountainViews in Wikipedia mountain articles? Would it be allowed for instance to state that "Slieve Gallion is the 397th highest peak in Ireland" as stated on their site here:[15] I ask because it states on the conditions of use page that "You may not use the data to build another website or any other form of derivative work without written permission. No commercial use is permitted of the website including RSS feeds without written permission." Does this preclude the possibility of using any facts on this website in articles, even with citations? Thanks for your help, EJF (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

depends are you in the EU?Geni 14:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The site doesn't have any right to demand that. They can claim copyright, but they can't stop people taking information- you can't copyright data. On the other hand, it doesn't really look a reliable source, so I'd find somewhere else to get data from anyway. J Milburn (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
In the EU you can copyright data (or technically it's refered to as a database right), which is what I suspect Geni is refering to. It prevents people from copying "substantial" portions of someone else's database, where "substantial" has usually been measured in terms of either doing commercial harm to the original database or gaining unfair commercial advantage for oneself. Dragons flight (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Afraid I am. With regards to the reliability of the data, the data which can be checked in other places such as coordinate data, height data, gridref, name in Irish etc. appears to be accurate. The only data which I would probably be interested in which cannot be verified elsewhere is the rank of each mountain in height, such as the example I gave above. Would it be correct that they can copyright information that they may have researched themselves, but not data that can be freely found? (for example, the name in Irish) Or would I be allowed to state that "Slieve Gallion is the 397th highest peak in Ireland" and cite that fact in the article, but would only be legally restricted from creating an article with the rank order of mountain heights in Ireland using that source? EJF (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Under EU law, it is the act of copying a substantial portion of a data collection that creates infringment. The question of whether or not that data could have been acquired elsewhere is immaterial. Hence, one way to avoid tripping over this law is to not rely on any single data source but rather to mix and match from various different collections. In general, using the site to occassionally source facts about mountains (such as X is the Yth tallest, etc.) should be fine, as long as you aren't trying to systematically copy their information into Wikipedia. As you suggest, it is probably a bad idea for you to create a list of the tallest mountains based on copying their data.
Now, for the giant monkey-wrench. EU database laws apply only in EU courts. The US (and in fact most of the rest of the world) doesn't have a comparable law. A US citizen could legally copy as much factual material as they liked (subject to some much looser rules regarding compilations). As an EU citizen you could legally be liable for contributing to Wikipedia in a way that violated EU law; however, Wikipedia as a whole requires that its content only be consistent with US law. Hence, an American who wanted to pursue this could systematically copy their data with (near) impugnity.
I hope that clarifies things. Dragons flight (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Where does Wikipedia stand on such laws? As it is hosted outside of the EU, surely EU law doesn't have any power? Perhaps if a user who was outside the EU was willing to contribute the information? J Milburn (talk) 20:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I may have been unclear. Such information is perfectly allowed on the English Wikipedia, which bows only to US law. From Wikipedia's point of view, anyone is allowed to contribute it. However, an individual Wikipedian may be subject to the laws of his home country. Hence EJF, who self-reports as living in Ireland, might be liable if he contributed to Wikipedia in a manner that violated EU law. So, he would have to decide for himself how much risk he is willing to take. Dragons flight (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your very informative advice. I'll bear it in mind; I will only be using the site for one or two facts in mountain stubs, such as what I'm doing here. Cheers, EJF (talk) 10:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Joe Kleon images

Which copyright tag do I use for album covers that I created and photos that I have taken?

I have used several images on the Joe Kleon wki page. I took the photos and designed the album covers for all these pages. How do I add an appropriate copyright tag?

Radioinfoguy (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

If you took the photos or created the design, and it wasn't a work for hire, then you own the copyright, and you can choose the copyright tag. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 00:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Assuming you're the sole author. If it was a collaboration, you would need to get agreement from all the people you collaborated with. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 01:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Old Family Picture

I'm a decedent of a person with a biograph on Wikipedia. I've inherited a family portrait of him and his wife circa 1900, taken by some portrait photographer of the time. I have no idea what country the picture was taken in, but it was almost certain never published. I think the picture would be useful for Wikipedia, but I have no idea if it's acceptable, or what tag to use if it is. Thanks for your help! --Falcorian (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't suppose you can narrow it down to some possible countries? Also, can you say whether it was made after 1888? Is there any indication of the photographer/studio on the portrait? Dragons flight (talk) 23:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Most likely country is Germany or Norway, and certainly after 1888 (19003 if I remember). No indication of photographer or studio. --Falcorian (talk) 03:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
For either Germany or Norway, an unpublished, anonymous work goes out of copyright protection 70 years after it's creation. We don't have a tag that covers this, so you will need to fill in the explanation for {{PD-because|explantion}} with the background and reasoning if you want to upload this under that rationale. Dragons flight (talk) 09:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
You're a decedent? So, what's it like, being dead? :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Own Work Question

I am a nationally known radio announcer and semi-pro photographer, who, as part of my wikipedia page, would like to include the following images

1)a self-portrait, taken by myself, with a digital camera, while on the radio. 2)several CD covers, which I designed and took the photos used in the artwork.

Is this "fair use" to use my own work and upload it to wikipedia? If so, how to I properly tag them, to remove the warnings I am receiving?

The photos are: Image:Amroadinside.jpg, Image:Acoustic.jpg Image:Scars.jpg Image:Foamin.jpg Image:Soulessmiddle.jpg

Any help with this would be sincerely appreciated.

Radioinfoguy (talk) 04:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If a) you took the photos yourself, AND b) you did not take them in your capacity as an official employee of a company (see "Work for hire"), then you own the copyright on those photos and can do as you wish with them. Basically what that means with regard to Wikipedia is that you need to release them under some kind of free license (e.g. by adding a tag like {{PD-self}} or {{GFDL-self}} to the image page). See this page for more details about that. Also, Fair Use is only relevant if you want to use the images on Wikipedia but you don't own the copyright on them, so it's probably not relevant here. I hope this helps! -- Hux (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
However, I'm pretty sure that if the albums were produced as works for hire for a band then they're not your to do with as you please and you'd have to use fair use. --Falcorian (talk) 01:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Blackwall Buildings pictures

Can you help me please? I have an email allowing use of the two pictures you've just tagged on Wikipedia. They did this with no reservations. The pictures are Image:Blackwall Buildings 1969.jpg and Image:Blackwall Buildings 1940.jpg. The email reads as follows:

Dear Mr Singer,

Permission is granted to use the two images in connection with the entry for Blackwall Buildings at

Yours sincerely,

Malcolm Barr-Hamilton Borough Archivist

Tower Hamlets Local History Library and Archives Bancroft Library 277 Bancroft Road London E1 4DQ 020 7364 1290

(I had previously written explicitly naming the two pictures I wanted to use)

Can you help me please and let me know what tags I should put on them so they don't get deleted for copyright violations?

Many thanks

GoScoutUK (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I confirm that permission has been sent to the OTRS - do I need to do any more? GoScoutUK (talk) 10:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

photos will be deleted - permission turns out to be too hard to get GoScoutUK (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the email which you quote grants permission only for use on Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not accept such limited permission. In order to be acceptable to Wikipedia, the permission must allow use by anyone for anything. See WP:COPYREQ. —teb728 t c 07:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Inter Process Communication

How can we implement a chat application using the NamedPipeClientStream and the NamedPipeServerStream using c#? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


Could a more eperienced editor assist me please? I am having real trouble with fair use rationale on one or two pictures I have uploaded. I have done it wrong (again) with the picture at Enniskillen1.jpg and need someone who knows what they're doing to put the correct syntax into the picture description.GDD1000 (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I am confused: The text of Image:Enniskillen1.jpg says the image is in the public domain, but the {{non-free historic image}} tag says it is copyrighted. Please explain. What is the source of the image? And what is your reason for claiming PD? —teb728 t c 06:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the tags, that's the problem. I can't get my head around it.GDD1000 (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

