Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2009/April

Brenda Dickson

While reading the article on this actress, I couldn't help but notice that the image in the infobox looks like a drawing from a comic book. The image is: "File:Brenda Dickson Vector.jpg". I don't know much about what kinds of images are allowed on wikipedia, but this just seemed a bit odd to me. Could someone look into this? Thanks. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 05:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

To me it looks like what's referred to as a "vector" - generally a tracing of a photograph done in a vector drawing program. To me this has two problems: for one, slightly dodgy pieces of artwork aren't the best way to portray a subject in an encyclopedia, and more importantly (b) this may well be a tracing of a non-free photograph and hence a derivative work - the author would then not actually be able to release it under the free license it's listed under. ~ mazca ^t|c 09:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is the original [1]. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It definitely resembles the photo Andrew linked to, at least to me. As far as whether it should be on the page for the article, that I don't know. BTW, thanks for the description of what a "vector" is, Mazca. I didn't know that. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought I'd report that I've taken the image off this page, just to be on the safe side. Thank you for your explanations. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No objections here. While it's unclear if there were any specific copyright issues, I do agree that it was simply a very bad image for illustrating a person in an encyclopedia. ~ mazca ^t|c 20:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

License status of File:Wojewodztwa overlaid with gminas colored by voivodeship.png

I received a bot-generated warning for the copyright status of File:Wojewodztwa overlaid with gminas colored by voivodeship.png, and I have tried to fix this up by adding tags. Can anyone tell me if I have done this right? -- The Anome (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't see any problems with it now, should be fine. ~ mazca ^t|c 17:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. -- The Anome (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: File:Ocbj_frontpage.jpg

This is very confusing. I'm the webmaster/web-editor for the Orange County Business Journal. Our newspaper has been placing in its Wikipedia article page a small, low-res graphic of its current, weekly news magazine cover since in entry into Wikipedia. Now, with this week's new image, I'm getting all these notices. We - the graphics production team of the Orange County Business Journal - create our covers in our offices, using photos and graphics we create and take with our staff, and the cover is available for free viewing by the public on our business website - www.ocbj.com.

What do we have to do to satisfy Wikipedia with regard to adding a low-res graphic facsimile of our weekly newspaper?

Thanks, Matthew Lobato, webmaster, OCBJ.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattwolf77 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You must do one of the following:

Firstly, you the copyright holder could agree to release this image under a free license. This would mean that anyone (not just Wikipedia) could freely use the image for any purpose, including commercial purposes. In this case, you'd have to somehow prove that the Wikipedia editor marking the image as freely licensed did in fact represent the copyright holder. The easiest way to do this would be to explicitly freely license the image on the journal's own website.

Your second option is to add (to the image page) a rationale explaining why the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for allowable non-free content. In my opinion, it would be difficult to do this, as having a new image every week of the new front page doesn't seem to have much encyclopedic value. Having a single unchanging image of a representative front page would be more in line with Wikipedia's policies.

The one option you do not have is to give permission for this image to be used on Wikipedia without it satisfyinbg the non-free content guidelines. Wikipedia does not accept such granting of permissions. Algebraist 18:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Aside: I see you have made many edits to your journal's article. You should familiarize yourself with our Conflict of interest guidelines. Algebraist 18:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Updating the image weekly is unacceptable. There's no reason for that, other than using Wikipedia as a hosting service, which we are not. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: file:Ocbj frontpage.jpg

We, of course, don't wish or intend to use Wikipedia to host our newspaper. We have a substantial group of websites for our Journals. We actually, mistakenly, thought that a current frontpage image was expected by Wikipedia as a matter of providing updated information resources to its readers. One unchanging, representative image is FINE, and would be make matters easier for us.

The edits I've submitted to this article were references/credits requested by Wikipedia editors with regard to the OC Journal editor's Pulitzer Prize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattwolf77 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

In that case this should be easily dealt with. It fairly clearly falls within Wikipedia guidelines, and I've added the relevant templates. By the way, I hope you didn't construe my reference to WP:COI as a suggestion that you have been editing inappropriately. All I meant was that you should be familiar with those guidelines, as it appears you are. Algebraist 20:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Have no idea if I can use this image

[[2]]

I would like to upload this image of Roger Zelazny for his page that is lacking photo but I don't know the picture's status. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any indication there that the image is usable. Most images that you find on the internet are not usable. —teb728 t c 22:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I would say that you have a fair case for fair use there. The image is small (296×443), of a type which we used to class as "PromoPhoto", the subject died in 1995 but is notable. I wouldn't object to fair use on this one unless a more free alternative came along. Physchim62 (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Note that if the image is reduced from its already small size, please let it be done by people with the correct software! Physchim62 (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for your input. I will try to use it under the fair use and see what happens. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

USSR exit visa 1973.

It is now well-known, but one who wanted to leave USSR needed to get exit visa from Soviet authorities (not only entry visa from the country he/she wanted to enter as it happens now). I posted the example of such visa:

And added this file to the article Visa and several others.

Now I got 3 questions on my page:

Who created this image? Who holds the copyright to this image? Where did this image come from? Unless this information is added to this page, the image will be deleted one week after 1 April 2009.

I am unsure how to answer these questions. This type of Visa was literally issued by Soviet MVD, but there are a lot of arguments that actually all these visas were issued in KGB. Who holds the copytight to this image? This is even more hard question for me - no idea. No idea - can anybody help, please? I tnink it's a good idea to have this image in Wikipedia since this is a historical event that not so long time ago there were exit visas, not only entry visas. Sorry for my bad English.Gaz v pol (talk) 08:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

wordpress.com

File:Brad.jpg - It is from wordpress.com, but a person who is blogging under that website has posted several images of the person and non which can be found elsewhere in the same type of quality and no copyright information could be found. Could you please let me know if I'm on the right track with my fair non-use tag. Thanks!

I also have another image I am currently about to upload with an image from a member page on lycos. The link is here: http://membres.lycos.fr/theandroiddata/kim_peek/kim_peek.htm - Once again there is no copyright information.

Thanks again, Adam

• A lack of copyright information does not mean it's copyright free. You have to assume something is copyrighted unless you have proof that it isn't. I.e., a specific release statement under a specific license. In this particular case, I don't see any reason we need this image. I'm sure we can obtain free license imagery of a living person who has Hyperthymesia, which seems to be what this image will be used for. I think this image should be deleted. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the encyclopedic value of such an image even if it was free. It's a picture of a guy. How does this improve my understanding of hyperthymesia? Algebraist 17:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• I think the general claim is that people with Hyperthymesia look just like average people. *shrug* --Hammersoft (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The point was that there are only three confirmed cases, and yes Hammersoft, it is because they don't look visually different in anyway, but I have removed it entirely - it isn't a necessity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.12.33 (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

doubtful own work claim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Oscar_Wilde_portrait.jpg

uploader claims this is 'own work'. This seems doubtful, it's a photo of Oscar Wilde originally by Sarony, Napoleon, 1821-1896, photographer

Anniepoo (talk) 02:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Ironic example given the copyright history of the image in question Australian Matt (talk) 02:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously this is a derivative work of commons:File:Oscar Wilde 3g07095u.jpg so should have the same licence as the original because no real creative work has taken place to make the new image commons:File:Oscar Wilde portrait.jpg. It will need to be adjusted on the commons. ww2censor (talk) 02:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:Enami111.jpeg

Hi fellows

You wrote me there is problems with the above photo's copyright. I received the photo from the holder of that photo(the person who is introduced, Mr Hasan Enami Olya) who is living in Azerbaijan Republic. He could not realize the copyright holder as I guess she or he has been the photographer of their opera group and the photo picked from their professional album. Please guide me how it is possible to have the photos undeleted on the page.

Regards, Taghi Gheisari —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gheisari (talk • contribs) 09:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Learn who the photographer is and have him grant a free license as explained at WP:COPYREQ. If he is a professional photographer, he probably will not be willing to do that (without a large fee). So probably the easiest thing would be if you or some known amateur photographer could take another photo. —teb728 t c 10:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair use and illegally obtained materials (Wolverine Origins)

A couple of editors want to upload and use screen caps from the workprint of the wolverine origins film. Where do we stand on the fair use of illegal obtained material? --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. But it would seem only decent to restrict our use to only officially released promotional material (that has been scaled down, and as long as it meets our fair use guidelines). If screenshots are eventually necessary to improve the article, we can always add those once we can source them to an official release. I mean, how long do we have to wait for a DVD, 8 months max? Would anyone consider failing this article for FA based solely on the lack of illegally obtained screenshots? Really, I don't see any reason why such images would be necessary (or ethical, but I guess that is another issue). -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

From an ethical point of view, I think it's a door we don't want to open. My understanding is that we don't link to copyright breaching videos on youtube, so why would we want to upload illegally obtained screencaps to our servers? However, the ethical answer doesn't seem to count for much here unless you can back it up with some policy... --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

How is WP:FUC #4 and 2 for you. Non-free content has to be previously published, and respect commercial opportunities. Something that hasn't been released, hasn't been published and we need to consider the future commercial opportunities. WP:FUC is policy.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Use of NATO Pictures

There are a very large number of very good photos in the NATO archives. In general, pictures such as this one include the notice "Please credit NATO photos", but no other statement of copyright. I've managed to track down the NATO conditions for use, and I think the pictures would be okay for Wikipedia, but I'd like a second opinion.

The notice says that "Material is provided, free of charge, for use only in objective and balanced documentaries/articles". Hopefully, anything we produce here is objective and balanced. There does not seem to be a rule against commercial use, but the rules do clearly state "No material is to be used for advertising purposes whatsoever." Does this make such pictures unusable for WP? If it doesn't what's the proper license when uploading? Thanks. Cool3 (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Except for requiring credit none of their restrictions is consistent with the free license which Wikipedia requires. Permission must allow reuse by anyone for anything. —teb728 t c 19:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Is that really true? I admit that I only have a beginner's understanding of copyrights and WP Image Policy, but it seems that any reuse of the picture alongside the Wikipedia article would be entirely acceptable to NATO (including commercial reuse). Do we really have to only use pictures that can be used by anyone, anywhere even in contexts having nothing to do with our content? The NATO pictures are pretty unrestricted, at least as I read the license. You can't use them if you intend to defame NATO (which we don't and reusers of our content don't), and you can't use it for advertising (I'm not quite clear what that means, but it's certainly not a problem for us). It's essentially a free license with a couple of limitations. We really can't use it? The value to Wikipedia would be enormous. NATO has thousands of high quality photographs that would enrich many articles. Cool3 (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it means as a general rule that we cannot use them. A few photos may be usable under the non-free content guidelines. These are strict and only allow use of low-resolution photos where (among other things) the photo is necessary to the understanding of the article and there is no way to replace the photo with a free photo. This may apply where NATO has a photo of a dead political leader, and we have looked without success for a free picture to put in the infobox. Because NATO grants some permissions to use their photos, it may be better to use NATO photos than to use other nonfree photos. But this is all with the huge caveat that most nonfree photos are not acceptable for Wikipedia. If you have any specific image you want to upload, asking here might be a good idea. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this may help you to understand: Wikipedia content itself is licensed under GFDL, which allows reuse by anyone for anything, including advertising. Although Wikipedia has a neutral-point-of-view policy, its content is free to be reused (with modification) to defame NATO. —teb728 t c 20:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I know it is confusing, but we do not allow images that have "permission to be used on Wikipedia". Your line of reasoning, seems sensible, but amounts to saying "if we use these images on the Wikipedia article (and that alone) then we seem to be within their terms for using the images". But that doesn't work because Wikipedia is released under a free license (which means that third parties can take our content, modify it, reuse it, even commercially, under the conditions of the GFDL). So while it may seem OK for the image just to be used on Wikipedia, the way Wikipedia is licensed means that it is possible that people who reuse our free content may not use the image (meaning the image would stop being "free"). Yeah, it's a bit confusing, but I hope this makes sense. -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I feared that this was so, and alas it seems that it is. It's quite a shame. Thanks, though, for your help. Cool3 (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

mancow muller

What happened to the mancow muller morning show? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.225.99 (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to be a media copyright question; so we won't answer it here. But you may be able to find some information in the Mancow Muller article. —teb728 t c 20:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Can I upload these files?

Is it appropriate to upload this image and this image to the English Wikipedia. And if so, how do I go about it? --Geronimo20 (talk) 02:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The first image is on Commons so there is no need to upload it here - just use File:Puretic_Block.jpg, The second I suspect the licensing on that one. It has a used with permission, but it should probably be fair use. Here on En I would think it would certainly need a fair use rationale like the ones on for example this one File:Canadian5_bill.jpg Mfield (Oi!) 02:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Your question is about two images showing fishing winches, I suspect that is what you want to use the images to illustrate, so I am wondering what your intended use will be. Concerning the Canadian banknote, it may be possible to use it in an article about the banknote itself per WP:NFC#Images but under WP:NFC#Images 2 would be unacceptable because it is not permitted to use it to illustrate the subject of the banknote. Am I correct? ww2censor (talk) 03:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyright issue involving images

Hi. I am searching for images to use in a collection of articles that I am writing about biology. The articles are Arixeniina and Hemimerina, which are suborders of earwigs. The problem is that, while I have found images for each article, I can't find anything that is released under a suitable license. ForArixeniina, there's [3] and[4]; for Hemimerina there's [5] and [6]. The copyright for all four images is either owned by CSIRO (Australian National Insect Collection Database) or Fabian Hass. It I were to use these images, they would most definitely satisfy criteria two through ten, perWikipedia:Non-free content criteria. However, I am unsure about criterion one: free images of these suborders of earwigs could definitely be created, and would function perfectly in the article. However, no free equivalent is available at this time. I've searched across Google Images completely, and have found nothing that is under a suitable copyright license. The Earwig Research Centre [7] has a huge database of information, including over 10,247 images. While the website's curator, Fabian Hass, supports Wikipedia extensively (he has multiple links to Wikipedia across his site), he owns the copyright to all of his images, and the museums own the copyright to most of the images in his database. I would try to contact him to see if he might be willing to change the copyright status for his images, but he's German, and he hasn't updated his website in a while. Per #1 of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, the four images linked to above could not be used: but nothing else exists, so isn't it better to have fair-use images than no images? The Earwig ^{(User | Talk | Contributions)} 17:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

In short, no. It seems feasible to take a photo or draw a picture of these species. Just because no one has done it yet doesn't mean that non-free photos can be included. I would encourage you to ask Fabian Hass to release the images under a free license, if he in fact is the copyright holder. In doing this, it might be helpful to enlist a German-speaking wikipedian and/or to read WP:COPYREQ, which provides helpful instructions. For the time being, these images may be linked in the external links section. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have already read WP:COPYREQ, and was thinking of doing that, but I have observed that Mr. Hass has not updated his website since 2007. Thus, there is a strong possibility that he may not get my email. Regardless, in light of your response, I think the best option now is indeed send him an email, probably in German (I'll get the help of someone at Category:User de). But remember, I am pessimistic about his response due to the fact that he lists his image use as "restricted" on http://tolweb.org. Even so, it's best to try, because he might change his mind for us (he obviously supports us— he mentions us throughout his site), and then we could use his images. I'll probably do the same for CSIRO, though the chances for success with them are even lower. For the time being, linking to the images in the External links is indeed a good idea. The Earwig ^{(User | Talk | Contributions)} 09:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, just sent Dr. Hass an email to the email address given on his website, in English. I took it by mixing together some of the versions at WP:Example requests for permission. If he doesn't reply before week's end, I'll try in German, if that fails, I'll send him the letter via snail mail to the mail address also given on his website-- of couse, that's in Nairobi, Kenya. Ah well, I'll see what happens. The Earwig ^{(User | Talk | Contributions)} 22:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

upload an image of myself

I am Joan severance and currently have a page on your website that I have edited---although it seems that someone keeps changing my new update information---

i also own the copyright to a photo that I would like to upload, but it says that I do not have the right to do that

can you help me with this so I can upload the image and have a more detailed page on myself.

thank you joan severance you may reach me at [email redacted] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joanseverance (talk • contribs) 00:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The easiest way to submit a photo is probably Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission. You may also want to read our conflict of interest policy before continuing to edit the article about you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Found a photo on a website that would help my contribution

I created an entry for Mao Dongdong last year. I`ve found a recent photo of his family on a website and wanted to upload it to Mao Dongdong`s and Mao Xinyu`s entries on Wikipedia. I believe its the official Chinese Government website (cn.gov) Here`s the link - http://www.gov.cn/english/2008-11/24/content_1157907.htm

I don`t really understand the image upload protocols you have. This is an official photo but I don`t understand the copyright issues.

