Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2009/February

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


Is this OK?

At [1] and [2], there are perfect, big images of the towers and enemies, and I don't see any copyrights. I don't know if its OK! Do you know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uber-Awesomeness (talkcontribs) 23:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Surely those are copyrighted images from the game. I see no evidence that the game itself or those images specifically are licensed freely. They would therefore most likely fall under {{Non-free game screenshot}} or {{non-free character}} and would need an accompanying, valid fair use rational. What is your intention for those images? Unfortunately, I'm not sure I can think of any reason to include them, under our fair use guidelines.-Andrew c [talk] 23:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The Purpose is to show the different towers in a game called Harvest: Massive Encounter. The non-free use form takes forever...Uber-Awesomeness (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
As Andrew c said, those images apparently are not under a free license. That means we could use them only under Wikipedia’s highly restrictive non-free content criteria which provide among other things that we use non-free content only if it is essential to understanding an article. Your proposed use surely wouldn’t qualify. —teb728 t c 21:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
There's now a pack of screenshots and other pictures, free for use for these kinds of purposes, available at the homepage [3]Jushmai (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any indication that any of the screenshots is licensed for any kind of reuse. —teb728 t c 23:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
It says that the materials in the pack can be used in relation to the game and/or company (in the usage file), but if this is too unclear then please let me know how we should rephrase it and I'll update the text in the file. Jushmai (talk) 13:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The best thing to do is to state that you are releasing those specific images under the terms of a free license. Take your pick from WP:ICTIC. Thanks for doing this!-Andrew c [talk] 15:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Do not say that you are releasing them unless you own them. Provide instead a link to usage file which Jushmai says exists. And use the license that corresponds to the permission in that file. I cannot find the usage file to tell you what that permission is. —teb728 t c 04:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Correct authorship of original artwork

See here and here. These claim to be the original work of "Plessy V Ferguson", an obvious pseudonym. Surely we need the actual name of a claimed original work. Note that they are found at [4] and [5] as well. I find it implausible in the extreme that these were in fact the original work of "Plessy V. Ferguson". Tb (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I added copyvio tags to both images. -- Hux (talk) 02:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


I'm an educated person, but not in copyright law so I admit complete confusion as to the proper way to use a photograph. My first attempt was deleted, so here I am. I'm attempting to upload a photograph of Malcolm McNab for use in the InfoBox on Malcolm_McNab. The image was sent to me by McNab with the statement, "I do release the publicity picture DSC0167[1].jpg of me as free-for-any-use to you." I uploaded the image with the tag Template:Copyrighted_free_use. Six months later User:OrphanBot flagged it for deletion because it did not specify a source. If someone can tell me in plain English how to get this photo to stick I would be eternally grateful. Thanks - Rwl10267 (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, is he releasing the image for any use at all, as totally free? If so, you want to look at Commons:OTRS, which is the media part of the WMF. The image has to be 100% free in it's licensing for any re-use, including commercial, editing. If the image is only for this part of the Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects, or something similar, check out Wikipedia:OTRS. You'll want to get him ideally to mail in, in either case, with details. It's quite painless. rootology (C)(T) 17:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
To re-enforce what Rootology has said the photographer needs to send the email to, stating their ownership of the image and their intention to publish it under a free license. In your question you say the photographer has said "free-for-any-use to you", however that is not going to fully work as it is not clear if they want their image put into public domain or if they still want to retain copyright on it. It is also not clear in that are allowing Wikipedia, and the world, to freely use it or only "you" - Rwl10267. You can find a sample permission letter here that may work better. I also want to add on that it would be a good idea to read, and use, the {{information}} template explained in the "Mini How-To" guide on uploading images. As long as it is clearly filled out there should be no issues related to "deletion because it did not specify a source". Keep in mind that if the "author" and "source" are not the same as the uploader and if there is not any OTRS ticket number on file it will most likely be tagged with {{di-no permission}}. I also wanted to add on that it should be looked at in a long term way. In other words while the "Mini How-To" suggests that "self made" or your username is good for the "source" or "author" years (or even days) from now if someone decides to use the image in a book, saying the image was taken by "me" and the source was "self made" will not aid with attribution. And if there is not any OTRS on file is will help even less and may lead to the image never being used. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for the detailed answers to my question. Here's the thing, I went through all of this seven months ago and was told at the time that the way to manage the upload was the way I described. I contacted McNab by email, told him what I was doing (adding an InfoBox on his page), and that I needed a pic to complement it. He responded with the statement previously described along with a detailed bio and the pic. He knew exactly how I was going to use it, and was fine with it. He even sent me an email after the InfoBox went live thanking me for the effort. Now perhaps there are more i's and t's to be dotted and crossed in the strictest letter of copyright law, but jeez, my intentions could not have been more clear to McNab. After all, in the context of this specific case, how many ways can "free-for-any-use" be interpreted? Do I really have to grab my arse with both hands to know that it's there? Rwl10267 (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Image from copyrighted text

I have images made from photocopies of pages from a book. I want to use them to illustrate a section in the Culture article that discusses the author's theories. I am not sure whether I legally am allowed to upload them. The book is an English translation of a French book, originally copyrighted 1955. The book itself has been translated into English twice, and one translation was originally published by Atheneum, now by Penguin. The images of course are always the same. I have never uploaded an image to Wikipedia so sorry to be asking what i am sure is a rookie question. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The book is probably still under copyright, which means we could use photocopies only under Wikipedia’s highly restrictive non-free content policy: Among other things, each photocopy would have to be accompanied by substantial critical commentary on the image, and seeing the photocopy would have to be essential to understanding the article. I cannot imagine how you would achieve that. Even leaving the policy aside, what purpose would the photocopies have? If it is just to show that the translation exists, you could say that in text without an image. —teb728 t c 00:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
What is the title of the book? Who is the author? Under French copyright law, if the author was French, and has been dead for more than 70 years, his or her published works are in the public domain. The English translation would be another matter. Was the copyright of the English translation renewed in its 28th year? If not, the translation is in the public domain in the U.S. — Walloon (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The question seems to be about "images" included in the text, rather than the text itself. This needs to be clarified, but, if I understand it correctly, then we need to ascertain what these images are and when they were first published, which may have been somewhere else, before they were included in this particular book. Ty 04:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Photo of Prof. Susanne Schröter

I have uploaded a picture of german anthropologist Prof. Susanne Schröter File:Schroeter mus.jpg |Description=English: Prof. Dr. Susanne Schröter |Source= to Wiki Commons. This file is taken from Susanne Schröter's personal, purely non-commercial homepage. The domain's owner, a friend of Susanne Schröter, can be contacted in case there should be any doubts (however, there is not any copyright on this homepage "" / "" at all). She has explicitly allowed me to use the file for publishing it on Wikipedia. Can I just upload it, or will I need to submit a certain form of evidence? And in case yes, how exactly should that evidence look like, and to whom should I send it? (would an email of the domain owner, or of Susanne Schröter be a way to guarantee that there is no copyright violation?) Thanks a lot! (sorry, I am new here and this is my first attempt of uploading a picture..) Dominik (DominikMMueller)

WP:COPYREQ has the information you need for this. -- Hux (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

How does an image gets copyrighted?

I have this image here Image:Qazim_Dervishi.JPG. This image was on a newspaper together with the person's life. There were no copyright signs or mark and I thought it was in public domain so I scanned it and used it here. Now, I don't want that image to get deleted. What should I do to make that copyrighted and turn it into a free-use media? Felix (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC).

Do you know when or where the picture was originally taken? Also, which newspaper did you scan the image from? (EhJJ)TALK 23:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well,the pitcure was taken in 1924,in Shkoder,Albania. The newspaper where I got it from is Metropol Sport. Felix (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC).

There are two options as I see it. First, if it qualifies, you can use this tag: {{PD-Albania}}. If not, you will need to tag it under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines. (EhJJ)TALK 03:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Smithsonian images

Do the rules making Federal Governement images Public Domain, apply to photographs and art images in Smithsonian collections? The Smithsonian is overseen by the Federal Government on behalf of the American people, but it isn't part of the Government?--Orygun (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The short answer is "no". The longer answer is: photographs taken by employees of the US government in the course of their official duties are in the public domain by default. Other photos that are possessed or managed by the federal government may or may not be in the public domain; it depends on the photo. For example, the Library of Congress has millions of photos in its collection, but a large number of them are still under copyright. The same applies to works held or managed by the Smithsonian. -- Hux (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
So are photos taken by employees of the Smithsonian in the course of their official duties Public Domain?--Orygun (talk) 03:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
If the photos are faithful copies of works in Smithsonian collections, they would be derivative of the original work. —teb728 t c 04:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
How about original scientific or historical work (e.g. photo of rare flower or drawing of archological site) done by Smithsonian employees.--Orygun (talk) 04:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Those would be in the public domain per the description above, provided they were original works. As teb728 implies, if you're talking about, say, a photo of a photo (or other two-dimensional work of art) then any existing copyright on the original photo would apply to the new photo as well, even if the person taking the new photo is a federal employee. -- Hux (talk) 06:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
From The Public Domain by Stephen Fishman (Nolo, 2008), p. 49:
[T]he 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.… The Smithsonian also ordinarily acquires copyright ownership on works created on its behalf by outside independent contractors.
Walloon (talk) 06:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Google as a source??

I came across File:Cincinnatiwiki0.jpg, File:Clevelandwiki0.jpg, and File:Columbuswiki0.jpg. With the current sourcing are these free game to speedy? If so, what template/reason should I use. Thanks again, §hepTalk 02:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

{{nsd}} Megapixie (talk) 02:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I should I have looked in a different spot when I was first searching. First time I've seen {{Di-dw no source}}. Thanks for the help! §hepTalk 03:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Instead of taking another section I figured this would be okay: Do we have an equivalent of {{Personality rights}} here? Thanks. §hepTalk 22:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
No. There is some concern per WP:NDA that have disclaimers incosistently would open us for the potential of a lawsuit. Consider an image has three states - [1. no disclaimer], [2. disclaimer present], [3. no need for a disclaimer]. The lack of a disclaimer doesn't imply the image is in state 3 but someone might infer that given that some images are in state 2. Megapixie (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

In the ASUG article on Wikipedia, in a new section titled "ASUG Events", I have uploaded and linked to an .jpg image of the the Annual Conference logo, but the image does not show up. I provided the appropriate logo tag for the image after uploading it and replaced it a low res version of the image, but the logo is still not displaying in the article. Can you please verify what I am doing wrong or whether there are any outstanding requirements? Thank you, CarinJohns (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The image displays correctly at Americas' SAP Users' Group. You may simply need to refresh your browser to get the latest version of the page. In Firefox: Ctrl+Shift+R. (EhJJ)TALK 21:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


I looked to see what the audio would fit under, but it didn't apply to any. In the non-free, it was only for 30 seconds or under. I am playing the whole song. I looked under other countries, and Greece wasn't included. Do you guys know what the policy is for Greece? What copyright applies? --Iliada (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Iliada

I'm assuming the file is File:Horiata.ogg. Do you know when the song was first released? If the copyright is non-free and is still active then it has to comply with WP:MS. §hepTalk 22:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it PD?