What is the source of the image? Is it PD, or is it copyrighted? And if it is PD, what is your reason for claiming PD? You don't need to know anything about tags to answer that. —teb728 t c 21:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well that's the problem. The image has been taken from amateur footage which is the only footage available of the incident. It's been broadcast all round the world and reproduced in the press God knows how many times. That's why I say it's in the public domain. It's also a true representation of an historical event however and that's where I seem to be going wrong. I don't know how to tag it properly.GDD1000 (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You are not being very helpful. Where did you get the image from? That is your source. Does the source give any attribution or otherwise indicate where it got the image from? Most images are copyrighted; you can’t assume an image is PD just because it is widely used.
On a different track, if Image:News6905.jpg shows the same event, what do you think of using it instead? —teb728 t c 22:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I can't be of more help at the moment. I don't remember where the picture originated. I am trying to find the source again using my original search terms. The picture you suggest would really be a last resort. It's from the same footage as the one I'm using but what's different about mine is that it clearly shows a UDR Greenfinch tending the wounded. Yes I can identify UDR soldiers in the picture you've suggested but unless another reader was able to interpret the uniform differences they might be hard pressed to clearly see they are UDR soldiers and not regular army. The nature of th discussion on the article thus far has me convinced I must be as exact as possible.GDD1000 (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually your info was more helpful than I thought. My main issue was whether to treat it as PD of non-free, and your comments lead me to believe it is probably not PD. That means that what it needs is non-free use rationale, which I have added, using some of your comments.
It is still lacking a source. When you recall the source, please add it.
As a non-free image it must be used in an article; so you need to get consensus on adding it to the article. —teb728 t c 01:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Paul Thomas Anderson

Image:Paul Thomas Anderson.jpg I got this image from,so how do I add this information in it's copyright.I've got a warning that it will be removed by 22nd May 2008. Sugreev2001 (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately this image would fail Wikipedia's non-free image criteria. Non-free images of living people that are used to show what the subject looks like are only allowed in exceptional circumstances. Polly (Parrot) 17:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


I found this photo on a Supergrass fansite [16]. I'm not sure who the owner of the photo is. Could someone please help me with this? Thanks --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
the image will be deleted seven days from its upload date, (17 May 2008)

I see that someone has added a tag and use rationale. —teb728 t c 21:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Images on Dante's Divine Comedy, etcq

To Whom it May Concern:

I run a small business which produces for sale CDs of conferences given on various works of literature such as Dante's Divine Comedy. My question is as follows: is it possible to use images of the works contained on this website for our CD labels and/or covers. Furthermore, does this depend on each particular entry in the encyclopedia (i.e., might the person who has edited the site for Dante not care while the person who edited the site for, say, Chaucer's Canterbury Tales prefer that the images not be put to such a use? Thank you for your help.

If you would kindly mail a response to <email removed>, I would be much obliged to you.


Jonathan Loop STAS Audio —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If you click on any given image, you will be taken to an image description page that describes it's background and licensing. The details of how an image may be used will depend on that information. In many cases you will find images that might be used on your CD labels/covers, but in other cases the image licensing may not be suitable. Please look through the images you might be interested in and come back here if you have questions in specific cases. Dragons flight (talk) 09:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Can i upload

Can I upload a promotional picture. The picture is of Amanda Kimmel in survivror micronesia. You can find the picture here: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pufferfish4 (talkcontribs) 01:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No. With still living individuals, we require the use of free imagery. This means either getting someone to photograph her (at a press event or other public outing, presumably) to create a free image, or getting the studio/her representatives to release the copyright restrictions on an existing image. Dragons flight (talk) 09:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Use of images in the ATV article

I've found some great renderings of atv evolution scenarios on the esa website. the terms of use say the following:

The ESA Portal Multimedia Gallery contains images and videos used throughout the ESA Portal. The images are offered in the Gallery in the highest resolution available.Most images have been released publicly from ESA. You may use ESA images or videos for educational or informational purposes. The publicly released ESA images may be reproduced without fee, on the following conditions:

  • Credit ESA as the source of the images:

Examples: Photo: ESA; Photo: ESA/Cluster; Image: ESA/NASA - SOHO/LASCO

  • ESA images may not be used to state or imply the endorsement by ESA or any ESA employee of a commercial product, process or service, or used in any other manner that might mislead.
  • If an image includes an identifiable person, using that image for commercial purposes may infringe that person‘s right of privacy, and separate permission should be obtained from the individual.

If these images are to be used in advertising or any commercial promotion, layout and copy must be submitted to ESA beforehand for approval to: ESA Multimedia

I can't make heads or tales from this. Could someone please tell me weather I can upload and use pictures from this lybrary or not. I'd be very grateful if you'd respond on my talk page.

Thank you U5K0 (talk) 10:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

ESA images are non free.Geni 11:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC) I can't upload them?U5K0 (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Only if they meet the non-free content criteria and have rationales. Kelly hi! 15:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Aurora collection image deleted


I am put together this page who owns the world famous collection Aurora Collection. The image is his (that was deleted several times) - would you please help me with clear instructions as to what I need to do to keep this fro happening again.


Vrukiter (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC) vrukiter

The copyright for the image will belong to the original photographer unless it has been specifically transferred, or it falls under the narrow criteria of a work for hire. Whoever the copyright holder is, their authorization will need to be stored in the OTRS system. See WP:COPYREQ. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 00:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Help needed with copyright rationale

Discussion moved from Help Desk

Per the discussion here, an image of a coin, Image:Jersey £1.jpg, that was deleted through lack of adequate fair use justification has been restored and needs the justification to be put right so it's acceptable for use in Coins of the Jersey pound. There does not seem to be an issue with the general principle that pictures of coins are acceptable on Wikipedia, but I have no idea how the justification should be correctly worded so that the image won't be deleted again. I don't want to just copy what's on another similar image because I might pick another one that's also wrong and might also be deleted when someone comes across it. Can anyone help out with this? Matt (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC).

Take a look at Image:20 cent piece obverse.jpg for an example of the use of {{money-US}}. I suggest you also use {{information}}. ----— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 17:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. {{money-US}} does not seem to be applicable since this is not a US coin. Also, I have a problem filling in {{information}} because I did not originally load the image and I do not know its source. I'm not sure how far I'm going to get with this; I think I'll leave a note for the original uploader. Matt 19:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC).
I have just found an example with {{information}} filled in at Image:St helena£2.JPG. If I copy this with the obvious changes then will that be acceptable? Matt 19:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC).
Copy the {{non-free use rationale}}, yes. (It doesn’t have an {{information}} tag, and if it did, that would not be what you need. —teb728 t c 20:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I was getting my tags mixed up. Thanks, Matt 22:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Road sign

I have a picture of a road sign I would like to upload but I don't know if it would be a "U.S. federal government source" or some other liscence. Could someone please assist me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FSX High Flyer (talkcontribs) 01:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Please provide more details about what is depicted on the road sign. Dragons flight (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Is a scan of a newspaper article Public Domain or copyright?

Image:Iggy Pop in NZ-The Dominion-Mon 16 July 1979.jpg

This is a scan of an article from New Zealand newspaper The Dominion, dated 16 July 1979. I assume that this is Public Domain.

I cannot locate any guidelines to scanned newspaper articles. Am I not looking hard enough?

The pitfalls of being a 'newbie'?

Thanks in advance.