Can this image be uploaded or not? Do I need to specify the source?

Your advice would be appreciated.

Cheers Yameogo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yameogo (talk • contribs) 12:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The page says "Copyright © 2006 All Rights Reserved" at the bottom, and to my knowledge, unlike in the US, not all works of the Chinese government are automatically PD. So I'd assume that photograph would be copyrighted, and you'd need to consider if we could use the image under non-free content guidelines or not. Most photographs of living people are considered replaceable by a free equivalent. -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible derivative work

If this image was licenced under a free one, would it be considered derivative work because originally someone else took the photograph, and so not acceptable to be used on Wikipedia? --DFS454 (talk) 12:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, just because you own a single copy of a photograph does not mean you own the copyright to the original. -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah ok. Shame that was a decent picture. --DFS454 (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this image needed

is being used on the Victorian Premier League and Victorian Premier League 2009 pages -- but I have been unable to find any sources confirming that the League is in fact called the Foxtel Cup this year.

The only source is a website http://www.footballfedvic.com.au/foxtelcup.php

However this appears to be a front page, and all other links from it lead to the original Football Federation Victoria site

And links to foxtel as a sponsor are now dead - http://www.footballfedvic.com.au/corporate/sponsors/

So as the logo is no longer significant and description no longer accurate, i don't think it qualifies as non-free use, but I don't think I can delete the image

Australian Matt (talk) 00:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well it's 9 April tomorrow - doesn't look like the topic inspires much discussion -- still no luck finding what should replace the image Australian Matt (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Imogen Cunningham - Sonya Noskwiak.jpg

I uploaded this image using the template I found for File:Ansel Adams.jpg. While that image has been in place without a problem for quite a while, my image is marked for deletion for copyright violation. Please help me understand why the Adam image is acceptable and the Noskowiak image is not. Lexaxis7 (talk) 22:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It's actually marked for deletion because the copyright holder of the image is not specified. Since it's also not specified for the other image, I've tagged it for deletion too. If you can specify who is the copyright holder, you can remove the deletion tag. Stifle (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I added copyright owner info for the Imogen Cunningham image and removed the tag -- Hux (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Own work or non-free?

I have uploaded File:The Infosphere logo.png, which I have created myself, however, it is based on a screencap from Futurama episode, "The Why of Fry", so technically, the drawing is not mine. Therefore, I am pretty uncertain which licence it falls under. --Svip^pong 14:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Probably a derivative work, and therefore needs to be used under terms of fair use. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I don't think it's possible to use a derivative work under the non-free content criteria (Fair Use exceptions such as parody notwithstanding), so really it should be deleted. -- Hux (talk) 02:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Cisgenesis

I'd like to use an image from the paper found here [8] on the above page. I have contacted the author and requested use through the webpage using "Rightslink". It said it is fine but I'm not sure what references/acknowledgements need to be made. Also as the image's copyright would still be owned by Nature can it be placed on wikipedia? Would a non-free tag be needed? Thanks Smartse (talk) 11:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• There are two classes of images on Wikipedia; free licensed and used under fair use terms. There's no permission to use on Wikipedia that means anything to us. Either it's free or it isn't. If it isn't (and it isn't in this case) then a fair use tag and rationale for each use must be provided. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

CKeeler1.jpg

This is Lewis Morley image is the copyright of the National Portrait Gallery. Matthew Bailey (the Assistant Manager, Rights & Images) at the Gallery. They refuse to give permission for us to use the work, and claim to have have tried to delete it a few times. I've requested the speedy deletion of the image, but that action has not been taken. The Gallery is preparing legal action. Should we not delete it? --Duncan (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The image appears to technically meet the NFCC, which is probably why speedy delete is being declined. Try nominating it at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not need their permission to use the image; both uses are permitted under US fair use law. As for an FfD nomination, I predict that if nominated it would be kept. —teb728 t c 22:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC) By the way, File talk:CKeeler1.jpg was not a place to request speedy deletion. I am surprised that anyone saw your post there. —teb728 t c 22:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC) User talk:TreveX was not a place either. —teb728 t c 22:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Richard Poplawski.jpg

I'm not sure if I have the correct fair use claim tag on the page. Could someone assess which is most applicable? Thanks, Grsz¹¹ 17:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure the image is in the public domain? Was it taken by a federal government employee? State and localities may have different laws. You might be able to use Template:Non-free mugshot with an accompanying fair use rationale.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

And I have tagged it accordingly as replaceable fair use, since the subject is still alive. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

So now what? Grsz¹¹ 18:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• So now it gets deleted. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

So what is a free alternative? Can this be considered PD if it was released by the police? Grsz¹¹ 18:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• There may not be any free alternatives at this moment in time, given he lacked fame before the incident. That does not preclude a free alternative existing in the future. Since he's alive, that is a possibility. Wikipedia does not retain fair use content waiting for the day when there is a free license alternative. Instead, Wikipedia retains fair use content only when it is highly unlikely or impossible that a free alternative could be obtained. If the police department 'releases' the image, it must explicitly state the image has been released under a specific free license, not just 'released', as 'released' is meaningless. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia convention suggests that being incarcerated is sufficient to fulfill the "highly unlikely or impossible" criteria. Grsz: Just use the Template:Non-free mugshot template and add a non-free use rationale. For an example of the latter, see the other image in the 2009 Pittsburgh police shooting article. -- Hux (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• He's not been sentenced yet. Otherwise, I'd agree with you. It can be reasonably expected that he may yet appear in public. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Flickr pic : copyright status is unclear

I'm not familiar with procedures for pictures found on Flickr. I ask the author of this picture the right to use it on the article [9] and she says it was fine with her. I uploaded the image yesterday, but it's now considered for deletion since the information about the file is incomplete. To be honest, I'm not surprised since I had trouble in the uploading process to figure out where and how I should describe this file. How can I clarify the situation now and avoid the file to be deleted? Also, I would like the image, if accepted, to be used on wikis of other language, and I don't know how to procede either. Thank you for your help. Beisbol en canada (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• The link provided on the image page does not point to a location where the image is located. As a result, the license can not be proven. Further, "used by permission" is worthless to Wikipedia. We have two classes of images here. Either they are freely licensed or they are fair use. By permission does not fall into either of those categories. To properly ask permission of an author for release of the image under a free license, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Asking for permission to use on Wikipedia is insufficient. As for using the image on other language wikipedias, you should upload the image to Wikimedia Commons. Note that you will need to prove free license there in order for the image not to be deleted. Once the image is on Commons, it can be referenced by any language Wikipedia as if the image was local to that language project. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Here's the correct link[10]. The license is Attribution-Noncommercial[11]. Thanks a lot for answering my questions Beisbol en canada (talk) 04:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the proper link but the image does not have a free licence we can use. Your only option would be to request a better licence from the owner as mentioned above. ww2censor (talk) 04:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Ww2censor. Non-commercial licenses are not free licenses. Wikipedia's criteria for free content are that the content must be allowable for use in commercial enterprises as well as non-commercial. Therefore, the image must be considered to be non-free. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I've retagged the image with the proper license, which is {{cc-nc}}. This places it for speedy deletion. Obtain a free license release as instructed above. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

File:GGOfficeHome01.jpg Wikipedia Image File With Unknown Copyright Status

How do I fix an image that I put on a page and was removed due to its unknown copyright status? I would like to replace the image with one that has the proper copyright status, but I do not know how to do so. File:GGOfficeHome01.jpg 67.155.191.66 (talk) 13:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

What kind of work is it? Who owns the copyright? (For an artwork it is the artist; for a photo it is usually the photographer.) What right has the copyright owner given for people to use the image? (Wikipedia requires permission for reuse by anyone for anything.) —teb728 t c 20:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Eric de Kolb

{{cc-by-3.0}}

I have tried to put all the information into this First Sin Image as per "The Common's" last "talk". Please go into this image and correct it exactly so I can correct the rest of my images.

Just for your note: Mrs. de Kolb (as copyright Owner) has granted me permission (B. Stettner) to create a website for her late husband, do a Wikipedia site, and do Gallery presentations. I am the photographer of all of these images that I am submitting.

I am currently in the process of emailing you a copy of the permissions letter from Mrs. de Kolb. I also need a full view image of License ((cc-by3.0)) to show Mrs. de Kolb before I fax the letter to you. Can you send me the link to the full license image, I can't seem to find it.

Is the cc-by-3.0 license the correct one for me to use in the first place? If not, please let me know and explain in specific detail (by specific example) how to correctly do the images.

Thank you, (BStet--EricdeKolb (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC))

The cc-by-3.0 is a good license for you. It is at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ —teb728 t c 19:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC) By the way, template parameter syntax requires an equal sign after the parameter name like this. I fixed several of your files accordingly. —teb728 t c 20:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Non-free use rationale - Minnesota Governor Portraits

Hi all,

I am with the Minnesota Historical Society and have created the following licensing template {{Non-free Minnesota Historical Society image}}
I have been adding it to the portraits of Minnesota Governors from the Minnesota Historical Society collections that I have been uploading and have been getting "Image copyright problem" notifications via bot with each submission.

I have been going off of what was already here on Wikipedia:
{{Non-free Denver Public Library image}}
as well as the Non-free use rationale guideline

I do have authorization from the Minnesota Historical Society to do this. The Minnesota Historical Society would like to have all of the portraits of the governors of Minnesota on Wikipedia if possible. Helpful guidance and clarification would be great. Thanks!

--Mnhs (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm extremely irritated with this process. Please help.

I do not wish to navigate your image contribution waters ever again. I am attempting to contribute an old photograph of an important person who did not like to be photographed. He is long dead.

I have a source, another rather important person, who I bothered (he's preparing master classes right now) in order to contribute this photo. He was kind enough to answer promptly regarding the photo.

Now, if a Wikipedia editor would do me the courtesy of providing assistance, I could go on to other more productive work.

The photo in question is of Egon Petri. My source is the Polish pianist, author and lecturer Stefan Kutrzeba. You can see the photo here.

I can explain why this is all O.K. if an editor deigns to help. Like I said, I'm extremely irritated with this process. The photo has been requested; here it is; here am I. Reechard (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• I can not read the language of that source page you noted, but we'd need to know the age of the photograph before making any judgments about its status under public domain. If it is not under public domain, then the rights to the image must be released under a free license by the rights holder in order for the image to be used here under any free license. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. It is not enough to get permission to use the image on Wikipedia. If a release can not be obtained, the image must be used under terms of fair use. See WP:NFCC. In that case, permission from the rights holder is not required. Since the subject of the image is dead, the use of fair use imagery to depict the person is permissible. Hope this helps? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• Yeah, we can upload right away as fair use... but if we knew the copyright status that'd be better. Is "Fot. Archiwum" the credit line? Do we know who that is? When the photo was taken (which would be good for the caption anyway)? DreamGuy (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • thank you! Egon Petri was born in 1881 and died in 1962. In 1927 he had made his home at Zakopane in Poland, but in 1938 he moved to America. Please refer to Polish copyright law and understand that my source scannned this photo from this Polish magazine, and it had no copyright notice attached. "According to the Art.3 of copyright law of March 29, 1926 (valid until 1952) and Art. 2 of copyright law of July 10, 1952 of the People's Republic of Poland, all photographs by Polish photographers (or published for the first time in Poland or simultaneously in Poland and abroad) printed without a clear copyright notice before the law was changed on May 23, 1994 are public domain." That makes it pretty clear-cut, don't you think? The photo is eighty some-odd years old, taken in Poland, printed in this magazine, and is one of the only known photos in existence of Mr. Petri. Reprinted in the same magazine in 2006, in an article by my source, about Petri. The photo caption says "Photo archive" meaning it had no photographer credit, no copyright. Reechard (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm planning to establish more facts about Egon Petri, I mention that on my User Page, thank you for helping me clear this important hurdle first. I have two sources to draw from which you can see here if you like.Reechard (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Sigh - where did you guys go? Here is the rather poor Google translation from the Polish, which shows clearly the caption says "Phot. Archive". Should I upload this? I'd prefer it if you did, frankly. Pretty please! I'll check back later. The Petri talk pages specifically requests a photo, by the way. Reechard (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, got it.... when you go to Special:Upload to upload the photo, don't choose one of the default licenses, just put a {{PD-Poland}} tag in the summary field (along with the rest of the summary, and then fill the rest of the page out. You should just be able to do it right away, but if you have problems post back here for help. DreamGuy (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• thank you x 100 will do it now. Reechard (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• I think it worked, it has that re-assessment warning though, I'm assuming that comes with {{PD-Poland}} Anyway, good enough, I'll put it to use now. Thanks again DreamGuy! - Reechard (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Attributing owners of original fine art

Greetings, I am an art historian, curator and 20-year veteran of curating, teaching, writing and museum work. I am writing about the frequent lack of attributions for the collections that own original works of art. I am NOT referring to copyright, but this seems like it might be the best place to address the following question--

What is the Wikipedia policy on attributing owners of original fine art? I have not found anything on this topic after searching numerous policy pages. Wikipedia would be providing an even greater service to it users by strongly suggesting (maybe even requiring?) that reproductions of fine art be credited with the name and location of the owner of the original. Note that the owner of the original might not be the copyright owner--copyright is a very different issue that Wikipedia is handling well as far as I can tell. The advantage of having the original owner's info is that if readers know where an original work of art is located, they then have the option of going to see it.

For example, the image at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cole_Thomas_The_Oxbow_(The_Connecticut_River_near_Northampton_1836.jpg This is a reproduction of a painting in the public domain--its copyright has expired due to its age. Nonetheless, it would be extremely helpful to readers to know that the original painting is in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, which is not currently indicated on the reproduction.

Cheers, keep up the good work.

Wikicuratorguy (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Wikicuratorguy

I agree that this would be a great addition to the image description pages of relevant reproduction images. However, I don't think we should go so far as to require that information. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, when known, that might be a good thing to list briefly, sure. Requiring it would be messy, though. I'd go so far as to strongly encourage it when known, though, and even to recommend people look it up when it's not known. DreamGuy (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It would be great to have this information. However, we should not require it to be there as that would needlessly limit our ability to make a lot of public domain works available for people to see. The best way to do this, I would think, would be to encourage adding the work's location to an infobox on its article page. See the Whistler's Mother article for an example. -- Hux (talk) 05:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Detroit Public Library

I would like to upload an image from the Detroit Public Library website. May I do so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbahn (talk • contribs) 22:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

--NBahn (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you been able to locate a copyright notice anywhere on the website? Maybe something along the lines of saying the content is "released into the public domain" or "can be reused for educational purposes" or anything? If we do not have any information to the contrary, we have to assume the content is copyrighted. Copyrighted material can only be used under the strict guidelines of WP:NFC. So, unless you think the image can be used with a fair use claim, we cannot upload this image without further information regarding its copyright status. Sorry. -Andrew c ^[talk] 23:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Image from the "National Archives of Canada"

What license is to be used? I have an image that I would like to upload to Wikipedia, to be used in No. 410 Squadron RCAF, but I do not know which license I should place on the image page. TARTARUS ^talk 21:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a link to that National Archives website, or (even better) to where you found the image? Stifle (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I do, it they are here: main; 2; 3. TARTARUS ^talk 00:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

company logo?