Sorry for my English. Can this image not be copyrighted? The question arose in other language Wikipedia. On of users asserts that this logo can't be copyrighted (i.e. is in public domain) because it consist of simple text only, and doesn't contain any original work. (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, and disagree with whoever placed that warning. Those words cannot be copyrighted under U.S. Copyright law. They can serve as a trademark, but their use here in Wikipedia would not be trademark infringement. Trademark infringement occurs when the words are used to advertise or label a commercial product or service. — Walloon (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Seems most image summaries here need to be modified. §hepTalk 02:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Some should be (e.g. Cosworth, Tyrrell). However, most of those are significantly stylized logos, which would be considered works containing original designs and thus would be copyrighted by default. I'll update the copyright info for those that clearly qualify as {{PD-ineligible}} (or {{PD-textlogo}}). -- Hux (talk) 05:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
In such case, wouldn't this image be PD too (as this one)? As I understand, it consists of a circle and simple arabic text. (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ride Single Cover

The album contains promotional pictures for new singles. The myspace profile is the actual artist, this picture is to promote the new single. Therefore permission is okay to share ot to upload the picture. Hometown Kid (talk) 1:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you're talking about File:Acehoodridesingle.jpg. You need to include a non-free use rationale on the page which actually names the article in which you want to use the image. Stifle (talk) 11:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Images for MOMO (Xenosaga)

I have tagged all of them with a fair use rationale for characters per WP:VG guidelines and addressed the 1 concern listed by the bot which was stating the article for which the fair use rational was being used for.じんない 04:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You should really include more information in the non-free use rationales. See WP:NFURG for more info. Also, here's a good example of a fully completed rationale. -- Hux (talk) 06:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
That's a screenshot template though, not a character image template which doesn't have the same fields, specifically one to cite that it's being used for an article.じんない 03:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
It's all non-free though. Something like
{{Non-free use rationale
| Description       = 
| Source            = 
| Article           = 
| Portion           = 
| Low_resolution    = 
| Purpose           = 
| Replaceability    = 
| other_information = 

or a detailed text rationale as seen at WP:FURE should be used. §hepTalk 05:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Article with six non-free images, need help on deciding how many the article needs

See Wikipedia:Peer review/List of American television episodes with LGBT themes, 1990–1997/archive1. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

List of American television episodes with LGBT themes, 1990–1997 doesn't need any of the images; it would be perfectly understandable without them. I have proposed one of the images for deletion as a test case. —teb728 t c 07:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
The images are used for identification and critical commentary on episodes in which LGBT content became an issue. The various kisses, for instance, all garnered media attention and generated backlash amongst advertisers and the general public. The conversation surrounding inclusion of these images is eerily similar to the discussion of the initial creation/display of the images within the episodes themselves. I had hoped that the intervening ten-plus years might have moved us past these sorts of petty bigotries but I guess it hasn't. Otto4711 (talk) 12:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
The reason why the use of these screenshots is not acceptable in the article has nothing to do with the subject matter. Wikipedia’s non-free content policy strongly discourages all non-free images. See WP:NFCC for the applicable policy. In particular, “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.” Text about how the episodes garnered media attention and generated backlash amongst advertisers and the general public is in the article, and this text is perfectly understandable without using the images. —teb728 t c 04:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Clearly, I disagree. If the purpose of the images was merely to state that the episodes caused controversy, then I would concur that they are not necessary to that purpose. The images are identifying the specific element of the kiss episodes that caused controversy to be generated and it would be very detrimental to the reader's understanding not to be able to see for him- or herself what raised the controversy. Otto4711 (talk) 04:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
This forum is place to ask questions not to debate the answers. We can look to the file deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 4#1991 Beverly Hills 90210.jpg for that. —teb728 t c 05:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I hadn't realized your infallibility in these matters previously. Otto4711 (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Editors on this forum are not infallible. Possibly the closing administrators at Files for deletion are. (At least they have the power to delete files, subject to Deletion review.) —teb728 t c 21:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Photo grah

Photograph of my father taken by a photographer and the picture is my property. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaan2me (talkcontribs) 17:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

In that case the copyright on the photograph is probably owned by the photographer. If he or she is willing to grant a free license on use of the photo, see WP:COPYREQ for how to handle it. The fact that you own a print of the photo doesn't matter. —teb728 t c 21:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Non-free but any non-commercial use of faithful reproductions allowed?

I am looking for a tag for non-free images where the copyright holder allows any non-commercial use for its images, provided they are faithful reproductions (no derivative works allowed). For instance, the company Suncor Energy has this image policy on its website which states:

The photos included in this library may be used and reproduced for non-commercial purposes, provided that the photos are not modified and that Suncor Energy Inc. is credited.

This grants more freedom than usual for Fair Use images (eg. no requirement to have a fair use rationale for every page on wikipedia that uses the image). Is there an image copyright tag that states this? - Gump Stump (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Anything that can't be used commercially is non-free for the purposes of Wikipedia, and the full non-free content rules apply. In particular, you will need to write all those fair use rationales. Algebraist 19:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
So Wikipedia always has the same restrictions to non-free content, whether or not some are required by the copyright holder? If that is the case, would it be desirable to list which restrictions are explicitly required by the copyright holder, for the benefit of anyone who wishes to use a fair-use image outside of Wikipedia? - Gump Stump (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
You might as well. Putting that legal notice (with a link to the source website) on the image description pages ought to do it. Algebraist 19:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks, Algebraist. - Gump Stump (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible copyvio re Wingdings image

I've put my question on the talk page there. (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Interpretive signs

Hello. I'm working on uploading images related to the South Maui Coastal Heritage Corridor and I'm not entirely certain about the copyright status concerning photographs of interpretive signs. I know that many articles use them, but I'm wondering if I need to be extra careful and upload images of the signs on a case by case basis. This is because some of the signs have images and drawings, some of which (but not all) are currently protected by copyright. Does this mean I cannot upload photos of these particular signs to commons? Other signs in the same series use photos and drawings that are not currently protected by copyright (public domain) and don't seem to pose a problem. But in any case, is there a precedent for using images of interpretive signs on Wikipedia? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Self portrait of Madame Labille-Guiard and two pupils

A discussion of this painting is being held on a Revolutionary War clothing group. Going to the link to see the picture, I noticed that Wikipedia says this is in the public domain. Actaully, this painting is in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC. The Met has clearly marked reproduction personal use only. While I do not want to hinder the disemination of art and art history, I hope you folks don't have trouble with the Met over this.

Regards, Jennifer Richard-Morrow

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC) 
I take it you mean this image File:Labille-Guiard, Self-portrait with two pupils.jpg but I don't know where it's being discussed. Regardless, this image is in the public domain as indicated. I have removed your e-mail address to prevent its dissemination to spammers. Regards, (EhJJ)TALK 17:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Novel Covers

Is it a copyright violation if I own a copy of a novel for which a cover image is needed and I take that image myself of my copy? Can I then relinquish rights to that image and use it on Wikipedia? And, related, what Wikipedia policy contians the answer to this question? I've been reading image policies for about an hour now. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  10 October 2015, 15:23 (UTC)

Simply owning a copy of the novel does not give you copyright on its contents or cover, that still lies with the publisher or the cover artist. An exception could be made if the book was old and therefore in the public domain (for example, if published in the US before 1923 see {{pd-us}}). Otherwise, the the cover could conceivably be used under fair use in the article, in which case you would need to tag it with {{Non-free book cover}} and provide a fair-use rationale. ~ mazca t|c 16:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the info. I did not intend to imply that I thought I owned a copyright to the book cover, though in hindsight it should have been apparent to me that taking a picture of the cover, is copying it. In any case, I appreciate the pointer to fair use and {{Non-free book cover}} these pages eluded me in my prior research. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  10 October 2015, 15:23 (UTC)

Pennsylvania topographical maps

Does this statute place the affected documents in the public domain, or give them some less free status? Assuming the former (which appears to me to be the case), is there a better way of tagging this image than what I've done? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That appears to be fine to me. Perhaps consider using the {{PD-because}} tag, as the {{PD-US}} tag lends itself more to expired copyrights. (EhJJ)TALK 21:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure. While the intent was probably to remove all copyright, the law actually only allows the maps to be "copied and distributed", not modified. --NE2 22:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm relying more on the "it is the intent of the General Assembly that publications of the topographic and geologic survey no longer be subject to a statutory copyright requirement". Does "statutory copyright mean something specific, or is it just copyright? If the latter, it seems to me that they're putting it in the public domain. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyright status of works by U.S. state governments

A few minutes ago I ran into an article that the User:CorenSearchBot tagged as copyvio - a biographical page on the website of the Mississippi State Supreme Court. The page was subsequently deleted before I could contest the speedy delete and discuss the issue on the talk page (however that's irrelevant at this point, I discussed with the admin and it can be restored). But for the life of me I cannot find any information whatsoever on the usage policy of works created by state governments in the United States, as opposed to works by the federal government itself, which are under the public domain. Can anyone clarify this? Thanks. §FreeRangeFrog 01:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no policy on the subject; works of state governments are treated the same as any other. And there is no generalization about whether works of state governments are protected by copyright. It depends on the laws of the several states, but most states do copyright their works. If the source site has a copyright notice or usage policy, maybe you could tell from that. —teb728 t c 02:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Being rather ignorant of this I thought perhaps there was a blanket copyright status that applied to all state government works as there is for the federal one. §FreeRangeFrog 02:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

LIFE Photo Gallery (Google)

LIFE magazine now has a photo archive hosted by Google that contains images as far back as the 1860s. While the notice says that not all of the images may have been published, that does not mean they have not all been published. I know about images published in the US prior to 1923, but is it possible for an image to be free after a certain period of time even if it's not published? For instance File:Edmund ruffin.jpg from the National Archives appears to be this photo from 1861; yet the page claims For personal non-commercial use only. Is it possible some of the images have incorrect notices or is that example copyrighted by LIFE and the one we have here doesn't make much sense to me as The Archives has an almost exact duplicate. Thanks. §hepTalk 05:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This question was actually answered earlier this month and has been archived here. The essence is that several of the LIFE images are in the public domain; a pre-1923 published image is in the public domain, as are images whose author is dead for more than 70 years. The File:Edmund ruffin.jpg image would therefore be in the public domain whether the source is NARA or LIFE. ww2censor (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about the redundancy. I guess the next step is to call up someone on the LIFE time at Google and see what can happen to get everything corrected. Thanks for your time, §hepTalk 03:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

fig 4 of PSWG rejected

I uploaded fig 4 on page 31 of 334 of this link [6]. It has been removed recently. I don't understand why. Can someone explain why it has been deleted. See the Bates method article other pictures of the same source are accepted. Seeyou (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You uploaded two pictures, according to your log. One was deleted because it was listed at WP:PUI for seven days and the other was deleted because it was missing source or copyright information. In the future, make sure that you indicate the source and copyright status of any images you upload. Feel free to ask for help again here or on my talk page. Thanks! (EhJJ)TALK 21:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I am surprised you ask: you participated in the discussion here, and it was explained to you what was wrong. The other images are tagged as being published before 1923. If you think that is wrong, you can nominate them for deletion on Commons. —teb728 t c 00:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
The reloaded image is this one [7].
Q Are the tags of this image okay ?
This image of the same source is also published before 1923. It was published in 1920. Seeyou (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Correct uploaded image ?