Gregwgtnz (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Scanning an article does not affect the copyright. The article is either copyrighted or not, depending on when and where it was published. The scan has no copyright of its own.
But why do you want to scan an article anyway rather than citing it and/or making a textual summary of its contents. Is the article notable in itself? —teb728 t c 20:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What's this "rationale" thing? (Logo replacement)

I wanted to replace the old SWITCH Logo in the article about the .ch top level domain. So I uploaded the new logo Image:SWITCH_Logo.gif and then changed the link in the article to the new logo. When uploading the new image I added the same copyright-tag for logos as the old logo Image:Switch_logo.gif has. So far so well. But now I get a message of some robot that some rationale is missing: "You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale." But I can't see anything like that with the old logo or, for example, for another image that is used in the same way: Image:Denic.gif. What do I have to do? I really don't know much about this copyrighting stuff, I'm just a simple staff member of SWITCH and want to see our new logo on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MacCrack (talkcontribs) 12:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Inasmuch as the logo is basically just text, I am not sure whether it is copyrightable under US law.
The {{non-free logo}} tags on both versions implies that they are copyrighted and not freely licensed. Wikipedia policy requires that all non-free images have a use rationale, explaining why they should be used despite Wikipedia’s policy discouraging non-free images. The fact that no one has asked for a rationale for the old logo is an oversight.
Perhaps the easiest solution is to replace {{non-free logo}} with {{PD-ineligible}} and {{trademark}}. A PD image is free and thus needs no rationale. —teb728 t c 21:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I understand it better now. I have added a rationale similar to the one for the logo of Afnic Image:Afnic.png -- MacCrack (talk) 14:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

sahara desert

the saraha desert covers a large part on map of africa why is it very big or large pls its a home work research thank —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This page is for asking questions about Wikipedia pictures. General information questions should be asked at the Wikipedia:Reference desk, but they will not do your homework for you. —teb728 t c 20:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)




1. Why do you feel Paz was compelled to write The Labyrinth of Solitude?

2. Do you feel the period of time in history in which The Labyrinth of Solitude was written is important to the overall tone of the book?

3. How important to the Mexican identity was The Labyrinth of Solitude?

4. Do the thoughts and beliefs that Paz wrote about in The Labyrinth of Solitude consistent today in modern day Mexico? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but we do not reply via email. Also this page is for questions about Wikipedia pictures. Also Wikipedia is not this kind of forum. Also please do not post in ALL CAPS. —teb728 t c 06:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


|}please, i will like to have a copy of a complete new king james version of the Holy bible in a file so that i can read at all time without haven to go on internet

Sorry, but this page is for questions about the copyrights of Wikipedia pictures. —teb728 t c 21:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Book cover copyright question

Is a book cover that consists completely of a public domain artwork and a simple title with no creative input subject to copyright? The key example I am interested in is here. The artwork is "The Third of May 1808" by Francisco Goya, which is obviously in the public domain. The book is Operación Masacre by Rodolfo Walsh, published in 1957 (if that is even relevant, which I doubt). Thanks, IronGargoyle (talk) 12:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It probably isn't copyrightable, according to Wikimedia Commons a simple title is not copyrightable, and a faithful reproduction of a public domain image doesn't create a new copyright. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

different kinds of soil

There are different colour of soil availabe in our EArth. The character, properties vary from one soil to another soil. the kind of plants/trees growing in these soil vary. could some one help in getting the details of the above? (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This page is for questions about the copyrights of Wikipedia pictures. The Wikipedia:Reference desk answers general questions. But even they will not do your homework for you. —teb728 t c 21:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Kalash Tribe Photo

Would it be alright to use the first photo on this site: for the Kalash article? Quietmartialartist (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a citation link pointing to Getty Images. Images from there are assumed to be not free unless shown otherwise. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

John Reames

Hi, would I be allowed to upload the following photo [17] for the article on John Reames. Many thanks, GiantSnowman 18:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Going to the root of the website,, and clicking on "Copyright" at the bottom, it looks like the answer is no, you can't use it. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


Can anyone figure out what's wrong with this? Is the bot tagging it because it can't parse the template, or is there a formatting issue? (I ask about formatting because last time a bot questioned an image of mine, it turned out to be the difference between – and – ...which is to say, to my layman's eye, none. To the bot, all and everything.) If anyone can help me figure out what's triggering this one, I'd be grateful. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it just needed to be subst-ed --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 00:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah! Formatting trips me up again! :) Thank you so much for your help. I'll make sure that I've substituted the others I've uploaded. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

CardSpace Identity Selector

I got a nice bot warning about Image:Cardspace identity selector.png (which missed one of the articles in which it's used). Now I've added the rationale templates; however point 3 in the templated rationales "The image is only used sparingly and is rendered in low resolution to avoid piracy." is probably untrue. The screenshot came from my own machine, which has a bunch of test cards loaded and isn't resized from the original "work". So should I resize it down a bit to match the rationale, or am I worrying about nothing, or worse getting it all wrong? Would it be better to take another shot which only features "cards" which are from my own work and open source identity providers, rather than have a screenshot which includes identity cards from microsoft and verisign? --Blowdart | talk 05:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a non-free image can stay at that high of resolution unless there are exceptional circumstances. There is even a bot that reduces image sizes if you don't. Resizing yourself, waiting for the bot, or creating a new screenshot without copyrighted images are all viable options. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
So I need to resize screenshots down a bit for them to be acceptable (how much are we talking here? Is there a guideline?). Then if I remove any of the cards in the image that contain copyrighted images themselves and take a new screenshot then resize down it'll be fine? --Blowdart | talk 07:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Image of person who has just died

Can I upload a screenshot image of Gibson Nyandoro from The Guardian's video? It's an image that was taken when he was still alive. Given that Nyandoro only really became notable in death, and that, since he's now dead, no free images can be taken of him alive, there are no replacements. But I thought I should ask before uploading. Aridd (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. You would need to make a fair use rationale to explain your reasoning. But it might get decided to be deleted anyway. Try WP:COPYREQ first if possible. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not sure where exactly I would obtain copyright authorisation from, so... I'll upload it, provide FUR, and if it gets deleted, so be it. Thank you for your help. Aridd (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Screen shot of a film in the public domain

Hi, I tried to figure this out on my own (seeing as I'm an admin and all) but am not very comfortable with image copyright issues. I originally uploaded this image (a screenshot from a film) solely for use in the article about the film, Columbia Revolt. I later added it to the article on Mark Rudd since it shows him. The image was then tagged as not providing a valid use for the Rudd article which is true (though I did not think of that).

I originally put this under a fair-use license because I could not figure out how to tag it. However the fact is that this film is supposedly in the public domain - namely the Prelinger Archive which is owned by the Library of Congress. I think I would need to apply the appropriate source tag to the screenshot {{LOC-image}}) but there would still be the issue of licensing.

Basically this never had the proper licensing info to begin with but now it needs to be changed. I'm just at a loss as to what the proper licensing info is for a film in the public domain. I'll check back here for a reply in case this question is of interest to anyone else. Any help would be greatly appreciated.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you know the reason it is public domain? Was the copyright expired or was it released to the public domain by the authors? --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 00:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd say it's a good bet that it's the latter. The film was released in 1969 so I don't think the copyright would have expired. It was made a radical film collective and the odds are good that they never even copyrighted it. As I said it's part of the Prelinger Archives (see link) and it was acquired by the Library of Congress in 2002. According to that second link, a number of these films are available on the Internet Archive (which is where I got the screen shot). Also, "Permission is NOT required to download or reuse materials from the Internet Archive, and no payment is required...Most key moving image items in the Prelinger collection have been mastered in Digital Betacam or Betacam SP formats, and will be made available to the public without charge through the Internet Archive" (this info comes from Rick Prelinger, who started the archive, and is found at the second linked web page).
I think that means there are no real restrictions on how we use a screen shot from the film. For all of the films in that archive Prelinger seems to be either the copyright holder, or has secured permission from the copyright holder, or there is no copyright holder. In the case of Columbia Revolt I assume it is one of the latter two but I'm not sure which. Hope that helps, but I'm still not sure on what licensing info we should list for this.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, if they never copyrighted it, I believe the tag would be {{PD-Pre1978}} --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I think that's a safe bet so I'll give it a try. Thanks for your help!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Help with images and copyrights

I work for a company who represents recording artists and their management. We deal with their official websites, and all of their social networking pages (this one included). We have been given many promotional pictures for use on all of these sites, yet i am unsure of what copyright i should use when uploading these pictures. Someone, help please!? Pinklady09 (talk) 12:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Contact_us/Photo_submission. Also, WP:COPYREQ, while written from the other point of view, is informative. Your position is different from the typical editor, so you may need to consult your lawyer as well. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Inasmuch as your clients are living people, images of them must be licensed under a free license. (The reason for this is that Wikipedia does not accept a non-free image where a free image could be created.) If the images you have were taken by professional photographers, You may want to take your own photos. BTW, Wikipedia is not a social networking site and may not be used as one. —teb728 t c 07:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Aislin self portraits from the McCord museum in Montreal

