Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2008/October

Are these images free-use?

I thought I'd ask this here, although the Commons might have been a better place... but we'll see. My question is about this Flickr photo set. Do you think these images are freely useable here? Firstly, the license used on Flickr is a free-use one. Secondly, these images were taken by E! Online employees. However, the account appears to be operated by Kristin Dos Santos. So, I'm confused, have E! Online released them under a free license? Or not? Gran² 20:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

If the account is operated by her, we have to assume that the employers gave up any legal rights. I think we should use them with the same licence as they are in Flickr, although I'm not 100% sure. Guy0307 (talk) 13:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Guy0307 - this looks like it should be fine. I may actually upload some now myself! There's a helpful uploading option on the commons specifically for flickr images. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

National anthems of micronations

Can I upload the audio files of national anthems of micronations? If so, what template would I use? Thanks - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 14:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Not unless all copyright owners (generally the composer and performers) have released the rights under a free license. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If the national anthem is old enough, it may have passed into the public domain. What years were they published? Even then, though, you would have to find a performer who gave permission to license under a free license as well. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:ThomasHammarberg.jpg

Dear friends,

This file is wholly copyrighted by the my employer (Council of Europe/Commissioner for Human Rights) , whom I am authorised to place on wikipedia on his behalf. However, there appears to be a question raised automatically about the legitimacy of this fact, or the copyright of this image.

I would sincerely appreciate some advice in this regard, as this situation is in reality very straightforward.

I would welcome direct contact on this via message, or indeed more official channels if required - but do appreciate this image being left as-is.

Thanks in advance.

Andrew Forde. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewforde (talk • contribs) 18:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's likely not as straightforward as you believe; your employer's permission for the image to be used on Wikipedia isn't sufficient for us to use it. By reason of our own policies, we can only use images of living people if they are either in the public domain or released under a free license (such as the GNU Free Documentation License) that allows unlimited re-use by any person for any purpose, including commercial use and derivative works. Would your employer be willing to license the image under such a license? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that when you uploaded the image, you attempted to license it under GFDL and CC-by-sa licenses. These are indeed free licenses acceptable to Wikipedia. In doing so, however, you claimed that you personally were the copyright owner, which apparently is not the case. Also the photo looks like a professional portrait, taken by a photographer. The copyright for such photos is typically held by the photographer; so please confirm for yourself the ownership. If the owner is indeed willing to license the image under these licenses, see WP:COPYREQ for how to handle that. —teb728 t c 22:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Can I use a photo from Google?

I wanted a picture of US-1 trucks, and I found one, and tried to upload it, but I can't because I don't know the name of the copyright owner. Rollsroyce95 (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The image would almost certainly be unusable, unless you can find evidence on the site it comes from that it's in the public domain or released under a free license. Again, though, that's extremely unlikely to be the case. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

photos obtained by third party

As I started creating an article for a producer, I did a quick search on facebook, and found someone with his name living in Thailand. I put in a friend request, and he approved. Not certain or not caring, if it really was him, I figured whoever it was would have information on the person of which I was interested. It turns out it was the subject of this article. I am certain because of various personal documents provided me to help flesh out his bio. In addition to personal photos dating back to the 1940s, there were a number of screener posters scans for his movies. If you look closely at some of the poster images, they are industry posters. I do not want my new personal relationship with the subject of the article to be construed as a conflict of interest. I am a knowledgeable researcher, and understand the need for citations etc. As I find interesting material in the personal data, I search for third party reputable sources that are independently verifiable BEFORE I include them n the article. Now I have a trove of images, I am unsure how to source. I explained to him that WP requires a bit more than "he said it is ok".

I can justify the posters, but I have portraits dating from his entire career. One in particular, was taken of him working on his own production, in which he owned the entire show. I figure that is undeniably his to grant. But I also have scans of emmy nominations and other awards relevant to the subjects at hand.

I appreciate any guidance

--K3vin (talk) 02:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what to tell you that you don't already seem to know - for any image that isn't in the public domain, you need to ascertain the copyright owner and ensure that they're willing to grant it under a free license. Depending on what these scans of nominations look like (are they just minimal text, with no creative component?) they may be ineligible for copyright. Presumably, he'd know where these images came from, and may be able to clarify the copyright owner. I hope this helps, and if you have any more specific questions please don't hesitate to ask them. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ryan Reynolds Pics

Hey, I have scans that I took from magazine I bought containing Ryan Reynolds. Can I post the pics on wiki? If so, can u help me b/c I do not know how to do the copyright stuff and the other things. ~~talk Raizen 18 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raizen18 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No, sorry. Almost certainly the magazine does not license them under a free license. And they cannot be used under Wikipedia's non-free image policy because someone could take a replacement free photo of Reynolds. —teb728 t c 06:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

In order to be usable in Wikipedia, a photo would have to be freely licensed—that is licensed so that it can be reused by anyone for anything. This rules out almost any photo taken by a professional photographer. Perhaps the easiest way to get a free photo would be for a Wikipedian to take a photo him or herself.

Or perhaps you could get a freely licensed photo from his publicist. But understand that it is not enough to get permission to use the photo on Wikipedia. See WP:COPYREQ. —teb728 t c 08:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If the image you recently uploaded is from the magazine, you need to list the magazine as the source. By listing yourself as the author, you suggest that you took the photo yourself. Falsely claiming to have taken a photo would be frowned on. In any case you need to provide an image copyright tag. —teb728 t c 22:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Magazine cover in an article which specifically discusses that cover

When you choose "Magazine cover" in the licensing menu of the upload wizard, it says "(can only be used in the article about the magazine)". I understand that a magazine cover can't be used to illustrate the subject depected on that cover. But isn't it OK to use a magazine cover when an article explicitly discusses that cover, being noteworthy as a cover? I'd like to use this cover at Dalek, where there's a section (Dalek#Magazine covers) explicitly discussing the use of the Dalek image on magazine covers, and specifically referencing this cover, which was recently voted "best British magazine cover of all time". Does the current text in Dalek contain sufficient "critical commentary" to justify the use of the magazine cover in the article? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

By Wikipedia standards, that should be much more than sufficient. It is on every level more legitimate to use a magazine cover in an article that discusses that cover than it is to use it in an article that merely discusses the magazine. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought. The upload wizard's wording made me question that, though. Perhaps it should be changed? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The part in parentheses was included mostly to discourage people from using magazine covers wholesale as an easy way to find a photo of a living person. Stifle (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

window

what is the difference between words and wordstar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.1.26.114 (talk) 02:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are asking about Microsoft Word and WordStar, read the articles. —teb728 t c 07:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

upload political poster (stamps)

May I upload these stamps [1] to wikipedia. It seems they are inviting me to do it. And permit me to modify their images. But I am not sure.

From their terms of use:[2]

They state: "Additional Rights. In addition, you are granted the right (i) to print out or download a reasonable number of pages from our Website, (ii) to circulate copies of these pages, and (iii) to modify the Content on the pages, and distribute this modified Content; provided that (a) you employ such materials for Permitted Purposes only, and (b) that you retain any copyright notices as they appear on the original materials on our Website."

3. GRANT OF RIGHTS

Provided you comply with these Terms and our Privacy Policy, under our intellectual property rights (and under the Use Rights granted in Submitted Content), you are granted the following rights:

Access Rights. You are granted the right to access the Website for purposes of (i) reviewing and learning more about the Political Exchanges that take place at our Site; (ii) participating in these Political Exchanges; and (iii) employing -- for Political Uses only -- the information you learn via our Site and the Content you find on our Site (collectively, Permitted Purposes). You agree and acknowledge that you are prohibited from using Content for anything other than Permitted Purposes.

Additional Rights. In addition, you are granted the right (i) to print out or download a reasonable number of pages from our Website, (ii) to circulate copies of these pages, and (iii) to modify the Content on the pages, and distribute this modified Content; provided that (a) you employ such materials for Permitted Purposes only, and (b) that you retain any copyright notices as they appear on the original materials on our Website.

Restrictions on Non-Permitted Purposes. Apart from your express rights under Access Rights and Additional Rights, you may not use, copy, modify, distribute, or access our Website, or any materials that we have made available, or that our Users have made available, on the Site.

Thank you Geo8rge (talk) 03:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. For one thing they license only using the content from their site and printing it out—and even that only for political purposes; they do not license uploading to another site like Wikipedia. Wikipedia accepts content only if it is licensed for use by anyone for any purpose. —teb728 t c 07:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If I emailed them and asked for permission what should I ask for? Would an email from them giving me permission be acceptable? Should I request they upload their graphics to Wikicommons? Thank you for your response. Geo8rge (talk) 19:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please follow the directions at WP:COPYREQ. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Do read WP:COPYREQ, but don’t get your hopes up that they will agree. What they offer in their terms of use is very restrictive and very different from what Wikipedia requires. —teb728 t c 22:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again, case closed, I will do as suggested.

Can you use a photo if you change it more than 25%?

Someone told me their copyright attorney advised them that if they altered an image 25% or more they can use it for anything they want. Based on what I know from similar conversations with photographers and my copyright attorney, this sounds like absolute rubbish to me.

As far as I understand it, you can't use *any* portion of a photograph, no matter how much it's changed without a license or permission. Even if you have a royalty-free image you downloaded from a stock photo site, changing it doesn't change what the license provides...

Can anyone debunk this commonly-held viewpoint? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.94.190 (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. That 25% rule is nonsense, and your friend should get in the market for a new copyright attorney. (Perhaps there may be cases where 75% of the image is not expressive, and they change the remaining 25% that is expressive.... see Idea-expression divide ... but this is a totally forced and implausible hypothetical.) See derivative work for more information on why you are correct. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Can I upload a map that I modified based on a map from Google Maps?

I would like to create a map for an article, but am unsure of potential base maps to use. Google Maps provides great base maps, but based on the answer to the above question, I assume that this was not be permissible. Can anyone confirm or correct?--Rpclod (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Content on Google Maps is copyrighted and can't be used here, nor can derivative works from it be used here. Stifle (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Re-tagging

Can some add the appropriate tags to Image:Maltesefalcon1931.jpg? The film is now in the public domain - 1931 means it expired in 2006. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

So, no? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think that the copyright expired in 2006? Stifle (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Multiple use of sports logo

I've uploaded the image Image:SWALEC WRU League Logo.JPG, which is the offiical logo for six divisions, and roughly twenty leagues of Welsh rugby. I set up a fairuse page, but could only link it to one article, though I then used it on all twenty league pages. It has now been tagged as incorrectly used on all bar the one page that I tagged the fairuse criteria to. Fair enough. My question is therefore: How do I get around the problem of linking the fairuse to all the articles when the fairuse page for the image only (appears to) allows me one. Thanks in advance FruitMonkey (talk) 09:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You would need a separate Fair use justification for each article where the logo is usedNigel Ish (talk) 09:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Cripes, bang goes the weekend. Thanks for your help. FruitMonkey (talk) 09:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Another quick question, if the image gets moved to WikiCommons under the correct tags, can I then use it multiple times without creating multiple fair uses. FruitMonkey (talk) 11:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

If it's being used under fair use, it's ineligible to be moved to the Commons, which only hosts free media. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Covent Garden Rhinemaidens.jpg

I've uploaded this image following discussion at Wikipedia:Peer review/Rhinemaidens (Wagner)/archive1 where a very experienced editor suggested that an FU rationale may be possible for more production photos. It's not obvious to me how to complete the FU rationale. Anyone able to advise? I haven't yet added it to the article yet as I wanted to check here first.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I've now added the image to the article as that appears to be a requirement and attempted a fair use rationale. Advice on whether this rationale need expansion still wanted. Someone? Please?--Peter cohen (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You need to add a link to the source - you say the ROH website. Then you can remove the top tag. The FU rationale seems valid to me, but others should confirm. Johnbod (talk) 21:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I moved the summary info to a FUR template; I think it's OK now. Mike Christie (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, both.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Music Video images/clips for songs

Hi. Most popular songs these days have articles for the song. Considering many songs have music videos, I've been using excepts or <30 second previews of them to demonstrate the song instead of pictures as usually a video except gives much more detail and information to the reader than a static image. However, many times other users have removed my videos in favor of static images.

Am I doing something wrong or incorrect? Videos allow for both normal users who can not view videos to see a normal image thumbnail as well as a video that can show the song, or specific element of the song, in much more detail for those that can view it. Why are other editors replacing them with static images? Both are proper claims are under fair-use but in my opinion, the videos greatly enhance article detail.

Could someone please explain to me how videos are not as good as I am perplexed as to why other editors keep removing them?

P.S. If this is the incorrect question area, please notify me as its so damn confusing...

Adammw (talk) 08:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion relating to this at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Fair use video. Wikipedia’s policy on non-free content is intentionally much more restrictive than fair use law. —teb728 t c 09:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Using CD cover to represent artist

The image used to represent Miklos Rozsa in the article about him is a cover of a recent CD of his compositions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RozsaCentenary.jpg). The picture is clearly not used in reference to the album; rather, it is used simply to represent the composer. In these cases, especially when the album isn't even referenced in the article, are CD covers okay to represent artists/composers?

John 67.189.56.142 (talk) 11:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

CD covers aren't acceptable in the article about a living person, but this person is dead. Stifle (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

ABOUT AGRA FORT

HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE LIVING IN AGRA FORT IN THOSE DAYS AND HOW THE WATER SYSTEM USE TOO WORK TOO PLAY FOUNTAIN SPECIALY BEHIND THE JEHANGIRS MAHAL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.57.84 (talk) 14:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for questions about media copyright. Try the reference desk for questions like yours. However, when posting, please don't type in all caps and sign your message by typing ~~~~ at the end. Stifle (talk) 15:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Photographs of photographs

I'm rather curious about a couple images I uploaded some time ago, and this may help with future images. {{PD-Canada}} says that any photograph taken before 1949 is public domain in Canada. As such, I believe that the photographs in Image:CalgaryTigersPicture.JPG (and the collage itself) are PD, as they were created no later than 1934. Is a second such photograph: Image:Stampedershockeyphoto.JPG from 1953 properly tagged as GFDL? I am not certain that Freedom of Panorama applies to photographs, even if they are part of a public display.