I just readded an image in the BM method discussion page. Is this image acceptable according the rules, copyrights etc ?

See : File:Fig 4 PSWG 1920.gif Seeyou (talk) 09:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Published pre 1923 and author died more than 70 years ago provides a nice international coverage.Geni 14:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
That said if you have the original might be worth scanning at a higher resolution so the image can be enhanced.Geni 14:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Image Deleted - Barack Obama (comic character) - How To Get It Back If I Don't Have Proper Access


I had an image up on the first article I've ever created on Wikipedia - "Barack Obama (comic character)". As I was editing the article, I noticed "Stifle" had erased the image of The Amazing Spider-Man #583 Variant w/ Barack Obama's image on the cover because "deleted from Wikipedia Commons as they don't support fair use there." If I want to upload a proper image, I needed to "upload the images to Wikipedia."

Though I wasn't happy at first, after some investigation, I realized he was absolutely right, however, and then I ran into my next problem...Only certain people can upload pictures to "Wikipedia."

My Question:

If you want to upload an image to your article, but it can't be uploaded in Wikipedia Commons and has to be uploaded through the normal Wikipedia site because it is a "fair use" image, but you don't have the proper access because you are a new contributor to the site, what do you do in this situation?


Desiree Heberle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desireeu22 (talkcontribs) 06:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

per Wikipedia:Uploading images#How to upload, it believe you should be able to upload files because your account is more than 4 days old and has more than 10 edits. That said, I could have sworn I've seen a page where users can request that someone else upload a photo for them... but for the life of me I cannot find it right now. Anyone know what I'm talking about?-Andrew c [talk] 15:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Found it! Wikipedia:Images for upload.-Andrew c [talk] 15:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Aphex Twin

I'm in a small discussion over the use of non-free album art on the Aphex Twin page. Are the two album covers acceptable there? What about their FURs? Please feel free to respond here (though past discussion was at here and briefly on my own talk page).-Andrew c [talk] 16:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

By convention, it's fine to use an album cover in the infobox of the article about that album, but using it elsewhere is more tricky. As a general rule, if it's being used in a different article then that article (or article section) needs to be specifically discussing the album cover in order for its presence to be justifiable under the non-free content criteria. Its presence also needs to add a level of understanding to the article that the words alone cannot. Unfortunately, neither the Come to Daddy nor Windowlicker covers in the Aphex Twin article meet this standard; they're essentially just decoration, so both should be removed. However, you could definitely make a case for including one of them in the "Artwork" section further down, as an example of what that section is discussing. I hope this helps. :) -- Hux (talk) 05:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Grey Squirrel

I have a photo of a grey squirrel which was taken by my Father that I was hoping to upload. Which kind of license do I need for that? Hugh (talk) 00:02, 09 February 2009 (UTC)

If you father took the photo, then he owns the copyright. Ask him how he feels about other people being able to copy, modify and sell his photograph. If, for example, he doesn't care at all what people do with it, then he could release it into the public domain, and you could tag the image with {{PD-author}}. Algebraist 00:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

New question

I uploaded the following image: File:Alison Rosen Photo.jpg With the owner's permission, I do not have a link for where this image can be found online, what should I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackbrier1 (talkcontribs) 03:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

When was the photo taken and who owns the copyright. Are they prepared to release it under a free licence? ww2censor (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
The person in the photo owns the copyright, I was given permission by her to upload this image to her wikipedia page.Blackbrier1 (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
You are best off to follow the procedure on WP:COPYREQ to confirm the permission given. BTW, the source given in the image description does not show this image, or a link to this image, so seems to be false. Please give the complete proper page URL otherwise it will be deleted. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I have given the proper URL and two links to this image. I've also updated the description of the image.Blackbrier1 (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You tagged the image with a {{GFDL}} license. But according to what you say here that may be wrong. You said the copyright owner gave permission to use the photo on her Wikipedia page, but a GFDL license allows use by anyone anywhere for anything, which is substantially more permission. If the GFDL tag is valid, you need to follow the instructions at WP:COPYREQ. —teb728 t c 22:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I had not seen this before or else I would have joined in. When I found the image it was tagged with {{di-no source}}. I added the actual source - - which indicates it is copyrighted and all rights reserved, removed the {{di-no source}} and added the {{di-no permission}} tag. Blackbrier1 quickly removed it and changed the source to a direct link to the image ( as well as to the blogs gallery (, neither of which provide any {{GFDL}} information, and stated the image was placed on the blog "with the intentions of sharing the photo." I reverted the image page and left a notice on the users talk page that the information on the source page does not indicate any sort of "free use" and to not remove the tag unless the required information was supplied. The user again replaced the source with the the blog information and the "with the intentions of sharing the photo" summary text, but left the tag. So in direct response to the users post above of "I have given the proper URL and two links to this image. I've also updated the description of the image" I will add on that the "proper URL" you gave may be where you copied the image from, but that page gives no copyright or use information. Freely obtained does not mean free to republish and while the photo gallery you give as the source does not contain copyright or use information, the the source URL of the image that is used in the blog, which you have twice removed, does and there is no indication it is for use under the given {{GFDL}}. As indicated on your talk page, and in the {{di-no permission}} tag there is no evidence of permission. As you indicate that the subject, Alison Rosen, is both the photographer (Author) and copyright owner she will need to change the licensing information on the source page and send an email from an address associated with the website to, stating their ownership of the material and their intention to publish it under the given {{GFDL}}. You can find a sample permission letter here. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for character likeness in actors' bios

I was idly looking at the stream of newly uploaded images when I noticed this one. I then noticed that it was added to the actor's biographical page, Werner Klemperer. As I understand it, the likeness of the character (and all trappings thereof) is owned by the people/companies who created the work where the character appears (Hogan's Heroes in this case), and it cannot be used in the actor's page. In essence, the claims for fair use rationale in this case, would be invalid. And in this case it's not even needed, since there seems to be a free-use image already there to begin with. Is this accurate? Just curious. Thanks! §FreeRangeFrog 07:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But I don't think I'm in a majority in doing so. Stifle (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I would kind of agree because of the article on Hogans Heroes, which has a section solely about Klink, I would say it would be better used in that article, which contains none. Because of that I think it is debatable if it is needed in the Werner Klemperer article and I would agree with Stifle. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I decided to move the image to the character's section on the TV show article. §FreeRangeFrog 23:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

What are you doing?

Since i wrote about Dokdo and Sea of Korea, You deleted or Redirect to Sea of Japan, can find contents of Dokdo on Dynasty Books of Korea and documents of Japan.

i upload historical proofs about "Sea of Korea and Dokdo". but, you deleted the articles. and Blocked.

and, you found my upload photos and requested about copyright as like penalty. but, i upload public photos. when i upload i couldn't see step-questions about Licensing, Source URL, Author and copyright.
Like this (Ex.)

  • Filename _________
  • Licensing _________
  • Source URL_________
  • Author _________
  • copyright _________

i saw this

  • Filename _________
  • Summary _________ (author, source, URL...
  • licensing non selected <=== it is very impotant to wiki. but i passed without any questions from Wiki.

didn't select licensing is my mistake. but, passing of non selected is wiki's mistake, look upload page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Openbrain (talkcontribs) 13:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

In looking over your upload log I see images contain no licensing information. They are all tagged with {{di-no source}}, which is also true in some cases. The only image that does, currently, contain a source is File:KD-2 SM-2 in RIMPAC 2004.jpg and that source contains a copyright notice. I have added the {{di-no license}} tag to all the images as well. In the meantime please take a moment to read our policy on copyrights and our "how to guide" on requesting copyright permission. It would also be a good idea to read the about uploading images and the "mini how-to" contained within that guide. As for which tag license tag to use I would suggest reading our Non-free content criteria Policy and the Non-free content guideline. Thank you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this a copyvio?

I was hoping to get some insight into this image, currently being used in the fairly new article, Harlington Wood Jr.. A fairly new editor has tagged as being in violation of #'s 2 and 8, terming it a copyvio. I approached the tagger and provided examples of the same sorts of images used in FA-quality articles (my presumption is that FA article images are fairly well scrutinized for copyvio or other problems). The editor's response was to immediately tag 3 of the 5 examples provided, as well as the remaining image in the article from which he tagged the first image. The removing editor is fairly new (less than 500 edits), and I am trying to suss out his/her reasoning, but I'm not getting anything all that satisfactory at this point. I don't want to suggest a (new) burgeoning NFC#8 problem, but I would like some insight on how to better fit the aforementioned image within our FU criteria. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

We had a long discussion once on tagging FU marked images as copyvios, the result of which was "Can't be done". Period. We have this "magical" policy that says any image tagged with a FUR is exempt from being a copyvio. The only discussion than becomes "does it meet all 10 of the criteria." I see it sourced to UPI so this brings up number 2. Because it does not explicitly say "news agencies" anywhere and because the CSD criteria only cites "stock photo libraries such as Getty Images or Corbis" it is somehow implied that news agency images do not fall under this. (Outside of a current or recent event that is). So that argument, for this image, won't hold up either. It leaves number 8 and it's use in the article - does it "increase readers' understanding of the topic". I am not so sure it does. The wording int he article says the subject was "the first government official to enter Wounded Knee without a military escort" and that "He met with AIM leaders for two hours" and "became ill" I do not see how the image really helps me understand any of that. The image shows the subject standing in outside of what appears to be a house with a Native American holding a gun. I can not look at the image and see he is in a meeting with "AIM leaders". I don't see that he is "ill" nor do I see this as illustrating the subject being the "first government official to enter Wounded Knee without a military escort". Had the article suggested he "was allowed to enter Wounded Knee with an armed escort of residents of the reservation" it might the another story. However the argument being used is "Copyvio from a news source" and that has already been established in past discussion as not a valid argument. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
(No, the issue was whether they could be speedied as copyvios. "Copyvio from a news source" is shorthand for WP:NFCC2, as Damiens.rf explained on your [i.e. Arcayne's] talk page.) In short, Damiens.rf is correct. It fails WP:NFCC2 and 8, and yes in this sort of case a lot of other crap exists but the images you linked to and he nominated were violating policy. Damiens.rf can be kind of a pain in the ass sometimes but his/her policy analysis is almost always right on. (also not sure what you're saying about him/her being a new user because s/he's been around for some time and has way more than 500 edits.) The problem with NFCC8 is that neither of the images themselves actually adds to readers' understanding. Just because an image is old/"historic" (whatever that means) does not mean it gets a free pass. The issue with NFCC2 is a little iffier but in short a news agency might probably intends to license images like this for royalties, so us using it for free is a violation of NFCC2. This image simply doesn't satisfy the criteria. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
No, the question was about the argument of NFCC2, as I am less familiar with it than I am #8. I am ever so familiar with the perennial argument that flares up between the inclusionists and deletionists every once in a while. Crufty inclusionist monkeys want every little image from their video game included in Wikipedia while the other extreme wants to delete every single image in Wikipedia that isn't in the public domain. The truth - and the better practice - is to take the middle of the road, where we use free images when they are available, and non-free when they aren't, and having the image would benefit the article and an understanding of the topic. At least, that is my understanding of the policy.
Perhaps, Calliopejen, you could point to a number of recent historical images that satisfy NFCC#8, so I can understand what you are placing upon a pedestal. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict on White Fang page