I was browising on the McCord museum website and they have several images drawn by Terry Mosher, AKA Aislin. He has some self portraits there, and I thought we could include one in his article (Aislin). I notice that they're licensed under the CC 2.5 Canada license, is that good enough for Wikipedia, or do they have to be under the CC 3.0 licence?Oaktree b (talk) 02:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like they all have non-commercial and no derivatives restrictions on the license. Neither of those restrictions is acceptable to Wikipedia. —teb728 t c 07:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Official photos from pre-British Rail railway companies

What is the copyright status of these? I would like to upload some where the source is listed as British Rail London Midland region and I don't have any idea whether these are public domain and if not who even owns the copyright now. --Tombomp (talk) 11:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Any idea when they were published? --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Between 1910-1930 I think. --Tombomp (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Copyright expires seventy years after the death of the author {{PD-old-70}}, or seventy years after first publication if the author is not known {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} . --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Adding a photo taken by someone else

I would like to add a photo to a pro athlete's page but the photo was taken by someone else (a friend of mine, not a professional photographer). If I have an email from her saying that she allows this, (a) what does she need to say, and (b) how should I attribute it when adding the copyright stuff to the image? Thanks --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 13:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

See WP:COPYREQ. If you do get the image under a free license, I would suggest uploading it to Wikimedia Commons. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Adding an archaeology journal picture

Confused as to what label etc. to apply here. The situation: I took one small pic from an archaeology journal in China (1975), which is necessary in order to be able to discuss inscribed symbols on pottery in the Neolithic pottery signs page. That should be fair use, right? What tag would go on it if I uploaded the image unaltered? PD-US-1996? Second, what I ACTUALLY uploaded is a version of the pic in which I completely rearranged the order of the symbols, inverted the image (black vs white), and cleaned it up in Photoshop (the original was unsightly), thus creating my own image. Can I just treat that as my creation, and release it under public domain without copyright? Or do I need to tell the whole story, as follows:

Non-free use rationale |Article=Neolithic signs in China |Description=pottery symbols from Neolithic China |Source=Image created by Kent Suarez in Photoshop through rearrangement, inversion and cleanup of pottery rubbings published in a Chinese archaeology journal. The newly created image by Kent Suarez is hereby released to the public domain without copyright by its creator. The original source is entitled Wenwu, 1975, v.8, p.82, plate 1. The remainder of the article and journal are not copied. Discussion of the pottery symbols in question is not possible without access to and fair use reproduction of their image for research and educational purposes. The source is an academic source, and reproduction of small fair use portions in this context is normal. |Purpose of use:to illustrate the pottery symbols, which is not possible without fair use reproduction of a small lo-res image like this.

I will be uploading a few more images like this from different articles for the same purpose; each will be a single image; some will be unaltered and some will be heavily edited, reordered, etc. Thanks for your advice! Dragonbones (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Was the original photo (i.e. before your modifications) just a simple reproduction of a two dimensional object? Also, is there no way that somebody would be able to take a photograph of those symbols (or symbols comparatively useful to the article) because of, for example, restricted access to the pottery itself? The work you did definitely created a derivative work, so you'll have to release your contribution under a free license in any event, but the answers to the preceding questions will affect the copyright status of the original work as well as its usability under fair use. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Avonfirebadge.gif

A bot message asked me to add a fair use rationale to Image:Avonfirebadge.gif. I've done this but could someone check, as I never seem to get these quite right to comply with all the rules.— Rod talk 13:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I fixed your tag a bit. It looks good now. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hamzy image non-fair use rationale added

My name is John Dirina. I uploaded a book cover, and received a non-fair use rationale request from STBotI. I attempted to add the rationale, by editing the description in SUMMARY, under licensing: Non-free use rationale: Description: Book Cover [Hamzy] Source: A digital PNG of the book cover (by the author/creator). Copyright in the image and all equivalent images is held by the author(s). Fair Use per copyright laws is permitted, without relinquishing copyrights. Article: Hamzy Portion: The Book Cover only. Low resolution: Yes. PNG. Purpose: To visually identify and reference the work Hamzy. Replaceability: There is no free equivalent of this book cover; the image cannot be replaced. Other information: Other than fair use of the cover may affect the value of the original work or limit the copyright holder's rights or ability to distribute the original.

Please let me know if this is what needs to be done, and what else I must do to remove the tag from the HamzyCover.PNG image's page. Thank you John Dirina —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdirina (talkcontribs) 20:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I removed the warning tag for you. You only need one copyright tag and one rationale, so you can delete the duplicate. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Image of Member of PArliament in Parliamaent

Can i use this image here [18] in this page here: Bung Mokhtar Radin? The copyright holder is most probably held by the national broadcasters of Malaysia, or the govt itself. ќמшמφטтгמtorque 04:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't see a valid fair use rationale being found for that image in that article. As long as the parliamentarian in question is alive, a free photo of him could theoretically be acquired, which means that any non-free photo used solely to illustrate him would fail the replaceability requirement of WP:NONFREE. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Old image on non English Wikipedia site

I would like to upload and use an old image from the Slovenian Language Wikipedia site (

The image is a photograph taken in 1914 and appears on this page:

The image is here:

I am working on the English Language equivalent of the article and would like to use the same image. I don't speak Slovenian, so I am not sure whether this image is copyrighted or not.

Could someone please help me? Paddyslacker (talk) 07:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

For the English language Wikipedia {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 08:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
and for the French language Wikipedia ? (from English to French) The image already exists in English Wikipedia. --Nicourse (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
There is a summary of French copyright at Commons. I don't know the specific names of the templates on the French Wikipedia though. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 23:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

US Steel Building Construction

I found a picture that is currently hosted by my University's Library (Reachable on the Internet) of the US Steel Building during the construction phase and I feel that it would be appropriate for the respected article of the building. What type of license do I use if I want to add it to the article? I'm new to copyright requirements on images and would appreciate any help, thank you.

The image can be found here:;g=imls;q1=USX;rgn1=ic_all;sid=f5c87ac56cda296c55b2ca715a41d38b;size=20;lasttype=boolean;view=entry;lastview=thumbnail;subview=detail;cc=accd;entryid=x-msp285.b002.f39.i03;viewid=ACCD0150.TIF;start=1;resnum=3 Nth Derivative (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The "Copyright" tag on the left side makes it clear that the image is not free enough for Wikipedia. You could try making a special request per WP:COPYREQ, find a different image, or if the article is commenting on something that cannot be discussed without that specific photo, use the image under fair use. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I just realized something. The date given is 1969-1970 and the creator is unknown. Unless the Library removed the creator information(which is unlikely) that means it was published without notice of copyright and is public domain under {{PD-Pre1978}} --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Crazy copyright problem

Resolved: Commons image tagged as PD-USGov-NASA, local copy deleted.

I don't begin to understand the convoluted and jargon-heavy explanations for copyright. This - - is a NASA photo I uploaded to the Supernova article here - I see someone rewrote the caption, probably because it was too long and screwed up the layout. Anyway, I'm getting a notice that "This file is an exact duplicate of another file from the Wikimedia Commons. Unless it is currently protected from editing, this media file may qualify for speedy deletion if it satisfies these conditions." That's because I uploaded two - the first one I hadn't documented the copyright, and when I discovered that I uploaded it again with the copyright. And now I don't know how to delete the duplicate.

But wait! There's more! Somehow when trying to do the copyright thing I got directed to Wikipedia Commons, which I'd never heard of - but was given the impression that to upload files I had to join Commons, which I did, and that's when I went through the whole uploading process again, this time with copyright. Now I'm getting this message on my Commons talk page:" There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you. This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 05:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)"

I really don't understand this at all because the NASA license - the only thing I could find resembling a license - is plainly displayed below the photo. That NASA copyright I inserted is all I could find - and I don't know from "template" - I don't see why this should be so convoluted.