I guess I view this as akin to scanning a PD image, so basically these images are PD in Canada and the US if they were taken prior to 1923, PD in Canada prior to 1949, and still under copyright in both after Jan 1, 1949. Is that a correct assessment? Resolute 03:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you're correct, which means I don't see how the second photo could be GFDL (unless the original photographers so-released it, which seems unlikely). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That is what I was wondering. The only way, I think, that I could correctly license that as GFDL is if freedom of panorama applies. As that is unlikely, I'll delete and replace it, as the murals at the Saddledome and Corral have pre-1949 Stampeder team photos. Resolute 03:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I just had a quick look at the relevant Canadian legislation ([3] - Section 32.2) and freedom of panorama appears not to apply to photographs. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That is what I was thinking as well. I might be able to claim FoP if I argued it was an example of the photojournals that ring the arena, but that would properly belong on the Pengrowth Saddledome article rather than this. I know there is a team photo of the 1946 Allan Cup team there. I'll grab a shot of that tonight and replace it. Resolute 14:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

On the first picture, I don't think you can claim GFDL as you're merely reproduced a work in the public domain. butterfly (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

music

i would like to know if i take an old tune and put new words to it e.g green green grass of home and write my own lyrics to it is this seen as copywrite invrengement —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.239.196.196 (talk) 10:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Do not take this as legal advice, but I would guess: You could publish your lyrics as text with an indication that it is sung to the tune of “Green, Green Grass of Home,” but you couldn’t print the tune without permission. And if anyone performed it, they would have to pay royalties both to you and to composer Curly Putnam. Check with a lawyer or Putnam’s publisher. (You weren’t thinking of publishing it on Wikipedia were you? Wikipedia does not publish original works. I ask because this forum is for questions about using Wikipedia.)—teb728 t c 07:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

thank you for the info it helped alot and no i wasn't going to publish it on wikipedia my intentions are to make my own gospel cd and i dont know where to get info on how to go about getting permision to use some older tunes that i like to turn into gospel songs thanx willem —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.239.197.99 (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Material from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The IPCC has published a wealth of material under their own specific copyright policy.

The policy gives permission for whole graphs / tables / images to be reproduced, unaltered, provided they are correctly referenced.

Can these images be used in Wikipedia articles? What would be the appropriate copyright tag?

The specific image I want to use is a graph of CO2 emissions. --Travelplanner (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The copyright link above has a non-commercial use only clause which means it would not be usable on wikipedia. On the specific graph you mention I am not sure they would meet the criteria for non-free use because free versions could be created. Other editors may have other suggestions! MilborneOne (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It’s even worse than that: their copyright policy does not permit redistribution even for non-commercial use; so uploading it here was a copyright violation. But with the graph you cite, nothing would prevent someone from making their own graph with the same information; so that's the way to go. —teb728 t c 07:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the graph as a copyvio. As teb728 says, however, nothing's stopping you from making a graph yourself based on the data (using free software, just to cover all bases) and upload that. Data isn't copyrightable. Stifle (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That's what I'll do then, many thanks for your help, --Travelplanner (talk) 06:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to use this image?

Hi! I want to know if it is possible to crop an image released under creative commons 2.0, and upload it to Wikipedia. (this image, to be specific) Or do I have to upload it as it is? Any comments will be appreciated. Chamal ^Talk ± 10:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You should upload it at the highest resolution possible; MediaWiki will resize it automatically to the size required on the page. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it's just that I want to crop it (not resize), to make a portrait pic of one of the people in it. I wanted to know if that was all right under the image policy. Chamal ^Talk ± 16:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Any image cropped from the original will be a derivative work and retain the same CC license as the original, however, based on the largest size of the original flickr file, any portrait would be tiny and unlikely to be fairly useless. I suggest you try to find a better quality image. ww2censor (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. No luck finding a better image. This is the only image I could find that can be used on Wikipedia. Chamal ^Talk ± 11:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Verbal permission from other site owner

Hi, I received verbal permission from the owner of this website: Ohr Reuven to use the image of Betzalel Rudinski, at the top of the page, on his Wikipedia article. How do I do this? Thanks. Shirulashem (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but Wikipedia does not accept permission to use an image only on Wikipedia. The permission must be license reuse by anyone for anything. If you think you can get that, see WP:COPYREQ. —teb728 t c 06:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Nor do we accept verbal permission anyway, for what I hope are obvious reasons. Stifle (talk) 11:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

yes, they are obvious. :-) thanks for the help. Shirulashem (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Photograph from de.wp

I'm unsure about the copyright status of this photograph on the German Wikipedia, my German isn't good enough to translate the licence and I can't make head-nor-tail of the machine translated version. Essentially, I want to know if it could be uploaded to here (or to commons)? Thanks, ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 11:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The bolded bit of the description translates to "unrestricted right of use without any conditions for everyone", so I'm thinking you'd be fine. I can get my girlfriend to double check it tonight, though. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I just confirmed it with my girlfriend - it's definitely free. There are no restrictions on its use whatsoever, including attribution. It's effectively public domain, though apparently Germany does not recognize self-released works as such (I'm foggy on this bit, so please don't rely on it). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That's excellent, thanks for your help :) ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 01:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Adding a photo

I play in the paul mckenna band. A wikipedia page was created about us. I would like to get an image onto the page but am not an administrator. Is there any other way to upload an image. Any help would be appreciated.

<email removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Northparkmedia (talk • contribs) 18:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Any registered user is able to upload images, though they may sometimes have to wait until several days after the creation of their accounts. If you can't wait until then, let me know and I can upload the image for you. Note that the copyright holder of the image must be willing to release it either into the public domain or under a license that allows for unlimited re-use of the image by any person for any reason, including derivative works, subject only to a requirement of attribution. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually your account is already old enough, but you need 10 edits before you can upload an image. (That’s 8 more than you have. Maybe there are some more improvements you want to make to the article.) When you have a free-licensed image and the required number of edits, see Wikipedia:Uploading images for how to upload the image. Be sure to indicate the source and the license of the image. Then see Wikipedia:Images for how to add your image to the article. —teb728 t c 22:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Lisence is there but bot complaints

Hi i uploaded http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:EntrepreneurialMindset.jpg which i created myself - this is the second time the bot complaints there would be no copy right info .... but there is - please help MaxSenges (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No bot has tagged the image since you recreated it on 22 September. Perhaps you are mistaking the 27 April message on your talk page for a new message. —teb728 t c 21:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Promo head shot from the BBC iPlayer

There is a promo head shot on the BBC iPlayer, the photo is of a radio DJ and can be found here. I want to upload for his article. Can I take a screenshot of this and upload it?

Thanks, --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope; it's a non-free image, and those can't be used to illustrate articles about living people except under exceptional (hence the root word) circumstances. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Help needed on image policy

Hi, I recently uploaded an image to Wikipedia. Please click the following link to view the image.

The image is a screen capture from a Hong Kong television show. I have read the policy on uploading image but don't really understand the policy. Could you tell me whether this image fits the image policy requirement and can be used on Wikipedia? If yes, what description do I need for the image?

That image is probably not usable on Wikipedia. Screenshots of copyrighted television shows are permitted on Wikipedia only under very narrow circumstances, all of which involve illustrating something that's of great importance to the article and which couldn't possibly be replaced with a non-copyrighted shot. It appears to me that your intended purpose with this image is to illustrate the athlete; presuming that she is still living, it would be theoretically possible to get an uncopyrighted photograph of her. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. presuming that she is still living, it would be theoretically possible to get an uncopyrighted photograph of her. - Why does it mean? Tinbin (talk) 04:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It means that as long as she's still alive, there's nothing stopping somebody from going up to her, taking a picture, and releasing it under a free license. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The significance of that, just to be sure you understand, is that by WP:NFCC#1 we can’t use a non-free image if it could be replaced with a free one. —teb728 t c 07:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining in plain English. :) Tinbin (talk) 07:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, can I use the photos from the website below on Wikipedia? If yes, what description should I use for these photos? I am totally clueless here. Thanks Tinbin (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

http://fotop.net/boman/gymnastics

I can't find any specific copyright information on the page, which most likely means that the copyright holder reserves all rights. If you want to use any of the photos, I recommend you contact him at the contact information here and then follow the instructions at WP:COPYREQ. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

MOTO GP

what is the fastest speed recorded in MOTO GP? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Susheel4u (talk • contribs) 05:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If you can’t find the answer at MOTO GP, try asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk. They answer general knowledge questions there. This forum is for media copyright questions. —teb728 t c 07:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Which free license?

In the template below, it is required to choose a free license, I don't really understand what to do, please could someone tell me what to do? Thank you.

This is the image that I am asking for permission for using on Wikipedia: Tinbin (talk) 08:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

http://fotop.net/boman/gymnastics/HYT_4923

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK [ insert link ].

I agree to publish that work under the free license LICENSE [choose at least one from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_tags ].

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

DATE, NAME OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER

Do I understand correctly that you are Boman, the photographer who took this photo? If so, you can choose any of the licenses in the list. If not, enter the license that the Boman licensed the photo under. If the photographer has not licensed it under any free license, we can’t use it. —teb728 t c 08:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Oh, and if you are Boman, please upload a copy of the photo without the watermark. —teb728 t c 08:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not Boman. But I am going to ask him to give permission to use his/her photo, so I would like to clearly know what to do first before asking him for permission.

But how do Boman choose the license? I don't understand it myself and I assume Boman will find it hard too. If it is too complicated, I think the image owner will not give permission. Pushing the delete button is much easier than going through all these procedures. Thank You. Tinbin (talk) 09:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, see WP:COPYREQ for how to handle third party permission. But don’t get your hopes up too much about his/her granting permission. He/she appears to be a professional photographer, and the free license effectively gives his/her work away. It allows anyone to reuse the photo for anything, including commercial use and derivative images. —teb728 t c 09:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Oh, I see. That's where you got the release form you quoted above. —teb728 t c 09:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I would guess that if he were willing to license the photo under a free license, he would not have trouble picking one. If I were to license one of my photos, I would use {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}. That license requires attribution and requires that any derivative image be licensed under a compatible license. —teb728 t c 10:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I will try. He actually posted his photos on a Hong Kong discussion forum, so I think there is a good chance that he will let me use his photo.

So with the form, it should read like this?

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK [ insert link ].

I agree to publish that work under the free license LICENSE cc-by-sa-3.0

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

DATE, NAME OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinbin (talk • contribs) 10:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I have read this WP:COPYREQ before, but I still haven't got a clue what to do. Could I use this letter template http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Example_requests_for_permission (2.1.2 Example 2) instead of the form to ask for the permission to use the image? It seems much easier to understand. Tinbin (talk) 10:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That will be fine. Stifle (talk) 11:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Then I will use the letter template instead of the form. It is much easier to understand. Tinbin (talk) 12:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Photo Image:Hoshana Raba 2006 300x224.jpg is copyrighted

The copyright is clearly shown at the top of the photo.

If you want to use it you must credit: "Yirmeyahu Ben-David, Paqid 16, The Netzarim, Ra'anana, Israel, www.netzarim.co.il" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.122.129 (talk) 10:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That image was deleted over six months ago because it was copyrighted and lacking a proper non-free use rationale. Do you want it restored? If so, please supply a rationale. Stifle (talk) 11:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Swan-Lake.ogg

This sound file was nominated at featured sound candidates but to me and several others, the copyright status, and justification for why it's free, sounds dodgy. It's relying on a facet of UK copyright law about captures of publically displayed artworks, but it doesn't sound like it applies here. I'm no expert in this particular aspect of UK copyright law, can anyone confirm whether that's an appropriate use? ~ mazca ^t|c 22:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama has to do with permanent buildings and sculptures; a musical performance is anything but permanent. Nominated for deletion. --dave pape (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. ~ mazca ^t|c 06:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

External link to YouTube

I'm looking at an article which has a citation which is a link to a music video on YouTube. I don't know how to determine whether the video is available for reference like this; WP:ELNEVER says This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. How can I tell whether that's happening? Richard Pinch (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are 100% sure that the video uploader is the person or group that owns the copyright on the video, then a link to that video on YouTube is acceptable (see, Pork and Beans by Weezer, for example). But if you cannot validate the identity, then linking to the video there is not acceptable. --MASEM 13:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's clear - and speedy too! Richard Pinch (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Airline liveries and logos

In the above article I have listed airline logos by type with a small image of each logo (derived from Wikimedia Commons). I believe this constitutes fair use, to illustrate the elements in each categorised logo. Kransky (talk) 23:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don’t understand what was “derived from Wikimedia Commons”: I don’t see any free images in your list, and Commons accepts only free content. Although your uses might qualify as fair use, I seriously doubt they would conform to Wikipedia’s far more restrictive non-free content policy—particularly WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3, and WP:NFCC#8. And even if they might otherwise conform to that policy, Wikipedia requires a non-free use rationale for each article and for each image. —teb728 t c 08:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your views. My responses are below

- What I mean is that images in the article are linked from Wikimedia Commons.

- concerning WP:NFCC#1 (No free equivalent), the logos cannot be replaced by a free version that has the same effect. There is only one Lufthansa logo.

- concerning WP:NFCC#3 (Minimal usage), each logo is unique, therefore one logo could not adequately all logos.

- concerning WP:NFCC#3 (Minimal extent of use), the logos that come from Wikimedia Commons are of varying quality. If a logo violates this principle then it should be removed (or replaced) on Commons.

- concerning WP:NFCC#8 (Significance), a visual image is essential to describe what the logo looks like, something words alone cannot do (especially when scores of airlines use the same species of bird).