There is an edit conflict on the White Fang page. A poor-quality screenshot was taken of the programme's title card, and Elbutler insists on keeping it up. However, according to this Wikipedia page, a screenshot can only be included if accompanied by critical commentary and/or discussion (which Elbutler has not provided). It was also mentioned previously in the programme's edit history that there are fair use issues regarding the depiction of White Fang packaging and footage. Thank you, Iditarod Gray Wolf (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Iditarod Gray Wolf thumb

The image, first of all, is way too large for non-free images. That said, title cards are normally included on TV show articles (not saying if that is ok per FUC, but that it is common and probably represents community consensus). The quality of the file doesn't seem much worse than File:MacGyver intro.jpg, File:Dynastytelevision.jpg, or File:Dallas logo.jpg. I don't think that there is any real reason to remove the image from the White Fang article. -Andrew c [talk] 22:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
For the purposes of the policy, I'd classify that use as a logo. ViperSnake151 01:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Samuel Purdey

For the following article - - I was supplied an image of the band by a band member. The image is low resolution and the band own copyright of the image for promotional usage. I am unclear about usage "rationale". Am I just to describe my reason for seeing it's usage as fit for this purpose sufficient? Thanks (Rolluprob (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

No, the non-free use rationale has to explain how the use conforms to WP:NFCC. In particular why no free image of the band exists or could be made. —teb728 t c 22:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
And I'm sure someone could take a free image of the band, so no fair use image should be acceptable. §hepTalk 00:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Man, this is a trickier (than should be) game this Wikipedia... (Rolluprob (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC))


Could someone please take a look at the image file, File:Hindutash_in_Kashmir.jpg. The image is claimed to be that of a map in a 1913 Treaty and is part of the persistent POV edits in the page Hindutash. It is not clear where the uploader, Hindutashravi (talk · contribs), found the image, and whether it shows what it purports to show. The map in the image, in any case, is barely legible. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is the correct place to decide. If it's indeed from 1913, it's undoubtedly public domain by now. If it's some sort of modern forgery, it's beyond the scope of the Media copyright questions to deal with. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 05:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Could you suggest a forum where I could post/pose the question (i.e. whether the map is what it is claimed to be, but more importantly whether it even qualifies to be a map)? Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

edited windows popup question

Can I use an image that I made an edit to on a photo editor, however is a screenshot from a popup by Windows? I customized it which means that is my own work, however the rest of the image is a screenshot I doubt is allowed. Help? K50 Dude R♥CKS! 04:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

That is probably not allowed as a free image, but perhaps under WP:NFC. Perhaps you could upload it to a personal website or flickr and give us a link. (EhJJ)TALK 20:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)



My name is shane i have bought the film timewalker and have it on video and hope to get it on dvd,why was a sequel never made i thought it was a good film? is one being planned in the futre i think it would be good but with better special effects —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a discussion forum to discuss media copyright questions. You may want to ask at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. (EhJJ)TALK 20:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Images from

Are images from District of Columbia government sites free to use? I know images from federal government sites are fine, and that images from state government sites are a no-no. But since Congress has ultimate jurisdiction over Washington, D.C. and the District isn't a state, I'm a bit confused on whether or not images are considered federal property. Here's an example. APK is ready for Spring 09:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Answered on Commons. Thanks anyway. :-) APK is ready for Spring 16:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you could link to that discussion for the benefit of the archive and for others interested in the answer.-Andrew c [talk] 16:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Nevermind, found it. See c [talk] 16:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

According to our information, they're not. See en:WP:PD#U.S. government works: "The United States Copyright Office, in section 206.02(b), 206.02(c), and 206.02(d) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices, has stated its position that works of the U.S. Postal Service, of the government of the District of Columbia, or of the government of Puerto Rico are not "works of the U.S. government" and thus are subject to copyright."[8] Lupo 15:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


Conflicting licenses on media file

File:Thirdtracing1.jpg was uploaded by Jack1956. He claims to be the copyright holder of the work (and also that it is public domain), but he in fact only took the picture. He can't hold copyright on a public domain work. Furthermore, the work is question is a standard tracing board that still appears in commercially published versions of the Emulation Ritual in use by Masonic lodges in England. As best I can tell, he took a picture of a full-size version in a lodge hall. I npded the image, and Jack reverted it (so there's an ownership issue here as well). There's clearly a licensing problem here that needs to be resolved, so I would appreciate a third-party perusal of this. MSJapan (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Should be marked as PD-art. Stifle (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Youtube image

This picture appears in Noam Chomsky's article. It is dark and fuzzy. I can lighten and sharpen it. It is from Youtube. Can I do this, and if so, what category of image? Thanks!--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That image is not appropriate for wikipedia, as it is in violation of our WP:FUC policy. It clearly is replaceable by a free equivalent. IN fact, we have a very similar free image already on the page (see File:Noam Chomsky WSF - 2003.jpg). -Andrew c [talk] 02:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thank you kindly.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Suspected copyright vio

The uploader of this photo claims to have created the image himself, but I strongly suspect the self-created copyright tag was just used to avoid it getting deleted. To have taken it, you would have to have been a professional press photographer at the Cannes Film Festival, when the editor's upload log just shows various photos of buildings in Israel. The photo can easily be found on various internet sites dating back nearly a year despite that the editor only uploaded the photo last week, and the size/resolution of the photo is pretty typical of what you get off of sale sites like WireImage or GettyImages.

What's the proper course of action in a situation like this? Or does anyone have another opinion on this?  Mbinebri  talk ← 16:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If you can find the exact image, you can tag it as {{db-imgcopyvio}} and link to the image offsite. Or if you can't find the exact image offsite, state your rationale for suspected copyviolation (no exif data, small resolution, taken at a red carpet event at Cannes, user doesn't seem to be a pro-photographer, etc...) Alternatively, you could also just list it at Wikipedia:Files for deletion if you don't think it is speediable (but I think it is).-Andrew c [talk] 16:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
It is hard to tell - the same user also uploaded File:Philfirstfinale.jpg and File:Morrissey tel aviv.jpg so it is possible to be their own work. However based on the users talk page there have past issues with possible copyvios. Bout, on the other (third?) hand if you look over the users [upload log] it shows a lot of "landscape" images have been uploaded vs "celebrity" type images so, again, unclear. Andrew c, above, mentioned some choices, but personally I would tag it with {{di-no permission}} as a happy medium. If the user is the photographer they can supply the needed information without any issues. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
One might also expect, if this editor was the photographer, that the metadata would exist in his uploaded images though metadata is not a reliable indicator. The quality of photography is also very variable in his uploads, some being of excellent professional quality and others are quite poor. This would make me suspicious of all of his material. ww2censor (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I found the image on the web and can confirm that it has been published outside wikipedia so at the very least it would need OTRS permission. However, coupled with me finding multiple other blatant copyright violations, all the warnings on the user's page, and the fact that half of the uploads have already been deleted as spurious, I have deemed this user not trustworthy, and I'm going through deleting a good number of this user's uploads. I mean, for the photographs with EXIF data, it isn't consistent. How likely is it that this user has 20 different digital cameras (from $50 models up to $8000 models)?? User cannot be trusted, and the community has been quite patient.-Andrew c [talk] 17:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I just deleted the first image in this thread, after finding it on another site where it's existed since July 08. I'm going to go through his images right now and start deleting. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I've got all of them except the fair use ones and the ones on commons. Do you have an admin account on commons? I've tagged some of them for speedy over there... Thanks for your help in this matter.-Andrew c [talk] 18:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Wow, you all really cracked down on this! Thanks for taking care of it!  Mbinebri  talk ← 19:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Good work all; just to point out WP:PUI is a good place for this kind of image if you can't find anything better. Stifle (talk) 10:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

about Gionataconti and his little novice "Romanoro" article

hello i am conti gionata and i want to upload images from the lupi della valle website to my romanoro article .my images got deleted and says if i upload more images my upload file tool will be deleted.

i am no computer programmer but i just want to upload photos into my article is it possible to upload them in commons under free GNU license?--Gionataconti (talk) 11:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You cannot upload images from websites, except in a few instances per WP:NFC. If you don't want to be blocked, I'd recommend simply NOT uploading images you found on the web. Only upload images that you honestly took yourself and that you are willing to release under a free license. An image like File:Romanoro50kb.jpg would never qualify for fair use on wikipedia because it fails WP:FUC #1. Anyone with a camera can go to the site and take a nearly identical photo themselves. Non-free images are for content that cannot possibly be replaced by free equivalents (like album covers, and TV screenshots). So the only way to upload photos into your article under the GFDL is if you take them yourself (or if you contact the webpage and request permission per WP:PERMISSION). You can't just take any photo on the net and upload it here. It doesn't seem like any of your uploaded images are valid. Hope this helps.-Andrew c [talk] 14:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
As for uploading images to Commons, they are even more restrictive than Wikipedia. But if you have photos you took yourself, you can upload them to Commons. —teb728 t c 00:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Probably. Stifle (talk) 10:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Associated Press Photos

Question: 1. Can we use photos taken by the Associated Press and 2. How do we cite them?

A1: No*. We do not allow copyrighted photos, except in rare cases of fair use, per our non-free content page. Copyrighted photos that meet fair use have to contain the source, author, publisher info and the corresponding license tag, along with an appropriate fair use rationale. What photo do you want to use? What purpose does it serve? -Andrew c [talk] 02:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Almost certainly not. The vast majority of AP photos are copyrighted and do not meet our non-free content criteria, most usually #2 as they compete with the main market role of the image. We have had specific requests from the AP not to use their images. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sophia Vembo

I have uploaded the image Image:Vembo-01.jpg of "Sophia Vembo", but on my talk page, I have received a message that it is not a free image. But I know it is. I spoke to someone on Wikipedia who told me that Wiki Phantis (where I got the image from) is a public domain site, and I can take pictures from it. How can I prove this? --Iliada 13:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean this image from the Phantis website. There is no indication this is a public domain image. In fact there is no licencing information of any kind, so the burden of proof is on you to verify the claim you make, otherwise the image will be deleted because it is not being used with a fair use rationale for the pages it is currently used in. You are not allowed to display a non-free image on your user or talk pages, only in article mainspace. ww2censor (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Logo Image Upload

How do I upload this logo File:TaurusInvestmentHoldingsLogo.gif to a page about the company? I have tried uploading it and it keeps getting deleted. Thankyou!