I have uploaded this.. File:07_A-DATA_Logo.jpg for a page is it fair use ,...free use .or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs) 20:15, 9 April 2009

Yes, that looks like our standard use of the company logo. It's probably copyrighted because it has some creative elements beyond stylized fonts. Best is to look around at some other articles about companies that use the company logo in an infobox, look to see what copyright and "non-free use" templates are used for them, and find inspiration in that. I think the copyright tag is something like "non-free logo" and there is a useful use template called "logo fur". If you're copying rationales from somewhere else please take the time to make sure the information is accurate and that your rationale is applicable to your exact use, which should be easy in the case of a company logo. Hope that helps. Wikidemon (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

that helps a lot.thank you (Off2riorob (talk) 02:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

I added a {{non free logo}} template but see that you don't actually give a source itself. You just write "The logo may be obtained from A-DATA". That's not a link to where you got it and I could not find one. ww2censor (talk) 02:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually the words "The logo may be obtained from A-DATA" are automatic text from the {{logo fur}} template. I set the website parameter, which gave a good source. —teb728 t c 05:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

There is still no link to the source for this logo. There is a link to the company main page but the logo on that page is not downloadable and not the same as this one. A direct link to the actual logo source, or the page it is on, would be better if at all possible and I could not find one myself. ww2censor (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

From EricdeKolb

I am going to be using a cc-by-3.0. license for my downloaded images. The images that I am posting on Wikipedia are photos of the original paintings. I have permission from the deceased artists wife to put these photos on wikipedia and the internet.

My questions is this: Do I have to have her sign a permissions letter and include all the images, that I downloaded that I will use on the Eric deKolb site.?

If yes, then what is the best email address to send it to.

(BStet--EricdeKolb (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

Just follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. ww2censor (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Image uploader needs help

This is in regard to user FaceOffic (talk). I didn't look closely, but my impression is this guy means well, but he seems have a lot of trouble tagging images. (I'd tag them, but they're legal claims that only he can assert.) I've submitted a couple of his images for speedy deletion, but he's responding by removing warnings rather than by fixing the images. I encourage others to offer and provide assistance to him. He might not be a native English speaker. —Danorton (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

More Questions: Eric de Kolb

I have one photograph, on the back of the photo it reads, copyright 1978 by Photographer V. Sladon, 432 W. 111th St. NYC 10025 #1613

How do I find out if the copyright is still good??? And after that what is my next move to put the photo in the Wiki site. (BStet--EricdeKolb (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

Any photo first created in 1978 still has a "good" copyright. Do you know the current contact information of the photographer? You could ask the photographer (or his heirs) to release the image under a free license. See WP:COPYREQ for more information. Based on a bit of Google searching, it doesn't seem like the photographer has been active since the 70s, so contacting him at the given address may be difficult. In any event, it might be worth sending him a letter. Without a copyright release, it will be difficult (but maybe not impossible) to use the photo in the article. What is the photo of? Why do you want to use it? Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Interactive physics gif

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – Smallman12q (talk) 01:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Interactive physics test1.gif I would like to make some physics gifs that illustrate certain physics. I have made this gif using Interactive Physics 5.0. Under what license should I upload such gifs(if it is even allowed). Thanks in advance.Smallman12q (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless it is explicitly states that images you create through the software are free, we have to assume they are copyrighted. And because it is plausible for someone to make a free animation that conveys the same information, it seems unlikely that we could use a non-free image per WP:NFCC #1. I briefly searched around their website, and could not find any information to the contrary. Perhaps you could contact them and see how the images you create using their software are licensed? -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I think the presumption would go the other way. I don't see Adobe claiming copyright on images created with Photoshop, for example. Stifle (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Normally I would believe the admin, but as you're both admins and also both on the OTRS team...I'm even more confused now ^.^. Could I get a definitive answer please(with a small explanation)?Smallman12q (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Stifle, this program is designed for emulation. The only input the user has is to put in how they want it emulated. With Photoshop you have to do the actual drawing, with this all you have to do is look at what happens - the way it is presented (look and feel) is copyrightable, and should be assumed to be copyrighted. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 21:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the Look and feel article, you will see that a court rejected a copyright claim on "look and feel." —teb728 t c 00:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think look and feel is relevant at all here. It's something pretty different than this. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

So is that a yes? So two users say no, and two users say yes? There should be a clear cut answer as this is copyright related...anyone else want to contribute?Smallman12q (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this is nonfree. To me, this seems more similar to a screenshot of a videogame (with the characters arranged in such a way that the coder may not have anticipated) than something made in Adobe Photoshop. The way the chart is arranged and presented is essentially the programmer's creation, not that of the person who plugged in a few initial values. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If they are screenshots, they are not free. If they are animations, they can be free provided the user licenses them that way. If I make an image in Microsoft Paint, I, not Microsoft, owns the copyright to it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, we don't know enough about this situation and we are all just guessing. We need to contact the company to see. As people have made cases where this is more like a screenshot or proprietary output than say an image edited in photoshop, we should assume it is non-free for the time being. Anyone volunteers to contact the company?-Andrew c ^[talk] 04:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, ignore my 'look and feel' comment. I was tired, and not in a copyright mood. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 17:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd be grateful if someone could contact the company. Also, on a side note, the software is available as a demo so you could have a look to see what it says.Smallman12q (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

E-mail sent.-Andrew c ^[talk] 20:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Do let me know what they say...and thanks again!Smallman12q (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Any response so far?Smallman12q (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Well the pic has been deleted, but I haven't gotten a response from andrew as to whether it is useable or not.Smallman12q (talk) 19:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Still waiting for a reply...Smallman12q (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Andrew, any word yet?Smallman12q (talk) 12:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I've received nothing. No courtesy reply or anything. Maybe someone could post in their online forum? That seems marginally active.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

So should we assume no?Smallman12q (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless you want to post at their online forum. In any case I think this discussion has reached its end. —teb728 t c 19:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No need to hold everybody up. Perhaps they will respond in the future or become more active. Thankyou all for participating. Cheers!Smallman12q (talk) 01:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Eric de Kolb Again

Hello there,

Majority of my images are photos that I took from the original artwork of Eric de Kolb, however, some of them are photos from gallery brochures (The Bodley Gallery is out of business) can I submit these images to Wikicommons under the same free license I am using now CC-by-3.0) copyleft. I will add that Mrs. de Kolb has given me permission to use the Gallery Photos as well as my photos of Eric de Kolb's Original artwork.

(BStet--EricdeKolb (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

Do I understand correctly that the brochure images are faithful representations of de Kolb artwork? If so, they don't create a separate copyright. So in that case, de Kolb's heir(s) is the copyright owner. —teb728 t c 07:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the brochure images are faithful representations of de Kolb's artwork. Thank you. (BStet--76.15.244.191 (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

Question re George Horn

I've been around in WP for a while, but I've never paid much attention to images or the copyright questions associated with them. There's an image here that might be added to the article George Henry Horn, but I'm reluctant to upload it, since I wouldn't have any information about the original creator, even though it probably dates from around the 1870s and is therefore almost certainly in the public domain (note that it also appears, without credit, in this article in a contemporary academic journal [see p. 61]). I don't want to do anything dodgy, so I ask, Is uploading such a photograph, without information about the creator of it, acceptable? Deor (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is acceptable. Try to narrow down the creation date and first publication date as best you can on your image description. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Unsure about an image

When searching through images I found this one File:Battlesakura1.png, which lists the image source as "google" I talked with User:Moonriddengirl, bit she said to refer the question here. Any advice as to what to do with the image? NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 23:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I've replaced the rationale with the specific template {{vgrationale}}. The source of the screenshot isn't too relevant; the copyright will still be owned by the developer. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Am I Able to upload a British Stamp illustration?

Dear Sir I would like to upload an illustration of a stamp depicted the sports administrator Marea Hartman. am I able to do this without infringing copyright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorkinglad (talk • contribs) 19:12, 5 April 2009

I don't know what year this stamp is from but, Crown copyright on British stamps continue for 50 years after they were issued. The current Royal Mail holds their own copyright and since 1981, when they became an independent corporation, the normal 70-year rule is irrelevant. Beside which, even if you tried to claim fair-use, in most circumstances you cannot use a stamp to illustrate a biography or to show the topic of the stamp, you can only use them if there is substantial critical discussion about the stamp itself that adds significant knowledge to the reader per WP:NFC#Images, which really means it can only be used in an article about the stamp itself. I suspect you are out of luck unless the stamp is more than 50 years old. ww2censor (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, the stamp is from 1996 but there seems to be a case for fair use. The subject is dead, so no free image can be created, and inclusion of the image respects commercial opportunities and would be significant for the article. The series of stamps is already briefly discussed in the article. Physchim62 (talk) 01:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

First, a 1996 stamp is definitely copyright and secondly, having looked at the article, I cannot see any critical commentary that would add to the reader's understanding of the subject by adding an image of the stamp. There must be some discussion about the stamp itself; just mentioning that the subject was chosen for a stamp, describing the stamp, who it was issued by and when it was issued is not enough to pass the fair-use rationale. Sorry but, for the time being, I would be a deletionist in this case because it will fail WP:NFC#Images if uploaded. ww2censor (talk) 01:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It's no different from many other images used on biographies of deceased people – indeed, there is a greater case for fair use than for most of those images because of the greater respect for for commercial opportunities in the image (very limited for the image of a stamp, where as much more important for a commercial photograph) and the fact that the subject appeared on a stamp is relevant to the reader's understanding of the respect in which she is held in the issuing country. I don't care if it would fail WP:NFC#Images if WP:NFC#Images is wrong on this point! Physchim62 (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I am with Physchim62. Ww2censor, which of the non-free content criteria do you believe this image fails? Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Please remember that the main point here is that the WP:NFC#Policy 2 under significance says: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. We had discussion about this elsewhere a few months ago and the use of fair-use stamps in biographies is contrary to WP:NFC#Images which is not wrong. What is wrong is editors using stamps to decorate biographies. WP:NFC#Images #3 clearly states that stamps and currency may only be used for identification of the stamp or currency, not its subject. If you don't agree with that you try changing WP:NFC. At that time, I did an analysis of the use of all non-free stamps. Very few non-stamp articles use the stamp images per policy or criteria. All the failing stamps need to be removed and/or deleted but I've been busy so did not get around to doing anything about it yet. We know well that just because something is being done elsewhere does not justify others doing likewise. If you want to see a good fair-use of a stamp in a biography have a look at File:Israel Wallish doar Yehudah cover design 222295.jpg used in Otte Wallish. If a stamp of Marea Hartman in her article can compare with that I would support that rationale. ww2censor (talk) 04:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, the example you quote is eye candy compared to the use which is requested here. Not particularly useful eye candy either, as you cannot make out the details of the sketch of the stamps at a default thumb size. Also, these are preliminary sketches, not the stamps themselves, which in my eyes makes it worse, not better: they lack the significance that an image of the actual stamp would hold. Finally, the discussion is about the text to be included on the stamp, not its design, so the image could be deemed unnecessary: I wouldn't go that far myself, but others would. Physchim62 (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

But this stamp adds to the article by showing what she looked like, similar to any non-free image used in a biography article. Perhaps the better tag is {{non-free fair use in}} rather than {{non-free stamp}}, but I think that all of the NFCC are satisfied here. (Perhaps the use doesn't satisfy a few example illustrations but those are only guidelines and not policy, and are often precautionary in nature.) I agree that many stamps fail the NFCC, but just being a stamp doesn't somehow disqualify an image from being used as other non-free images would be, as you imply. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

How do you distinguish this case from, say, Idi Amin? Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how Calliopejen1 can suggest that: "this stamp adds to the article by showing what she looked like" when WP:NFC#Images #3 clearly says that "Stamps and currency: For identification of the stamp or currency, not its subject" which is exactly the opposite. I don't understand the Idi Amin reference. Let's just see what happens to the Marea Hartman article and what rationale, if any, is made. ww2censor (talk) 03:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Idi Amin has a non-free photograph in its lead. How would using a non-free stamp in this article, to show what she looked like, be any worse than using a non-free photo in Idi Amin, to show what he looked like? Calliopejen1 (talk) 11:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair use question

I submitted two articles on Mexican luchadoras on WP:AFC (here and here) and found two photos I'd like to use on their articles. I don't know the exact copyright status and I wanted to know if these could be used under fair use ?

[12] - This is Lola Gonzales on the cover of Falcon (July 1986) arguably at the height of her popularity during the mid-1980s.

[13] - This is Zuleyma in a 1991 promotional photo shortly after winning the UWA World Women's Championship.

71.184.49.120 (talk) 00:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

If the people in the photos are living then no, we can't use them under the non-free content criteria (see #1 under "Policy"). Sorry! -- Hux (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Both women have been retired for a number of years. I don't see how either can be "replaced by a free version that has the same effect". Is there any policy they might fall under that would permit their use ? 71.184.49.120 (talk) 04:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

In order to use the cover, the article would probably have to discuss the cover itself. The promotional photo would not be usable unless it was released under a free license. They were in the public spotlight for years; someone must have a photo they're willing to release under a free license. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Bottom line; they're alive. Until they're dead, it is highly unlikely that non-free imagery would be allowed for depicting them. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• From the FUR of File:Dotrice Garber.jpg (Subject alive and well): "the article subject is known in entirety as a child and/or young-adult performer and no longer is a public figure, so representative images of the subject as recognized are now impossible to create". I don't see why a similar case couldn't be made for these. decltype (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Add something to the article about magazine coverage, specifically mention the Falcon cover image (being on the cover of magazines is notable for level of fame, etc.), then use that image in the article with fair use rationale. DreamGuy (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Question About Potential Alanna Heiss Photo

Hi! I am simply wondering what the usage status of a photo that I would like to include on the Alanna Heiss page may be. I am a part-time unpaid intern at Art International Radio, which Heiss founded; I would like to include a photo taken of her by Richard Avedon in 1976 on her page. She was given the photo by Avedon and has since given me permission to use the photo on the Wikipedia page; the jpeg that I have of the photo comes directly from the Richard Avedon Foundation, which also allowed the photo to be used in a New York Magazine article on her, available here: [14]. What do you think the status of this image is? Having Heiss' permission to use the photograph, would it be enough to just put the photo up with its copyright information? Is there some way - perhaps by having Heiss write in somehow - that I should verify this for you? Thanks so much for your time! 1le0nny8 (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Having permission to use on Wikipedia is insufficient. Images on Wikipedia are accepted in two broad categories; either free licensed or fair use. Used with permission is not an allowable category. To obtain release of the image under a free license, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and interact with the m:OTRS team. If the image is not released under a free license, we would not accept it in this case because the subject of the photograph is still alive, and thus an image for depicting her could be obtained under a free license. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Since you are in contact with her, perhaps she would allow you to take a contemporary photo of her, which you could release under a free license. —teb728 t c 19:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks so much for the help! 1le0nny8 (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Government Agency or not

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

Smallman12q (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know if CCSP, USGCRP, CCTP, and GCRIO are considered government agencies. Mainly, I would like to upload their logos and certain charts on their sites such as Climate Change Science & Technology Management Structure. Thanks in advance.Smallman12q (talk) 01:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears that all of these agencies are mandated, funded, and run subordinate to the federal government. So yes, they're all {{PD-USGov}} ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, so that means the various charts, documents, and (their) logos on the sites can be uploaded, correct?Smallman12q (talk) 12:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yup, perk of a free democracy and all that. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!Smallman12q (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Photograph of a pd work of art

This painting is out of copyright because the artist died more than 70 years ago. However, I have no information regarding the photograph of the painting, or the photographer. Am I right in believing that I need to seek permission to use the image? Thanks. --MoreThings (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Update: Looking at this commons:Commons:Reuse_of_PD-Art_photographs#UK, it seems that I do need to seek permission.--MoreThings (talk)

However, in this Deletion Request the result was keep. What is the current policy? --MoreThings (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

We follow the standards of Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. -- meaning that photographs or other reproductions of two-dimensional objects in the public domain are also in the public domain automatically. No permission from the photographer is needed. The only trick here is that the photo in question includes a three-dimensional frame, which is lit differently based upon photographers choice in lighting, etc. Crop the frame out and you can use it just fine and with the proper PD tag (should be on the list to choose from when uploading). DreamGuy (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that that is the case for photographs originating in the US per this, but further down that same page photographs originating in the UK are categorised as "Not OK". Yet, despite that, this Deletion Request, a test case for hundreds of images from the National Portrait Gallery, which included much debate and a link to a personal comment by Jimmy Wales, resulted in a keep decision.