- no-free use rationals are found on the pages in Wikimedia Commons of the respective logos. Kransky (talk) 23:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Java logo.svg

Can I get some opinions on this, and its use at Java (programming language)? I think it should be allowed as the official logo, and is covered by our usual policies. TimTay believes that Sun's trademark claims prevent us using it, and that alternative free logos should be used instead. I'm off to bed right now, but we would appreciate some input. the wub "?!" 00:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

A logo owned by a company is always non-free. We use it under the fairuse exemption of copyright law. In this case we should continue to use this image since it is a valid fair use claim. MBisanz ^talk 01:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, hold on - what's this business about "alternative free logos"? The fair use claim is valid iff it's not replaceable by free images. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but the “free” logos at http://logos.sun.com/logosite.jsp?Category=sunuse are licensed under non-free licenses, which require Sun approval. That aside I don’t see any images that would be appropriate for Wikipedia: As nearly as I can tell they all imply that the image user uses and/or endorses Java, and/or they are not at all equivalent. Apparently TimTay does not understand that fair use law overrides Sun’s prohibition on use of the logo. —teb728 t c 19:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay. What MBisanz and teb 278 said, then. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Trademark/Copyright question

Resolved

The image Image:Microsoft wordmark.svg from Commons is currently being used in the article Microsoft vs. MikeRoweSoft which is currently undergoing a good article review. The reviewer has some concerns over the image's use in the article due to its trademark status. Would it be possible for someone with the relevent knowledge to clarify the whole copyright/trademark thing as it applies to Wikipedia policy and the article (the review can be found here). Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is a policy on use of trademarks here. Unless they're copyrighted, they can be used freely as long as there is no attempt at passing off. Stifle (talk) 13:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Thankfully the situation has now been resolved (the image has been removed from the article but on the grounds of relevance rather than copyright status). Guest9999 (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of symbols

Image:Virginia Class Cutaway.jpg is listed as a PD image, but if you blow the image up to full size and look at the bottom right hand corner you can see what appears to be a copyright symbol. One of these two tags is therefore incorrect, but as the external link goes directly to the source I can not tell which one is right and which one is wrong. Can some help me with this? TomStar81 (Talk) 21:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, in this case, I doubt that the image is public domain. We have no evidence that the artist was a serviceman, nor that this work was done in the course of his Navy duties. Physchim62 (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Rountree appears to be an independent, commercial illustrator - see http://www.rountreegraphics.com/, which has this picture, as well as others done for Popular Science and US News & World Report. --dave pape (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I nominated it at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 October 10 —teb728 t c 21:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE HELP with duplicated images

Hi,

I uploaded about 4 images on our page yesterday and this one image is duplicated 4 times, which i dont want, how can i delete the other 4 duplicates? so that only the 1 image(logo) is left that needs to be on webpage, please come back to me urgently!!! Thanks

Regards

Besa321 (talk) 06:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about he duplicates, per my discussion on Editor Assistance, I have corrected the fair use template problems with the image used in the article, I would just leave the rest, they will be deleted anyway if their fair use hasn't been correctly asserted. Mfield (talk) 06:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I am looking to use this picture on our website.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c2/London_skyline_2012_panorama.jpg/1600px-London_skyline_2012_panorama.jpg

How can I get permission to use the image above?

Kind Regards

Spencer Warner

spencer@cscscreeding.co.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.25.16 (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That image is released under the Creative Commons Sharealike license, which means that you can use it, provided you credit Will Fox (and that if you alter the image in any way, you release the altered image under the same license). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Momentum (Song)

In 1981 at Toronto the Eastern Sound Company released a 45 RPM stereo titled "Momentum" : a liryc song by A.F.Corea. Question : it is not in wikipedia.How come? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canabro (talk • contribs) 13:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It might be that someone wrote an article, but it was deleted for not meeting our notability standards. Hundreds of articles are deleted every day because their subjects are not notable. Or if the song is notable, it might be that nobody has written an article about it yet. —teb728 t c 20:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Tortugapotco.png

I forgot to put my license on this image when I uploaded, and now it's going to be deleted :( Image:Tortugapotco.png‎ I took this picture, and I release it to public domain, but I don't know how to write that tag now! A little help, please? Thanks so much! BlackPearl14^{[talkies!•contribs!]} 22:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a screenshot of a copyrighted computer game. It does not count as your work, and you cannot release it as public domain. The only way it can be used on Wikipedia is under fair use if it fits the non-free content criteria. In that case the tag you would use would be {{Non-free game screenshot}}. ~ mazca ^t|c 22:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, got it. I didn't realize that ;) Thanks! BlackPearl14^{[talkies!•contribs!]} 23:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Political campaign items

I'm working on an article about a political campaign from over 20 years ago. I'd like to add some illustrations. There is a "dead tree" archive some distance from me that I'm planning to visit which has a box of pamphlets, ads, signs, newspaper clippings, buttons, and similar items. What kind of photographs could I take of the materials that we could use here? If there's a problem with reproducing clear copies of individual items, would a photograph of many items at once, some obscured, be any better? (For example, several pamphlets or similar printed items splayed on the table.) Also, I expect that they may have photographs of marches or demonstrations. If I rephotograph them (lowering the resolution), can they be added as historical fair use? I only want to make the one trip to this place (time and money), so any guidance that regulars here can give me before I go would be much appreciated. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Scanning is better than rephotographing. Anything that meets the non-free content criteria can be used here under fair use. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Any thoughts on what political materials would meet the NFCC? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Anything that's not replaceable by a free substitute, has been previously published, would be used in at least one article and not outside the mainspace, has a proper fair use rationale for each use, respects the commercial opportunities for the material, is encyclopedic, meets WP:IP, is not used excessively, and has the required details on the image description page is fair game. Stifle (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

My suspicion is that the only materials you'd be able to use are those that are specifically addressed in the article (i.e. was there a pamphlet whose effect on the race is worth discussing in the article, or an attack ad that generated substantial controversy?). Essentially, you have to make the case that any image you use under the NFCC increases the reader's understanding of the topic in a way that text could not feasibly do. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I believe there is a fair use loophole for posters used in articles about the events they announce. Presumably that includes political events. Also, the fair use template for logos that indicates they can used in articles about the organizations. The article in question concerns a ballot initiative and the organizations formed to support and oppose it, so I'd think that logos from both sides would be useable. Finally, there's a good chance that some of the people involved in the campaigns are now dead. I wonder if photos of them engaged in activism related to the topic would be acceptable in any way. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Photos are very often considered replaceable. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Even photos of now-deceased people engaged in historic, one-time activities? That's strict! ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No - if it's a one-off event and the photo itself is a subject of discussion in the article then that can be used under NFCC since it is not replaceable (see Image:Zapruder-150.jpg, for example). If the article is about a dead person, or someone known to live a secluded life, or someone who is incarcerated, then it is also possible in those circumstances to use a copyrighted photo under the NFCC because, again, a free version could not reasonably be created. Regarding the use of political campaign materials, you have to tread a fine line. There seems to be a convention that it's okay to use the official logo of a candidate's campaign in the article's infobox, but if those kinds of materials appear to be more decorative than essential to the understanding of the article then that's not allowed. Of course, if a piece of campaign material is itself the subject of a discussion in the article then it's fine to use an image of it under the NFCC. Does that help? -- Hux (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes thanks, that's very useful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Logistics

How do i discuss an existing logistical function of any organisation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.207.32.36 (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, this page is for copyright-related questions about media (usually images) uploaded to Wikipedia. For answers to your question, try asking at the Reference Desk. -- Hux (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Picture

Hi, I just found this picturehere so Im dropping you a note since there is no attributation or license as far as I can see. --217.84.43.183 (talk) 10:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The one you linked to on the external page was uploaded three years earlier than the Wikipedia one. More importantly though, assuming you specifically mean the picture in the top right of the external site: they're completely different pictures. They're of the same building and taken from a very similar angle, but note that the people in front of the building are entirely different. ~ mazca ^t|c 12:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Images deleted

I designed a portal for novels project and added as the featured articles, novels with the book cover that is used on the article (linked from commons). Yet a bot comes and deletes many of the covers stating (Removing links to fair-use image) yet the images still remain on the article. The portal is Portal:Novels and the bot which removes them is SoxBot VIII. Am confused why the same image is deleted from a portal yet remains on the article ? Boylo (talk) 03:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

If the removal of Image:Halo contactharvest.PNG from Portal:Novels/Selected article/7 is an instance of what you are referring to, it is a non-free image. By Wikipedia’s policy WP:NFCC#9, “Non-free content is allowed only in articles….” The Portal page is not an article; so it had to be removed. Halo: Contact Harvest is an article; so it can remain there. I suspect that the other images you refer to were also non-free, and that they were removed for the same reason. —teb728 t c 06:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the reply, that explains it. Boylo (talk) 07:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Promotional photo

I have found multiple copies of photo on different sites, [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] etc. I believe it is promotional, but I want to be sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael miceli (talk • contribs) 06:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Promotional photos have no special status. Promotional photos are seldom released under a free license—one that allows reuse by anyone for anything. And without a free license they are restricted by Wikipedia’s non-free content policy. One of the requirements of that policy is that “Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.” Since the Pine Leaf Boys are still alive, a non-free photo of them could be replaced by a free photo. If you think they might release this or another photo under a free license, see WP:COPYREQ for how to handle permission. —teb728 t c 07:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

terraserver-usa.com

Can {{PD-USGov-USGS}} be used for some images from terraserver-usa.com, which describes itself as providing free public access to a vast data store of maps and aerial photographs of the United States originating from USGS? I think it does and added the link to U.S. Government sites. See also Image:MerckHQ.png, showing that commons.wikimedia.org believes that PD-USGov-USGS applies. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 14:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

According to the FAQ, "The images from the U.S. Geological Survey, and are freely available for you to download, use and re-distribute. The TerraServer team and the USGS appreciate credit for their work on this project by displaying the message "Image courtesy of the USGS"." Looks to me like you're correct that there are no restrictions on the use of the data - even the attribution is a request rather than a requirement. ~ mazca ^t|c 14:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, those are FREE images, and why I love using them for my building articles. MBisanz ^talk 19:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't upload

I can't upload any picture because it doesn't have a copyright tag or something of that sort. HOW DO I SOLVE THAT PROBLEM!!! Here, tell me the answer at my page. Thanks SO much!!!

Blacky98 (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I posted the following at User talk:Blacky98: What kind of picture is it? Who owns the copyright on it? (If it is a photo, for example, the owner is probably the photographer.) Has the owner released it under a license which allows reuse by anyone for anything? If so, which license? If not, we probably can’t use the picture. —teb728 t c 18:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Uploading photos

I have photos of my subject (my Grandfather) in my personal collection. Copies of some of these photos are part of the UAW collection in the Wayne State University Library and can also be found on the internet. Some of the photos were taken in the 1940, they were part of a publicity effort and documenting events of the day.

How do i use my own copies of Grandfathers images.

76.252.51.110 (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Leon Bates76.252.51.110 (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

If they were published prior to 1964, and the copyright on the photos was not renewed, then you can use {{PD-Pre1964}}. Published prior to 1978 without a copyright notice, {{PD-Pre1978}}. Other than that, it will still be copyrighted and you will have to ask the copyright holder for permission. In general, copyright will be with the photographer unless it is a work for hire, and copyright is usually not transferred unless explicitly stated. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 03:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The Fame (album)

Resolved

Please review the album photos on The Fame (album), it is believed that they are a copyright violation, because they are too hi-res to constitute fair-use. They were replaced with 200 px low res images, Image:Lady Gaga The fame.jpg and Image:Album Cover-The Fame.jpg (US version), but these were replaced with the edit summary, "PEOPLE WANT HIGH QUALITY PICTURES". I understand that people want hi-res images, but WP isn't the place to find them. There have been a number of these album covers uploaded, I would suggest tagging the extra ones with some sort of speedy delete template and getting rid of them. Any comments? Apteva (talk) 06:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

We are meant to use as low-res as possible. SD or resize. Guy0307 (talk) 07:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is a speedy tag for that: {{db-i1}} is for deleting the lower resolution file. The hi-res versions should be IFDed using WP:NFCC#3 as a reason. —teb728 t c 09:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Apteva (talk) 03:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Actors in Public Domain Commercials

I was going to use a public domain TV commercial in a video I am producing but was just told that even if the commercial has fallen into the public domain, that the actors (or their estate) still have to grant permission to use their images/voices. Is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhulett (talk • contribs) 21:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like you are asking for legal advice, but we are not allowed to give legal advice. You should contact a lawyer for that. This forum is for questions about media uploaded to Wikipedia. Sorry —teb728 t c 21:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Oregon legislative district maps

I believe the Secretary of State of Oregon claims copyright to images of the Oregon Legislative Assembly's district maps, among other things. Those maps are here, here, and here. I sent an email a few days ago to the Archives Division, the agency that publishes the Oregon Blue Book, asking about the nature of the copyright, but I've yet to get a reply. I'm wondering if the doctrine of fair use applies for these images. Can any of them be used on Wikipedia in any way? Äþelwulf Talk to me. 01:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Those images should all be replaceable by free alternatives, and therefore are not acceptable for us on Wikipedia, even if the doctrine of fair use does apply (which I believe it would under the right circumstances). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. As for the suggestion of using free alternatives: At the bottom of this page, they provide shapefiles. I have downloaded these and played with them, and I have discovered how to make raster images with the data provided by these shapefiles. I feel like I'm on the verge of figuring out how to make vector images too. Would these images qualify as "free alternatives," or are they derived too much from copyrighted materials? If they would not qualify, then I can't think of any free alternatives. Äþelwulf Talk to me. 10:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well the Secretary of State of Oregon cannot copyright the boundaries of the electoral districts, nor the position of roads and rivers, but s/he can (if Oregon law allows it) copyright the "expression" of that information (federal law allows it for state governments, but one or two states have laws which limits the copyright of their own governments). Your alternatives must have a different expression of the same information to be free: eg, you can choose to include different features, in different colors etc. You have the right to manipulate the shapefiles and, if none of the original "expression" remains at the end, the SoSoO will have no copyright on the finished product. Hopefully you will end up with prettier maps than the ones you link to! Physchim62 (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You guys are great. Thanks! Äþelwulf Talk to me. 22:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Can someone help save these images?

Per the discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy/Anarchism#Help.21_Flavio_Costantini.27s_Images_will_be_Deleted.21 here, we have images which, on good authority, the copyright owners consent to be used on Wikipedia. Can someone who knows the formal ins and outs (WP:OTRS/emailing/licenses etc.) lend a hand? On behalf of the Anarchism task force, the skomorokh 11:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

As Skomorokh has referred to me as confirming that artwork has been released for Wikipedia, I should clarify the situation. I have spoken to one of the members of the organization in a face-to-face meeting, and have been told that the organization's printed material is released for free use on wikipedia. Our discussion focused on the topic of an original translation of foreign documents, and that these could be hosted on wikisource, and the cover art of their pamphlets, which often utilizes creator released portraits of historic anarchist figures. I was never aware that the KSL hosted a website showcasing the work of this artist, Flavio Costantini, and so never asked if this artist's work was also covered by their disclaimer. As this would now involve two parties, I cannot claim that this work will be released to Wikipedia.