InSegment (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That image has never been deleted that I can see. It has been removed from your userpage because non-free images are not allowed on userpages. Why are you building an article in your userpage anyway? Algebraist 16:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Which page? A search of Wikipedia did not reveal an article about that company. Furthermore, the information about the image must comply with WP:NFCC. (EhJJ)TALK 16:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Company Pictures

How do I upload pictures from a company's website to their Wikipedia page? For example, File:quecheeballoons.jpg to a website about Taurus Investment Holdings? What is the correct copyright tag to use so that they will not be deleted? Thank you! InSegment (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You cannot simply upload images from the web here on wikipedia due to copyright infringement. For more details see uploading images from the web.-Andrew c [talk] 16:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Does this picture add anything to the article? It just looks like a generic hot air balloon over an unidentifiable golf course. I don't think there is sufficient reason to include this image since it is copyrighted. But, to answer your question, to add an image to an article on Wikipedia, you would put the following: [[File:Example.jpg|thumb|right|Text about the image]] . Good luck, (EhJJ)TALK 16:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I think you are asking what license tag to put on the image description page. If so, who owns the copyright on the picture? (Taurus Investment Holdings, LLC?) Have they granted a license which allows anyone to use the image anywhere for anything? (Judging from their Terms of Use page, they have not, and you violated those terms of use by uploading the image here.) If you do have such a free license, what specifically is it? Without such a license, sorry but you cannot upload the image here. —teb728 t c 23:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Issues with Ryan Leslie/Kevin Phillips images

I am having issues with uploading this image for Ryan_Leslie and his wikipedia page: I don't know what else to do. The image was given to me through Ryan Leslie and I have been authorized to put it on his wikipedia page. Ryan obviously doesn't have the time to do it himself.

Similarly, I am having issues with keeping the image for Kevin_Phillips_(actor) up on his page: I also got permission from Kevin Phillips personally (he gave me the image) to put on his wikipedia page.

I'm guessing there is an issue with the way they were tagged or soured. Could you please let me know what to do now as both Ryan Leslie and Kevin Phillips would like their photos to be up, especially Ryan Leslie who just released an album. THANK YOU! Ryanchambergroup —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanchambergroup (talkcontribs) 23:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what image issue you are talking about. There is a valid OTRS ticket for those images (fancy wording for saying we have e-mail confirmation that we can use these images freely), so I don't believe there are any outstanding copyright issues. Am I missing something? Do you need help placing the images in the article? I've added one to the infobox, see this edit.-Andrew c [talk] 23:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you were expecting the warning messages on your user talk page to go away. Now that the problems are resolved, you can either ignore those or delete them--whichever you perfer. —teb728 t c 23:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

USDA Forest Service technical report

I'd like to upload some images from a Forest Service technical report, but I'm unsure how to proceed. I read all about fair-use, GFDL, etc., but I still don't get it. There are a few pics that say "K. Watenmaker photo," and though he's not an author I'm guessing he's a Forest Service employee and therefore qualifies as in the public domain (e.g. this photo[10])? Here's the link to the technical report, but beware, it's a large PDF (~2.7MB).[11] Thanks, MrBell (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't say for sure. K. Watenmaker most likely the name of the photographer. I'd assume that since this is a work of the US government, the photos would also be in the PD, and would have similar license information as the one you linked to. But I'm not positive. It's probably safe to upload as PD-US.-Andrew c [talk] 01:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
{{PD-USGov-USDA}} should work perfectly. Unless otherwise noted I generally assume that the photographer was on official duties when they were taken. But that's me. :) §hepTalk 01:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


If someone takes a photo, that person owns the copyright of that photo no matter what is in it? if not, what happens if I take a photo of a building or a magazine, am I holder of the copyright of that photo and therefore I can release it under a free license? Arzaquel (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. A photograph of a copyrighted subject may be a derivative work of the subject. If you want a more detailed response, you'll have to tell us what exactly you want to do. Algebraist 00:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
For example if I want to take a photo of a government building, a government representative in my country, a landscape of my town, food and clothes representative to my town, etc. I mean, do I have to own the things I take photos of?, or if I take a photo of someone is that person the owner of the copyright of my photo? I'm sorry, I'm a bit confused Arzaquel (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
For the thing you mentioned you would own the rights to the photo. On the other hand, if you took a photo of a painting or other two-dimensional artwork, the rights would belong to the artist. If you took a photo of of a sculpture, it would depend on freedom of panorama in the country where the sculpture is. —teb728 t c 06:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! freedom of panorama and list of panorama freedom legislation around the world is exactly what I wanted to read. Arzaquel (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Use of Copywrited Image in Wikipedia Article

I have a copywrited image that I think is perfect for an article I am editing in English Wikipedia. The photographer has given me written permission to include the image in the Wikipedia article. I am confused by the instructions describing how to appropriately tag the image. I have already tried to upload the image and tag it, but the image was deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaceman99z (talkcontribs) 05:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The photographer has to give permission for anyone to use the image for any purpose. See WP:COPYREQ for details on getting the correct permission. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 06:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, the problem with your images is that you are using non-free images for living people, which almost always fails WP:FUC #1, as these images are plausibly replaceable. On top of that, the non-commercial permission you received isn't good enough for wikipedia standards. Images have to be released under a number of free licenses that allow commercial use and user modification. So your options are to contact whoever you got the image from and see if they wouldn't mind releasing it under a free license (and e-mailing that permission per our COPYREQ page), or searching for another source for free images. -Andrew c [talk] 14:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

RE:Fair use rationale for Image:The Witch of Blackbird Pond.jpg

Betacommand Bot tagged Image:The Witch of Blackbird Pond.jpg as not having a proper fair use rationale for the article The Witch of Blackbird Pond. Is there something wrong with the rationale I've given? It is minimal, but I thought it was adequate. Robina Fox (talk) 12:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks ok. I don't see any tags on the image, the article or your talk page (nor any notices posted by Betacommand Bot in their respective histories). Since there's no tag currently, your image isn't currently being considered for deletion, as far as I can tell. Perhaps you if can provide a diff? (EhJJ)TALK 13:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, should have said - the tag is on Talk:The Witch of Blackbird Pond. (I may not be using the word "tag" correctly) Robina Fox (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I see. That notice was placed a year ago (to this day), and it was referring to a file that was deleted on 22:05, 2 March 2008. I've verified that the deleted file is a different cover image. The warning no longer applies because a fair use rational is there, and it was in regards to another image (that happens to have had the same file name). Yeah, it's a little confusing.-Andrew c [talk] 18:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I see it now. Someone else edited the talk page today so it appeared on my watchlist - quite a coincidence. Sorry to have bothered you. Robina Fox (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Use of the FSU - NHMFL logo on Wikipedia

I uploaded this logo of the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory and Florida State University to Wikipedia after asking and receiving express written permission from the authorized copyright manager (Susan Ray of FSU, see: ) to use this logo on Wikipedia (and all the complex uses posting anything to Wikipedia involves).

Would someone please assist me with the appropriate labeling and/or conversion of this image (it may be too large)? We have appropriate permission to use it on the NHMFL and FSU articles. Thanks! Sirberus (talk) 12:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Permission to use on Wikipedia is essentially worthless to us. Either an image is available under a free license, or it is used under terms of fair use here. Since it's not a free license image, we have to use it under terms of fair use. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission "To use copyrighted material on Wikipedia, it is not enough that we have permission to use it on Wikipedia alone". The image is properly tagged as is. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Summit Tunnel fire images

I'd like some advice from a copyright expert, if one is reading this.

In 2004, I wrote up a wikipedia page on the Summit Tunnel fire and linked it to an English website ( that is based in Todmorden (a town just north of the tunnel). The reason for the link was that a couple of the locals had uploaded some spectacular photographs taken at the time of the fire to the website. You can see the full set here.

I tried to contact the uploader of 5 of the photographs (todchat user "Mr December") without success. A few months later, after I'd received permission from's administrator, I uploaded five of the photographs to wikipedia and linked four of them on the Summit Tunnel fire page.'s site terms and conditions, which you can see here, allow images on the site to be used on other websites as long as todchat is credited. I received the same conditions in a message from's admin about these photographs.

The five images are:

When I uploaded them I gave them the license:

which, rightly or wrongly, I reckoned was the most appropriate one.

At the end of January 2009, User: came across the Summit tunnel fire page, decided that the license for the images on it wasn't adequate, and set all four images to have no license (bizarrely, he or she also replaced the license tag with the Dutch flag). The four edit summaries all read as follows:

  • "" is not the copyright holder, they have no legal standing to release this image.

Putting the Dutch flag in seems a bit troll-like and my first impulse was to revert: on the other hand Mr Anonymous's edit summary is coherent & well-expressed, so it may indeed be right.

In the week or two since then, various bots & editors have tagged one image as suspect, deleted it, and tidied up the page it appeared on. No doubt the other images will follow it into oblivion in due course.

So the question I'd like to ask is this: if a file is uploaded to a website ( under its terms and conditions, and the website's terms (and its administrator) allow wikipedia to re-use the image with a restricted license, is that sufficient for us? Or is User: right in stating that has no right to release the image?

Trust the above has enough links to give enough background to this question. I can expand on it (e.g. direct links to the source, the exact text of todchat admin's email etc.) if this turns out to be a tricky question.

Ecb (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless the photographer explicitly released the image to then the copyright remains with the photographer. Merely posting an image on a website does not transfer any copyright to the host. The link to the original chat does not work, but I assume they were just posted in a discussion by a member of the site. The legal page is only referring to images in the "Photo section" which presumably is a separate part of the site, not the forum the images were posted in? At any rate the site would have no right to permit third parties to copy images that it does not hold the copyright on. Mfield (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Mfield is correct. We have to use the images under terms of fair use regardless of what todchat says. Still, these images are well worthy of being used under fair use here. Nice job finding them. Let's just get them re-tagged as fair use and get rationales added. Oh, and remove the Netherlands flag bit :) --Hammersoft (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Per NFCC #3a, we should probably only use one of the 3 tunnel images, if that.-Andrew c [talk] 00:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Two at a minimum. The demonstration of the bricks melting on top of one of the tankers and the image demonstrating the vent tubes on fire. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
How does a user upload an image to Todchat? If they are required to relinquish or transfer ownership of the image, then Todchat could offer the images it hosts. However, based on the general state of the site, I doubt that they do. (EhJJ)TALK 01:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Makino Label.png non-free use rationale

I'm new to wikipedia and am trying to fully understand all the procedures, but to the best of my ability I've edited the description of File:Makino Label.png to reflect why its usage is justified. I used the guide titled Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline to help describe why the image is not an infringement on copyright. I just want someone to let me know if this resolves the problem... Everpassingpxpx (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

  • You did fine. Nice work :) --Hammersoft (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

primary source photos

i am just trying to verify that if a picture taken on one's own camera can be uploaded without considering copyright —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mat1342 (talkcontribs) 22:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

That depends on what it's a picture of. For example, if it's a picture of a work of art someone else painted, then you could have a problem. Even if you nothing like that is the case, you'll have to consider copyright, as you'll have to decide what to do with the copyright you hold over the picture. You could give up your rights entirely by releasing the picture into the public domain, or only partly by releasing it under a free license. Algebraist 22:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Japanese photo taken pre-1946, published later

Firstly, apologies if this question has been asked already (I would be surprised if it hasn't). I think I understand - I am just a little unsure of things.