What's worse is that the photo in the Supernova article doesn't link to the photo with the copyright info but to the first one I put up, without the copyright, and which is now a duplicate! So both of them are in line for deletion. This is nuts. I tried my best - it was the first time I'd uploaded a photo, and the directions were beyond confusing for me. I'm no dummy, but in this I guess I am. Can somebody help? Wlegro (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

RJHall seems to have already fixed the license issue on Commons, by adding {{PD-USGov-NASA}} to the page. There should've been a drop-down menu on the upload form for choosing the license, but I guess you missed it. I've deleted the local copy for you, so tha links now go to the version on Commons. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: the Zimmerman article

I'd like to upload the "original" family logo/seal which is of 'Germanic origin' for the zimmerman name and include it at the beginning of the page. IS THIS POSSIBLE? as my uploading adventures have been halted for some reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregz08 (talkcontribs) 04:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You are still free to upload pictures. BUT don't use file names like "Scan00__.jpg" like you overwrote at Image:Scan0017.jpg. Please pick a more descriptive name such as "Zimmerman family seal (germany).jpg" Please review Wikipedia:Image use policy on appropriate image uploading. – Zedla (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Image sources

Wikipedia:Copyrights states that "if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work.". Is it acceptable to sources non-free images from websites that are likely to be hosting them in violation of copyright and outside of any fair use exemption. Since providing a source is required for a non-free image providing the link to the site would also be required. As an example, currently there are several images sourced to Kim Possible Fan World (example: Image:Shego SD.jpg) which claims to be "in no way affiliated with the Disney Company" but holds literally tens of thousands (likely hundreds of thousands - I haven't checked) of images that Disney holds the copyright to - there is acknowledgement of the copyright. Are images sourced from this type of website unacceptable or does the fact that we use it under a claim of fair use anyway negate any possible problems with the source? Guest9999 (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we can give you a Yes or No answer. On one hand:
  • It's the polite thing to do to acknowledge your sources
  • Wikipedia's definition of what's acceptable under fair use is a lot stricter than what's legally possible.
On the other hand:
  • That is an awful lot of screenshots.
  • There's no copyright granted for taking screenshots, so you legally don't have to link to the fansite.
--Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I think I'll leave the issue for now as there doesn't seem to be much advantage to pursuing it, if (when) there's another big fuss about the level of non free content on the site it might be worth bringing up. Sorry for the trouble. Guest9999 (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyright message about Image:Bal-Sagoth Battle Magic.jpg

I received a message on my talk page from FairuseBot about an image I uploaded (Image:Bal-Sagoth Battle Magic.jpg), tagged, and provided a summary for. I'm not really sure why the message was delivered to me, because it seems like I did everything I was supposed to do. Could someone please assist? A message on my talk page about this issue would be appreciated. Thank you. -- Christopher C. Parker t c 12:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone else helped you out. Looks good now. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

copyright regarding an extinct entity

What is the copyright policy regarding media from an entity that no longer exists, for example publications from the Minsitry of Information/Embassy of the Republic of Vietnam (1955-75)? Duyet-pho (talk) 04:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well the Socialist Republic of Vietnam woulod probably be considered the sucessor state. so I guess they have at least some claim over the rights.Geni 12:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Unless the original entity explicitly released their material to public domain while in existence (or its been legislated into PD since then) it's probably still covered by a copyright in the US See Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Does the SRV (or its predecessor the DRV) have a say now when they did not recognize the existence of the adversary the RVN back then? In legal terms the communist regime recognized only the existence of the RSV (Vietcong) so the aren't publications of the RVN now without clear ownership. The current regime in Vietnam may even considered these works treasonous by their viewpoints. With the RVN extinct, by US laws can they be considered fair use? The Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights only speak of entities in existence. Please help clarify. This issue is a major problem in vi.wikipedia. (talk) 04:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Picture from website

I would like to upload the picture of Simon Bird from How do I acquire permission to upload or is this not possible. Should I email the address given on the web page. Thank You in advance.Killercatt1 (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

See WP:COPYREQ. You will probably have to start by e-mailing the address on the website but they will probably not be the copyright holder so you will have to ask them if they can give the contact information for the copyright holder. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 07:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


How can I use images from WikiTravel? Do I have to upload them again, if so what license should I use etc. Thanks --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 03:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you will have to upload them again. Wikipedia has no relationship with Wikitravel. You can click any image on Wikitravel to find out what the license is. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 07:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyrighted sounds

Is the fair-use rationale on this sound adequate? J.delanoygabsadds 04:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

School Mascot

So anyways, I'm doing an article on my school, and there's a picture of the school mascot here, [19], and I'm note sure what the copyright is. There really isn't a copyright on this anyways, as far as I know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zapurdead (talkcontribs) 01:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Since a creative work becomes copyrighted at the moment of its creation, chances are high that this image is copyrighted. In order to use it, you would typically need to get the copyright holder to release it under a free license (see WP:COPYREQ). Alternatively, you might be able to use it without doing this, as long as its use conforms with the non-free content criteria. -- Hux (talk) 06:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

May i add my High Schools logo to its wiki page without permission from the school. I got it from the schools website. —Preceding (~JDM~) (talk) 04:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but since it is probably a copyrighted image, you can only do so if it's used in accordance with the non-free content criteria. -- Hux (talk) 05:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Adding image back to page


I am a bit confused about adding this image back to the White Out (band) page. I am the copyright holder of the image and would like to use

This template should only be used on file pages. as the copyright information. It appears that the image was deleted but when I tried to upload it again, I was denied access. My account is more than 4 days old. Here is the code as it exists now on the page White Out (band).

Can I just delete the comment and add the copyright info?

Thanks a lot.

Linoleum11 (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the code didn't show up in my previous post. This question is concerning adding the image back to the page White Out (band). I am the copyright holder.

!-- Commented out because image was deleted: | Img = WhiteOut.jpg --

Can I delete the comment and add the creative commons with attribution license?

Thanks again.

Linoleum11 (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the log, your account is only two days old. When your account is four days old, you can upload the image again with the CC license. After you have uploaded it, you can restore it in the article by uncommenting it. (Just to be sure you understand, the CC license goes on the image page not in the article.) —teb728 t c 19:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, since you're going to be contributing it under a free license, consider uploading it to Wikimedia Commons. It's part of the same organization that runs Wikipedia, and you use images from it just like they were on Wikipedia. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Falklands War


A montage was recently created for Falklands War but apparently some of the images don't meet the appropriate criteria, so we're trying to find new images to use to replace them. We're looking at images such as this one and this one. These are licensed here but two of us have come to opposite conclusions as to whether this means that they can be used as "free" (so we can use them in the montage) or are fair use only.

Could we have a judgement please? Pfainuk talk 21:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

crown copyright is not quite free. So I'm afraid we can't use the images.Geni 21:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Definitely not free, as the license does not allow for unrestricted commercial use or for derivative works. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, Thanks. Pfainuk talk 21:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sam Walton College of Business

I would like to use the logo for the Sam Walton College of Business on the page of the same name I am making in Word, but am unsure of its licensing, etc. It is here, at the bottom in the right corner (the one that says University of Arkansas Sam M. Walton College of Business, not the round Old Main image.) Could someone please help, I do not want to violate anything. Brandonrush Woo pig sooie! 22:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You can use {{non-free logo}} for the license, but make sure you accompany it with a valid non-free use rationale. -- Hux (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much Hux! Brandonrush Woo pig sooie! 22:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Unclear how to post my picture to a website

I am trying to post a photo that I took to a website on wiki but beriing a novice, i am unsure how to do this as it has been rejected three times. It seems I do not know how to correctly tag, label or format this picture so can someone post a copy that I could cut and paste so I can put a picture of a wooden covered bridge to a wiki page please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ImN2Fun2 (talkcontribs) 22:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Since you're uploading your own work, you can upload it to Wikimedia Commons, a repository of freely-licensed work. You use files on Commons just like they were on Wikipedia. See here for a step-by-step guide. If you need more help, here or on Commons, just write back. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Which copyright tag to use??

Hi, I have uploaded the photo Bangkok_microzonation_map.jpg in Seismic microzonation page. The picture is my own creation and I want to release it in public with only two conditions (1) Anyone can use it freely for academic and business use but proper reference should be given to my paper published in (2) The picture should not be distorted beyond its original purpose meaning it should not be distorted to give any wrong meaning

With these two conditions what copyright tag should i be using??