In fact, I have just discovered that the artist's illustrations, several of which have been placed on the commons, are actually used in Without a glimmer of remorse, by Pino Cacucci, a fictionalized account of the Bonnet Gang's history. An inside cover notice states that the illustrations are indeed copyrighted by Costantini. If they are to be hosted by Wikicommons, we must confirm what are the specific conditions the artist holds over them. Are all rights reserved? Some? Can they be released, if freely attributed and used for non-commercial purposes? Etc. --Cast (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the loosely-worded opener Cast. Do we know if Costantini is still alive? the skomorokh 17:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Running a quick search, the Anarchist Encyclopedia, RA Forum, and Costantini's official website hosted by KSL, each fail to mention that he is dead. I think he is still with us.--Cast (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

How inconvenient. I'd say this is a long shot then, unless someone gets a hold of him and gets him to give up the goods. Even then I'm not sure if the publishers permission/personality rights/book author's permission are required on top of that. the skomorokh 17:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia does not accept permission to use content only on Wikipedia or only for non-commercial use. Wikipedia accepts only a free license—one that allows reuse by anyone for anything, including commercial use. (Requiring attribution is OK.) It the copyright owner will grant that, see WP:COPYREQ for how to handle it. —teb728 t c 20:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is an update for the evolving situation: According to the image uploader, a representative of the artist has now given permission for the images to be used, but the exact wording seems to be confused. The wording of the exchange does not explicitly grant Free License. Another email exchange may be needed to confirm this situation.--Cast (talk) 04:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Uploading image to Wikipedia

Hi,

I have been granted the permission to use an image, after I uploaded the image to this location: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Yuyuan.jpg, I found that I might made a mistake, so I uploaded the image to another location: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Yuyuan.jpg.

Since I uploaded the image to two different locations, I emailed TWICE the original URL and the URLs of the two 2 different locations with the permission emails to "permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org" and "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org".

I am sorry that I made the mistake. But I would like to know that what is going to happen next? Have I done the correct procedure? Am I still OK with the image that I uploaded?

Sorry for the inconvenience caused. Tinbin (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The permission has been noted on the image page so there is nothing else to do. You only need to upload images once, though — if they are free, they should go to Commons, otherwise, they can go here. Stifle (talk) 11:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone requested to delete a image uploaded by me

Hi, I just checked here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Yuyuan.jpg. Someone requested to delete this image, but I have already sent all the permission emails to OTRS. Could someone tell me what is happening? Tinbin (talk) 06:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the deletion tags were removed so you're all good. Whoever wanted it deleted seriously jumped the gun though. It clearly said OTRS was pending and they couldn't even wait a single day before spamming the page with deletion tags? Lame. -- Hux (talk) 01:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, there seems to be rising abuse of "OTRS pending" by people who must view it as a way to make copyvios look legit (over 1200 images are currently marked pending). This photo had some of the hallmarks of such an image - watermarked, uploaded by a redlinked user with no other contributions, didn't use the actual {{OTRS pending}} template (which means it wouldn't be tracked in the proper category) - so I wouldn't really blame Megapixie for being suspicious. Personally, I favor linking the template or tagging them "npd" - simpler than a full deletion request. --dave pape (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

"uploaded by a redlinked user with no other contributions" Well, that is a very good reason for requesting image deletion. So every first time user's image should be deleted just because it is their first time. You would not blame Megapixie but I would. I followed the instruction here WP:COPYREQ and sent all the permission emails to OTRS, and it was clearly saying "OTRS pending" in the description. It should be up to the editors with OTRS access to decide whether the image should be deleted or not. But a random guy like Megapixie walked pass and proposed to delete an image that I have been trying very hard to get the permission from the author. It is much easier to complain than actually doing some work. People like Megapixie discouraging other people, especially newcomers, from contributing or doing anything for Wikipedia. I am lucky that there is a nice editor with OTRS access who proved I am not guilty of copyright violation. Tinbin (talk) 03:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

dave pape: You make some good points and perhaps I was a little harsh. I can understand being suspicious of OTRS claims that meet certain criteria, but I still think that flagging it so quickly - before it was even possible for OTRS to examine it - is overly strict. Acting that way can cause bad feeling among perfectly innocent, potentially excellent contributors, as you can see above. -- Hux (talk) 05:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

There's over a dozen images in the OTRS pending category here which have been there for over a month. I'm inclined to tag them {{subst:npd}}. Stifle (talk) 11:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

About justifying all of the uploaded images on international wikis

Hi, WP:MCQ, I have a problem which needs some discussion. I'm from the Macedonian Wikipedia where some people are uploading images without any consideration to the copyrights of the author — is the image under a free license, or is it protected. They are trying to justify this by the Macedonian law of free use: that any copyrighted material is free to use if it is for educational purposes. Even a license template was made to slap on all the non-free images (and it wasn't fair use, they are easily replaceable!). I tried to point out to those users that Wikipedia only accepts images that are free to redistribute, modify and use for any commercial/noncommercial purpose, either by one of the free licenses like CC/GFDL, or because those images are in the public domain. Only in exceptional cases we can use copyrighted material under the fair use law of the US (which hosts the WP servers). We can't justify this "free use for educational purpose", because this language edition of Wikipedia is not under the jurisdiction of Macedonian law, but under the policies of the Wikimedia Foundation and the United States law. Now answer me this: am I right about this matter? I got a reply that there were a lot of other Wikipedia language editions that are using this similar kind of justification, for example, the Albanian Wikipedia with this template which is used on this image (a clearly replaceable image!). Like, wtf?! I'm sorry for asking this question here, rather then on meta or some other place. I'm just trying to get a second opinion, because I know this is wrong! Thank you in advance, Brainmachine (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Point them to foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

image RBS_Bank_Note_1919.jpg incorrectly marked out of copyright

RBS_Bank_Note_1919.jpg looks like it dates from 1919 so has been declared as out of US copyright as it predates 1923.

The bank note actually dates from 1964 as it says on the note. The prominent "1919" is just part of the serial number.

Therefore the copyright notice is incorrect.

Chris97 (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It's been retagged as fair use. Stifle (talk) 11:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

How to upload personal photos?

Hi, few years ago i got problems on uploading several photos to wikipedia. I took those photo by myself. What should i do then? Anton.nurcahyo (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to upload a photo you took yourself, go to [9]. Stifle (talk) 11:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

can I copy maps from Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provinces_of_Italy#Abruzzo_Region

I would like to use a map (as above) in an article I want to place on my website. Can I do that, if I link it to the source, or show copyright of Wikipedia. Nelleke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.198.231.160 (talk) 07:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if you click on the map, it takes you to Image:Abruzzo Provinces.png. If you look down the page, you will see a tag that says the image has been released into the public domain. That means that the author has released his copyright on the map. So you can use it however yoou want. Other images may have other tags, and you have to look at the tag to see what rights you have if any. —teb728 t c 08:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Use of image in educational materials

I have a North American client (educational publisher) who would like to use the following image in a textbook Image:Edinburgh_fringe_royal_mile_street_performance.jpg. Does the client need to formally apply for permission to use the image, or will a credit line with the photographer's name suffice (i.e., is the image considered to be in the public domain)? 99.242.54.203 (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If you go to Image:Edinburgh fringe royal mile street performance.jpg, you will see that the photo is licensed under GNU Free Documentation License and the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 license. You client does not need to apply for permission, but he must comply with the terms of one of those licenses. The Creative Commons license is less cumbersome than the GFDL. But it requires in addition to attribution, “For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work.” —teb728 t c 19:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm the photographer of that image -- I may have a higher resolution version on disc somewhere, if you need it. My email is the_jps @ hot (spamtrap) mail . com The JPS^{talk to me} 08:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pardus.png

According to the official Pardus website (in Turkish), the logo is copyrighted and cannot be used without permission. However, it has been uploaded here under the GFDL with disclaimers license. Can someone please resolve this discrepancy? Thanks. --Pinar (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Does it say copyright, or does it say trademark? My Turkish-English online translator shows me only "trademark", but that could be erroneous.

It is a possibly interesting case because the logo was uploaded 2 months before the first official release of Pardus, suggesting the uploader may have had some direct affiliation with the company. On the other hand, it would not be unusual for someone to upload a logo under an invalid licensing claim. Dragons flight (talk) 06:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I can’t read Turkish, but the English version says Pardus is distributed under the GPL. And it says explicitly, “Information and documents on Pardus web pages can be used freely anywhere with original source credit.” —teb728 t c 07:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Then it's just a case of tagging it with the proper logo. Stifle (talk) 10:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:98B-011.jpg

Hello,

I emailed the manufacturer of a new product, asking for an image of their new item that I could use on Wikipedia. This image was sent back to me from the company, and is a promotional photo (from a press kit). I just got off the phone with the media contact of the company, and she just sent me an email stating "I am giving you permission to use the attached photo for use on Wikipedia." I was just wondering if someone more knowledgable on the subject of images/copyrights/etc. could take a look to ensure that I tagged the image properly, and there won't be any problems.

- Adolphus79 (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Permission to use it on Wikipedia isn't enough. The photograph has to be free for anyone to use and redistribute, including for commercial purposes and in derivative works. As it stands, the image is replaceable with a free equivalent because someone else could take a picture of the gun and upload it here. We don't have to use the promotional photo if the manufacturer is unwilling to license the image freely. —Angr 17:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

See WP:COPYREQ for the permission we need and how to handle it. —teb728 t c 20:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've sent another email to Barrett with the new information describing what we needed, asking for GFDL, and pointing them to WP:COPYREQ and WP:CONSENT... hopefully they don't mind... thanks for the help... we'll see what happens... - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Public domain photographs in Canada

I'm aware that photographs created before January 1, 1949 in Canada are in the public domain in Canada (this is referenced on Commons:Template:PD-Canada-photo and Template:PD-Canada) and have made fairly extensive use of this clause. It just occurred to me today, though, that I have no idea why this is the case; is anybody able to explain it to me? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

See Template_talk:PD-Canada. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Man, that should have occurred to me. Thanks! Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Indian Economy

What is the impact of CRR on inflation? and to what extent it is going to effect inflation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumati sethia jain (talk • contribs) 20:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If you can't find a clue starting at CRR, try asking at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. They answer general knowledge questions, but they will not do your homework for you. This forum is for media copyright questions. —teb728 t c 20:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Image upload on behalf of local government

I am uploading images for a local council as i work for them and am creating Wikipedia content for them. The images belong to the Council. We don't mind if other people use them.

What copyright should i choose in this case? Thanks! Adele (Leicestershire County Council, UK) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdeleBeeby (talk • contribs) 08:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You need to follow the procedure at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission to get the Council to release the images into the public domain so they can be used on Wikipedia. Also you need to be aware of the guidelines about conflict of interest if you are editing articles related to Leicestershire County Council. MilborneOne (talk) 12:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

As an alternative to public domain, any license from WP:ICT/FL will do too. Stifle (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

COI and an Image

I was going through images a few days ago and came across Image:Warwick Cary Jordan 1.jpg. It looks like an ad slick that Warwick basses use to cross promote an artist who uses their product. This image is "licensed" under the "GNU Free Documentation License", there is not "Fair Use" rationale being used. The image summary says: Warwick Endorser Cary Jordan A.K.A. Cary The Label Guy. Also is bassist for Fusebox Funk and J.Dash, seen here with his Warwick "Cary Jordan" custom Streamer Stage 1 six string bass. Photo by Jenny Balsalmo. Before I placed a PUI on it, or an IFD at the least, I wanted to check the users other contributions.

Now it gets slightly involved. The short version is that I looked at Teamxrsxs contributions and this led me to become involved in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cary The Label Guy discussion. There is a COI involved with Teamsrx and the subject of the article and this brings us back to this image. Today (October 17, 2008) Teamxrsx stated in the AfD discussion: "Also, i am not associated with the band in any way." If one reads and accepts that, than this image is a copyvio. (If one wants to see another ad slick from Warwick featuring an image from the same photographer, appearing to have been done at the same shoot, it can be viewed here: Teamxrsx Warwick Ad) Could another set (or a few sets) of eyes asses the situation in regards to the image? Thanks Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Is Teamxrsx (talk · contribs) Jenny Balsamo? If not, I'd tag the image {{subst:nsd}} as the source info is not sufficient to verify the GFDL claim. —Angr 14:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If one believes the comment made by Teamxrsx in the AfD discussion it would mean it was not the photographer. It also would mean it was not someone who worked for Warwick either. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Pictures of each capital

Hi, I am working in Brazil to develop a DVD-Rom, with a complete ATLAS for the Brazilian Deaf, based on the Brazillian Signal Language. We gonna put lots of informations there, that we already own, but we are seeking for free/public pictures of each capital, of each country of the world. I was thinking on using the pictures disposed on Wikipedia. I see in terms of rights management, it must be a little difficult to have all the necessary permissions. There are more then 200 countries in the Globe and we cannot wait for the permissions of every author, case by case. I would take more time than we can wait. But this DVD-Rom is for a very good cause, and it will be totally free of cost for the Brazillian Deaf. So, cant we get an special permission to use all Wikipedia Pictures of the capitals of the World? Thx Very Much —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedrosimao (talk • contribs) 16:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact, most photos on Wikipedia (which should include pretty well all pictures of capital cities) are released under free licenses, which usually means that you can reuse them for any purpose provided only that you properly attribute them (to their authors, not to Wikipedia). For information on the conditions of re-use of any given image on Wikipedia, just click on it and you'll be taken to a page that provides its licensing information. More information can be found at WP:REUSE. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a lot of images here (and at Wikimedia Commons, where you should also look) require that derivative works carry the same free licensing. The GFDL and CC-BY-SA licenses require this, for example. If you use images with those licenses in your DVD-ROM, then your DVD-ROM must also be freely licensed. —Angr 18:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Sort of. The DVD as a whole doesn't need to be a under a free license. Just the individual image (and its derivatives) does. The rest of the DVD can remain under a proprietary license, which is why Encyclopedia Britannica Online uses GFDL images from Commons. --Rob (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

What Rob said. The SA component of CC-by-SA applies only to derivative works, and it doesn't sound like any are contemplated here. As for the image itself, since Pedrosimao and co. wouldn't own the copyright to it, it's obvious that they couldn't license it under any license, non-free or otherwise. As well, some of the licenses include requirements that any media in which they're used include the licensing information (such that if you're using somebody else's freely-licensed work in your project, your project must make clear that the work is freely-licensed), but all of this varies by license, which is why I told him to click on an image for more details. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:RickettsCrest.jpg

I believe that User:Stifle's talk page directed me here, but it is entirely unclear why he wishes others to respond re. an administrative decision that he made. Stifle deleted Image:RickettsCrest.jpg because it was not properly tagged. This image should be restored due to poor procedure.