I hope to upload a photo taken in Japan pre-1946. I do not have an exact date for the photo, but the subject died in 1927. If I am interpreting it correctly, according to this source Japanese photographs taken before 1946 or published before 1956 are copyright-free.

I will be copying the photo from an online source. I know that this online source scanned the photo from a book published in Japan in 1957, which is not in my possession.

In this case, 1) am I correct in assuming the photograph is copyright-free, and 2) should I cite the online source or the original book?

In addition, if I wish to add further Japanese photos taken pre-1946 or originally published pre-1956, is it possible to scan these from a more recent source without violating copyright? I assume the book I scan should be cited as the source of the photos.

Thanks in advance. --Oroshi (talk) 07:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Prior to March 25, 1997, a photograph was protected by Japanese copyright law for 50 years after it was published or 50 years from creation, whichever was shorter. On March 25, 1997, the Japanese copyright term for photographs was changed to life of the author plus 50 years. But photographs that were in the public domain on March 25, 1997, did not have the copyrights restored under the new Japanese copyright law. So, if the subject of the photograph died in 1927, the Japanese copyright lasted no longer than 1977. U.S. copyright law (specifically, the Uruguay Round Agreements Act) has not restored the U.S. copyrights of foreign works that had entered the public domain in their country of origin before January 1, 1996. Conclusion: any Japanese photograph created before 1946 is in the public domain in both Japan and the United States. — Walloon (talk) 07:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
To answer your other questions, according to US law, exact two-dimensional copies of a work are considered to fall under the same copyright as the original work. Hence, the images you described are also in the public domain. You should indicate the source of the image so that it can be verified. The tags you should use on the image are {{PD-Japan}} and {{PD-art-US-1996}}. (EhJJ)TALK 12:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you! --Oroshi (talk) 05:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Fan art

I'm quite new to wiki and I want to ask about the regulations about using images in a character list article. I saw that List_of_characters_in_2003_Strawberry_Shortcake had its images removed because of non-free images usage. So I attempted to make a fan art and use it for one character. The fan art in particular has been put on the main character part.

My main question is, is this fine and will not get removed again someday? After all I'm the one who made that fan art with my own hands and I tried my best to make it as similar as possible with the actual character in the TV series to avoid confusion. If I get the green light I will proceed to do the same for other characters.

A side question: Will screenshots of the TV series do fine? After all my time is limited and making fan art takes quite a lot of time.

Ign st (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Fan art. Basically, fan art is derivative work of copyrighted material, and wikipedia's non-free content policy would still apply. In fact, since it's non-free content anyway, original art would be preferred over fan art (assuming the guidelines were still followed). Images on character lists has been a touchy subject, but our guidelines clearly favor less images (like a group shot at the top, instead of images of every single minor character in a list). So, I'm not sure there is anything really that can be done to avoid having all the images removed, unfortunately.-Andrew c [talk] 15:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Now I have smokes coming out from my head. How can there be an original art in a characters list? Original art means the character in the art does not officially exist right?

Group shot is quite hard to do due to the vast amount of characters in the TV series in question. Probably there will be multiple groupshot images and that's not a nice sight on the article in my opinion. Not to mention that some characters had a redesign back in 2007, which will make organizing much more difficult.

Is it fine if I proceed to provide images limited to characters that appear most often and then provide group shot image for the rest of the characters? I stress this one out again, making those images will take some time and effort and I want to make sure it will not be in vain. If I get red light, I will simply not make any attempt at all.

Ign st (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The guideline in question is Wikipedia:NFC#Non-free image use in list articles. List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow and List of Naruto characters are two featured lists (i.e. they have been rated the very best content on wikipedia), so you may want to take image cues from those articles. I'm not exactly sure what you have in mind, or what you are planning, so I cannot say if the time spent is futile. I'd recommend just getting an image or two from the official site and be done with it. The official site has an image with 11 characters in it. That would probably do the trick just fine.-Andrew c [talk] 16:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, those are the ones which got removed by Hammersoft. So I suppose I have to use a different source, which I have in mind is fan art I make myself. Ign st (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Fan art is an improper replacement. It's still copyrighted work, as it's derivative. There's plenty of images available that show several of the characters at once. Using such an image at the beginning of the article would be appropriate usage of fair use. It is not necessary nor allowed to have an image for each and every character in the fictional universe. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I have uploaded File:Strawberry Shortcake characters.jpg and added it to the article. The caption could be expanded, but hopefully this address all issues. What do you think, Ign st?-Andrew c [talk] 16:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Fine by me. I've orphaned the fan art image as redundant. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, the new image will do for now, but its accuracy is not so consistent with the TV show. I'll replace it someday with a more accurate group shot. I got the hint from the Naruto and Castlevania character list so now I know what to do. Thanks for both of your information. Ign st (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I felt that the first image I made is no longer needed so I wanted to remove it myself. I thought deleting all the text would do the job but it seems I was wrong. Sorry for the mistake, just remove the file immediately. Ign st (talk) 03:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I have uploaded File:Strawberry_Shortcake_Chars_Year1_Year2.png and used it to replace the previous image. Have I done it right? I mean, the description, permission, resolution, etc. Thanks for your time. Ign st (talk) 03:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

PD derivate work

If i create a derivate work of a pd image can i license the derivate work under a different license like cc or even reserve all copyright rights.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 07:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if the original is truly PD. PD means do whatever you want, period (as long as it's not otherwise illegal - you can't spray paint it on the White House 718smiley.svg) --NE2 08:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
But your derivative has to show real originality; you can't copyright something that is essentially a copy. —teb728 t c 23:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
You can; it's just unethical and can be ignored. --NE2 06:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

image upload problem

hi ,

I have uploaded a page on naghma saher, who is a popular news reader and a show host at NDTV, india's most popular news channel. I want to upload an image of hers from this link File:Http:// e6d4.jpg , however any other image will do too.Plz help me by telling me that can i use this image or not.

thanks and regards, tanmay mohan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanmay.mohan (talkcontribs) 11:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

From what you write, I assume she is living, so you can't use an image under fair use because it is replaceable. Only images that have free licences may be used for living people. You do not indicate if this image is in the public domain or not, so I assume it is still under copyright, unless you can prove otherwise. This page indicates that all images are copyright of their uploaders' and may not be used without their permission, but you might be able to contact the copyright holder and have them release the image with a free licence or prove it has a free licence. Otherwise it's a no. ww2censor (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Confounded by Rationalle Argument Requirements

I am trying to legitimately add a fair-use (non-free) image but am confused about the tag and rationale requirements.

I've added the tags I believed were required but keep seeing warnings.

Can you look at my image tags and tell me what I am missing?


ref: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcsutherland (talkcontribs) 23:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't believe that image would ever be appropriate here on Wikipedia. It is a user created parody of a copyrighted image. The specific parody is not discussed in the article itself, therefore the image itself doesn't have anything to do with the article and thus couldn't "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" (WP:NFCC #8). It also stinks of WP:OR. The image tags are a little confusing because you have a copyright tag and a public domain tag. Either the image is copyrighted or it is in the PD. Furthermore, while you are using a fair use rationale template, the reason stated for why the image is being used really doesn't say anything, and fails the criteria. As stated above, I'm not sure there is anything that can be changed to "fix" an image of this nature. So sorry.-Andrew c [talk] 00:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Image Help

I just got a message related to File:Yokota High School JROTC Honor Guard.jpg warning me that the picture may be deleted. It is a picture I took from a US Government website about two years ago and I'm not sure what I need to do to secure it from deletion.---I'm Spartacus! The artist formerly known as Balloonman 03:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem was that the image description file had been vandalized by this edit. The vandalism was reverted by this editteb728 t c 03:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't see that and couldn't figure out what I had done wrong.---I'm Spartacus! The artist formerly known as Balloonman 14:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Transformers toy

I just came across Grindcore (Transformers) by accident, and the image looks like it may fail fair use rational. I'm not sure about this policy, but it looks like a product image where a user's image could be used instead. The article has plenty of other problems as well, and I have a feeling there's a can of worms hiding under the surface (ie a ton of similar articles). So if anybody gets bored... meanwhile I have to sleep. NJGW (talk) 07:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this is OK; a user's image would also be covered by the same copyright. Stifle (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyright status of product images

To what extent are images of physical products copyrighted/copyrightable? Take Pepsi as an example. Scans of logos and ads are uploaded under Fair Use, but pictures of bottles (which have logos on them) are apparently Free. Is this licensing correct? Ham Pastrami (talk) 10:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

To my knowledge, no. If there was in incidental logo (such as an Intel Inside logo on a picture of a computer, or the photo was of a recycling plant and the bottle logo was visible), that might be fine. However, taking a picture of the logo does not make it acceptable. It may qualify under fair-use if there was critical commentary about the bottle label, or perhaps if there was discussion about the bottle shape, etc. But, generally, a photo of the bottle with its label would be copyright infringement. There are others on here who know the laws better than I do, but it doesn't seem acceptable to me as "public domain". (EhJJ)TALK 15:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
To clarify, pictures of products are usually acceptable if the product doesn't contain original art. For example: a photo of a computer, a photo of a shoe, a photo of a camera, a photo of a toaster would all be acceptable. However, photographs of artistic works would be considered derivative works and be restricted by the original copyright. For example: a photo of a box of cereal, a photo of a book cover, a photo of a television while a TV show is playing, a photo of a poster would not be acceptable and would require a fair-use rationale. (EhJJ)TALK 19:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Covers of Out-of-Print Books

I suspect I know the answer just from the highly restrictive tone used in copyright issues, but please may I check that using scans of old book covers as illustrations to Wiki entries is ruled out? I'm planning an entry about an author and his fourteen works (novels), written in the 1970s and well out of print. No cover artist data provided. I believe it would make things better to include scans to inform the text. Am I right that I have to go for drab presentation here? CliffordDorset (talk) 09:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Short answer, yes. Non-free images are not to be used for decoration, and have very restricted use for galleries, lists, discographies, (or in this case) bibliographies. If there was an article for each of the novels, then it would be much less controversial to have cover art illustrating the subject of an article. If there is something notable about the cover art of this author, and you have a section where cited, reliable sources are discussing the art and/design of the cover art, it may be appropriate in that instance to show an example of the cover art. But outside of something specifically dealing with the appearance of these novels, it doesn't seem like cover art on author's pages would work. -Andrew c [talk] 15:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. In fact I am working on (one-paragraph) abstracts for each book. And in fact there is something notable about the cover art, in the quality of the photography and in the relegation of the titles to the back cover. But there's a uniformity to the fourteen covers that isn't differentiated book from book. Difficult to explain without showing the images! I think it would enhance the article, but I accept your point re 'decoration'. But thanks again for the clarification. CliffordDorset (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Can I post a picture of this VHS Movie?