Rabin (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to break this to you, but in order to contribute your work to Wikipedia, it has to be usable by anyone for any purpose. On the positive side, requiring proper reference, including a link, is an acceptable condition to place on your work. If you do decide to contribute your work, see WP:ICTIC to choose a license. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 23:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The available images can want you to use even Wikipedia of all languages in English version Wikipedia. .

All Wikipedia should enable use it is possible to use it with English version Wikipedia. For example, I want you to watch this.→EnglishSuper_Mario_Bros,Japan[20].

Why can the image of the character of game created in Japan able to be used in English version Wikipedia, and cannot use it with Japanese version Wikipedia?

It can be said that this is discrimination. This is an acute problem. I request this problem to be canceled immediately. --Tree Cannon (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If an image is free, you can upload it to Wikimedia Commons, and images from there can be invoked on all Wikimedia projects. However, if an image is not free it must be uploaded separately to each project where it is to be used.
If you want to link to another language's Wikipedia, you can use the syntax [[ja:Article title]] for Japanese, or replace it with the appropriate language code for other languages. Stifle (talk) 11:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Eastbourne - Holywell gap in reef.JPG

This image has been tagged because of insufficient copyright info. It is a picture which I took myself and I am unsure what I did wrong when posting it to Commons. Pse advise. Mikeo1938 (talk) 09:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Eastbourne - Holywell gap in reef.JPG (This is the correct file name. Mikeo1938 (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
You entered the permission as "GFDL". The bot, not being as smart as a person, did not recognise that as a license. You have since changed it to a {{GFDL-self}} tag, which is what was needed. I removed the warning for you. —teb728 t c 09:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

My first pic

I just go a notice on a missing copyright tag on my fist upload. I added one, kindly inform me, if this is okay and if I can use the picture now.

Second question, I have several pics of this person made by family members, who do I claim permission when uploading them? Thank you--Ambrosius007 (talk) 11:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

To your first question (which relates to Image:Ida10-1.jpg), you included {{tl|GFDL-self}} when you should just have included {{GFDL-self}}. {{tl|}} is used to display and link to a template for the purpose of informing someone else, and should not be used to invoke the template. I've fixed it.
To your second question, you should get your family member to release the images under a free license (see WP:IT for some possible licenses) and upload them to the Commons. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Shaban Djordje Nidzovic

Majmun ili Seljak?

We were recently sued by a party out of state after renting our lake home for a week to them. They trashed it, stole from us and ruined sheets and towels, lost silver ware, ruined games etc. and more. Our home is in Michigan, we have a 4 page rental agreement and we kept the $300.00 security deposit. $2130.00 how in the hell is this considered legal and how corrupt has the USA really become.

This ridiculous abuse, is Pauling and and I can't imagine a judge in his or her right mind even allowing such a thing to happen. Ill. doesn't even have jurisdiction in Michigan and this should be stricken from the records.

This party along with the state of Ill. should be sued and for a great deal more money to stop this type of criminal activity.

Sorry this page is for questions about image copyright but please note the Wikipedia is not a source of legal opinions. MilborneOne (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


Sorry if i set this up wrong, still new to this. My question is this picture recently was taken down because of its license, i have permisson from a member of the band to upload it. let me know if i put up the wrong license, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtbs7645x (talkcontribs)

Please see WP:COPYREQ and let us know if you have any further questions. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Do I own copyright on Artwork I own & photograph

I own a piece of art which I wish to photograph and add the image to a current wikipedia article. Can I do this? Rhondamarie (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Typically, in the US, purchasing a painting gives you the right to exhibit it and resell it, but the original artist retains copyright. Meaning you would need the artist's permission to create and distribute copies of a recent painting, which is what placing photographs of it online amounts to. So, in general, you would need to secure the artist's permission, unless the painting is so old (often more than 100 years) that the copyright has expired. However, some uses may qualify as fair use in certain cases, such as in articles about the painter. For more information on that see WP:NFCC. Dragons flight (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


Hello, I've tried to find the answers myself but can not, can you please point me in the right direction. I've posted one photo and some how I got it right, but there are problems with the copy right even though it's me own work, I'm really not sure how to supply you with the correct information, I really do not know the code or format. I need to understand how to format photo, for size and position on the page. There is a lot to understand about your programming. I stilling reading FAQ and documents. I have asked to be adopted nothing yet. I think with just a little Help I can get going on my own. Thanks Andy2159 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy2159 (talkcontribs) 19:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If you are contributing something that you created entirely yourself, you are the copyright holder, so you choose the license. See WP:ICTIC. If you've chosen the license, but have troubles tagging your image, let us know the license you've chosen and we'll help. As for putting them on the page, see Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. If you have any further Media copyright questions, write back here. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, please use the "Show preview" button when you edit, before saving your work with "Save page". Thanks. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Please restore Image:Acadian Ambulance Service Logo.png

Please restore Image:Acadian Ambulance Service Logo.png so that I can add a fair use rationale that will be acceptable to your robot. It already had a fair use rationale, but I would be happy to add a {{logo fur}} if that is now necessary. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 20:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

What copyright tag should I use?

Hello, I have uploaded the photo Image:C.Mitnick2.jpg as well as Image:C.Mitnick.gif. The images were taken down due to a question of copyright and license. Both images are a headshot used by CBS and NewsCorp entities. It is available publicly and it is not copyrighted. What tag should I use?? scorsese (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The gif is from the website and the source page is marked as copyright 2008 Nixle LLC. If you have that company's permission then you need to provide proof that it has been released into the public domain. The process is detailed in Requesting copyright permission. Note that just because news organisations use the image it does not imply that it is not copyrighted or free to be used. MilborneOne (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Craig Mitnick is the founder, CEO, and owner of Nixle LLC. I have been given permission to use this image by Craig Mitnick, even though it is not copyrighted. Do I still have to send him an e-mail, copy his permission of usage e-mail, and paste into an e-mail sent to Wikipedia? If so, I will perform this task immediately. Danny Gosser (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Since any creative work is copyrighted to the creator(except in the narrow case of a work for hire) as soon as it is created, the photo is probably copyrighted, unless copyright has been explicitly released. So yes, you will have to archive the license or copyright release with Wikipedia's permissions queue. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I work for Nixle LLC and, like I said, have been given direct permission from Craig, the founder and CEO, to use this image. My e-mail has the suffix: Danny Gosser (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Since you yourself have the permission, the next step would be to email the OTRS system, which will ensure that it is secured held. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Federal Trade Commission

You are a staff attorney for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and your job is to monitor fast food marketing. Part of your job is to determine how the FTC can prevent a particular fast food company from marketing its newest food treat, “Deep Fried Fat on a Stick,” a taste sensation that has no nutritionally redeeming value but for the claim that vitamins and minerals have been added to every Deep Fried Fat on a Stick.” It is aimed especially at young children by including a penny toy with each Fat on a Stick purchase. Parents are also encouraged to give it try, using the 2-for-1 coupons found in local newspaper ad inserts.