At the moment the policy clearly states that UK images are "Not OK", meaning that the National Portrait Gallery images are "Not OK". So any editor coming along wanting to find out what is acceptable—like me—is presented with a huge contradiction between policy and practice.--MoreThings (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Everyone is getting things confused. Last year there was a change in policy and now the commons ignores any copyright claims over reproductions of 2D artwork. That page you're referring to that says "not ok" is instructing reusers of commons content what is okay and what isn't, and is not a statement of policy as to what can be uploaded to the commons. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for that. I see that you're right. I'll crop it as suggested by DreamGuy and tag it with {{PD-art-life-70}}. Thanks guys.--MoreThings (talk) 02:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Who's the "everyone" getting confused? One person had questions, and they were answered accurately. DreamGuy (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleting fair use images along with articles?

Resolved

 – rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there a speedy deletion criteria or other procedure for deleting a fair use image when the article it was being used in gets deleted? Specifically, I'm wondering about File:CCAgLogo.gif, a non-free image that was used in Canada-China Agriculture and Food Development Exchange Center and will certainly never be used for anything else. Of course, there's not really much harm in waiting 7 days for it to get deleted through the {{di-orphaned fair use}} tag I already put there, but I'm just curious if there's a mechanism to delete images like this along with the article they were from...that seems like it would save some trouble. It's not a huge deal, but I would be interested to know for future reference. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any process to get it deleted faster, except appealing to an admin, either directly or through a noticeboard. And it's probably not worth the trouble, as it wouldn't do any harm to the copyright holder having it up for a few extra days. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 05:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Moura Lympany photographs

File:Moura Lympany Rasigueres Festival c1980.jpg

The above photo, currently on the Moura Lympany article was taken by me and I would like to make it available for use by others on condition that a) it is accompanied by the title as given at the time in the Wikipedia article and b) acknowledges the sources as Wikipedia. I do not want to give my name as the photographer unless I have to.

All the other photographs of Moura Lympany that I uploaded, and for which I cannot identify copyright release, can be deleted as can the references to them - if I can't delete them myself.

Boriswood (talk) 04:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The Creative Commons Attribution license is one that will meet your requirements: a) it allows you to specify a title to be associated with your work. And b) Allows you to provide a pseudonym rather than a real name. To use it, tag the image page with {{Cc-by-3.0|Attribution details}}, and replace "Attribution details" with your requirements. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 06:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Rat. I'll see if I can interpret this correctly Boriswood —Preceding undated comment added 08:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC).

Picture license.

I have asked someone to send me photo of themselves that is free for use and I have been sent 3 pictures what is the best way to use them here on wikipedia? Which license would be best to use in this case ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs)

• We have to be able to independently verify the license on the image. For that to happen, we need a release statement from the copyright holder submitted to m:OTRS. You can find out how to go about requesting a free license at WP:COPYREQ. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

so if im lazy to do that are there other licences that I could use ..perhaps fair use ??? (Off2riorob (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

No, you really can't do that; after all, someone could go and get a free picture of this person, so the picture would be replaceable — and if a picture is replaceable, fair use isn't an option. Guess you'll have to stop being lazy :-) Nyttend (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

poo! thanks for the advice. (Off2riorob (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

German copyright law

An editor recently added text to New Knoxville, Ohio, part of which is copied directly and the rest of which is a close paraphrase of text at http://www.ladbergen.de/pics/medien/1_1145358363/ladbergenhistoryA5.pdf. I reverted on copyright grounds, but the editor has restored the text after citing http://bundesrecht.juris.de/urhg/__5.html. Babelfish tells me that this is a page listing examples of documents not eligible for copyright protection, but is the PDF from Ladbergen included in these provisions? Nyttend (talk) 13:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Not seeing any info on the article saying its source, and ust being on a website that someone asserts is official doesn't mean this document was created as an official document. And, really, quoting it word for word without direct quotes indicating that we've done so is still pretty pointless even if it were not under copyright. DreamGuy (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Chevrolet Vega images

The 'image' page for File:Vega 140 engine 3-speed manual.jpg specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but it seems that its use in the Wikipedia article about the Chevrolet Vega fails the first fair use criterion. There are several more images that have been recently added by Vegavairbob (talk) seem to be obvious copyright violations or have improper "fair use" — Thanks! — CZmarlin (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You might want to read Quadell's comments during this recent discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 April 7#71 Chevrolet Vega Ad-Promo.jpg. He has given Vegavairbob very convincing reasons to claim PD on these type of images and to upload then. ww2censor (talk) 02:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyright expiration of "Tejero golpe.jpg"

According to the information on File:Tejero golpe.jpg, the 25-year copyright provided by Spanish law expired on Jan 1, 2007. Could someone with a bit of expertise on copyright expirations and the Spanish copyright law confirm this? What action should be taken on this picture? I would propose that it be retagged with the following rationale and moved to Commons:

Habbit: just shy, not antisocial - you can talk to me! 18:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Bump... any ideas on this? Habbit: just shy, not antisocial - you can talk to me! 15:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Photo of an old candy bar

A website hosts a photo of an old candy bar created for a specific event.[15] We have an article on the event, Millennium '73. Several sources discuss the candy bar so it'd be possible to write a short paragraph on the bar with the photo as an illustration. I've contacted the webmaster to ask about it. He says that he can't recall who gave him the photograph. the webmaster himself has no objectoins, but he's not he copyright holder. Any thoughts over whether the photograph would be allowable under fair use?   Will Beback  talk  18:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If it's a candy bar that were only made during a short period in 1973, I'd say that the image could not be replaced by a free equivalent, hence satisfying WP:NFCC#1. But there's also the question of significance. "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". If there's a section on the bar, I'd think it probably satisfies the criterion, but I'm not sure. decltype (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a help.   Will Beback  talk  17:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

License

I'm a TV producer from Nigeria. How can obtain the license of the TELEMATCH Franchise to produce a Nigerian adaptation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.211.226.149 (talk) 22:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This is for questions about media copyright as applied to Wikipedia. Please consult a lawyer or contact the media organization in question. Stifle (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Chemtrail Newspaper ad

Can I upload a copy of the chemtrail ad found at link. It ran in the Redding, California newspaper. They provide a phone number, so perhaps someone could get their permission. This is for the Chemtrail conspiracy theory. Some more info can be found at link. Thanks again!Smallman12q (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There are two possibilities, fair use, or a free license. To use it under fair use, it would have to meet these criteria. To attempt to obtain it under a free license, follow these instructions. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't fully understand the OTRS requirements. Perhaps someone could give them a call? Until then, I believe it does qualify for fair-use as it is the among the only chemtrail ads published in a newspaper.Smallman12q (talk) 01:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The OTRS requirements are very simple. The copyright owner sends in an email releasing the image under a free license to permissions-en@wikimedia.org (a template is available at WP:CONSENT) quoting the image name, and that's it. If you want to use the image, you need to go get that permission. Stifle (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Simple enough. Thanks.Smallman12q (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there a GDFL form copyright holder can sign?

I have re-uploaded because I was given the file by the creator, who agrees to the terms of the GDFL. Is there something they need to sign to prevent it from being deleted again, or is it enough to simply choose GDFL as the license when I upload the pic? MikeEG2001 (talk) 16:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If there may be doubt, follow WP:COPYREQ --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Jekyll Island Museum image use

My question is I don't know how to tag the three pictures on the Jekyll Island Museum page (which I authored as a museum employee). The images are owned by the museum (given as gifts and part of collections in an archives), but can be used with requested permission from the museum. All of the images are pre-1930. Please direct me.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jekyllmuseum (talk • contribs) 20:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you think you could fill in any more essential information on the images? Like who took them and when? Their publication and copyright history? It's a complicated area and the more information, the better. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Image from 1935

I found this image in the internet and would like to know if I can use it in an article.

[16] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliaaltagracia (talk • contribs) 04:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you tell us what page it's linked from or any other information about its origin? --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• • the name of the page is Cubamafia.inf and it has many pictures and it says alrights reserved, but I dont know if I can still use it.

©2008 Nigel Hunt - All Rights Reserved Cubaism Ltd Registered in England and Wales No. 4865245 Unit 30, DRCA Business Centre, Charlotte Despard Avenue, Battersea Park, London SW11 5HD, United Kingdom

I guest I cant..... --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 04:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

PD?

I would like to know if the photographies of Fred Boissonnas are in public domain. As I saw there are some photos uploaded on wiki as PD, but I do not know if they are really in public domain, since I have no idea on when the author died, and if the Swiss copyright law, which is a bit strange in photos copyrights applies on them. Can you help me?Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Please note that this is Wikipedia, not wiki. The image commons:File:Pasteur_edmond_Ponsoye.jpg is marked as public domain because the author allegedly died before 1939.

I can't find anything here about Fred Boissonnas. If there is a specific image you have in mind, please specify that image. Stifle (talk) 09:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Abercrombie.jpg

Hello. I was messing around in the backlog and uploaded a lower resolution picture for File:Abercrombie.jpg. A short time later a bot told me to add a copyright. I am not the original uploader but the source of the image is obviously non-free. I looked in Category:Non-free_Wikipedia_file_copyright_tags and was unable to pick an appropriate license. I have no concern over the future of this file so if its more headache than its worth I'd just assume pro-d the whole mess. Zab (talk) 11:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• I've removed the image from the article and tagged as as orphaned and replaceable. We do not need a copyrighted image of an existing house to depict the house. All it takes is a Wikipedia editor to go out and take a picture of it. Presto, free content. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Horton House image

Hi,

My question is in regards to the following message on my talk page for the image File:Horton House image from 1927.jpg

·That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in. ·That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

My answers to these concerns would be that 1)I've re-done the rationale 3 or more times and don't know what else specifically to include 2) there is only 1 article in which this picture is used and it is on the description page, if it has to be put on the description page in another way, I don't know how and would ask you how to do it

Please help. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jekyllmuseum (talk • contribs) 19:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the building is still standing, am I right? Then we cannot accept a fair use image for the building, since anyone could take a new picture and put it under a free license. The other possibility is that the copyright in the image has lapsed, as in {{PD-Pre1964}}, but that's a declaration that would require more research. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Uploading icons

I'm trying to upload weather icons used by The Weather Channel, one of which is a re-creation. The first two are copyrighted by TWC, and I know the creator of the third, which isn't copyrighted. Which liscences should I use, and are any of these unusable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weatherstar4000 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• The copyrighted icons, no, unless there's a specific article discussing those icons as a subject. Otherwise, you're out of luck. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Living Person Non-Free Question

I am an admin and it is my understanding of policy that it is not permissible to have an image of a living person under a fair use rationale because of the reasonable expectation to obtain a freely-licensed image of said living person. If my understanding is correct, would someone be so kind to inform Nsgaeverine (talk · contribs) of this because I have tagged File:Marci Bowers MD.jpg which is a headshot of Marci Bowers for deletion and the editor has disputed the deletion. Just asking before putting my neck out on the image talk page. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Your understanding is basically correct. In this case the image is merely being used to illustrate what the subject looks like. This is not acceptable per the non free content criteria, in particular NFCC#1, because a free alternative that serves the same encyclopedic purpose could feasibly be found. decltype (talk) 05:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Concur. Your understanding is correct. In this case though there's conflicting information. The uploader added a non-free rationale in the first upload, implying the image is not free. Later, the uploader add {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvided}}. This implies it's free, though not released under as specific license (I've always disliked that template). I took a look at the source provided, and modified it to the page it is hosted on. The uploader claims the image is the whole image (see "portion used" line in the rationale). This is blatantly false. The original image has a copyright stamp on it. See [17] or [18] if that doesn't respond (it didn't for me originally). There's no evidence the image has been released under the terms the uploader claims. I've tagged the image as missing evidence of permission, {{npd}} and removed it from the article. This is a highly visible person. I'm sure we can get a photograph of her without worrying about these copyright concerns. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I must not have used the right image template tag when I uploaded that file. However, I am willing to find a suitable freely-licensed image of said living person, as well as File:Marion Mayor Wayne Seybold.jpg which is a headshot of Wayne Seybold. Hopefully, I'll be able to get that before the image is deleted. --Aeverine Frathleen Nieves (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Anna Wallace Suhr, clip from larger wire service photo. Pass muster as Fair Use?

I've researched Anna Wallace Suhr, notable as a radio announcer for North Korea during the Korean War, for three years, and I'm about ready with a full article. I've found only one photo, a Newspaper Enterprise Association telephoto, published in the Brownsville Herald, Sept 03, 1950, retrieved from newspaperarchive.com. The original photo was c. 1930, and the wire service reproduction from 1950. A number of newspapers included a clip of her face from the full photo, but the newsprint halftones on newspaperarchive.com are virtually unrecognizable. Therefore, I extracted a portion from the full photo (which includes another woman) to show Ms. Suhr to better effect.

To the best of my knowledge, there is not another published image of Ms. Suhr, free or not. Will the referenced photo pass muster as Fair Use?

• She's dead. So, a fair use image of her for depiction purposes is permissible. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Image: White Plains High School

I am unable to choose the correct tag for the image. What if I were to take a picture of the school myself, would that be copyright free? Sunny Saanee S. Jamil 19:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soleado (talk • contribs)

If you look a picture, you would own the copyright. Then if you wanted to waive your copyright, you could. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd highly recommend that you do that, if possible. The image is probably copyrighted, and since it is easily replaceable by a free image, it is not fair use either. decltype (talk) 05:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Google Images

Google Images

Google Images is not a source, it's a search engine. We need to know who the copyright holder is and where the image came from (ie. what web page, or what book, etc.) in order to verify the license. --Carnildo (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This was placed on my talk page. Which image is it referring to because I had more than one from Google Images posted. --Wikiisaac (talk) 01:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well then, I'd assume this applies to all of your uploads that say the source is Google images. It's akin to, instead of citing a book you got at the library, you cite the library (or rather, card catalog). Both a search engine and a card catalog are tools that can help you find information because they house multiple sources. However, you'd always cite the book you found in the library, instead of simply citing the library. Similarly, you wouldn't cite google, you'd cite the webpage directly that you found through google. Hope this helps.-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Government researcher website

Is this website considered to be a work of the us government? I'm mainly looking to use the images inside this pdf.Smallman12q (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

{{PD-USGov-NASA}} should be applicable to the images per http://www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/features/MP_Photo_Guidelines.html and {{NASA}} to all other content. Regards, →Nagy 12:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

permission for use in Wikipedia; all other rights reserved

I locate translations of the United States Constitution and post these to Wikipedia. See United States Constitution, Section 7.3.[[19]]

I have a translation into Vietnamese. From a Word file I have created a pdf file. I want to upload the pdf image. The image includes the notice in English that the translation appears in Wikipedia by permission, and that to obtain permission for any other use, people should contact the translator. The page United States Constitution would refer to the uploaded pdf file.

Will Wikipedia accept the pdf file which includes the restricted permission? Broadcaster101 (talk) 04:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia doesn't accept images allowed in Wikipedia only. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 04:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't support uploading pdf files anyway. You might add an external link, however, to a legal copy of the pdf file hosted elsewhere. —teb728 t c 07:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

PDF is listed as an acceptable file extension for upload (i.e. ). What do you mean Wikipedia doesn't support uploading pdf files?-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess thumbnailing of PDFs is not supported.... -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously it is possible on Commons. (It certainly makes more sense there than on Wikipedia.) And according to WP:CMF it is possible also for Wikipedia. I said that based on H:IOUF, which says that uploading pdf requires a configuration change (perhaps old info?) and on Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2009 March 28#Uploading PDF files (perhaps the poster was mistaken, but nobody contradicted him). —teb728 t c 05:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Image right for :AngelaMak.jpg

I obtained the photo from the company official site where they have a photo gallery uploading the photos for public use. I did not violate the right but how come I still got copyright warning? How can i remove the warning???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idunno1234 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you do not own the copyright of this image. We need the copyright holder to release this image under a free license. Why do you believe this image is "for public use" and do you know what that means? Just because it may be a press photo or whatever, doesn't mean that it isn't copyrighted. Is there a licensing notice on the website that states otherwise? Without a definitive statement regarding licensing, we have to assume the image is copyrighted and not acceptable for wikipedia. You could contact the copyright holder and ask them to release the image (and send in a permission declaration to the OTRS e-mail). -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Tankman Picture

The famous Tankman picture has recently been removed from the People's Republic of China article and the Human rights in the People's Republic of China article citing article 2 of the fair use in images, which says not to use "An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image)". Does that rule apply here, for a picture as historically important as this one? Should it be limited to use in articles about the man himself or the protests, despite it describing political implications that went well beyond those two articles? Here are the changes made in the file's fair use description: [20] TastyCakes (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I 100% agree that it should be removed from PRC and 90% agree that it should be removed from Human rights in PRC. A reader can easily understand China and human rights issues there (though the latter is a slightly smushier case) without seeing this image. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree the removal from the PRC was an easier call. I brought the issue here because it felt like fair use should allow its use in the human rights article but SameBoat made a pretty good technical argument with the rules. TastyCakes (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Unsure what's required

A few days ago I upload a software screenshot (File:Blake_Stone_screenshot.png) to illustrate the article on a video game, but I see now that the image has been tagged for deletion if copyright information isn't added. I'm not sure what I need to add in this case. What is the appropriate copyright?