Here is the origin of the picture -

It's a cover of the VHS for Alex Haley's Queen.

Thank you! Rivka (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if you use it on Alex Haley's Queen. Tag it with {{non-free video cover}}. You can use {{film cover fur}} for the non-free use rationale. —teb728 t c 00:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ever so much! Rivka (talk) 13:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Questioning a copyright claim

File:Compact sa no li xe mati no li volemo.jpg - the user uploading it claims copyright but it doesn't look at all clear that it is his, and the comment is in Italian which Babelfish can't translate. (cesco basegio francesco baseggio se sono matti non li vogliamo venetian movies film veneto)) dougweller (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a movie poster, so is likely a non-free image and so could only be used in an article about that specific movie. It's use in Venetian People is not appropriate but some more investigation is needed to clarify its status. The copyright claims seems improper and unproven. ww2censor (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Just looked at the editor's talk page, 11 other copyright queries there. dougweller (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Inquired on IRC. The translation is something like, "If they aren't crazy, we don't want them" (which is the quote from the film poster). Since it's doubtful that the uploader is the creator of the poster, I just tagged it as no permission. howcheng {chat} 17:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded an image to WikiCommons - don't know how to get it to appear on the Wiki article

File:JStern.jpg I uploaded the above-referenced file to the Commons but can't figure out how to get it to appear on the Wiki article named Jolyon Stern.

Appreciate your help. Bardmon (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Use the same syntax as locally uploaded images: [[File:JStern.jpg|thumb|Caption]]. howcheng {chat} 17:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Request to move a file

Could File:Borneo-Philippines.svg please be moved to commons? I would like to use it at nl.wiktionary. I think that the copyrights are OK, but I am not sure. nl:wikt:Gebruiker:Jcwf Jcwf (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done File:Borneo-Philippines.svg is now on the commons. I used the CommonsHelper found at Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons (where there are a number of other options also available to you). Feel free to try to transfer images yourself next time, if you are bold enough!-Andrew c [talk] 00:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair use dispute for File:Maple0123.jpg

I think the third reason for this image, File:Maple0123.jpg, being covered by fair use ("the image resolution has been significantly decreased from the original, so copies made from it would be of inferior quality") is incorrect. This screenshot of MapleStory has the same resolution as the game's native resolution, and can be compared side by side by running the game in windowed mode. What should be done about this? --Geopgeop (T) 01:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It also predates current templated rationales. I replaced it with a templated one. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Seems to me the resolution is justifiable, to give the reader a fair understanding of the actual appearance of the game; and in order that the text should still be readable. I've updated the FUR to put that point, and removed the {{subst:nfr}} tag. Jheald (talk) 08:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina konvertibilna marka

There are no images of banknotes of the Bosnia and Herzegovina konvertibilna marka. I want to upload one. Which license do I use? Gryffindor (talk) 14:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

{{Non-free currency}} and a fair-use rationale. (EhJJ)TALK 16:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Edward Gourdin image

Can I use the image in this article? The caption says early 1920s, however since this was a college photo and he competed in the olympics in 1924, I think the image was before 1924.--Ccson (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we need more information. If it hasn't been published until recently, it could still be copyrighted. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
The cut-off is Jan 1, 1923. While I agree this was taken before he graduated in mid-1924, we can't assume it's PD without an exact date . (EhJJ)TALK 20:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Using Images from Wikipedia for Podcasts or webpages

I have some fifth and sixth grade students who would like to use your images on famous people. We are going to do a podcast and would be happy to list the internet links to the pictures from your site. Would this be sufficient to allow us to use your images without creating a copyright violation? Or is their other things you request us to do before we can use the images? Please let us know if we can use your images from this website and what stipulations are required. Thanks

You can link to Wikipedia freely. If you want to reuse material from Wikipedia, see WP:REUSE --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Thanks for your question. We get this one a lot, and can be found Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Can I reuse Wikipedia's content somewhere else?. Becuase we have many different licenses on our images, there is no simply answer to this question without knowing to what images you are referring. For example, we use some copyrighted images under out fair use rules, so they are not ours to license independently. Other images are in the public domain, so they can be used by anyone for any reason. Just take note of how the images you want to use are licensed, and make sure you are following the license and you should be fine. In many jurisdictions, educational use of copyrighted works is considered "fair use" anyway. You also may want to note that all the images available at have free licenses. Hope this helps.-Andrew c [talk] 22:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"Free" / GFDL Compliance - Canadian government data

Can anyone offer an opinion on how well the Canadian government's GeoGratis website accords with our GFDL requirements? The license terms are here. Sections 2 and 3 seem to very closely match the GFDL (except the ridiculous "All rights reserved" boilerplate). Sections 5 and 6 indicate renewable, revocable time-limits - which would be fulfilled by deletion. Unlike the Library and Archives Canada "free" license, redistribution is permitted, as long as the copyright attribution accompanies (and presumably also the link to the license terms).

My question here is: can we upload these images onto en:wiki without needing a non-free rationale? On its face, the images are in effect revocably released to public domain use, or at least incredibly similar to what GFDL does, except for the termination clauses. If there's a better place to ask this question, please point me there. Thanks! Franamax (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's text must be released under GFDL, but images can be licenced under a variety of terms. Based on Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and Wikipedia:Image use policy, I believe we'll need to make a new tag, similar to {{Attribution}}, but with the conditions listed on the GeoGratis licence. I am a little uncertain, as this is clearly a "grey-zone". Technically, Canada could request, at any point in the future, that the images and all derivative works be deleted, and Wikipedia would be required to comply. Typically, Wikipedia prefers images that are completely free. However, there is no policy or law that prohibits the use of those images, as far as I've been able to determine. I'll wait for a third opinion before going through the effort of creating a tag. Let me know if you hear anything else (either on your talk page or elsewhere). (EhJJ)TALK 13:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
On second reading, I noticed that the termination clause specifies that the Licencee (not Canada) may terminate the agreement at any time. Hence, as long as we use the licence correctly (and it appears to be free enough for Wikipedia), then there is no reason we shouldn't. I'll make a {{GeoGratis}} template for use with this data. (EhJJ)TALK 16:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! for the advice and template. This really does look like a case where not-free ~= free, or at least free*. :) Other than the revocation clause and the dopey bureaucratic insistence on inclusion of a copyright tag (c'mon how can you release your work for free modification, incorporation to derivative works, and open distribution but still claim All Rights Reserved? Who dreamed that up?), to me this looks like an offer of widely free usage. Kind of the way things should be when the people have already paid for it all - it should belong to all of us now, but that's just IMHO. Franamax (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, this again. It's probably free: Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2008/October#Canadian topographic maps, Commons:Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 15#Canadian topographic maps --NE2 02:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned about part that says "The Licensee shall indemnify ...". Doesn't this create a potential liability for us? --Rob (talk) 10:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Or do you mean that it creates a potential liability for me? That's not flippant - do you mean individual responsibility, or liability on the part of WMF? The way I read it, the Licensee is the individual person who chooses to reuse the content. If they (i.e. me) choose to reuse the content by uploading it to Wikipedia with the required notices attached, that's not WMF's problem, right? Franamax (talk) 12:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
If the Foundation is not the licensee, and the individual user is, then that means the user could terminate the contract with 30 days notice, any time in the future. So, either the Foundation is a party to the contract (with ensuing liability) or it's not a party, and has no right to perpetual use. Regardless, I'm not a lawyer, and I feel a Foundation lawyer should decide such questions. --Rob (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Would this not be sufficiently addressed by Wikipedia's own disclaimers? (EhJJ)TALK 16:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I read this to mean 6.1.(ii) - the Licensee is free to terminate the agreement and must then destroy the copies (6.3.) - but that's on their own PC/website, whereas when I contribute here I am sub-licensing and/or passing on the original license. If I've added no substantial value, I inherit no rights in the free license. If I tell NRC I'm no longer willing to abide by their license, then fine, I have to destroy all copies in my possession - but I've already sub-licensed a version available on the Wikipedia servers. I can request deletion ("reasonable timeframe") but anyone else in the world is free to assume my license obligations and re-publish of their own accord. The risk is the one-year expiry where NRC might decide for some reason to revoke the "free" license - but 6.3 already says we have reasonable timeframe and we already know how to do mass deletions.
I'll try to bump this up to counsel, but I don't see major obstacles here. IAAL opinions would certainly be good though. Franamax (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Commemorative coin images