Stifle stated that User:FairuseBot should have notified the image uploader of the issue. That did not happen. The talk page for the article that used the image was also un-pinged. Because there was not sufficient notification, deletion may have been premature. On restoration, a proper notice could be made on the user's talk page & on the article's talk page. If the issue was not addresses 7 days after this proper notification, I'd have no objections to deleting the image. --Karnesky (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

As I suggested, I'm happy to restore the image so that you can add a rationale. However, please note that the criteria for deletion don't require anyone to be notified, although the step is encouraged. Stifle (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the image. I wasn't really trying to wikilawyer--regardless of whether notification is encouraged or required, I thought that you'd like to know that there seemed to be insufficient notification in this case. Thanks again --Karnesky (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:MisterAlcohol Beer.png

I'm John Wansted, one of Alberto's friends, and I'm currently on holiday using this IP. My friend has been recently complaining that this beer glass image has been deleted. I am writing this on behalf of him. Whoever did this should have known that Alberto would be changing the tag to a proper one.

Also, Alberto confirmed that he actually created it himself. It was his copyright and he published it into the public domain when his website first went online in 1995. If you restore the image, Alberto will change the tag to the correct one.

Thanks for reading. — John Wansted on 92.16.12.245 (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

He should send an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org or insert a notice on his website indicating that the image is released into the public domain. If he quotes the name of the image in the email, it'll be restored; if he adds a notice to the website, drop a note back here and someone will check and restore it. Stifle (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Image Copyright

How do I classify a scanned copy of an old photograph (in my possession) of my great, great Grandfather when it was taken around ~1900 and the photographer is unknown ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertsonal (talk • contribs) 19:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this the image you mean? ww2censor (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you know what country the photo was taken in? --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

No - that is not the image. I have several similar scanned photos and they were all taken in the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertsonal (talk • contribs) 20:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

According to {{PD-UK}}, copyright for anonymous works in the UK expires 70 years after they were created. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 23:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Unknown License Tag for Image:TheFirmGurantee.png

This is an image from [10] and is copyrighted by Gaiam Americas Inc. but doesn't have a matching license tag. It is a type of non-free image that refers to a motto or guarantee. Jscorp (talk) 00:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably {{Non-free promotional}}, possibly {{PD-ineligible}} --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 04:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright tags

Which image copyright tags can be used for the image that has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder and its copyright is expired? Aquitania (talk) 05:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Check the tags from Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Public_domain. You can tag it with two tags, one for each reason. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 05:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bulgarian police Macedonia 1942.JPG

Image:Bulgarian police Macedonia 1942.JPG carries a tag which was just created by the uploader of the image. The tag, {{Free use RM}}, was originally created using the gray crossed-out copyright image associated with public domain images, but it refers to articles 31–42 of Macedonian copyright law here (also in English, thankfully), which sound to me (but IANAL) very much like circumstances under which "fair use" may be claimed, and not like circumstances under which an image may be considered to be public domain or otherwise freely licensed under Wikipedia's usual definition. Accordingly, I changed the tag so it uses the red copyright symbol and explicitly says images bearing the tag need a fair use rationale (and the image does have a rationale), but I'd definitely appreciate more input from other people regarding this tag. Image:Bulgarian police Macedonia 1942.JPG is the only image using it so far. —Angr 11:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. I quite agree with your analysis. I've had dealings with the user in question before; he's generally a good-faith editor trying to do the right thing about historical images like this, but his understanding of the rules may be lacking at times. If we agree this is not a legitimate public-domain situation, I don't think we should really have an extra template about it; these ought to go under the normal historical-photograph fair use procedures. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: In any case, I don't see that any of the fair-use provisions in that law would really cover us anyway. Macedonian law is apparently a good deal more concrete than US fair use law, and, while fairly liberal in some respects, certainly would not cover "fair" re-publishing of entire works on a high-visibility, freely accessible world-wide web site. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think he was thrown off by the fact that the Macedonian law apparently uses a word normally translated as "free", but they pretty clearly don't mean "freely licensed" in the way we mean it, but rather "you're free to use this image under the following set of circumstances", and the set of circumstances does not include commercial reuse or derivative works. If the template seems unnecessary because its usage is already covered by the historical-photograph tag, we should take it (the former) to WP:TFD I guess. —Angr 12:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Angr and Future. I think that this template will be a great contribution to Macedonia related articles. The status of contents in the R.Macedonia made during WW2 and afterward is like this - all photos, official correspondence, newspapers and so on made during this time had no copyright. Once in a local newspaper I saw a very interesting photo, and called the direction of the newspaper to ask them where did they get the photo from and what is its status. They simply answered me that they took it from a Macedonian historical book published in the 70s. They told me that earlier they have consulted the State Archives and they told them that every photo taken from the beginning of the WW2 until 1950 is free to be used by anyone without questions, because nobody knows who made those photos - all of them were simply donated to them. The law in R.Macedonia is very liberal on this subject, and about historical photos from WW2 nobody even questions if they are copyrighted, because everybody uses them in every occasion. While I was a student in the Skopje University, I frequently visited the National Library in Skopje. They have a separate archive which contains a vast collection of photos from the Macedonian partisans during WW2. These photos are for sure public domain and can be used by everyone, because the employees guarantee me that when I made the research about this subject - the same thing was told to me by the Museum in my native Bitola, but pictures I find on websites (like these [11] and [12]), I upload as fair use (although i am sure that they are public domain). Further more, the Law on copyright of R.Macedonia explicitly states that these kind of images are in free use. Gentlemen I am sure that this template (whose legal power is backed by the provisions in a whole subsection in the R.Macedonia copyright law) will help a lot while illustrating Macedonia related subjects and will be of benefit to all of those people who are making research on military and historical subjects. Regards. --Revizionist (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't find time to follow up on this earlier. We seem to have a mixture of different topics here. First, there's the general climate of carelessness about copyright in your country that you describe. Then, there may be something that those national librarians know about some of their historical images that really makes them legally free. I don't know what that would be, but there might be something. But whatever it is, it has nothing to do with what those particular sections of the copyright law say. There's nothing that I can find in the sections you cited in the template that would even remotely apply to images on Wikipedia. Whatever it is that makes those WWII images legal, it is not in there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Arial photos?

You know, like from Mapquest and Google Earth? How are those categorized? I need to know!— Supuhstar * § 02:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You know, this looked like "anal photos" in my watchlist. Anyway, they are unfree and thus not allowed here. The main exception (for the U.S., at least) is USGS aerial photos, available from TerraServer-USA. --NE2 03:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

What's "unfree"?— Supuhstar * § 19:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyrighted and not released under a free license. --NE2 21:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

How is a mostly nondescript photo of a public area from above by a non-affiliated company that is released to the public domain copyrighted??? — Supuhstar * § 00:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Just because they are viewable on the internet, doesn't make them public domain. They, as all images, are copyrighted to the photographer/organization that took them until rights are specifically released. Mfield (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Now you might be able to make the legal argument that the images are non-creative, and simply copies of what's on the earth, but I don't believe anyone's tried that in court, and without a lot more discussion we can't do that. (P.S.: it's "aerial". "Arial" is a font.) --NE2 01:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Like this?— Supuhstar * § 02:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio. Well it be posible to make a case otherwise under US law but untill someone makes that case we have to assume copyvio (you will note most google earth pictures are taken when it is sunny). If you really want an arial pic perhaps kite photography.Geni 02:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear. You didn't spend the money to rent a helicopter/airplane/satellite and shoot the image, so you don't own the copyright and that is only theirs to give away. It would be possible to shoot another image of this yourself. The fact that it would be expensive for you or anyone else to do so doesn't make the image irreplaceable by any standard and definitely doesn't make it OK to steal one from someone else. The companies in question are in business providing a service with this same data right now and there would be financial implications to them giving away their data which I would say would preclude any claim of fair use. See Wikipedia:Fair_use#Images #3 about maps and #11 for the profiting issue.Mfield (talk) 02:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

What if I were to upload a 100% acurate to-scale drawing of the property done by me? Then could I say I did it? I'm pretty sure that surverers do it all the time! — Supuhstar * § 02:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

actuly that would get you into the fun area of building design copyright.Geni 02:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Not if it's vague enough: outlines, paths, streets, etc.— Supuhstar * § 03:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

[13] is free (tag it {{PD-USGS}}). Problem solved. --NE2 02:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

That was going to be my next suggestion - we taxpayers did pay for that helicopter/airplane/satellite so we do own the copyright and thus it falls into PD. Mfield (talk) 03:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not the reason. It's PD because the U.S. federal government made it. --NE2 03:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

At the end of the day it really is the reason. US copyright law does state "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government". That is the facts and the legalese. But the spirit and reason behind why works of the US federal government are PD is that the federal government is the body that represents the taxpaying public I referred to. That was my point. Mapquest may have paid for the originally discussed image, but 'we the people' paid for the Terraserver one. Mfield (talk) 03:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

If the government funds a private project, the results aren't public domain. --NE2 05:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

"Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government". That's all that needs be said. I believe this debate is over. — Supuhstar * § 03:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

That's what I said, innit? --NE2 03:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to put stress on the "Copyright protection under this title is not available", as in it is not copyrighted as in it is public domain as it it can be used as in I believe this "debate" is over and my "side" "wins".— Supuhstar * § 05:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

We're not having a debate here... and Image:Collins Hill High School property.PNG is still unfree, because the federal government did not apparently take the photo. --NE2 05:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's told you that this image is not copyrighted. You need to re-read this whole section. We've told you the exact opposite. It was pointed out that you could take an image off Terraserver and that would be PD, that's where this lower discussion came from. The original image under discussion is copyrighted to a commercial entity and no reasonable claim of fair use can be made whilst they are in business using this same data. Mfield (talk) 05:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay... but The image I replaced the Google Maps one with is from terraserver, so is it okay now?— Supuhstar * § 06:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You should upload it with a new file name and let the old one be deleted completely as there are versions of the copyvio image still accessible from that image page. You also need to fill in the full template with source information etc. That would be another reason to just start again. Mfield (talk) 06:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

done. Image:CHHS aerial photo.png— Supuhstar * § 17:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair use or cc-by?

This image is licensed cc-by-2.0 on flickr [14]. Does using this image violate the copyright of the billboard itself? Should I move the image from commons to en, where it easily qualifies as fair use? --Duk 19:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The flickr user probably doesn't have the right to license it under cc-by, so fair use is the only way it can be used. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Check for freedom of panorama though. Stifle (talk) 22:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. It was photographed in Israel and doesn't specifically satisfy the blurb on Commons (although I didn't check the external link). So I've uploaded a fair use one on en. --Duk 19:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion notice in photo caption?

For several photographs that are proposed for deletion on licensing grounds, Stifle has edited articles by removing the substantive caption and substituting the standard deletion notice. I've never encountered this before. Is it considered standard practice? It seems like a very bad idea to me. As long as the image remains on Wikipedia, it should be used in a way that's helpful to the reader.

For example, some sort of question has been raised about the license for Image:Palin nowhere.jpg. Putting the notice on the image page makes perfect sense. In one of our most widely read articles, however, we now have the notice in a caption. See Sarah Palin#"Bridge to Nowhere" and Knik Arm Bridge. With no caption, it shows the bio subject inexplicably holding up a t-shirt with wording that's not self-explanatory. I don't see what's accomplished by this.

I looked at a handful of the images in Category:Disputed non-free images as of 18 October 2008. The only ones where the deletion notice appeared as a caption where ones where Stifle had placed it. Do others agree with this procedure? JamesMLane t c 15:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like an error with Twinkle adding the caption to images. The caption should be added below the existing one, and should not replace it. I assure you it wasn't intentional and I will check back over my recent image taggings to correct this anywhere I find it. Stifle (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I've also notified AzaToth, who maintains Twinkle, about this so that he can look into the issue. Stifle (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that clarifies the matter. Having the deletion notice under the "real" caption is still disconcerting, but I suppose it might be helpful to the editors monitoring the article, so that the photo doesn't suddenly disappear without warning. On the other hand, even regularly active editors might not notice it there. Perhaps there should be no deletion warning in the article at all, but there should instead be a notice on the talk page. I don't know whether Twinkle could handle that. JamesMLane t c 02:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Photo containing personal information

Though Image:Public_Nudity_-_Buttocks.jpg was licensed under "Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.0", it contains quite personal information and is placed on an article giving an explanation about mooning. I am not related to this person in any way, and neither is this question fully copyright-related, but my question remains: is this appropriate? Saphalon (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

That image is on Commons; you can propose it for deletion there if you wish. We can't do anything about it. Stifle (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand (to be honest I was pretty much just curious about the policy and therefore won't propose it for deletion). Thanks for the reply! Saphalon (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yu-Gi-Oh! Cards

What image copyright tag should I use for the images of my Yu-Gi-Oh! Cards that I take a picture of it? Is Wikipedia has the same rules as Yu-Gi-Oh! Wikia has? In Yu-Gi-Oh Wikia, the rules was write in this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquitania (talk • contribs) 19:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You can't upload any images of Yu-Gi-Oh! cards unless the non-free content criteria are complied with fully. In short, the images would need to significantly add to the readers' understanding the topic and their omission would need to be detrimental to that understanding. You would need to provide a rationale for their use on Wikipedia, as well as attributing the image source and copyright holder. If you are able to provide the required details, consider scanning the cards rather than photographing them. Stifle (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Old image

I believe this image falls into non-free fair use because it is of a deceased woman. The photo was taken in the 1920's, but I'm not sure which license to choose when uploading. It isn't a poster or a book cover, etc. http://acadian.info/acadmusic2.jpg Thanks --Michael miceli (talk) 00:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This is from the United States I assume? {{PD-Pre1978}} or {{PD-Pre1964}} might apply; see if either could apply to the photo. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 02:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoa... How do you know the photo was published at all? If you can prove it was published, how do you know it was published without copyright notice? What does the fact that the woman is dead have to do with anything? As it is, i don't think those templates have anything to do with this photo.--Celtus (talk) 05:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I said "might". Still missing a lot of information, so can't be more certain. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 06:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Otto Perry images