  • How can you stop this marketing blitz, given the Constitutional protection of the company’s commercial free speech rights?
  • Do you suppose the FTC even has the authority to regulate this kind of activity? Where does it come from?
  • What political restrictions may frustrate your mission? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
That looks like a homework exercise. Wikipedia will not do your homework for you. Sorry but, if you have a more specific question—one that doesn’t look like a raw homework question—try asking at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. In any case, this page is only for asking media copyright questions. —teb728 t c 22:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Manned ATV rendering

there is a paragraph in the ATV artickle that could really use this picture. I'm quite shure that it's non-free content but given that there is no realistic chance of it being reproduced by a free source I am asking if I can upload it anyway.U5K0 (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't give a yes or no, but the two questions that will be most important per WP:NFCC are whether it "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic", and whether a free alternative could be made, including by asking and considering Wikipedia's own illustrators --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Cover Art Fair Use

Two of my images have been bot deleted from an article under fair use concerns:

Image:DevCDVolIX-Front.jpg and Image:DevCDVolIX-Back.jpg

From this page: CodeWarrior

Both images are from a CD ROM cover (front and back shots) and are being used to clarify the origin of the CodeWarrior name. Surely this is considered Acceptable Use under "Images - Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepmac (talkcontribs) 17:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

By WP:NFCC#8, “Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.” I frankly don’t feel that my understanding of the article is impared by the absense of the images. —teb728 t c 22:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


hello and thank you for your website full of usefull information. I have created a website and I would like to know if I am allowed to use some texts and images for my website. Thank you. Bling'n'chic. Cat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathyh-m (talkcontribs) 18:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_content and write back if you have specific questions. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream short story - AM talkfields

I have written this entry describing how two images in this short story have been manipulated and changed by mistake in many of the published copies. I now have scans of the original talkfields and would like to publish these to illustrate what the original talkfields look like. I think this falls under fair use? Assuming it does, what license do I select ... Book cover? Thanks. --Samwiseuk (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's likely fair use. No, don't use book cover. Use {{Non-free fair use in}} --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Now uploaded the images to the article.--Samwiseuk (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Now that I've seen the images, I think you may be able to skip the rationale and just tag them {{PD-ineligible}} --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Federal Reserve system

How does each of the following actions taken by the Fed will affect the supply of money and credit?

 A. lowering reserve requirements of member banks
 B. raising the discount rate
 C. buying securities in the open market
To whoever posted the above, unsigned post: please see the "welcome" box at the top of this page and note its contents. -- Hux (talk) 03:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Scan of 29 year old newspaper article - what tag should I use?

I scanned an article that appeared in a New Zealand newspaper "The Dominion" on 16 July 1979. I cannot find the appropriate copyright tag for this.

I scanned the article and uploaded it as proof to substantiate an edit I made to the Wikipedia entry for Iggy Pop. There was a factual error there about his 1979 visit to NZ that I corrected, but this was quickly undone by someone in Australia, on the basis that I did not provide citation.

I redid the edit and uploaded the scanned article. This seems to have worked, as the chap across the Tasman seems to have chilled-out and accepted that my correction was valid. Now the scanned article has been removed (because it lacks a copyright tag). I fear that without the scanned article, my Australian neighbour may have a relapse.

The only NZ copyright tags I can find are not relevant for this instance. Help from a fellow Kiwi would be much appreciated.

Gregwgtnz (talk) 04:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Non-free newspaper image would seem appropriate to me. But that's if the article itself is of some importance. If you are just using the article to correct a factual error, you just need to add a footnote. Could you point out the image and article in question? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Old Latvian newspapers

Would publications at [21], printed 1920 and earlier in Latvia be PD? --09:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

In the US, they would be considered public domain, as in {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. As Latvia is in the European Union, it probably follows the usual "public domain 70 years after death of author" rule. If you know this to be the case, the tag is {{PD-old-70}} --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
But who is considered as the 'author' in this case? the newspaper editor, the typograph or all individual article authors? --Soman (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Logos of schools in Germany

Hello! Yesterday I have written to articles (Kaiserin-Friedrich-Gymnasium and Humboldtschule (Bad Homburg)) about schools in Germany. In the German articles of them there are the logos (KFG, HUS) of the schools but they are uploaded in German Wikipedia only. It is possible (regarding/concerning the rights) to upload the logos also at the English Wikipedia? (Because my English is not so good, I request that your answers are not to difficult to understand. Thanks. :-)) — Despairing, 00:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible to upload logos here if they meet the criteria. Each one needs a copyright tag, probably {{Non-free logo}} and a rationale for each article it is used in, which can be added with {{Logo fur}} --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Do this two logos (and also this one (→ new article: Gymnasium der Stadt Kerpen)) meet the criteria? Are not there maybe any problems with the copyrights? Can I upload the logos without any problems? I do not understand the page WP:NFCC. I have not understand the thing with the templates {{Non-free logo}} and {{Logo fur}}. Which one I have to use for the two respective three logos? — Despairing, 12:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the copyright correct ?

Why is this image public domain the author has not been dead for 70 years ?
Image:Tomtebobarnen.jpg--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 09:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

One possible explanation is that the photograph was published in 1910 and WP:PD says "In the U.S., any work published before 1923-01-01 anywhere in the world is in the public domain." --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

My gamercard

I want to add a image of my XBOX Live gamercard, made on this website, to my userpage. What license should I use?

If each of the images in the card are public domain or under a free license, then you can use it, otherwise no, since fair use images aren't allowed on user pages. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 02:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

RSAF Black Knights

The RSAF Black Knights article has seven non-free images which I think is a bit excesive. I started to look at the images which have a fair-use rationale for this article. I started to remove them from other articles without a fair-use rationale. The uploader has reverted my changes and added in some cases fair-use rationale. Some of the images of aircraft are used to illustrate features in the background (for example an island). Can somebody else have a look at this collection of images please particularly when it claims they are not replacable when they are a public aerobatic display team and the Black Knights article has other free images taken by the same uploader!. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Please provide me with a MINDEF authorisation letter to take a photo of the island and I would gladly let my images be removed from those pages. I am a former member of Republic of Singapore Air Force and I am still bound by my signature on the Official Secrets Act to not use my own images of the said island for use here, otherwise I would have very gladly provided them and risked getting prosecuted by my own works. Is that what you want? Btw, you did read my reasoning and rationale on them image page or haven't you? FYI, I had taken very careful considerations before adding them for use on other pages on top of the original page. As for those other images, which does not have any features of landmarks... they were aerobatic stunts performed during the Singapore Airshow 2008 and was taken by me. Take a look at U.S. Air Force Thunderbirds#Image gallery, I based my article format on this page. Thank you. --Dave1185 (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I dont have a problem with images taken by the uploader but that proves that the non-free images used on the same page are replaceable despite the rationale given that they are not replaceable. The page has a gallery that included both free (taken by the uploader) and non-free images of the same subject. Certainly a large number of non-free images of the same subject is probably outside the guidelines. Not an expert on the use of backgrounds on non-free images so I will wait for others to comment. MilborneOne (talk) 22:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Come on, if you are no expert then why not ask my opinion first? You claimed, in your own page, to be an ex-member of RAF but you are not aware of your legal binding by the Official Secrets Act of UK? In Singapore, we adhere to this even more strictly than you do, thus I wouldn't upload any image(s) that might be construed as a security breach without the proper clearance (I was a part-time official photographer for RSAF) unless it was taken by someone else such as Peter Steinmann - a professional photographer who had been commissioned by MINDEF on several occasions for photo shoot of RSAF's aircraft flight formations. And as far I can see, there are no problem on the above-mentioned page unless you deemed so but by what reason(s), might I ask? Using too much images? Is that it? I had merely consolidated them into one single image gallery for better presentation and viewing, is that necessarily a bad format? If so, I'm open to any better idea by you. Thank you. The below is what I had added under the fairuse column, take your time to read through slowly.

Fair Use For RSAF Black Knights & Pulau Sudong

This image linked here is claimed to be used under fair use as:

  1. No free equivalent. All Singapore Armed Forces camps and bases impose physical security measures, just like any other military camps and bases in the world. These measures include:
    • No entrance possible for persons without official reasons;
    • No image-capturing devices allowed, regardless of military status, unless special approval has been granted.
      As such, it is not possible for the uploader to obtain a free equivalent to this image. An exception would be when RSN ships participate in foreign exercises and images of the ships are taken by, for example, a United States Navy personnel. It is also noteworthy that unlike in the United States, works of a Singaporean civil servant produced during his/her course of work (for e.g. photographs) is not public domain. Perhaps the interested person objecting to the fair use status could find out when will the next foreign exercise be and request for permission to be onboard the foreign warship.
  2. This image is produced here in a non-commercial nature with the illustrational and informational purposes.
  3. Details of the copyright has been properly attributed to the copyright holder, the Ministry of Defence (Singapore) (MINDEF). As a government agency, it is also not known to sell copyrights for works such as images. As such, it does not limit the rights or undermine the copyright status of MINDEF in any way.
  4. This low-resolution image serves its purpose of illustration adequately.
  5. This image has been published previously by MINDEF in their official publications. A simple search online will yield these images; 95% of them are works of MINDEF.
  6. This image meets general Wikipedia content requirements.
  7. This image is used in at least one article.
The uploader would appreciate any good free alternatives to this image, and would also like to urge the person objecting to the fair use claim to channel his/her efforts into helping Wikipedia obtaining free alternatives rather than simpy tagging them for deletion. It is believed this would be a more enriching and fufilling experience for the Wikipedian; after all, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort.