When I uploaded the image, I selected the appropriate licensing (Software screenshot (non-free)) and supplied suitable information for all the fields in the non-free use rationale. This is all that the upload dialogue prompts a user to provide, and is all that's been necessary in the past. If additional templates are required, presumably the interface needs to prompt users about this during the upload process. Thanks Huwmanbeing ☀★ 15:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

For some reason the proper license tag was missing ({{Non-free game screenshot}} in this case). Maybe some error occurred while uploading the file? Regards, →Nagy 15:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Image for use on wikipedia alone

What is the appropriate licence to note on an image for use on wikipedia alone. ive uploaded an image and i do not want anyone else to use it bar for its intended use on wikipedia please notify me on my talk page, until then i will list the licence as attribution. Weeman com (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• We don't accept images as permission to use on Wikipedia. Either they are freely licensed or they are not. If not, they must be used under terms of fair use here. Permission to use is meaningless to us. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Book covers based on public domain pictures

Can I use this picture for illustrating the article about Intercollegiate Studies Institute? It is a collage of book covers. The Student's Guides to the major disciplines have covers based on pictures that are now in the public domain, but the publisher has added a box with the title and author name on each book, so I wonder how that impacts the issue. Which license should I use, if I can use it? --Jonund (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That'd count as fair use to demonstrate the article topic... the addition of titles and design of covers gives a new copyright for the cover art even though the illustrations used on them are public domain. So use a book cover fair use license. DreamGuy (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Use of maps in PDF format found on EU web site in article

I am working on creating descriptions of of the European Union Trans-European Transport Networks, which includes 30 different projects. Each project should really have one or more maps associated with it, but the only maps that appear to be available are maps in PDF format from the EU's website. An example of one of these maps is here.

What are my options? Should I create a Map section in each article, and link to the PDF file containing the map? This would look something like this:

Map

Please refer this link for a map of the priority project.

I believe that I cannot upload the map, in any format, to Wikipedia Commons, since they originate from the EU web site. Any help would be appreciated - the maps of these projects are crucial to each article.

Thank you - Concertmusic (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, you cannot upload the map. Linking to it as you described is fine. You also can request at the Graphic lab that someone make you a custom map based on the copyrighted map. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Fun GRB graph

Main page: Wikipedia:Help_desk § Free.2FFair_use.3F

Greetings. I originally posted this question at the above.

I'm currently working on GRB 970228. I would like to use this graph in the article. Should I email the authors of the article? Should I just call it fair use? Or free use? Should I try to recreate the graph myself? Jayron32 suggested that I simply link to the image: I believe it is in a subscription database, so this doesn't work for users without a subscription. Arch dude suggested recreating the graph from the data. The data is not available in the article. Whaddya think? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'd say these graphs are ineligible for copyright (so {{PD-ineligible}}). Any other opinions? →Nagy 12:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say first try to contact the author. Scientists usually are open to licensing stuff like this freely. I cannot view the graph so I cannot comment on whether it is ineligible for copyright, but recreating it in SVG may be beneficial for two reasons. SVG is a superior format for this sort of information and an original graph may avoid copyright infringement. Good luck.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you would either have to get the author to liscence it under GFDL or you would have to recreate it from the source data. See WP:NFC, Unacceptable Use, Images section, Item 10. Graphs and Charts cannot be covered under fair use copying. If you do not have access to the source data, then that only leaves asking the author's permission. That sounds like a reasonable solution. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yarg, alright. I'll email him. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Image for use on Elizabeth Loftus

Under fair use, can I download and use this image on the Elizabeth Loftus page? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No, fair use cannot be claimed because she is still living so it is presumed that a freely licensed replaceable photo can be taken of her. This image is copyright of the university. ww2censor (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Image use fills me with hate. I would have to contact the university and ask them to release it under GFDL then? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Or some other free license, yes. The image use requirements are a derivative of the fact that we are a free content encyclopedia. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for help requesting permission. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Heavily modified video game screenshot

Hello everyone. I took a screenshot of the title screen of a video game, then modified it by removing the game's logo/title and copyright information. Then I replaced the game's logo with the word "Wikipedia" and added a pixelated version of the Wikipedia puzzle globe to the screenshot. So, what's the copyright status of the picture? Is the Wiki-globe copyrighted? I'm going to wait for a response before I upload it. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 10:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Your image is a derivative work of the original and assuming the original was copyrighted it cannot be uploaded onto Wikipedia - unless it meets all the criteria layed out in WP:NFCC. The Wikipedia globe logo is copyrighted - copyright held by the Wikimedia foundation - and its use is subject to restrictions and requires permission. Guest9999 (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to add a notable exception to this would be if the original copyright holder was Ubisoft, who allow derivative works to be created and distributed as long as attribution is given. There would still be a problem with the Wikipedia logo though. Guest9999 (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

License

How do i indicate the image was taken from a book that i have already referenced in my article? Noble Krypton (talk) 11:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noble Krypton (talk • contribs) 11:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Just say that in the image description page. Something like "Image scanned from the book 'Book Name', by Book Author, ISBN whatever." If you link to the image, I can help. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

what is the best copyright tag for this picture

the owner of the copyright to thispicture has sent it to me for free use and I have altered it (cropped it) and sent it back to her for approval and asked her for specific free use aproval and explained what that entails , she will give up all rights to the picture and she has replied, givng her permission. If the image is used anywhere I would like to see atribution to perhaps the person in the picture who is the one giving the work freely also to include no front or back covers. So which tag would best suit my purpose? (Off2riorob (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

The tag used should correspond to the permissions granted by the copyright holder. What exact permission did she give? Algebraist 13:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

free use. (Off2riorob (talk) 13:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

can I post the exact phrase here , without any personal details of course? (Off2riorob (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

I don't see why not. Algebraist 13:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I sent this to her:- Hello *****. Please have a look at the photo and

Thank you for sending the pictures for me . I enjoyed them .

I have been talking to wikipedia and they would like to insert a recent photo of you and I have made this one for you to agree to.

The picture would be free use though and free for anybody to use or to reprint or to do whatever to it , we would be giving it freely .

If you are ok with that I.ll present it to them......to which she replied :_ yes.

That sounds like a release into the public domain. Algebraist 13:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

ok . can I use public domain with attribution? (Off2riorob (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)) I personally think this would be usefull. fair! (Off2riorob (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

perhaps this {{PD-author|name}} (Off2riorob (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

and finally , how can I tidy up the file name to this :- Sheela Birnstiel, also known as Ma Anand Sheela.JPG (Off2riorob (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

My personal opinion is that you should go for a shorter name for the image, like "Sheela Birnstiel.jpg". You can write a thorough description on the description page. decltype (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

ok . I think that is ok. how can I change the image name though? (Off2riorob (talk) 14:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

and what is the source for the picture if the owner sent it to me? (Off2riorob (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

Normally you change the name by deleting it and reuploading it. It looks like you already had the old name deleted. Did you reupload it? You can say "Contributed by the copyright holder" as the source. If you link to it, I can help improve the description, if you'd like. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Raising the Flag outline.png

This image is tagged as licensed under the GFDL, is it not a derivative of this non-free image? Guest9999 (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that it's a derivative image of the non-free one. It should still be tagged GFDL (since the image itself is licensed under the GFDL), but it should also be stated that it's a derivative image, and it should only be used in compliance with our non-free criteria. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Ulas.jpg

File:Ulas.jpg is listed at Creative Commons 3.0 by User:Reverend Dr. Ulas Hayes, who is using the name of the deceased reverend Ulas Hayes. I want to crop it to remove the obviously inappropriate text but does anything think it would be better to rewrite the copyright as an non-free image being used to show what a deceased person looked like? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ordinarily, no, I'd say it's always better to use a free image as a free image. In this case, however, I'm suspicious whether it's really a free image or not. It looks an awful lot like a newspaper scan. Did the uploader "create" the image by scanning a paper and adding colorful text? If so, then it's not really a free image. A Google search doesn't return any hits for this image though. So I don't know. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Minnesota Historical Society images

Mnhs (talk · contribs) has been uploading a number of images from the Minnesota Historical Society under a fair use rationale. Specifically, the images are portraits of Minnesota's governors, but the Minnesota Historical Society has been interested in uploading other content. Mnhs (talk · contribs) has been tagging these images with the fair use rationale at {{Non-free Minnesota Historical Society image}}, and citing their own copyright.

Meanwhile, the bot STBotI (talk · contribs) has been tagging all of these images as being potential copyright violations. I don't know if that's just because STBotI doesn't know that {{Non-free Minnesota Historical Society image}} is a new fair use rationale tag, or if there's some dispute about whether the Society really has the right to upload images in which they claim copyright. This response at User talk:Mnhs asserts that they do indeed intend to upload these images to Wikipedia under an education license and using the non-free use media rationale.

I specifically asked if Mnhs (talk · contribs) represents the Minnesota Historical Society, and they answered that they are indeed representatives of the Society.

Could someone help straighten this situation out? I'm not sure if this is a simple request that I should just make to ST47 (talk · contribs) regarding his bot, or if there's more work to be done to allow the Minnesota Historical Society publish their own work under a non-free content license. Any thoughts? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that that is not a fair use rationale, it is just a copyright tag. Please see WP:FURG. Each image needs an individualized explanation of why it is allowed under policy. The bot is correct in its tagging. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I have corrected that omission and added a fair use rationale to each that I hope will be acceptable. --Mnhs (talk) 07:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like admin PhilKnight (talk · contribs) made the final decision to delete the following Minnesota Governor images:

• File:AlQuieOfficialOil.jpg
• File:Gov Wendell-R-Anderson.jpg
• ArneCarlsonOilOfficial.jpg
• File:JesseVenturaOilOfficial.JPG

for the following reason: (F7: Violates non-free use policy: living subject, therefore replaceable)

I would understand if it was the subject in question is still in the Governors office such as Tim Pawlenty therefore is replaceable by a picture of him in his duties as governor. The previous picture of Jesse Ventura in the Governor's info box was [[File:Jesse Ventura.jpg]] - 6 years after his governorship thus a misleading representation of him as Governor of Minnesota. I can understand the use of this image outside the the Governors infobox in his page but since the Governors box is on his governorship use of that image seems inaccurate. If the only free picture was one of him in tights while in the WWF would that be accurate to place it in the Governors info box?

I still do hold that there were no non-free images for Jesse Ventura or the other governors in question while in office, and since there they are out of office none can be taken of them in their term of governorship at this point so the use non-free images should be acceptable.

What is Wikipedia's policy (and practice) on image use for info boxes?

--Mnhs (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The rules for non-free content are at WP:NFC, and are based on principles decided at the highest level in Wikimedia. I'm not aware of a blanket ban on non-free content on infoboxes as long as it otherwise meets the non-free content rules. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Clouded Leopard cubs

Since the Smithsonian Institution is a body of the US Federal government, can these images be used? The Smithsonian's flickr stream credits Mehgan Murphy as the photographer, a Smithsonian employee. But the Zoo's copyright info has left me a little confused because it's not clear on whether or not she took the photos for work/personal use. APK is ready for the tourists to leave 15:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• General rule; if you're not clear about something, ask the potential copyright holders. In specific, the Smithsonian Institution seems to think it can hold copyright. There's a pretty good chance they are correct. You can conctact RightsManager@si.edu to ask the question and get a direct-from-source answer. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, gracias. APK is ready for the tourists to leave 16:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Fishman, The Public Domain, 4th ed., Nolo, 2008, p. 49:

The Smithsonian Institution is not considered part of the federal government. However, the Smithsonian does receive some funding from the U.S. government and the U.S. government pays some of the people who work there. The Smithsonian regards works created by employees paid by the government to be in the public domain. But the Smithsonian does claim copyright in all works created by employees it pays itself (such workers are called trust fund employees).

— Walloon (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Photograph of Mary Carpenter (1807-1877)

I have found this photograph {http://womensbios.lib.virginia.edu/browse?bibl_id=a034} which is from a book entitled Maids of Honour: Twelve Descriptive Sketches of Single Women Who Have Distinguished Themselves in Philanthropy, Nursing, Poetry, Travel, Science, Prose. With Portraits. London and Edinburgh: Blackwood, 1906. The photograph is entitled From a photograph, by C. Vass Bark and has to have been taken before 1877 when the subject died. Does this qualify as public domain? Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You should be able to use {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} at least. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 01:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Note that this is because of the pre-1923 publication, not because of when it was taken. In general, a photograph taken in 1877 may still be in copyright if the author died after 1939 (?). --NE2 03:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The author was actually C. Voss Bark (Cyrus Herbert Voss-Bark), a well-known Victorian era photographer who died in 1913. — Walloon (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Great find! Now it can be tagged {{PD-old-70}} as well. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

McCombs School Historical Photograph

I'm working revamping the History section of the McCombs School of Business article and curious if I can add this drawing (link) that's found here. Also, would it be possible to still be able to include the drawing with just the rendering of the building on the top half and crop the text below it? Thanks in advance NThomas76207 (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears that this drawing was first published before 1978 without a visible © notice. If that's the case, then the image is in the public domain, and you can upload it and do whatever you want with it. Cropping it should be fine. You'd want to tag it as {{PD-Pre1978}}. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 02:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Awesome!!!!!!!!! Thanks Quadell Your great!!!! NThomas76207 (talk) 02:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

– Quadell ^(talk) 13:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Rugby Club Logo

Hi,

I'd like to update a logo for Bolton Rugby Club, however I'm unsure as to the type of license it would be uploaded against. The logo is in use on various club websites now, and the club have consented to its use on wikipedia, however the different licenses etc are confusing and I would like some advice about which is most applicable.

The logo can be seen on both club websites here www.clubs.rfu.com/clubs/portals/bolton/ and here www.pitchero.com/clubs/bolton

Thanks for your help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zap48uk (talk • contribs) 08:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Consent to use on Wikipedia, is in fact, not a factor in whether something can be used on Wikipedia. It either has to be free content for anyone to use, or used under the restrictive non-free criteria. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Most of the time, non-free logos can be used under our non-free content policy, even if you don't get permission. You would use {{Logo fur}}. A good example is at File:UCD Crest.jpg. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

USA law etc

Why should we adjust to the copyright law in the USA if we live elsewhere? USA is not the centre of the Earth you know and not everybody has to obey its laws. Norum (talk) 08:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Could it be related to the fact Wikipedia is hosted in the USA? If that doesn't answer your question, maybe you need to be more specific. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 09:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia's servers are hosted in the U.S. Legally speaking, only U.S. copyright law applies. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

But how can it apply to topic not even related to the USA? Norum (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the above replies? Algebraist 14:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The U.S.A. is a signatory to international copyright agreements with almost every country on earth. The copyright violation of a foreign work in the U.S. can subject the violator to legal action in U.S. courts. — Walloon (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It's more complicated than that. The URAA (the primary treaty that the U.S. is involved in) doesn't necessarily mean that the U.S. considers a work copyrighted if another country does. There are plenty of works considered PD in the U.S. but considered copyrighted elsewhere, and vice versa. See Wikipedia:Public domain. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

But notice that I did not say that the U.S. necessarily considers a work copyrighted if another country does. Re-read what I wrote. — Walloon (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You were completely correct. I was just expanding on it, so as not to give readers the wrong idea. :) – Quadell ^(talk) 18:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Photo for musician biography

I have a photo that I would like to add to the page for musician Beverley Mahood. The picture is from her own entertainment company. I understand this is a biography of a living person and this image may not qualify as free content, but I'm a little confused by all the copyright information I'm looking at. To have this image be allowed, what copyright does it need?