There may be an issue with many of the images in Category:Otto Perry images. Some of them are certainly useful and unreplaceable, such as Image:UintahRailway50.jpg (it shows a line that's no longer there), but I'm not sure about locomotive closeups such as Image:Cincinnati, Lebanon and Northern 17.jpg. I'd like to know if there's a problem, and if so it should be brought to the attention of the Trains WikiProject. --NE2 02:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Quite a lot of those fail NFCC1, 3a, and/or 8. I would suggest going through the category carefully to investigate the images' usability. Stifle (talk) 11:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Most (if not all) of these were uploaded when Wikipedia's policies in this area were much less precise. However, a good proportion of them depict things that no longer exist and for which no free image appears to be available. If I have time I will work through these in the next few weeks in an attempt to determine which photos are not replaceable or superfluous. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Selby Shattered.JPG

I'm hopeless when it comes to copyright, but what tag do I put if the image was provided by the author of the book? Fairusebot recently informed me about the image but I don't know what to do. Sp3000 (talk) 12:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

If the copyright holder hasn't released the image under a free license, then you need to tag it with a non-free image copyright tag (which you have) and include a rationale with details of the exact reason why the image can be used on this article (which you haven't). See WP:NFURG and Template:Book cover fur for a guide. Make sure that your rationale includes the name of the article. Stifle (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, tell me if I did it right :) Sp3000 (talk) 01:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems fine. Stifle (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Leo Strauss

I want to upload a photo of the subject found here: [15] in the New York Times. This is to be used in the article Leo Strauss. I cannot find any free use image and want it considered under "non-free image fair use" criteria. Can I do this? ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 23:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Since he was a University of Chicago professor, consider checking University publications like yearbooks or campus newspapers from the 50s or 60s. If U of C was like other schools, there's a chance they either didn't include a copyright notice, or failed to renew (search for renewals at copyright.gov). Lack of notice before 1978, or lack of renewal for something from before 1964, would make the publication PD. (I base this on a recent check of my own university's archives, where notices didn't start showing up until the 60s.) --dave pape (talk) 03:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you suggest how to get a hold of these sources? ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The University of Chicago's library will have them, so look for an editor located in Chicago (try Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago) who'd be willing to take on the task. Preferably someone familiar with the University's library, since these may be non-circulating or on microfilm. When asking, you could note that there are probably a number of other notable 20th-century faculty & alumni whose photos could be obtained from the same source (might make the job more interesting). --dave pape (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried the Library of Congress and the National Archives.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Images of things under trademark (Burberry Check)

I need some help understanding some things. The Burberry Check is a trademarked design. There's an image of it on the commons here -> Image:Burberry check pattern.png. What's the deal with including images of things which are trademarked, is there a rationale you have to fill out (fair use)?--Celtus (talk) 05:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Trademark rights aren't usually relevant on Wikipedia — we're not trying to pass off a product or anything. However, the image in question is likely to be copyrighted and I've nominated it for deletion at Commons. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Presently the image has a free use tag on Commons. If hypothetically that tagging is correct, no use rationale would be needed. —teb728 t c 09:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the input guys.--Celtus (talk) 06:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Map of Top Gear Australia Test Track

I have made an image of the Top Gear Australia test track to put on this page Top Gear Australia which is entirely my own work except that it uses a screenshot from Google Earth on which the track is overlaid. What licence would this come under, and would it be allowed?

Thanks Bentos (talk) 09:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Google Earth images are copyrighted, and your work qualifies as a derivative work. As a result, it would have to comply with the non-free content criteria, and I don't think any image from Google Earth will pass criteria 2 and 8. Stifle (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Fake free images

what should one do when one suspects that images tagged as free use are not? user:Stanleyashenbach (talk) has uploaded numerous images, all tagged as self created and released for free use. But some are book covers, and even if he were the artist (which i don't think he is), the covers would belong to the publisher, yes? And they look to be downloaded, not personally scanned (eg. cos they have stickers attached for marketing).

Questions about copyright status for other images have been overridden by re-tagging them as free, so something more than discussion is needed.

These images are by different artists, so is very unlikely that one uses has the right to release any of them to public domain.

Examples:

Yobmod (talk) 16:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Nominate them for Images and media for deletion or perhaps even better at Possibly unfree images. ww2censor (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Air Balloon April 2008 Logan.jpg

This image claims to be self-made, but I can see a copyright watermark on it across the centre of it (and can't make it out entirely, but it looks like it might be a company name ("above imograph..?"). Watermarked images, even if watermarked by the publisher, aren't entirely free for use on Wikipeidia, are they?  SEO⁷⁵ 01:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

They surely can be, but as this one reads "Copyright" in the green area to the left of the highway, this one isn't. Nyttend (talk) 03:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Rapha Christian Fellowship

Hello, I just started a Page on Rapha Christian Fellowship.

When I did, a thing came up and told me that information was copied from raphachristianfellowship.com/aboutus.aspx

I did obtain that information from there. The reason I did, is because I am the owner of that website. I gave Rapha Christian Fellowship permission to copy everything that they got! Please tell me why I cannot use it!

Andy Driver Media Ministry Coordinator for Rapha Christian Fellowship —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raphachristianfellowship (talk • contribs) 23:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 00:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

However, the page was deleted as it was about a non-notable club. Stifle (talk) 13:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyright Question

I took digital pictures of a bouquet of flowers and a garden gate at a lavender farm in Maui, Hawaii. Now, I'd like to use the pictures to create some note cards and sell them on a web site. Does the lavender farm have rights to these pictures, or can I consider them original art that I created?

Thank you, Rboyce825 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rboyce825 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If the flowers and gate were works of art, then their creator has copyright on them (freedom of panorama is buildings-only in the USA). Stifle (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I appreciate your help. In my judgment, the bouquet and the garden gate were not created as specific works of art, but as part of the overall atmosphere of the farm. Therefore, I believe that the lavender farm does not have any copyright that would conflict with my use of the pictures. Rboyce825 (talk) 01:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC) Rboyce825

Question about use in talk page

I want to use an image in my talk page before puting it in an article, a bot came over and told me that an image not being used in an article was grounds for deletion. True? Thanks. Beanbuff —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC).

Our fair use criteria say that, among other things, logos (such as Image:CoffeeKidsLogo.jpg) must be used in an article to which they are directly related. As logos aren't directly related to your userpage, you're not supposed to have it there. Nyttend (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If you like, however, you can put a link to the image, like Nyttend did in the post above. You just can't show the image except in an article. —teb728 t c 06:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You have to use a certain formatting for linking to photos. it is [[:name of image]]. I hope this helps. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Old 8 Track Images i've added (October 21, 2008)

I have some old 8 Track cartridge tapes at home with the album labels I had scanned to my computer. I had uploaded those files late last year and just recently, I had discovered that they were deleted before I even had the chance to correct the information regarding the tracks. As a result, I had lost the information regarding these tracks that I uploaded so I had to re-upload them again but I can't seem to find the information to add for the following 3 tracks below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:The_Best_of_the_Mom_and_Dads001.jpg The Mom and Dads http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Saturday_Night_Fever002.jpg Saturday Night Fever http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lips_Inc001.jpg Lipps Inc.

If anyone here knows how to help me out in adding the information on these tracks, please feel free to message me here anytime! :-) If not, no problem...i'll just move on! :-) Thanks. —User:Webfan29 User talk:Webfan29 Special:Contributions/Webfan29 09:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Can I use this image?

I found an image on photobucket that I would like to use for an article, but I am unsure of it's license. The image itself has permanent links for sharing the photo in emails, layout pages, blogs, and forums. This open sharing seems like it might be permissible. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no license information anywhere which means it would not be available to legally use anywhere unless "weilinx" states that it can be. (Freely obtained does not mean free to republish) I would suggest you contact the user and ask. You can get an idea by reading this: Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. It is nice to see someone ask first rather than take the image, claim it as their own, and upload it here under a free use license. Good luck! Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've actually tried, but photobucket told me that they do not provide members with the ability to contact each other. I'll search around to see if I can find a similar picture that someone will allow me to use. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 01:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Paneth cell copyvio?

The image of the Paneth cell

Paneth cells

appears to be a copyright violation. The same image appears in the Encyclopaedia Britannica website under Paneth cells http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/441200/Paneths-cell#tab=active~checked%2Citems~checked&title=Paneth%E2%80%99s%20cell%20--%20Britannica%20Online%20Encyclopedia, yet the image data here suggests it is the creator's own photo. However, the creator's talk page is dotted with small warnings about appropriate sourcing of images, use of tags etc. Can an admin look into this please?

This message is also posted at the user's talk page and at the Paneth cell discussion page

Mattopaedia (talk) 23:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The Britannica page credits the image to "Jpogi", implying that they took it from here. Also, the copy here is much higher resolution, and has the camera metadata. --dave pape (talk) 01:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Jasenovac i Gradiška Stara

Per Talk:Jasenovac i Gradiška Stara, this is a song where people don't know who or when it was written. There was at one point a reference to a version being from 1942 but the source provided cited Wikipedia itself. I think we should err on the side of caution, especially since the same version people keep reverting to is involving wiping out the other reference, has a WP:BLP violation on a living band, and has a completely uncited translation which is controversial enough. If someone could comment at Talk:Jasenovac_i_Gradiška_Stara#About_copyright_-_again to the numerous WP:SPAs who keep appearing that their interpretation of US copyright law is not a justification. If not, I'll just protect the page myself and block the whole lot of them. My patience is coming to an end with them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've left a message there, but I've also protected the article because the edit war that led to its previous protection has started right back up again since its expiry. Stifle (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Image use for photo of guitar

I took some art photos of some of my husband's personal guitar collection. No names/brands are showing in the photos. I emailed two of the manufacturers asking about copyright limitations but haven't received a response. Am I able to sell these prints? If so, can I state what kind of guitar they are? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.67.208 (talk) 04:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This page is for asking questions about image use on Wikipedia. You will need to ask a lawyer about your rights to sell those prints — I'd normally refer you to the reference desk, but they don't do legal opinions. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Canadian topographic maps

Is this a free license? Despite the requirement to place "© Department of Natural Resources Canada. All rights reserved." as the source, it appears that they do not in fact reserve all rights, and grant "a non-exclusive, fully paid, royalty-free right and licence to exercise all Intellectual Property Rights in the Data". --NE2 06:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this is sufficiently free for Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 15:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia screenshot

I uploaded this screenshot for my talk page. It's been removed from my talk page by a bot because non-free images aren't allowed outside the article space. I'm pretty sure I should be able to re-tag this image, since it's a screenshot of wikipedia, which is GFDL, and I carefully didn't include the logo. Am I right about this? If so, what tag should I put on the image? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 08:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

All of the text in Wikipedia, and most of the images and other content, is covered by the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). Contributions remain the property of their creators, while the GFDL license ensures the content is freely distributable and reproducible. That is direct from Wikipedias' about article. I see nothing in that screen grab to warrant it being tagged as "non-free". However, the actual tag that has been placed on the image is because it is an orphan, which means it is not being used in any article. I would suggest moving the image to commons and using the appropriate tag there. (See Copyright by Wikimedia images for several screen grabs) Then you can use it in the article again. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the aptly-named {{Wikipedia-screenshot}} would be the one. ~ mazca ^t|c 11:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

:) That's what it already has. My question is more about the copyright than the tag, really - I should have been clearer. Am I right in thinking that I should be able to tag this article as a free, rather than non-free image, since it's a screenshot of GFDL material and I carefully missed out the logo? If so, which tag do I use? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 12:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops, my bad :) - as far as I can see, there's nothing wrong with having that screenshot on your userpage. However, does it need that fair-use rationale template? Perhaps that's triggering the bot - as this is not a non-free image, a claim of fair use is not required. ~ mazca ^t|c 12:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

D'Oh! I hadn't noticed there were two templates on there. I thought the {{wikipedia-screenshot}} template was the one that was adding the non-free category. I must have ticked the wrong box somewhere when I uploaded the image. I've removed the fair-use template, and I'm no longer confused. Thanks for your help. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 12:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Still getting my head around image copyrights, etc.

Are these two ok? [16] and [17] - the first doesn't seem to give any indication of why it is free, and the second says 'own work', but that seems to be a claim that the editor is the artist, which I doubt. Sorry to ask dumb questions, but... Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The first one definitely needs some elaboration on why it's under the GFDL. My best guess is that somebody took a picture of the art and concluded that they had full copyright over the resulting image, which of course they don't, and then released it under the GFDL. I'm not familiar with the art portrayed, but I'd say that there's at least a reasonable chance that it's in the public domain by reason of its age, in which case so-to would the photograph be (photographs of two dimensional works are not generally copyrightable, so the photographer would be unlikely to have rights over the image at all). The same is true of the second work, actually - what's needed here is to ascertain the artist and date of the works themselves. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that is more or less what I was hoping someone would say. What's the next step then to sort them out? Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 15:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

What Sarcasticidealist said — we need to ascertain the artist and date of the works. Stifle (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

As for the first one, the Livius Picture Archive “You can download their pictures and use them for non-commercial purposes.” So it does not appear to be free. According to the caption at Ariobarzan, it is a “Modern Drawing of Ariobarzan” —teb728 t c 22:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, websites try to place restrictions on public domain works all the time, so that's really not conclusive. As to "modern", it certainly doesn't preclude being old enough for PD, especially not in the context of a modern depiction of an ancient figure. But yeah, unless we can figure out the artist, we'll have to be on the safe side and delete it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

As for the second one, see Image:Ariobarzan.jpg, another upload by the same person. The uploader seems to have a peculiar notion of "own work." —teb728 t c 23:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Details about FAA airman rules and regulations for Obtaining SPL to ATPL license

I require the detailed notes of the FAA airman rules and regulations for Obtaining SPL to ATPL license. by Praveen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Praveen17791 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, this page is for copyright-related questions about media (usually images) uploaded to Wikipedia. For answers to your question try asking at the Reference Desk. --Admrboltz (talk) 04:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Nobel laureates in Chemistry

Could people here who don't mind tackling a rather large job have a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Nobel laureates in Chemistry? There are questions about the images in List of Nobel laureates in Chemistry, which span a period of 100 years and various different copyright scenarios. If anyone could give specific advice on the individual pictures, either here, there, on on a suitable talk page (please link from here), that would be great. Carcharoth (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

At first glance, many of those images are on Commons, which is above our pay grade. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Really? I hadn't realised there was a split in pay grade. :-) Would I have more success asking at Commons? What if I list here the ones that aren't on Commons? I'll ask at Commons anyway. Carcharoth (talk) 11:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

For Commons images you can nominate them for deletion; they have a nice JavaScript link to the left of each image which does it all for you. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thailand government images

Does anyone know about the copyright status for the Thailand government? The only Thailand template (template:PD-Thailand) is for 50 years or older images. Image:Suchart Thadathamrongvej.jpg (and pretty much everything from that user) is from the Thailand government website. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Works uncopyrightable in Thailand are covered by the {{PD-TH-exempt}} tag, although they are limited to

1. News of the day and facts having the character of mere information which is not a work in literary, scientific or artistic domain
2. Constitution and legislations
3. Regulations, by-laws, notifications, orders, explanations and official correspondence of the Ministries, Departments or any other government or local units
4. Judicial decisions, orders, decisions and official [government] reports
5. Translation and collection of those in (1) to (4) made by the Ministries, Departments or any other government or local units

There is a tendency on the Thai Wikipedia to interpret government websites as falling under the clause, which I disagree with, although I am not actively involved in the project. Clause 14 of the Copyright Act specifically states that

The Ministries, Departments or other government or local units shall be the owners of copyright in works created in the course of employment, order or control unless otherwise agreed in writing.