--Dave1185 (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Your rationale explains why the non-free images cannot be replaced by a free replacement showing the same thing. But it does not explain why the free images which are already in the article do not serve the same encyclopedic purpose. By WP:NFCC#1, if a free image serves the same encylopedic purpose as a non-free image, the non-free image is replaceable. In particular, I submit that the non-free image in the infobox could be replaced with one of the free images in the galery.
Your rationale does not address WP:NFCC#3 at all. “Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.” Why does the article need multiple items of non-free content? Couldn’t one item convey equivalent significant information?
Your rationale does not address WP:NFCC#8 at all. “Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.” Why are any of the non-free images in the galery essential to the article? I submit that the free images in the galery are more than adequate to illustrate the article. I submit that the last image of the galery serves no encyclopedic purpose. —teb728 t c 06:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, I acknowledged the last two issues but might I ask you a question here? Have you read up on the page with those two images in question? Besides, if I was really that adamant about doing things my way, I would have put those two images to use for the other two nearby islands as well but I didn't since I use it on one to illustrate my whole point of the "Restricted Area" & "Southern Islands Live-Firing Zone" which encompasses all the three islands with those two images. --Dave1185 (talk) 06:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Now that you add Pulau Sudong to the rationale, I would say that the use of the two non-free images on that page fails WP:NFCC#8. They are not necessary to the article. The images do not illustrate the "restricted area" and even if they did, that text needs no illustration. The panorama and the map (both free) provide any illustration that the article needs. —teb728 t c 08:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry but I don't see it your way, you say that both image fails WP:NFCC#8. On the basis that the panoramic image, which in my opinion offers such poor 2D plan view of a group of islands from approx 5km away, and the map you point out illustrated to the point fully, which I think is ridiculous given an analogy that a blind person being led to an Elephant and be told that it is an Elephant? What I offered is a 3D view of where and how it is exactly, to the fullest point without any shred of doubt, it is that simple and clear. Moreover, the RSAF Black Knights were indeed training over them islands and was photographed on a PR mission by a renowned professional photographer - Peter Steinmann, which he doesn't has copyright over those images since MINDEF commissioned him to do the job. What is there more to say about that now? Besides, if you think it is that easy to get clearance to take a photo in them Live firing zone, I ask you to produce one for me now. I've served in RSAF before and am bound by the Official Secrets Act of Singapore, my own works are considered government property and hence no such possibility of me releasing them here or I risk getting prosecuted. --Dave1185 (talk) 08:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Not sure why you seem to think we want to replace your non-free image with some highly classified photo from the your past. All that is being said is that the non-free image may not be suitable under the NFCC guidelines. If an image is needed apart from the panoramic view already in the article then a non-free substitute is possible which could have been taken any time in the last sixty or seventy years. MilborneOne (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
This page is asking questions about copyright and about Wikipedia image policy; it is not a forum for debate. Since Dave1185 seems to want the latter, I have nominated the images for fair use review. —teb728 t c 19:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that TEB728 MilborneOne (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pele HVO.JPG

I'm trying to determine whether Image:Pele_HVO.JPG is a copyright violation. It is a photograph of a painting hanging in the Hawai'i Volcano National Park Visitor's Center. The uploader is the photographer and has given permission to use the photograph, but the copyright on the painting is unclear to me. The uploader said "copyright is (in)eligible since it is government property" but I don't think "government property" is sufficient. I think it needs to be a work produced by or for the US government. The talk page has the discussion thus far. I want to avoid copyright paranoia so I won't push the issue, but I wouldn't mind some independent voices. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The US Government public domain only applies to works created by a federal government employee in their official duties. Even a work created by a contractor of the federal government is not automatically public domain, so I have no reason to think that being "government property" is sufficient reason in itself. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 02:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I found the artist's web site where he clearly asserts copyright. I have marked the image for speedy deletion. Thanks! --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 02:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Recreated image

Maybe I'm going crazy. I thought Image:Cheproducts2.jpg had been deleted per Yet the image is back. What are the rules on this? Thanks, –Mattisse (Talk) 22:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It's on WikiMedia Commons so I nominated it for deletion there. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use image Orville Gibson

Hi. Would it be OK to use this image [22] on the Orville Gibson article with Template:Non-free historic image? Ha! (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Two comments:
(1) That template says "the image is low resolution and of no larger and of no higher quality than is necessary for the illustration of an article". The image is 2094x2891 which I would not consider low resolution. I don't know if that means you should make a low resolution copy of it to upload.
(2) I'm not sure I understand that template. The photograph was taken before 1923 (since Gibson died in 1918), so its copyright has expired. I wouldn't think that a scanned copy of a public domain photograph could be covered by copyright. I added a question for clarification on the talk page of that template.
Bottom line is, I guess, that I don't know. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Ha! (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
A copy of a two dimensional work with no original input does not create a new copyright and it inherits the copyright or lack thereof of the original. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm.. so this might be public domain anyway and might be better on commons, depending on when it was published, if it still has a copyright on it or not and who owns it. I mailed Gibson who say they're OK with it being used on Wikipedia so I might ask them what it's precise origin/status is. Ha! (talk) 00:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

C.H. Moore House photo

Is it possible to use the image at this url: C.H. Moore House photo in the C.H. Moore House article? Oli (talk) 07:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Does the house still exist? If so, the ideal would be for someone to take a picture and put it under a free license. The other option would be to find a picture and ask permission per WP:COPYREQ --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 17:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Not seeing anything to the contrary, I have to assume the image has a copyright. Given that, the rules at WP:NONFREE apply. Of the "10 criteria" that must be met, in my opinion this fails two of them:
  • (1) No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. ....
  • (8) Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
(It fails (1) because, as Rat at WikiFur said above, someone could take their own photo and release it under a free license.) --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok,I understand thanks
Oli (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

How do I go about finding the copyright for foreign postage stamps?

Forgive me if this has already been discussed (I couldn't find it, if it was), but I was thinking of uploading a particular pictures of Peter Paul Rubens, c. 1615, to illustrate some classical mythology articles. The image, "Daughters of Cecrops Finding the Infant Erichthonius", depicts, well, just that. Unfortunately, the only instance of the image I've been able to find was a postage stamp from Liechtenstein. I'm guessing this makes the image unusable, but I was wondering if there was any way to find out with certainty. Is there a place on the internet (or better, on Wikipedia) that might help me out with this question? Please drop any answer on my talk page, if possible. Thanks. Ford MF (talk) 05:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Copyright_situations_by_country, copyright in Liechtenstein expires after Life+70. I didn't see anything that would make an exception for postage stamps. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing the way. I wasn't quite clear on if postage stamps and currency weren't some kind of weird exception. Ford MF (talk) 18:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Would this Copyright Notice forbid the content it covers being displayed on Wikipedia?

I want to use photographs found at On is this copyright notice

This work is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in unaltered form only (retaining this notice) for your personal, non-commercial use or use within your organisation. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, all other rights are reserved.

On the basis of what the notice says, am I permitted to upload and use such photographs? Kransky (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No. The restriction in that statement for unaltered, non-commercial use is problematic, since Wikipedia requires images can be altered and reused for any purpose, including commercial ventures.Dcmacnut (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Dcmacnut is correct - see WP:CFAQ#Non-commercial licenses. Kelly hi! 16:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Could I have a image of Gordon Brown

To Wikipedia

           I've got website and i wondered if you have a image of Gordon Brown i could use hope you do!

From David aged 12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, go to Gordon Brown, click any of the images, and it will tell you under what conditions you can use the image. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)