Thanks. SDawley (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• It needs no copyright. It needs to be available under a free license such as CC-BY-SA. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
• We can only use "free" images, meaning images that have been released under a "free" license allowing anyone to use them and modify them, even commercially. I you want to ask the copyright holder for permission, some helpful tips are at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Non-free use media rationale on free software screenshot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Editwar.png

Does this image really requires a Fair use rationale even though its a free software or its just because of the logos? I don't think the logos are relevant to the commentary in the article… What if the wikipedia/wikimedia logos are cropped out - would a fair use rationale still be required? —Zener 17:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

From what I can see, if the logos are cropped out then you could release it under a free license. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

copyright tag

Could you please explain what copyright tag means? What exactly should I do to ensure the photos are not deleted? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemmabond (talk • contribs) 17:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry that nobody has replied to your question until now. A "copyright tag" is a template used to show what right Wikipedia has to use media. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Most media must be licensed under a free license (see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#For image creators for content you create yourself or Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses for free content created by someone else) or be in the public domain (see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Public domain for a list). Non-free content tags are listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free; the use of non-free content is highly restricted on Wikipedia. —teb728 t c 23:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sri Vikrama Rajasinha

Dear Staff,

I uploaded a cropped photograph of Sri Vikrama Rajasinha in 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sri_Vikrama_Rajasinha.jpg), but was not aware that the default copyright setting unconditionally released the image to the general public. This was only brought to my attention a few days ago. nce I realised I attempted to upload an enhanced version of the image, but the "drop down" menu mentioned in the instructions never appeared and I was never able to specify the copyright conditions to the one displayed below (I faced this problem during my initial upload in 2007). The images (original & enhanced) should be sourced to "Vivek Rajan", I would greatly appreciate your assistance in clearing up this matter.

Thanks.

Licensing: {{self|cc-by-3.0}}

I have fixed this for you. Would you prefer the original version of the image here, or the crisper version here be used? – Quadell ^(talk) 13:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Quadell. I think the crisper one would be better, I accidently reverted to the old one without intending to and when I tried to change it to the crisper one I ended up making duplicate copies of the image (as you've guessed, modifying images isn't my forte). I would grealy apprecite it if you could also delete the duplicates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivecius (talk • contribs) 14:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It's all taken care of. If there's anything else you need, let me know. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

World Digital Library

In view of the news reports today on the BBC and elsewhere, I think it's worth pointing out that while access to the WDL and viewing its content may be free of charge, the content is still subject to the original contributor's licensing terms, per the WDL's Legal notices page: Content found on the WDL Web site is contributed by WDL partners. Copyright questions about partner content should be directed to that partner. When publishing or otherwise distributing materials found in a WDL partner's collections, the researcher has the obligation to determine and satisfy domestic and international copyright law or other use restrictions.

Is it worth adding this to any relevant FAQ on Wikipedia copyright issues, free use etc? – ukexpat (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what a fantastic resource! It looks to me like the vast majority of material there will be PD, but not all of it. We have to examine each image on its merits, just like we do for Library of Congress images or anything else. I don't think it deserves a separate mention on policy pages, unless the misperception becomes obviously widespread. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

uploading photos that I have taken

your wiki upload page for photos is as confusing as they come for those who are not attorneys. For images created by me and images taken by me from my camera. Please indicate why an image I took with my camera of a building can not be used and if it can be used please have someone design the upload form so a 7 yr old can use it (in this case maybe it's better to design it so a 70 yr old can understand) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberclops (talk • contribs) 17:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• I think it worth noting that how we upload and tag files is in large part a direct consequence of copyright law, over which we have no control. You can tag images you upload with the {{cc-by-sa}} template. See Template:cc-by-sa. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If it's entirely your own work, you may find it's easier and helps the project more if you upload it at Wikimedia Commons. Files at Commons can be used just like they were uploaded on Wikipedia. What you seem to be missing is an image license. If you want attribution(people required to credit you as the author), use the CreativeCommons-Attribution license, if you don't even want that, you can release it into the public domain. Then there are licenses like the CreativeCommons-Attribution-ShareAlike license, GNU Free Documentation license, or Free Art License, if you believe that people who reuse your work should have to release their derivative work under the same license. Any of these license can be selected from the licensing drop down box at Wikimedia Commons. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

AmerMcCain Classic

I created this image in my photoshop and it's protected under the law as humor... I'm a little confused as to how to do things since wiki does not outline that specific way of use and how to post it. please explain to me how to upload the image properly and please be detailed because I'm an idiot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberclops (talk • contribs) 17:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

What is this image? What encyclopedic purpose will it serve? Algebraist 17:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If it's humor, presumably that mean it's a copyrighted image modified for some purpose. As such the legal claim you'd be making -- if it were accurate, which I wouldn't know without seeing it -- would be fair use for parody. On the other hand, if it is created by you (as compared to some famous parody omewhere that got mainstream news coverage) then it's likely not encyclopedic and would have no reason to be uploaded here at all, parody or no parody. DreamGuy (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Clamp

I want to use this image located on this page to illustrate a group of artists named Clamp on the Clamp article. Although it is a picture of a living person, the group avoids making any sort of public appearances of any kind. I believe so far, as a group all together, they have made a total of two such appearances. The second was at Anime Explo 2006 in which they only allowed two posed photo-shoot sessions, and the picture I want to use is during that time. The first time was in a Japanese magazine which I have not been able to find an record of so far. So in this case, would I be able to use the picture, or would I have to write a formal request to the copyright holder if he or she would release the image under the GFDL liscence? AngelFire3423 (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That website does not have any statement or term of use that specifically releases copyright or licenses it under any terms acceptable to Wikipedia, so you will have to ask the copyright holder to release it either under the GFDL or by e-mail to OTRS as set out at WP:IOWN. – ukexpat (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid we cannot accept a non-free image of the artists, since they are alive and could be photographed, even if it would be extremely difficult to do so. I have written an e-mail to the creator of the website and the webmaster, to request permission to use the image under a free license. I based my letter on the recommendations found here.

Text of the e-mail

To: John (Phoenix) Brown, or webmaster Subject: Clamp (manga artists) article on Wikipedia I am an editor for the free encyclopedia Wikipedia. I am presently working on improving an article related to Clamp, the group of manga artists, which currently contains no freely-licensed photo. I think your photo at http://www.phoenixanime.com/ax06/P7012860_edited-1.jpg would look great in the article. Your credit will be attached to the photo, along with a link back to phoenixanime.com or other website of your choice. The Wikipedia article in question can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clamp_(manga_artists). Wikipedia accepts only freely-licensed pictures; if you would like to contribute one under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (found below), please reply to this message with the following statement: "I own the copyright to the image found at http://www.phoenixanime.com/ax06/P7012860_edited-1.jpg. I grant permission to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License v.2.0: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" Thank you for your time. Wikipedia is currently the 9th most-visited website in the world - by contributing this photo, you'll both be helping us and giving a wider audience exposure to your work. With respect, (my real name) (my e-mail address) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Quadell +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Wikipedia's image use policy +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/) is a free encyclopedia that is collaboratively edited by volunteers from around the world. Our goal is to create a comprehensive knowledge base that may be freely distributed and available at no charge. I ask permission for material to be used under the terms of the Creative Commons License. This means that although you retain the copyright and authorship of your own work, you are granting permission for all others (not just Wikipedia) to share, copy, distribute, remix, and adapt the work -- and even potentially use them commercially -- so long as they attribute the work in the manner specified by you (but not in any way that suggests that you endorse the use of the work). You can read this license in full at: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ This license expressly protects creators from being considered responsible for modifications made by others, while ensuring that creators are credited for their work. There is more information on our copyright policy at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights I choose the Creative Commons license because I consider it the best available tool for ensuring your work can remain free for all to use, while providing you credit. This may or may not be compatible with your goals in creating the materials available on your website. Please be assured that if permission is not granted, your materials will not be used at Wikipedia -- we have a very strict policy against copyright violations. We also accept licensing under other free-content licenses. With your permission, we will credit you for your work in the image's permanent description page, noting that it is your work and is used with your permission, and we will provide a link back to your website. We invite your collaboration in writing and editing articles on this subject and any others that might interest you. Please see the following article for more information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Welcome,_newcomers +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ End Wikipedia's image use policy ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If he replies, I will let you know. Best of luck, – Quadell ^(talk) 18:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah... I also emailed him because of the prompt reply from Ukexpat. Should I email him to tell him not to reply to my email?

EDIT: Especially since my does not include Wikipedia's image policy.

AngelFire3423 (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Nah, let's just wait and see what happens. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, Quadell, that email is terribly confused between GFDL and CC.... Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It refers to the cc-by-2.0 license. I believe it says GFDL in a single instance when it meant CC. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done The copyright holder e-mailed back with permission to license the image under cc-by-2.0. Yay! I have included File:Clamp at Anime Expo 2006.jpg in Clamp (manga artists). – Quadell ^(talk) 13:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Historic society website and university website pics

I have been trying to understand the copyright criteria for some time and it seems a lot is debated. I have several historic photos I'd like to use on wikipedia primarily from two websites. Here are examples from each:

Historical Society Website
City & Public University Partnership Website

I have tried emailing both websites for permission to no avail (maybe no reply was my answer). Are these old enough that I don't need permission? Does the second website being from a public university give me any room for fair use? Beantwo (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any more information? I couldn't even find a publication date or creation date. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Not really sorry. I just tried email again for them a second time. It's been about a year or so since I last asked. The historical society (first above) email address was a .gov email and the boisestate one (second above) is an .edu address for what it might be worth. I doubt if the people even know whether they're fair use or not because the photographers are hard to track down after so many years. Beantwo (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

For the first site I found this on another page but it seems to say it is fair use AND they need to be contacted? Or is that if you need a physical copy I am supposed to contact them? Beantwo (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I found some information, you still need to do some digging. For the first one, the credited photographer, Bob Lorimer, died in 1975, it's possible {{PD-Pre1978}} applies. You still need to do some research because that has pretty specific conditions.

For the second one, it's linked from http://www.idahohistory.net/sigler12.html which says published in 1933. It's possible that either {{PD-Pre1964}} or {{PD-Pre1978}} apply. Again, you need to do the research to check if either applies. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 03:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice. I'll keep diggin. Thanks for looking! Beantwo (talk) 03:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that site's copyright policy is basically just a disclaimer. It doesn't tell you anything useful; you have to look at each image on its own. Your best bet, as Rat says, is to show that (a) it was first published before 1978 without a ©, or (b) it was first published before 1963 and the photographer never filed a copyright renewal with the U.S. copyright office. For (b) you can use this U.S. copyright office search to look for renewals for works first published between 1950 and 1963. To search for photos first published earlier, you'll have to plow through this text-dump of copyright records. – Quadell ^(talk) 03:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Rat at WikiFur found both photos on one of the sites apparently taken by the same Lorimer person. The historical society places a stamp on their photos as seen in the differences of this and this. Does their stamp change the photo enough that they can claim it? Would a yearbook be copyrighted during that time period? Also, Lorimer, Bob or Robert returned nothing on either of the copyright sites you gave so I hope that's a good sign! Thanks for your help as well! Beantwo (talk) 03:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., adding a stamp to a public domain image doesn't give copyright control over the image itself. Of course the affected area should be removed (cropped or Photoshopped out). DreamGuy (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Quadell, I think you mean "first published before 1964", not 1963. If it's any help, I just examined the 1931 edition of the Boise High School Yearbook. It did carry a copyright notice ("Copyright 1930"), which suggests that the 1933 edition probably did too (Copyright 1932?). However, it was copyrighted to the two editors of the yearbook, which may make a renewal notice hard to find: renewal registrations are listed in alphabetical order by the author's name, not the title of the book. Contact the high school and ask if they could relay to you what the copyright notice says in the 1933 edition. — Walloon (talk) 06:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I did mean before 1964, good catch. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

E-mail
Wednesday, April 22, 2009 9:22 am This is a photo from the Sigler collection at the Idaho State Historical Society. I am always reluctant to comment on what is "fair use." It depends on so many factors, and especially on whether or not the reprint is used for commerce. But, having said that, I believe the photo is in the public domain. I assume it is from the 1920s. T

I got an email but it tells me about as much as that site's copyright policy. "Sigler" nor "Lorimer" return photographic copyrights in either of the databases given above but I think they only go back to the mid 70s requiring a fee for searches before that. Would a copyright in 1933 have lasted a specific amount of years (e.g. 50) that if renewed should show in that database? Beantwo (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, 28 years specifically. If it was registered in 1933, it would have had to have been renewed sometime during the calendar year 1961. (See User:Quadell/copyright.) Of course we don't know exactly when it was registered, so you'll need to look for renewals from 1960 through 1962. You can search this for free at this page; I did, and found no entries for Bob Lorimer or Sigler. I think we can confirm that these are {{PD-Pre1964}}, and leave a detailed note at the image about how you determined the copyright (if ever registered at all) was not renewed. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll use the {{PD-Pre1964}} template using the non-stamped photo from the second site and this from Sigler as well. This shouldn't need anything b/c of the date. I'll be sure to detail in the Wikipedia photo upload that no renewal was found. The parade photo from Lorimer although neat probably wouldn't show much. Thanks to Quadell, Walloon, Rat at WikiFur & DreamGuy! Beantwo (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Issues

I am trying to edit the history information on the entry for Ingram Barge Company. However, I am being told that "The recent edit you made has been reverted, as it appears to have added copyrighted material from the copyright holder."

I work for Ingram Barge Company and I have been asked to use the same information from our website to update our Wikipedia entry. So my question is this - is there some way to use the same text, but maybe add a disclaimer saying that the information is from our website or that it can also be found on our website? Would that work? 72.237.175.66 (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest; not saying there's anything wrong with your edits, just that you should be aware of our guidelines. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Also note that permission to use on Wikipedia does not matter. The text added must be released under a free license, else we can't use it. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

File Upload

I have a file for reference for a wiki and i have no idea how to make it work within the rules of wikipedia. The file I uploaded was auto-deleted and I can't figure out what category it should fall under or how to correctly document. Here are the main points:

• It's a pdf of a hospital newsletter released by their public relations department
• There is no copyright but I called their public relations contact (contact info for the individual is right in the document) and asked permission anyway and it was of course given.
• I supplied all the contact info and the scenario in the description of the upload. It was not good enough.

This newsletter is not private by any means to begin with, so how do I make this work? Thanks in advance for any advice. Wace96 (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for coming here and asking. There are a couple problems here. Normally, there's no use for PDFs on Wikipedia. Images should be in .png or .jpg format, so that articles can use them. Then there's the issue of copyright. All new works are copyrighted, whether the author knows it or not. Is the PDF available online? Could you link to it, so I can see what you're referring to? Also, what article are you hoping to use the image in? Thanks, – Quadell ^(talk) 22:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If the PDF is available online and you want to use it as a reference (as opposed to including an image of the document in the article), it's probably better just to link to the PDF in a reference. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Images on websites

On some websites, it's impossible to copy images. Meaning, if you right-click on it, a message saying that you can't copy that picture without their permission shows on screen. Sometimes, nothing happens at all when you right click.