There is also an issue with such images on Commons, mostly due to images being uploaded there from th: due to them having been tagged as free. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 07:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ugg, great. So I'm guessing that the images from the ministry websites are copyrighted and we aren't going to have a great fairuse rationale for using images of living public government officials. Is that right? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

A Very Important Question:

I removed external links from other pages. They lead to web-sites that violate copyright laws, such as free song transcriptions without a license from the copyright owner. I know that many of these sites have been shut down, but some continue to operate. Can the Wikipedia webmasters do something about this? Can there be an automatic scanner set to block external links that violate copyright laws from being added to Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.67.31 (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yup. The page you need is Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 16:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I hope that they keep cracking down on those sites. For one thing, they break the law, And other, they often have spyware embedded in them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.67.31 (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair use of Screen Shot from 1905 movie?

Does wikipedia consider screenshots from a 1905 French movie, La Vie et la passion de Jésus Christ (http://www.weirdwildrealm.com/f-zecca-passion.html) as in the public domain, even if the movie has been reissued on DVD? Or would it at least be possible to use one of the two screenshots from the website I quoted under wikipedia's fair use policy in order to illustrate the en.wikipedia article on this movie, La Vie et la passion de Jésus Christ?Xiphophilos (talk) 23:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The law in the E.U. is as follows: "The rights of authors are protected within their lifetime and for seventy years after their death (Art. 1, D. 93/98/EEC): this includes the resale rights of artists (Art. 8, D. 2001/84/EC). For films and other audiovisual works, the seventy year period applies from the last death among the following people, whether or not they are considered to be authors of the work by the national law of the Member State: the principal director (who is always considered to be an author of the audiovisual work), the author of the screenplay, the author of the dialogue and the composer of music specifically created for use in the cinematographic or audiovisual work." So if you want to establish that it's in the public domain, you'll have to figure out the death dates of those four people (if all four of them exist for that film). The whole movie's on Google Video, which suggests that it is in the public domain, but it's not sufficient evidence in and of itself.

As for fair use, yes, I believe the use of one screenshot in the article would probably pass the non-free content criteria as presently interpreted. If at all possible, though, you should try to ascertain whether or not it's in the public domain first. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ferdinand Zecca died in 1947, while Lucien Nonguet's date of death appears to be unknown. Based on that information, I would say that it's likely not PD. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

1947 + 70 years = 2017, so it's still protected. Sorry pal. flaminglawyer^c 00:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, that depends on whether Zecca's the principal director. That said, I have no idea how we'd go about figuring that out, and we don't know when Nonguet died in any event, so, as I said, not likely PD. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You could tag screenshots, stills or scans from the original film as {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. The status of rereleased versions, which you linked to, might not be so simple, especially if they have been retouched at all. It's the status of the images in the United States that matters on Wikipedia. Things are different on Commons and there the EU position would be relevant. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Breadmanpaul

Please could I ask someone with a bit of knowledge about these things to visit the above page and deal with the user's questions? Thanks Waggers (talk) 10:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Graphs produced by Carter Center & WHO

I'm confused about whether it would be fair use to upload the following,apparently freely available, images to Wikipedia for use in the Disease Eradication article (after formatting the former to JPEG, of course):

http://www.cartercenter.org/resources/pdfs/health/guinea_worm/gw_cases_07.pdf

http://www.who.int/healthinfo/statistics/05.whostat2005graph_polio.jpg

Alternatively, would it be better to download the freely available data on reported Guinea Worm and Polio cases to draw my own graphs with? In addition to legal issues, there'd be an obvious advantage to this in that it would allow a more up-to-date Polio graph than the one linked above, alongside the disadvantage of the time it would take. Procrastinator supreme (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

As the graph would be replaceable by a free image, it would not meet Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. Constructing your own graph from the data would be far preferable. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Benin

Is anyone sure of the media copyright laws in Benin? ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyrights expire fifty years after the death of the author. Is there something specific you need help with? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking for a free image for Hubert Maga. I'm not sure when the author died or even when the photos were taken at the Google image search. ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Walter Inglis Anderson

I added an image of a painting by Walter Inglis Anderson to that page. I got a warning from an administrator that the image would be deleted if I did not follow the instructions for adding an image. I went back, and once again did my level best to follow all instructions, but evidently that wasn't good enough, because a bot deleted the image anyway. I followed all the instructions to the best of my ability. Either there is something wrong with my ability, or there is something wrong with the instructions. In either case, I think that to illustrate an article about an artist with art by that artist is certainly reasonable, and I would appreciate help in doing so. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:Reflection in a Pool by Walter Anderson.jpg was deleted because there was no rationale indicating how it qualifies for fair use. You tagged that image as a book cover — normally pictures from book covers are only used on the article about the book, rather than the author or someone who happens to be in that book. Can you explain how the non-free content criteria are complied with in respect of this image?

For the record, I deleted the image and I'm not a bot :) Stifle (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The image you deteted was from an exhibition catelog, not from a book. The exhibition was a solo exhibition of the work of Walter Anderson. When you flagged the image for deletion, I went back and tried to explain this in more detail, but you deleted the image from the image file and then the bot deteted the link to the now deleted image from the Walter Anderson page. It seems reasonable to me that Wikipedia articles about an artist should be illustrated with an example of that artist's work. Unless a Wikipedian owns an original by that artist, the natural place to obtain such an image is an exhibition catelog. The image was a low resolution image from such a catalog. I'm sure this has come up in other articles about artists. Please let me know how I should go about illustrating this article with an example of the artist's work. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll restore the image so that you can add a full rationale to it. Note that the rationale must address how each of the non-free content criteria are addressed, include a link to the article where the image is used, and particularly explain how the image substantially increases readers' understanding of the article. See WP:NFURG for more information. Note that the image may be redeleted if you do not add a rationale or if the rationale is considered insufficient. Stifle (talk) 16:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I've put the image back up, and added what I think is what is needed. If I've done it wrong, please let me know. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The image still needs a fair use rationale template added which you will find details of here. Add it to the image and fill in ALL the details, otherwise it is likely to be deleted again. A prose rationale is no longer acceptable; you must use the template. ww2censor (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I have made another attempt, using the template. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Good, but the resolution's too high. I've tagged it as {{fairusereduce}}. Stifle (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll rescan it at a lower resolution. What resolution should I use? Rick Norwood (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced the image by a much lower resolution image.Rick Norwood (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That resolution is fine, but could I trouble you to rescan it in the PNG format? Non-photographic raster images are best uploaded in PNG. You can then put the PNG version in the article with the same tags as are already on the JPG version, and tag the JPG version as {{db-author}}. Stifle (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

changing copyright things

Is it possible to change the licensing on an image? I uploaded an image a while back; it became pretty popular, ranking about 800 on most-linked to images, with over 2000 links. I want to change the license on it. flaminglawyer^c 23:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You could release it under less restrictive license, but not a more restrictive one. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that a w'Pedia rule or a US of A rule? flaminglawyer^c 00:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a condition of the GFDL, which would presumably be enforced in any jurisdiction (though I'm not aware of this ever having been tested). A couple of other things, though:

• looking at the image, I'm not positive that it's copyright-eligible (simple text ordinarily isn't.
• the GFDL isn't a great license for images; at the very least, you might consider multi-licensing it under something Creative Commons. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ummm... could you explain the difference between these, in a very small nutshell? I never considered myself good at reading contracts and the like. flaminglawyer^c 20:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

And by "these," I mean the gdfl and creative commons. flaminglawyer^c 20:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be easier to explain what you are hoping to accomplish? There are many variants of the CC and other licenses, and so we could point you in the right direction. Dragons flight (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The GFDL requires its 3000+ words to be reprinted in full with every reproduction of the image. CC licenses don't. However, not all CC licenses are permitted on Wikipedia: the noncommercial and noderivatives options aren't allowed. Stifle (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Illustration question

To better the article on Snufkin, a character from a Finnish book and TV series, I have drawn an SVG file of the character. (Don't worry; it's accurate.) But I'm concerned about the copyright. I'm not sure…can the character be copyright? Can I upload this file? Thanks! Goyston talk, contribs, play 03:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Your drawing is derivative work, meaning essentially that you share the copyright with the whoever owns the copyright on the character (yes, they can be copyrighted). If you want to illustrate the article, I'd suggest simply uploading an actual drawing of the character, under fair use; make sure you add a fair use rationale to the image page. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, all the images I can find are of such low quality that it's not worthwhile to add them (120x80 pixels, for example). That's why I went and did this (hosted off-site to avoid issues while this is in discussion). Basically, is that safe to upload, and if so, what on earth do I tag it as? Goyston talk, contribs, play 04:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You can tag it as {{non-free fair use in}} with an appropriate fair use rationale, and note that that part of the work which you put into the drawing is released into the public domain. Stifle (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking at your image and comparing it to some of the ones I've found on the net, I don't actually think you even own the copyright on that work, because there isn't any creative component (which isn't intended as a slight, since I gather you were intending to accurately reproduce their work - and you succeeded). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

COPY RIGHT. PRODUCING AN IMAGE IN A DIFFERENT MEDIUM THEN WHAT IT IS COPYRIGHTED AS.

I recently traced a photograph out of a magazine for a website project. I want the picture presented as a illustration. I want to use it on my website. Does this infringe on the copyright. I did change the image slightly by changing the fabric design on a pillow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.54.251 (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This page is for questions about copyright and media on Wikipedia. Sorry, but we can't help you with queries about copyright on your own website. Stifle (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Rulers.org

At the bottom of http://rulers.org it says:

Data from this site may be queried and copied on a not-for-profit basis only if the source is accurately credited.

I take this to mean that we can use any of their images? ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Not according to our own policies, as commercial use is specifically excluded. Any images from there (except any that might be in the public domain) are going to be non-free, and will have to meet our non-free content criteria. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sound question

The author of this website says: "The audio files contained in this page are in PUBLIC DOMAIN and have been developed with the purpose to help enthusiasts, clubs, dealers and salespersons from Lamborghini brand to pronounce correctly the Lamborghini models based in Spanish words.

There is no copyright in these audio files. They have been done for free and donated to the worldwide Lamborghini community.

Webmasters can post these files in their Lamborghini pages, if they desire."

I would like to convert one to .ogg for the Lamborghini Murciélago page since many people have problems pronouncing it. Would that be permissible? If not, what kind of permission should I get? Thanks Madridrealy (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Assuming they're telling the truth about them being in the public domain, you can do whatever you like with them. If your work includes a creative component (I don't know anything about audio conversion, but I'm assuming that what you're proposing doesn't) you'll need to release your work. Otherwise, the resulting work will be in the public domain, just like the source work. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Screen blurring (mobile devices)

I am not entirely sure what the requirements for blurring the screen on a photo of a mobile device are. For example, Image:SE P910i.jpg shows a completely clear screen, with Opera running. AFAIK Opera's interface is copyrighted, so how is this image different from Image:IPhone Release - Seattle (keyboard) cropped.jpg which shows a blurred image of the iPhone virtual keyboard? Both of these images are from Wikimedia Commons, and Image:SE P910i.jpg is locally used on around 50 pages. nneonneo ^talk 18:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Arguably it should be blurred, though we often have photographs with copyrighted logos and the like in the background (check our almost any of our free photographs of professional athletes, for example - most have team logos). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, the Sony Ericsson image shows Opera's website and the user interface of Opera's browser, while the iPhone image shows the iPhone browser (Safari) and the keyboard. In both cases, there's potential copyright infringement (the website of Opera in the first, the keyboard UI of iPhone in the second). So, I am wondering why one is blurred and the other is not... nneonneo ^talk 21:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a judgment call as to how much prominence must be afforded to a copyright image for the image itself to be a truly derivative image. In one case the uploader (or somebody later) concluded that it was a concern, in the other case not. I'm not really in a position to say who's correct; arguably blurring is always the way to go, to be on the safe side, but I don't think we can say categorically that the P910i image is or isn't a copyright infringement. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

uploading a photo of a gramophone record label

hi i want to upload a photo i took of a gramophone record label for use in an article about the performer. The gramophone record dates from the late 1920's, ie is about 80 years old. is the upload permissible? thanks Stuart1900 (talk) 07:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Likely not. If it was a few years older, it would be public domain in the United States, but it's probably still copyrighted - what country is it from? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It's English. Does that help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuart1900 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 30 October 2008

Mohammed kaaba.jpg

Removed duplicate of question asked and answered at Wikipedia:Help desk#Mohammed kaaba.jpg. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Supernanny logo under a free license?

Hi. I discovered this image page, in which an editor uploaded the Supernanny logo with the GNU Free license. Is this right? The various licenses are not my forte, so could you look into it as far as what should be done? Let me know if this is okay with you. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted. Supernanny's terms and conditions make it quite clear that no part of their website is released under the GFDL or anything like it. I've retagged the image as fair use. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 01:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ghost Editor deleting my image?