If such pictures on certain sites are really copyrighted, then why don't they apply this function? Why do they leave their images enabled to be copied by net surfers? 210.4.121.180 (talk) 03:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

One reason might be that this function does not work. It is impossible to have an image visible on a website and not downloadable. All that can be done is to make it slightly more difficult and annoying. Algebraist 03:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Disabling JavaScript will trivially prevent the message and all of these copy-prevention tricks. Like most other copy-prevention tools, it inconveniences casual users but does nothing whatsoever to stop serious pirates. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• It's important to understand that all creative works are copyrighted now, regardless of how much the rights holder chooses to protect those rights or not. Just because you CAN steal something doesn't mean the owner wants to have it stolen. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. The original argument seems to be along the lines of "If the bike is really owned by someone they should have locked it up, and if it's not locked up I should be able to take it," which is just nonsense. Every bike has an owner. Every image on a website has an owner too (except in rare situations where the underlying image is public domain, but you have to know what you're doing to figure that out). DreamGuy (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Kind of. Since images aren't rivalrous goods, the comparison with a bike is a bit out. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That's got nothing to do with the conversation. Is that just pedantry for its own sake, or do you honestly think images being nonrivalrous somehow makes a difference in how we should respond to the original question? DreamGuy (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Chill. He's just saying copyright law isn't the same as property law. (For instance, I can't borrow your bike without permission under a "fair use" argument.) Your point about breaking the law whenever you can is well taken. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if I had said someone could take a bike under fair use then his comment might have made sense. DreamGuy (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Re File:EdwardLabkovsky.jpg

Re File:EdwardLabkovsky.jpg. I have received notice that this image and its usage in the article Alexandrov Ensemble soloists are not sufficiently tagged for copyright. I have attempted to do this on the image page File:EdwardLabkovsky.jpg but since the category link still appears red, clearly I am not coding it correctly.

I have not yet started tagging the article Alexandrov Ensemble soloists as required, but will attempt to do so. This is the first time I have had to go through this process, and I feel that it is so complicated that I am afraid of making errors. Please would you kindly check what I have done, and either correct it for me if it's an administrative matter, or let me know of any further actions that I should make.

I am well intentioned here, and would like to learn to do this properly for future reference. The article has taken an enormous amount of work and research, and I would rather remove the image than cover the article itself with huge templates (which is what I fear Wiki is asking for?) However I would like to try to solve the problem in an acceptable way without removing the image if possible. Thanks. --Storye book (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for coming here and asking. I believe you are well-intentioned, but there are several difficulties with using this image here. Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, and as such we can only use non-free image under a strict set of criteria. Most non-free images can't be used at all here. I don't believe this image passes our criteria, so I don't think we can use it, no matter how you tag it. Below is my analysis.

First of all, we need to determine whether the image is copyrighted or not. The image description page says "Photograph taken before 1954", but that can't be true, since Labkovsky was born in 1948 and would have been only six at the time. Since the photo was taken (and presumably first published) in the former Soviet Union, the image would still be copyrighted unless the author (photographer) died before 1941, which would be impossible. So the image is copyrighted and non-free, and would have to be used in compliance with our non-free content criteria. The first criterion is that in order to use a non-free image, it must be impossible to create a free image of subject. But since Labkovsy is still alive, it should be possible to photograph him and release that photo under a free license.

In short, it would be best to remove the image from the article and wait for it to be deleted. Sorry to bring bad news, – Quadell ^(talk) 14:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: the above question:

Please notify me of your answer on my talk page. Thank you.--Storye book (talk) 10:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

(Oops -- copying my answer there.) – Quadell ^(talk) 14:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The image on Anunnaki page

Transferring comments on the talk page to here:

is there any way to prove the image on this page is authentic? Where is this artifact on display. I used tineye (reverse image search)on the image and it shows up on 12 conspiracy theory type web sites, but nowhere like an anthropology dept of a university or a museum. prove it or lose it I say.72.195.136.189 (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

A very good question. Looking at the file, it says the image was uploaded to Wikipedia Commons as a free image due to expired copyright. No other information given. I'd like to ask an image expert on this one. Now I must go find one. Aunt Entropy (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The file is here. Doesn't some sort of origin data need to be included? I find it unlikely that one can just say "copyright expired" without a reason and the image is therefore acceptable. Thoughts? Aunt Entropy (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

In Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. the court ruled that mechanical duplications of 2-D works of art do not create additional copyrights. So if I find a scan of an 18th century painting, I can use it as public domain without having to credit the person who scanned it. However, a photo of a statue is different, Bridgeman also ruled that creative decisions such as lighting, posing, or angle selection can create a new copyright for the photograph. So if I find a photo of a sculpture, I still have to get permission from the photographer to use it. This case seems inbetween. It's not quite a 2-D work, and not quite a 3-D work either. You could argue that it's a mechanical reproduction of a public domain work of art... or you could argue that it's a creative photograph with shadows and angles chosen by the photographer. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd personally go on the side of caution and rule it 3-D... but there are photos of images of this topic that would be public domain by now, so knowing a source would be helpful. DreamGuy (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, I agree. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Anunnaki are just a term for Sumerian deities in general. The image in question is famous, but primarily depicts a worshipper in a costume. The image was used in pseudoscientific works to try to argue that the Sumerian gods were aliens, because a set of figures in that symbol in the sky could be aliens "cuz that sort of looks like a flying saucer, dunnit? Woooo." Use of the photo in such a way is kind of POVvy for that reason. Most of the image is non-Anunnaki, and it's not representative on the Anunnaki as well as other images could be. My guess is that the scan came from a pseudoscience book originally. I'm working on fixing the screwed up articles and seeing if I can find a better image. DreamGuy (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Turkish banknotes

An image of a Turkish banknote was added to our article on Rumi (link). The Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey guidance for banknote reproduction is a link to the Announcement on the Reproduction and Publication of Illustrations and Images of Banknotes (Announced in Official Gazette dated 24/2/2004 no: 25383, pages: 86-89; Amended and announced in Official Gazette dated 13/10/2004, no: 25612, page 48). Note the 5th criterion mentioned ("In reproductions in electronic form...").

Considering Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images, can we use images of Turkish banknotes in articles other than "Turkish lira" ? Moreover, can we use at all images without the “ÖRNEKTİR GEÇMEZ” or “SPECIMEN” expression printed on them ? - Thank you already. Ev (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm no expert in Turkish copyright law, but from what I can see, all works (including government works) are copyrighted for 70 years after the death of the creator. There may be some law that makes Turkish banknotes ineligible for copyright, but I don't know about it, and it isn't mentioned on any of the relevant en.wiki or Commons copyright pages. It's tagged as free, so it looks like a copyvio to me. However, if it's a copyvio, it's a copyvio on Commons, not here. And Commons does seem to have a lot of Turkish banknote images. I'm not sure how our policy deals with images tagged as free on Commons, but which may or may not be actually free. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Software program

I am creating a software program that will, as one aspect of the program, have a wikipedia link to a topic. I will be selling this program for a low price. Are there any copyright issues? I will be mentioning the this is a link to a wikipedia article.

Thanks—Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.49.7.137 (talk • contribs)

I don't think there is any issue linking to Wikipedia from a commercial product. Reusing Wikipedia content is a different matter. – ukexpat (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There's no problem with this. Good luck with your product. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for File:Falcon9 verticalonpad1 highres.jpg

... Reason for uploading this file was raised by problem with another file. I don's need this file in fact. But if you take a look at Falcon 9 article you'll find the file File:20080111 nightbacklit.jpg in the upper right corner. It's shown there properly. As there is not corresponding article in russian i've decided to write it but this image doesn't show itself. I don't see work around. Please describe me this way. TIA.--Beaber (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Since this is a non-free image, we can't share that image between the two languages, because Wikimedia Commons does not allow non-free image. The Russia Wikipedia does allow non-free images, so long as they are used according to the guideline at ru:Википедия:Добросовестное использование. You'll have to download the image to your hard-drive, and the upload it to the Russian Wikipedia. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 23:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

With the same name? Correct me if i'm wrong. Thanks.--Beaber (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Either with the same name or a different name. Either is fine. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

What's the tag?

I know that by statutory law and by case law all laws, resolutions, etc. passed by state legislatures in the USA are public domain. What's a proper copyright tag for such an image? File:2009HawaiiShenYunProclamation.jpg is currently marked as fair use, but it needs such a tag. Nyttend (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure this image actually belongs on Wikipedia. What article were you thinking of using it in? – Quadell ^(talk) 16:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I came across it while deleting non-free images that had been orphaned for several days. I don't quite know what it is, other than some resolution of the Hawaii legislature. It could go to Commons, I suppose. Perhaps we could ask the uploader about it? Nyttend (talk) 06:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

confused about fair use for magazines and books

i recently uploaded covers of books and magazines to illustrate the articles on those books. i got warnings that i didnt document them fully. i understand adding copyright tag, fair use tag, templates for fair use, etc. but i dont understand what im missing? CAN i simply scan a book cover and upload it? do i need to say its a scan of a privately owned copy? or do i need to get the image from an online source? heres the files (some i attempted to fix): File:Aquarianconspiracy.jpg File:Waysofseeingcvr.jpg File:Animalfamilycvr.jpg File:Coneyislandmind.jpg File:Sleepingflamecvr.jpgMercurywoodrose (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you got it right in File:Aquarianconspiracy.jpg and File:Waysofseeingcvr.jpg --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I think i see what you are saying. those are the ones i tried to fix myself, so it was easier than i thought. i fixed the rest. thanks. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Question about copyright of e-mailed images

If someone e-mails you an image/photograph, and they do not specifically say that the image is copyrighted and not to reproduce it, are you free to use that image as you'd like? For instance, would you be able to post it on a blog as long as you give credit to the owner (say who it came from)? ElentariAchaea (talk) 23:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It has a copyright on it automatically whether they specifically say so or not. If you want to use it you should get explicit permission to do so... and you need to make sure that the person you ask is the copyright owner, as if it was just forwarded on from elsewhere you'd need to ask the original person. The rules is, if in doubt, don't use it. DreamGuy (talk) 00:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Photograph of a book -- Chinese-printed 1972 Little Red Book

Hi all: question: I own a nice 1972 edition, printed in Beijing, of the Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong (the "Little Red Book"). Can I photograph it for the article? I'm unclear on 1) if a photograph of a book is copyright; 2) if something printed in the PRC is copyright. If there's any issues I just won't do it, but I'm curious. (I don't upload fair-use -- free only.) There actually isn't any copyright notice in it: except for "WORKERS OF ALL COUNTRIES UNITE" and "Printed in the People's Republic of China," there is nothing in the front matter. Thanks for any help, Antandrus (talk) 02:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It has a copyright on it automatically whether they specifically say so or not. If you want to use it you should get explicit permission to do so... and you need to make sure that the person you ask is the copyright owner, as if it was just forwarded on from elsewhere you'd need to ask the original person. The rules is, if in doubt, don't use it. DreamGuy (talk) 00:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Just for the record, I did not post this here. That was my answer to the question above. It looks like it accidentally got pasted here later by someone else. My comments on automatic copyright apply to modern images made in most countries. I am not familiar with Chinese copyright laws of 1972 and cannot comment authoritatively. It may or may not be copyrighted depending upon what laws were in effect there at the time... some older laws explicitly required copyright notices in order to be covered. DreamGuy (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's a photograph of a book (in this case a set of books), on Commons, which is GFDL. What's the difference? All I want to do is take a picture of a book.

If you have never seen one, what is unusual about the "Little Red Book" is its size, shape, color, and general appearance. Antandrus (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The image shouldn't be on Commons, since it's not a free image. The design of the book -- its size, shape, color, and general appearance -- are creative choices and are therefore copyrighted. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The photo of those books you linked to above is fine, as the caption says it's the second edition of those books, which was made in 1900, so any copyright on the book -- interior or exterior -- would have expired long ago. Being in public domain, the person who took the photo can do with it whatever they want, and they choose to license it through the Commons. The book you're asking about is much more recent. We'd need to verify whether it is under copyright or not. DreamGuy (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've looked into it... Based upon our article on the topic and some miscellaneous pages out there, copyright laws were not specifically enacted in China until 1990, although they became part of WIPO in 1980, which might have possibly automatically enabled some rules then. Either way a 1972 edition of a book published there, provided there was no pre-existing work in another country that would be under copyright elsewhere (doubtful under the circumstances described), would be public domain. In any case if your desire is to take a photo of the outside design, that would have been brand new at that time even if there had been an earlier copy, so as far as I can tell you are free and clear to photograph this and upload it to Commons under your own licensing. DreamGuy (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that's accurate. Commons:Commons:Copyright says "Article 59 has restored copyright. The same thing has also been written in Article 55 of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China dated 1990... One should not simply assume that works made in China before the 1990 laws are in the public domain." According to our {{PD-China}}, "All images created or first published... on or after January 1, 1946 in the People's Republic of China... are automatically restricted by United States copyright." – Quadell ^(talk) 18:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't see how such a claim could be correct. It isn't a question of restoring copyright as there wouldn't have been a copyright to restore. US law doesn't generally recognize things that have been in the public domain suddenly being under copyright again, and recent efforts by some to enforce a new copyright on expired works have been explicitly denied by court rulings as incompatible with the basics of copyright law. I'm not sure who wrote the text at the Commons, but without some sort of explicit rationale for it I think that person is in error. I've seen images tags have incorrect information in other cases as well. At best it might have a copyright that the US doesn't officially recognize. We don't recognize a lot of "restored" copyrights in other countries with laws beyond our own.

Of course the use the original poster has in mind for the image would fall squarely into fair use, without a doubt. I'm not sure why he doesn't upload fair use files, but it would solve any potential problem instantly if he'd change his mind. DreamGuy (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You wrote, "US law doesn't generally recognize things that have been in the public domain suddenly being under copyright again." Au contraire: The Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994 restored the U.S. copyrights of innumerable foreign works that had fallen into the public domain in the U.S. but were still under copyright in their countries of origin as of January 1, 1996. If Mao's Little Red Book was under Chinese copyright on that date, it is likewise under U.S. copyright. — Walloon (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

There was a recent Supreme Court ruling that the U.S. couldn't restore copyright on previously PD works in the U.S., but we honor restored copyrights in other countries in accordance with the URAA. Lots of countries -- Germany and Russia spring to mind -- restored copyrights on previously published works, and the U.S. respects those copyrights so long as:

1. the work was never registered in the U.S. in accordance with U.S. formalities, and so had never (until the URAA) had an enforceable copyright claim in the U.S., and
2. the work was considered copyright in its country of origin on March 1, 1996, and
3. the country of origin was a signatory to the Berne Convention or similar treaty, which the PRC was by then.

See URAA for the whole story.

Now as for a fair use claim, we can only use non-free media in accordance with our non-free content criteria, and the Little Red Book article already has a non-free image of the book. Adding a second one would violate NFCC#3. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys. No, I never upload "fair use" (my vow in that regard is on my user page) and wasn't really all that important. I just thought it was a peculiar situation, and wasn't obvious to me when I started to research it. The question came about because a troll accused me of being a "communist" and I wanted to post a picture of the Little Red Book. Oh well, Antandrus (talk) 00:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Mariasela Alvarez Images

I just uploaded two images I found in the internet one in Univision Forum File:Mariasela-Alvarez.jpg and the other File:Missworld Mariasela+Alvarez.jpg Hubpages.com I tag them as fair use. Please help tag with the correctly. I don´t know which tag to use. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 04:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid we can't accept these images. The images are non-free, and we're a free encyclopedia, so we only use free images wherever possible. Hopefully someone will be able to provide a free image of this person. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 04:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The images are available in hundred of articles, forums and blos in the Internet. I have seen pictures of many Models, and actors, like Al Pacino, how were those images uploaded? --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 04:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, so far as Al Pacino is concerned, the infobox photo was apparently taken by the uploader, who released it into the public domain. The use of the 88 Minutes image fails Wikipedia’s policy on non-free content because it does not significantly increase readers’ understanding of the subject; so I have nominated it for deletion; thank you for calling our attention to it. The use of the Godfather image is questionable, but it couldn’t be deleted because it does significantly increase readers’ understanding of The Godfather article. —teb728 t c 08:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The OP commented at FfD that they were concerned about the Pacino infobox image: Judging from the image quality, the uploader’s claim is plausible that he created it himself. If you know otherwise, you should nominate it for deletion on Commons. —teb728 t c 20:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm really not interested in having any image deleted. I just wanted to bring it to the attention of those that patroll new uploads. It's not really worthy to delete just one picture, when there are hundreds with the same problem. I believe that rules should be applied the same. Thanks for your attention. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

File:George M. Zinkhan.jpg

Resolved

 – ukexpat (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Would appreciate someone with a better grasp of Wikipedia policy looking at this one. You will see from the file history that I challenged the free use rationale. The uploader removed the template and updated the rationale. I just don't know enough about the policy nuances to comment further. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The relevant policy, WP:NFCC#1, says, “Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.” The uploader gives a plausible reason why a free equivalent could not be created; so the question is whether a free equivalent is available. —teb728 t c 20:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The person is alive, and will, at some point, inevitably be arrested and paraded through lines of papparazzi. There will, at some point, be a free photograph available. This is not a valid fair use criterion. (I was actually coming here to ask this very question). Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

In the unlikely event one of those papparazzi releases a photo under a free license, or if a non-professional photographer makes a free photo, this non-free photo will have to be replaced. Until he is arrested no free photo could be created. —teb728 t c 00:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo's quote was that if a free photo of the subject could be create, but it would take a hundred years, we still shouldn't use a non-free one now. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

That was my concern. Theoretically a free use photo of this guy could be taken, but is "theoretically" enough to defeat the free use rationale. – ukexpat (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Stifle (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

So...the free use rationale is incorrect and the image should be deleted? – ukexpat (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, unless he is shown to be permanently unavailable (e.g. dead, presumed dead, or serving a life sentence). – Quadell ^(talk) 17:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks for the input and for tagging the image, marking this as resolved. – ukexpat (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Image of singing group

I am currently writing an article about the Mexican singing group, Las Hermanas Montoya. The images I would like to upload are long old publicity photos and I do not believe anyone holds any copyrights to them. They are 50 years old and older. Hatman1960 (talk) 04:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

As I understand Mexican copyright law, an author's economic rights are protected in Mexico for a term consisting on the life of the author plus 100 (!) years. — Walloon (talk) 08:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Walloon is correct. However... has the band broken up? Are the members deceased? There may be ways of using a picture, depending on the situation. – Quadell ^(talk) 11:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Public Company Images/Info

Resolved

 – ukexpat (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I want to post images from Lorex Technology [TSX:LOX] (http://www.lorexcorp.com/Default.aspx?all=true&aid=263) They are a public company but I'm not sure which tag to use for images.

Since I'm here I'll ask this question too... How do I show the company is a public company so I can copy information from their site & post it on wiki?


Kingrattus (talk) 15:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

A "public company" is one whose stock is publicly traded on a stock exchange. The "public" part says nothing about the copyright status of the contents of its website. That website is protected by copyright (see the copyright notice at the bottom) and copying materials from it and pasting them into a Wikipedia article would be a copyright infringement and not permitted on Wikipedia. The only exception would be for the company's logo which would be capable of being used on Wikipedia per WP:LOGO. – ukexpat (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Opps, I totally missunderstood the public thing... I must have missunderstood what someone told me or they were wrong, glad I asked here!

Ok so I can use the logo, well I guess thats a start... Back to taking photos with my personal camera (I suck at indoor photography lol).

Thank you for the information, I greatly appreciate it!

Kingrattus (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, marking as resolved. – ukexpat (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Image Copyright

I have uploaded some images in my article i wrote on AKM, those images were taken from one of the books i used which i have referenced under the summary aspect with the name of the publisher as well in this situation what should i do, since i have been notified the image will be deleted in seven days time.. i seriously need help on this issue.. Noble Krypton (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, those are all tagged as being copyright of some source... just providing a reference to where you got an image alone doesn't mean that the image can stay on our servers. I'm not optimistic there'd be a way for those images to be allowed to be on Wikipedia. DreamGuy (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Greetings. I'm afraid we can't use these images, since the copyright is held by the author of the book, and the author could sue us for using their images without permission. If you feel the images are essential in the article, it looks like you could recreate them using a software tool like PaintShop or Visio. You could ask someone to do this, if you know someone, or you might try asking one of the people at Commons:Commons:Meet our illustrators. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 18:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

copyright of figure from a book

I am writing part of electrophoretic light scattering as Wikipedia article. I like to use many image files which show data, instrument etc.. The part of book, which is in the reference, are written by myself. I will license the figures. The book is thick and heavy to send. Book was publighed before 2000. I lost original manuscrip. Therefore I take photograph of figures and will use for Wikipedia.

The part of my writing is 72 pages. I could take photograph of book contents. and send to Wikipedia if needed. It will be easier to copy a essential part of book and upload.

Give me suggestion how to get copyrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koichi oka (talk • contribs) 18:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

If you wrote and created the work yourself, you do not need to "get copyright". Just upload the images. Stifle (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Use of image for ed purposes

Can I use this image of Henry Hudson's Half Moon for an educational broadcast on May 1?

File:Www.newnetherland.org/images/ship6.jpg

Thank you. Jean McAvoy Education coordinator [address and phone number removed for privacy] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.73.211.90 (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This page is for asking questions about images for use on Wikipedia. We cannot help you with questions about image from other websites for other use. See Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer. Stifle (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Harry Robertson.jpg

This is a publicity photo from the 1950s and I would think it is a fair use image. I am unsure of the correct tag. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I changed the tag to {{Non-free promotional}}. (It certainly isn't PD-US.) —teb728 t c 23:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

So how do we prevent it being deleted? Kittybrewster ☎ 13:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It isn't nominated for deletion. It should be fine. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Photo of myself

I would like to contribute a photo of myself for the article on Feminists for Life. The photo was taken by my son, Victor Goltz. I can ask his permission, but I don't want to bother him if it's not necessary. Since it is a picture of myself, I would assume that I can give permission for you to use it in the article. I am a little reluctant to license it for derivative works, and would like some guidance. The reason is that someone once took this image and dressed it up to make me look like a drag queen, which I very much did not appreciate. Would I need Victor's permission for Wikipedia to use the image, or can I grant permission? Thank you. Pat Goltz Femcofounder (talk) 00:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The photographer is the copyright holder, so you would need your son's permission to either put the photo in the public domain or license it under a free license. If he agrees, one popular choice would be the Creative Commons Attribution license, which means that anyone can reuse the image and create derivatives for any reason, so long as the photographer is credited.

I understand your fears about libelous derivations. Luckily, there are separate "personality laws" that protect that. It is against the law for people to use your likeness in an advertisement, or for libel, without your permission. That's true whether the photo is in the public domain or not -- that's even true if someone else holds the copyright to the photo. So you're safe there.

On the other hand, we can't guarantee that your image will be used in the Feminists for Life article. That would depend on the consensus of editors on the talk page. But you can always upload the image, and see if it's a good idea to use it in the article.

If you'd like help uploading the image and picking a license, let me know. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Having read the article, I see that "Pat Goltz" is mentioned prominently in the "History" section. If this is you, I think it's likely that your photo would be an excellent addition to the article. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a personal opinion, if you're worried about somebody mocking you with the image, don't upload it, anywhere. While, you can sue for libel, generally, at least in the US, you can't sue for being mocked/parodied if your a public figure (which you would pretty much have to be, to justify inclusion of the image). A lot of pretty mean-spirited personal attacks on personal figures, using their likeness, without their consent, have been deemed protected free speach. Of course, this is all unrelated to copyright. --Rob (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Quadell and Rob! I know that the photographer owns the copyright. That always seemed cockeyed to me! I'll ask my son. Yes, the Pat Goltz in the article is me. But this particular image I want to upload has been on the internet since 1998, on my web site, which is high in Google rankings, so putting it here won't make a whole lot of difference with respect to libelous use. That's how that person got it in the first place. In fact, a link to my site might be good because there are some historical documents there. I can update the article with the relevant information, particularly the transcript of my testimony before the US Senate Judiciary Committee back in 1975. http://www.seghea.com/pat/life/senatetestimony.html . Thanks for informing me about the law on personality laws. I will certainly look into that. I don't know that I would still be considered a public figure since I retired from the presidency of FFL in 1977, and haven't done anything of significance publicly since then. Femcofounder (talk) 11:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

hyundai tucson

In wkipedia the hyundai tucson only states a 2009 facelift for this model and in canada a new up to date stereo system and a GPS is fitted. Can someone tell us in Australia when Hyundai will introduce a new model as a facelift or body change they have with the SantaFe. Hyundai Australia will not release this answer. Please let us know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.59.22.91 (talk) 08:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That is obviously not a media copyright question. Perhaps you could get some information at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. But I suspect that if Hyundai Australia cannot give you the answer, nobody can. (You do understand, don't you that this is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia?) —teb728 t c 08:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

File:SeaMonkey-1.0.2-screenshot.png

SeaMonkey is free but Windows XP interface isn't. Should I add a fair use rationale or the rules are lax enough to accept this screenshot as free? The article already has two seamonkey images running on Linux though..—Zener 08:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This actually got discussed on Wikimedia Commons and in wikipedia without a clear resolution. The other problem is that the Wikimedia logo is non-free. So just my opinion: a free image without the questionable parts would be just as informative, so just leave out the questionable image. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 09:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Would it not be possible to crop the image around the window border, and then if necessary blank out (fill with white) the WP logo? But I think this would qualify as fair use because it is new content that uses low resolution Windows GUI elements. You could also argue that the wikipedia logo in the screenshot serves to better identify the page it is rendering, so that one can compare it to a sample from another browser. Seems like it is easy to fix either way. 69.181.218.251 (talk) 04:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

List of population of Canada by years

Resolved

 – ukexpat (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:List of population of Canada by years contains a claim of fair dealing which does not seem appropriate for the GFDL:

Users are forbidden to copy the data and redisseminate them, in an original or modified form, for commercial purposes, without the expressed permission of Statistics Canada.

I don't believe the notice is warranted, but I'd like a second opinion here.

This is a spurious copyright claim. Facts, such as population statistics, are not subject to copyright, either in Canada or in the U.S. Unfortunately this sort of restriction claim on public domain material is very common, but it's 100% unenforceable. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

So the claim here that the data is protected by the Canadian Copyright Act is bogus? – ukexpat (talk) 01:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That's correct. No court of law in Canada or the U.S. would uphold a copyright claim on statistical data. See, for instance, Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks. So we should delete that talk page disclaimer? – ukexpat (talk) 02:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes, since it's misleading. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done – ukexpat (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Derivative work question

Resolved

 – ukexpat (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Because I hate to leave unanswered questions, I'm bringing this here from Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 April 21. I trust if this represents a serious concern, somebody here will know and do something about it. :)

File:Marines_at_Prayer_by_Alex_Raymond.jpg (history · last edit) from [21] - Original image is US Government, our image was copied from another website whose owner (Lewis) scanned and edited the original and claims copyright on the resulting image file. Image file was edited to remove the copyright tag added by Lewis on upload, though the image description credits him as source. Not sure if the Bridgeman v Corel ruling applies, I think so, but seeking copyright expert review. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Since I am unable to satisfy him on the account of "copyright expert review" when it comes to images, I thought to drop it off somewhere better. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The US Copyright Office (Circular 14) says:

To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a new work or must contain a substantial amount of new material.

What changes were made? I don't think Bridgeman v Corel applies, but I also don't expect the copyright claim is valid.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

How did Lewis edit the original? What changes were made? – Quadell ^(talk) 17:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have no details. This is what was posted at CP, and this is all I know. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any claim on the website that the image was manipulated in any way other than the addition of the copyright symbol, which is a common addition from people who do not understand that simply scanning something doesn't give one a copyright.

The original was made by an illustrator doing official business as an employee of the federal government for a publication made by the government. Image would thus be public domain, and any scan of it would not be protected by any new copyright per international law and as confirmed by Bridgeman v. Corel. The fasle copyright tag has already been removed, so anything original to that scan is gone. Throw a public domain tag on it and be done with it. DreamGuy (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy is correct. It is illegal to claim copyright on public domain works, but it happens all the time. The crime carries a maximum penalty of $2000, which is nothing, and it can only be pursued by the USCO, which has never prosecuted for this. So many companies routinely (and wrongly) slap a © down on PD works. This looks like one of those cases. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

ZOMG, are we still arguing about such questions as this? No, Lewis has no copyright over the scan under current US law. The scan fails the Berne test of being a "production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain": it is not a production in any sensible sense of the term (see Bridgeman v Corel). Physchim62 (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If it's PD, shouldn't it be on Commons. – ukexpat (talk) 18:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed: should be on Commons. US Government public domain. Durova^Charge! 18:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't mastered the "move to Commons" tool yet so someone else will have to do that one. – ukexpat (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done – Quadell ^(talk) 19:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, all. I know this would be the place to go. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks also from me. I should have updated the other report, but over a number of days I had basically this discussion with Lewis and I believe he understood the Bridgeman v Corel and US Govt creation PD issues, and he agreed to withdraw his original complaint. Thanks for confirming! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, there you go. :) At least something came out of it: it's all on Commons now. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

GeoVector Logo

I have added the ratioanle for the inclusion of the GeoVector logo File:GeoVector_logo.jpg on Wiki. How do I remove the warning template from the image's page? Thanks, Peter —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterSF49 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You did fine. I removed the deletion notice. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Excessive fair use?

The Roberto Matta biography has seven fair use images, only one of which is discussed in any depth in article text. The work is beautiful, yet it seems ornamental to present so much copyrighted material this way. Durova^Charge! 18:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes it does. One should suffice. I could see two, if the second adds substantially to the understanding of the topic and is duly discussed. But I can't see how a third could be justified. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

copyright tags

how do you add a copyright tag to an image. I uploaded an images - File:Roberts at the 2009 Vanity Fair Oscar Party on Febuary 22, 2009.jpg, File:Roberts at the premiere of Hotel For Dogs in LA on January 15, 2009.jpg, and, File:Robert's in 2009.jpg. I dont know how to add a licensing tag, or copyright information onto it. So could you tell me how to add this information to the image because since I dont have the information my image is going to be deleted on may 7 2009 (im writing this to you on april 29 2009), —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashley92995 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 30 April 2009

All three images are clearly copyright images per the sites they came from and do not have a free license therefore are unacceptable for Wikipedia. ww2censor (talk) 05:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

E-mail required too?

Regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Andrew_Divoff_in_2008.jpg

Why is it necessary for me to send an e-mail when I stated on uploading that I took it and release it with the relevant licenses? I don't see how an e-mail would provide any additional corroborating evidence when the only information supplied with the image is my name.--Lucent (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is not clear whether User:Lucent is Michael Dayah. —teb728 t c 21:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Are you Michael Dayah? – Quadell ^(talk) 21:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I am, as my user page states. Does this allow me to bypass the e-mail?--Lucent (talk) 06:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, so long as you are both the copyright-holder and the uploader, you don't need to do anything further. I've fixed the image. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Find A Grave Image

Is it safe to assume that images submitted to Find a Grave are public domain/freely licensed? In particular, I'm looking at the image of Merle Fainsod here. If it's not a free image, then I think it's fairly obvious fair use, but I'm aiming to take the article to DYK so a free image would be nice. What do you think? Thanks! Cool3 (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't by any means assume that those images are public domain. No photographer given, no source. Why would you suppose they were free? Durova^Charge! 05:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Durova. Find-a-grave is assuming that the image is probably free, and is displaying it under that assumption. If it's actually copyrighted, and the owner complains, Find-a-grave will take down the image. Wikipedia isn't so cavalier; unless an image can be shown to be public-domain, we don't use it. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep deleting my image

Hello, this one image I try to upload always gets deleted. It is a picture of George Fteris (User: Iliada). You always say that the copyright is not known. But George Fteris is my great-grandfather. The picture is from a book, which my great-grandmother wrote. Since she wrote it and the pictures are from her and her family, I don't see why I can't use it. Thank you, --Iliada 22:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to File:Bust.jpg.jpg. Do you have a copy of the book? What was the name of the book, what year was it published, and what was the author's name? (You can find the year of publication on the title page, probably in a copyright notice like &copy 1996 or whatever.) Do you know who the photographer was? These questions can help us figure out more details so we can help you use the image. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)