Please explain, if someone would, why the apparent wikipedia editor "Ash" (Wiggin Tree) in the following message to me, is allowed to edit my page on Acker Bilk, then evaporate. Here is the message I was left:

Thanks for uploading Image:Acker Bilk03.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all. Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Ash (talk) 13:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Rebuttal to the non-existent "Ash"'s points are that I DID make considerable and multiple efforts to contact the copyright holder, which would be Mr. Bilk himself or the photog at his web site, and received NO RESPONSE WHATSOEVER. That, and given the fair use justification I provided on the description page, should be sufficient per the definitions of Wikipedia policy. If they are not, I'm afraid that this is one of those deals where "you can't get there from here", and an image of Mr. Bilk cannot, under any achievable circumstances, be included in Wikipedia. At any rate, the image was there for months before the now non-existent "Ash" (Wiggin Tree) butted in and deleted it. Someone please explain "Ash" to me and help me figure out how to get an image of Mr. Bilk included with the article.--RogerR00 (talk) 03:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that, as a living person who makes numerous public appearances, there'd be nothing stopping him from being photographed by somebody with the ensuing photograph released under a free license. Wikipedia guidelines prohibit the use of non-free images of living people in all but certain extraordinary circumstances; this doesn't seem to have been one of them. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

CC public domain

Image:Bonfire.jpg is Creative Commons public domain, found at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/. I don't see it listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses or at Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Deprecated#Non-free_Creative_Commons_licenses, so I don't want to do with it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

{{PD-link}} would be a good one. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 00:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

oh look {{PD-PDphoto.org}} ViperSnake151 14:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Very old logos

I notice that Image:Wesleyan shield copyright.jpg is marked with a template that strongly suggests that it is copyrighted (and, indeed, it is named in a way that suggests that). I'm pretty sure this shield dates back to the 19th century (the school was founded in the 1840s), so any copyright should long since have expired.

Even in the event that I am not right about this particular emblem (I haven't researched systematically to find a pre-1923 usage): shouldn't we have a distinct template to mark logos whose copyrights are known to have expired? - Jmabel | Talk 20:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I think {{PD-US}} is adequate - I don't see the benefit in further complicating our image tagging regime with a lot of new case-specific tags. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

In addition to a PD tag, a PD logo should be tagged with {{trademark}}. Maybe that is what you mean. —teb728 t c 20:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, good solution. - Jmabel | Talk 00:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

General knowledge question

who is the first president to travel abroad while in office —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irisr2 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ask general knowledge questions a the Wikipedia:Reference desk. This forum is for media copyright questions. —teb728 t c 20:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Letter in reference to HRV

User:Breadmanpaul/Hebraic_Roots_Version image:HRV_Letter.JPG

What do I need to do to make the scanned image of this letter acceptable? If I make the logo fuzzy will that obviate the need to obtain/provide copyright information for the logo?

The letter itself doesn't contain any creative information and it doesn't seem copyrightable to me. If I'm wrong, please explain.

Regarding the encyclopedic value of the letter. The long and turbid history of the HRV will be excessively difficult to document through third-party sources. Essentially all of the history of the HRV was documented by email no longer in existence. This letter is probably the only piece of that history for which acceptable documentation exists. breadmanpaul (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Typing the letter is a creative process, so the text is copyrighted as well as the logo. It might be possible to make a fair use claim on this, but I wouldn't bet on it. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Although typing may be a creative process, the letter contains nothing more than a recitation of facts -- the content of the letter is not a creative work. As a precautionary measure, I have emailed isr requesting permission to use the letter (including the logo). breadmanpaul (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I am currently in negotiations with ISR regarding using the letter. I believe I'll have permission to use it by either later today or possibly tomorrow. Funny what happens when you just ask. breadmanpaul (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

See WP:COPYREQ for what permission is required and how to handle it. I am concerned about the comments you put on the image description page of the letter: You say that ISR wants to review the article before it is published. You and they should understand that the article can (and undoubtedly will) be changed after it is published without their permission or yours. Their permission to use the letter would be irrevokable, and it would grant anyone the right to use the letter including the logo for anything. —teb728 t c 21:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I would phrase what TEB728 said the other way round: if they release the image of the letter with that stipulation, the licence isn't valid for use on wikipedia. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 22:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The two of you seem to be in total disagreement. breadmanpaul (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No, we gave the same answer to the same question. I just gave the answer from the opposite perspective in the hope that it would make it clear. TEB728 said that if the ISR release the letter under a free license, anyone will be free to do what they want with it. I said that if the ISR release the letter under a licence that reserves their right to vet its use, it's not a free licence. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 10:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

However, I think that breadmanpaul is correct on this point (and I think I may have said as much on his/her talk page): aside from the logo, the letter itself would not be considered a creative work under US law. As long as the logo is removed, or blurred out, the letter is public domain. -- Hux (talk) 04:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Two possibilities:

1 As I asked on the discussion page for this image before it was deleted, what language do you want to see from the copyright holder so as to accept the letter as is?

2 If you take the time to read the letter, now deleted, you'll see that nothing in it is copyrightable. It is a mere recitation of facts. It's not creative by any stretch of the imagination. I offered to blur the logo, but that suggestion was largely ignored (save Hux).

Can the group of you come to some consensus you can agree upon so that given whatever terms you can agree upon I can upload the letter? breadmanpaul (talk) 03:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Replies:

1. As I told you above (and on the image talk page before it was deleted), you need to read WP:COPYREQ for how to handle third party permission. Have you read it yet? It contains WP:CONSENT, a general sample release.

2. I read the letter, and I think the way that ISR recited the facts is somewhat creative—just as your recitation of facts in the draft article is creative—just as the recitation of facts in any work of non-fiction is creative. Apparently ISR thinks so too, considering their desire to vet the article before licensing the letter. —teb728 t c 07:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Roll2 Frame28 QuincyJones.jpg

For Image:Roll2 Frame28 QuincyJones.jpg the uploader, 428CobraJet (talk · contribs), seems to want to have it both ways. There's a statement on the page, "All rights to this image are owned by the photographer, Keith Lubow, as of July 28, 2007." The page is also tagged as GFDL. It seems that after uploading he tried to reserve all rights diff but got chided by OrphanBot so he replaced the GFDL template and softened the disclaimer language to what's there now. In addition, the image's metadata contains the statement "Copyright holder: Copyright 2007 Keith Lubow". Despite the lack of an OTRS ticket, I assume that the uploader is the photographer due to his attempt to retain rights, but is that statement on the image description page and in the metadata kosher? The metadata issue also applies to Image:Roll2 Frame36 QuincyJones HerbieHancock Crop.jpg, also uploaded by 428CobraJet but since moved to Commons. Thanks! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 09:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with it as it is now. The photographer retains the copyright, and has released the image under the GFDL. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 10:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no issue right now with the licensing details. The photographer has given his details thusly it allows for proper credit, which is allowed. The GFDL says "Secondarily, this License preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work". The license also specific what text, if any, is required - in this case the photographer has said "with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts" implying that is the image is used in a book credit is not required. However the copyright is still owned by the photographer. Licensing and image is not the same as releasing an image into Public Domain. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that for me, I just wasn't sure. :-) —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 03:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Caruso recording

[18] is a recording from 1917, which would be fine, copyright wise, except it's clearly been professionally restored. Has it gained a new copyright during that restoration? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

TNSrecords have said they're happy for these images to be on wikipedia

I'm not sure what I shoudl do to stop stuff being deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mozza1979 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 29 October 2008

Permission for use on wikipedia is not sufficient for a photo to be used on Wikipedia. (That uploading option is essentially a trap.) For a photo to be used on wikipedia, the copyright holder must allow use and modification by anyone, even for commercial uses. See WP:COPYREQ for instructions on getting the necessary release. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I took this photo! Why copyright it?

I am unsure why there is a copyright issue with the following photo: Image:Martin_Luther.jpg Help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by We6er (talk • contribs) 15:35, 29 October 2008

I think you mean Image:Martin_Luther.JPG? (Links are case sensitive.) All photos are copyrighted by default, so if you took the photo (and are hence the copyright holder), you need to release the photo so that Wikipedia can use it. If you don't want to retain any rights to the photo, you can tag it with {{PD-self}}. You can also look at WP:ICTIC for a list of other license tags that you can add to the page. For help adding the tag to the image page, see the directions at the top of this page. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• It appears that you used a template stating it was a derivative work however you did not provide a license. The template you used, at the bottom, states: This template is not a valid license tag alone. A valid license must still be provided. If there are no FOP exemptions or if the FOP exemptions restrict commercial use, this image will be considered non-free. As such it needs a Non-Free License. If the statue still falls under copyright you would need to use the {{Non-free 3D art}} tag. Otherwise look through the Non-Free copyright tags to see if any work for your image. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• The freedom of panorama tag is not applicable to this image: The statue is located in the United States, which does not recognize freedom of panorama. The statue may be in the public domain, however. For according to Luther Place Memorial Church the statue was given as a gift in 1884 by the German emperor and is a replica of the one in Worms, Germany. —teb728 t c 18:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Reproducing technical diagrams from academic journal articles

I personally redrew the following image from a copyrighted journal article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cereb_ctx_circuit.png. The image cites the original paper. It was removed by another user per this discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cerebellum#Cerebellar_circuit_diagram. They are right that it is very similar to the original, but it is also a depiction of reality that is hard to depict in a much different fashion. For a biologist, circuit diagrams like this are not much different from diagrams of molecular structure..there are only so many ways you can capture the structure graphically. I cannot determine for myself if my actions constituted fair use or not. If not, can you suggest how I could create a drawing that captures the knowledge without running into copyright problems? Could you respond on my talk page/ Thanks! Slarson (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Global Invasive Species Database

Can I put texts from Global Invasive Species Database to wikipedia (while properly cited and attributed)? disclaimer. Can I use all texts from Global Invasive Species Database or can i use only texts that are compiled by ISSG or can I use no texts? --Snek01 (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not all together clear, but the phrase "...and the right to ensure that the original integrity of their contribution to the Commons is preserved." suggests that they may not allow derivative works, which would make this a no-no. It might be worth contacting them to clarify whether their license allows commercial use and derivative works. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see an indication that they grant any reuse license at all--not even for non-commercial use. —teb728 t c 20:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I have sent a question/request to authors and we will see in the future. --Snek01 (talk) 12:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Question about uploading a non-free image.

Hi! I'm kind of new here, and I'd like to upload an image. The image is here, and I'd like to add it to this Wikipedia article. I was wondering whether or not that would be fair use. In addition, it would also be nice if I could upload more, similar pictures so that there's one for each Adventure Path (described in the article I want to upload to). Would uploading one be okay? If it would be, could I add in more images?

Thank you for your help.

-Drilnoth (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It's likely that that image would be considered acceptable for use on that article (though the resolution should probably be reduced). However, I think uploading one for each adventure path would probably fail the "minimal usage" requirement of the non-free content policy. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 13:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Signature

I have a scan of an original document (never published) bearing the signature of Robert M. La Follette, Sr., who died in 1925; I don't remember the date, but it was during his time as governor of Wisconsin (1901-1906). Can I upload this, say, under {{PD-ineligible}}, since his name itself obviously isn't copyright? Or if not, is there any other license under which I might upload it? Nyttend (talk) 00:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

{{PD-US}} probably. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 01:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Am I correct in saying that such a license is acceptable at Commons, even though it might not be PD in all jurisdictions? I ask because most of my uploads are my own photos, and virtually all the rest are produced by the US federal government. Nyttend (talk) 02:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The United Nations logo

Image:UN stub.JPG and Image:UN stub 2.JPG are smaller versions of the UN logo used for the stub template. The images at United Nations (Image:Small Flag of the United Nations ZP.svg and Image:Flag of the United Nations.svg) are similar but I'm not sure. Template:PD-UN is for works from public documents, particularly documents. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Umm, what point are you trying to make? —teb728 t c 08:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, trying to see if that would be public domain or not. They need updated copyright tags and if nothing else, I'll just use template:PD-because. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Why email?

Why do I have to ask people from a web site to email their permission if they already put that on their web site? Well, I'm not going to do it. - Andre Engels (talk) 07:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you are referring to Image:Islamkarimov.jpg. The image description page has a link to UzLand The footer of the linked page says “Copying, reproduction and use of any materials from UzLand are allowed with attribution to this site.” It is not clear to me that this permission allows derivative images. The image description page does not indicate where on that site the image comes from (or even really that it comes from the site); indeed I am unable to find it there. But probably the reason the image was tagged “no permission” is the image description page did not indicate that the link was relevant to permission; the linked page is a little daunting, being mostly in Russian.

You don't have to do the email. Commons already has a good photo of the subject; so we don't need this one. —teb728 t c 08:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Enver Hoxha photo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hoxhachairart.jpg

Found it on a forum from a post dated back in either 2004, 2005 or 2006. (I forgot since it's been on my HD a while) I've been trying to get a picture for the article (Enver Hoxha) so I think an attachment on a forum (this photo) would be relatively free. I haven't seen it anywhere else.

Whether the image was on a forum or not has virtually nothing to do with whether or not it's free enough for Wikipedia purposes, and the image to which you linked is almost certainly copyrighted. However, the fact that Hoxha is deceased means that, if you can't find a free image of him anywhere (any photograph taken by an author deceased for more than fifty years would be in the public domain in Albania, but the author would have to have been deceased for seventy years or the image would have to date from pre-1923 to be public domain in the U.S.) you may be able to use a non-free image under Wikipedia's non-free content policy. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

How would I go about putting such a thing in effect for the picture? --Mrdie (talk) 03:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You'd want to tag the article with {{Non-free fair use in|Enver Hoxha}} and then include a fair use rationale and under "Replaceability" note that the subject is deceased and no free images of him are known to exist. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Lee Da Hae and East of Eden pictures

Hi. If I get the pictures from other forums, how can I put them in their repective pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nisha 05 31 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Most pictures on Wikipedia have to be licensed with permission that says that anyone can use them for anything. Many pictures on other forums do not have such a license, and we can't use them.

More specifically, if you are asking about Image:Lee Da Hae during her CF filming.jpg, it looks like it doesn’t have an appropriate license; so we probably can’t use it. If you are asking about Image:East of Eden poster.jpg, you could add a {{non-free poster}} tag and a non-free use rationale. Then you could add it for identification to East of Eden (TV series). Is that what you wanted to know? —teb728 t c 21:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)