Hello. There's been widespread distribution of commemorative coin images (e.g. from Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria)) across large sections of wikipedia. Basically, if a coin is minted featuring a famous person or place, than a coin collector will add an image of that coin to the article of that famous person or place. Is this allowed? My understanding of "fair use" is that coin images are only to be used on pages concerning the coins themselves and not the subjects featured on the coin. For example, an image of the Sacagawea dollar was removed from the Sacagawea article for this reason. What's the rule for these coin images? Thanks. DavidRF (talk) 04:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. Stifle (talk) 12:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Is this the official place to ask this question? I mean, should I request a bot to remove all the images because of your response? I'm curious to know if this is a "ruling" or an "editorial opinion". Apologies for the awkwardness. I'm unfamilar with the copyright areas of wikipedia, so I'm not sure the appropriate place to get a "ruling". The coin collectors won't be happy if all their images our removed from non-coin articles and will likely push back. How do you recommend that I proceed? Thanks. DavidRF (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Those points aren't necessarily applicable. In #7 the problem is that Barry Bonds is still alive; but a baseball card might be acceptable for somebody who was dead.
  • As for #8, the question that that point is getting us to ask is this: what is it that the image has been selected to illustrate? If it has been chosen just to give an illustration of the person (and could presumably be replaced by a free user-taken pic), that is not considered acceptable. But if it is to show the coin, as an object the detailed expression of which might be of interest in its own right, then that might be acceptable.
  • Some of these issues also came up in discussion at WT:NFC#Stamps recently with respect to stamps, and to banknotes, . Jheald (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
There should be a fair-use rationale for each article the image is used in (see WP:NFCC #10.c). Most of them only have one FUR and just say "also used in...", which is not acceptable. (EhJJ)TALK 16:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
First, let me introduce my self as the editor that has made such contributions. I agree with Jheald, the coins are in the article to show the coins as an object, as clearly stated in each article. I can bring the classical sample of the baseball card to this discussion, where clearly express that the non-free image of the baseball card can be used in the article of the player in question; this sample is referenced all over Wikipedia as a good fair use of non-free images. DavidRF, your understanding of "fair use" seems incorrect.
DavidRF can I ask you to stop removing all images from all articles until this is cleared? I think that instead of promptly asking for a bot to get that done, at the very minimum, letting me know in my talk page sounds ethically correct.
EhJJ, I can definitely work on your suggestion, you're right and that was my fault for not understanding how fair-use rationale works. When I started to add those images, more than a year ago, another editor told me that this is the way of doing it; but I think that obviously that is incorrect as I have seen recently in other images. since this is my fault, I will get that sorted.
Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 02:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
The coins themselves are not notable editions to any of the articles. There's no T206's or Billy Ripken's here. This is just SPAM, which is bad enough as it is, but if its not even allowed by copyright, then why should we have to put up with these advertisements for the Austrian mint plastered all over wikipedia? DavidRF (talk)
DavidRF, this discussion is not finished, and you have already removed the images from more than 20 articles without having the descency of telling me first that you will be doing this. On top of that, you have not only removed the images, but also the small paragraph that says that there is a coin: is that a copyright infrigement too? For what I see you are talking this personal against me and the type of contributions I do. Please stop and discuss instead as you are supposed to do. Miguel.mateo (talk) 03:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Would it be reasonable to ask Miguel.mateo to save everybody a lot of time and remove all the images for which there is no fair-use rationale? How many are there in total? After that we can discuss the issue at leisure. --Kleinzach 03:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
This is clear personal attack from Kleinzach and DavidRF. Samples are here:
There is no clear discussion, at least I was not invited. I will have no choice but to open a case with the admins. Miguel.mateo (talk) 03:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
No personal attack here. You're probably a wonderful person. Its all about the coin images. That's how I found the articles, from the images, not your user. Are you the only one adding these images to non-coin articles? DavidRF (talk) 03:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
David, you're probably a good person too, but you're clearly violating WP:OWN, WP:CONS and WP:POV. You have not given me an opportunity to explain and you have already removed the images (and the contributions) for more than 20 articles. Your friend Kleinzach is actually suggesting to remove them all and later talk about the facts; when in a very recent article concensus was to keep the images and the text. I have been reasonable in the past, Opus33 is a witness of that, there has been articles where I have been challenged, and after some argument, I conceed to remove the coins. But what you guys are doing right now is definitely personal attacks against me, by removing all coins in all articles you can find them.
You're based in copyright infringement, but I am telling you that this is not the case and I can prove it. Then I asked why you removed the text, and you said this is SPAM. So the fact that you do not like the coins that I have added is making you removing every single instance you can find, even in articles that consensus have clearly said to keep it in the past. That is considered personal attacks, or what else? Miguel.mateo (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
As has been mentioned above concerning the use of postage stamps in non-stamp article was raised recently and it is agreed the non-free use of stamps is not permitted without substantial critical commentary about the stamp itself; the same criteria applies to coins. It is as clear as day that the use of non-free coins in articles about the subject of the coins is a violation of WP:NFC#Images: For identification of the stamp or currency, not its subject. Even if it were an acceptable use, some of these coin uses don't even make any attempt to comment about the coin itself, it is there merely as decoration and that does not add to the reader's understanding or knowledge of the topic that cannot be expressed in prose. Some inclusions do describe the coin but that too fails because that is not critical commentary about the coin itself which is necessary, so it still fails. Even where coin image have been extant for a long time in non-coin articles it does not make right and they should still be deleted. Justification per WP:NFC#Images 2 points 7 and 8 are red herrings as they do not allow an exception for coins except where there is critical commentary and that is what is missing. Sorry Miguel.mateo, etc.
To get back to the use within Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria) it is likely overuse of non-free images but the article is at least an article about the subject itself so would seem to comply with WP:NFC#Images. ww2censor (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Finally someone with common sense. ww2censor can you please point me out to the discussion about stamps? I am not sure if the same applies to coins (or currency pictures in general). The pictures are shown in the articles of the coin subject to identify the coin, not its subject. So it is still within fair-use by using that phrase. By the way, why critical comentary? The license clearly says "to comment or criticize" did that change recently? A change in the prose of the licence seems in order then.
But regardless, even if the images of the coins need to go, that does not justify the prose added saying that there is a coin, which is the final intent of the people that have brought this topic. As you can see in their recent contributions, they removed blantly the image and the comment of the image in more than 20 articles, without letting this discussion to finish. Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I finally found it (it was in front of my eyes and did not see it). Can you please tell me what is the difference between any of the articles that I have added a coin and the baseball card used in Billy Ripken? The card is being described with a little of a story around it, but no critics. If what you need is a bit of story of the coins in the subject articles, I can do that. But even I think that this is too much, and it goes in reprimand of the subject article itself. Miguel.mateo (talk) 05:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I have to say that this is not (at this point) something admins can fix. I would suggest the best bet is for the editors to disengage, to leave the articles at the current wrong version and settle down to some kind of discussion, either RfC or mediation, to determine consensus overall. This is not an obvious and blatant case of copyright violation, so nobody is going to get blocked and no images are going to be nuked. Whether the discussion is sufficient to justify inclusion of a non-free image (if they are indeed non-free, it's not wholly clear to me what copyright exists on current coinage) is a matter for debate and consensus. As long as the images are correctly identified, and there is a rationale for inclusion, no immediate protective action seems to me to be required. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

How can I put a picture of a celebrity to his/her article?

I tried putting a picture that I found using Google image search but it was reverted. Where can I find a picture that I can use without it being reverted? How do I know if I can use a picture or not? Please explain the copyrights. I see other celebrity articles with pictures and I want this celebrity to have a picture too. Please answer on my talk page if you can, thanks. Purplepedia (talk) 08:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If you found the image on Google Images, it is almost surely copyrighted and can't be used. Images of living people are only permitted if they are available under a free license. Try searching for images on flickr or another website that allows you to see images available under a free license. Stifle (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I notice you used the term "public domain" on the image you uploaded. Please be aware that for an image to be in the public domain means that it is no longer subject to copyright, either because the copyright has expired, because it was not eligible in the first place, or because the creator has renounced it. It does not mean that the image is publicly available. Stifle (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Book Cover

I'm working on an article about a play that has had the script published in the UK. On the publisher's website I found an image of the book cover which would make an excellent and appropriate addition to the article. Can I just ask the publisher if we can use it or is there something technical or legal I need to know first, and does their permission have to have some specific form of words in it, or will "Yes, sure, go ahead" work for us? Cottonshirt (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

  • To the latter question, requesting permission is addressed at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. In short, getting permission to use on Wikipedia is insufficient. Either the cover is used here under our fair use policy, or it is a freely licensed. There's no in between or permission to use on Wikipedia.
  • To the former question; the article is about the play, not the book. As such, unless this particular publishing of the book is notable, the use of the cover is beyond permissible fair use here. If you're intending on using the book cover just to show that its been published or to give more pizzazz to the article, that's insufficient. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Hammersoft’s first point, but I don’t think I agree with his second. A poster probably could be used for identification of a play even though it really represents a production rather than the play itself. In a very real sense the script is the play. It seems to me that a script cover could be used instead of a poster for identification in the infobox. Using both, however, probably would be inappropriate. —teb728 t c 22:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
In Project:Film the advice is that there are a couple of websites that hold images of film posters that we can use for articles, and failing that we can use the DVD or video cover. However, the unsigned author of the first comment says that not even the copyright holder can permit us to do that, while Hammersoft says we definitely can't because the DVD cover is not the film - analogous with the book not being the play. Then teb728 says, well, actually, we can do that as long as we only use the cover or the poster but not both. I hope you won't consider it rude of me to ignore all three of you. I'm going to upload the image of the book cover and claim "Fair Use". The worst thing that can happen is some zealot will take it down. Thanks for taking the time to share your opinions with me. Cottonshirt (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Both bulleted paragraphs are by Hammersoft. (Perhaps he should not have used multiple bullets.) In any case he is not saying that the copyright holder cannot permit use on Wikipedia, but rather that Wikipedia does not accept such permission. BTW the advice of Project:Film is not applicable to plays. (You are talking about a play script, aren’t you?) —teb728 t c 03:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Photo Permission Confirmation Question

I uploaded File:AlisonMRosen 2008Photo.jpg to Wikipedia Commons under what I think to be the right license. I have permission from the Author of this photo in the form of an email, am I supposed to send this information to someone? If this is not the right license can you please help? Blackbrier1 (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

See WP:COPYREQ for how to handle third party permission. —teb728 t c 22:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Is [[:File:Cc-by-3.0-us}}]] an adequate license or would I need to include another one? Blackbrier1 (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you have already forgotten that your earlier Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2009/February#New_question attempt, and dissussion, at uploading this file was rather a disaster because there was never any follow up proof of permission. That is still the case with your new upload of the same image under a new name at the commons. Despite this being uploaded to the commons there is still no proof of the subject giving any permission for its use. Because you uploaded this to the commons you have to get the permission sent there if you really do have her permission. Adding any old licence will not do because the image source website does not show any licence for any free, or even limited CC use. ww2censor (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely do have permission to upload that photograph; if you’re going to continue to be boorish to me then I’d rather receive help from someone else. All I merely want to know is if the Cc-by-3.0-us license is adequate to upload this photo? Please check your unnecessary sarcasm at the door.Blackbrier1 (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Please calm down and polite, we are just trying to help you. If you have permission, then you should have supplied it during your earlier effort but you did not do so. Now that you have decided to upload the image to the commons, for whatever reason, you will have to deal with the permission issue there according to their process. Sorry, that was your choice. The matter is ended on this wiki as far as I am concerned. In answer to your other question, the Cc-by-3.0 is listed here as a free licence you could use as a suitable licence if you do prove the image has been given this licence by the copyright holder but please remember that the burden of proof is on you, as the uploader, to provide the proof. ww2censor (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I am confused: you tagged the image as {{Copyrighted free use}} not {{Cc-by-3.0-us}}. Which free license did the copyright owner grant? It is not guessing game. You should tag the image with the tag corresponding to license the copyright owner has granted. But whatever the license is, you have to provide proof to permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org. Your conflicting stories on this almost make me doubt that you really have permission. —teb728 t c 01:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Presidente Nasheed of the maldives.jpg

This is GFDL/CC and has a FUR. Something tells me the licensing is wrong, but can someone see which is correct? SpencerT♦C 23:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Neither is correct. The image is taken from the government website, which states that its material is copyright. Furthermore, the FUR is inaccurate, as it seems to be a copy-and-paste job from the requirements page here on Wikipedia and does not actually explain why this picture can be used here. Since this person is living, the image fails WP:NFCC and should be deleted. (EhJJ)TALK 01:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I listed it at PUIteb728 t c 02:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Uploader actually the photographer?

I question whether the uploader Raia.michael, who has thus far only edited the Anthony G. Brown page, is in fact the photographer/author Mark Odell, as claimed in the Summary for File:LG headshot.JPG. Can this be verified? —ADavidB 10:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

One "Michael Raia" is mentioned in some places on the web as Anthony G. Brown's official spokesperson (e.g. [12]). Given "Raia.michael"'s editing profile, it seems quite plausible that's him. In that case, he may not be identical with the photographer "Mark Odell" (and thus the image may technically be mis-tagged), but he may still have legitimate control over the copyrights of these images in his capacity as the owner's employee. If you have doubts, you could politely ask him to send an identifying e-mail to OTRS. (I don't think I'm crossing the line into illegitimate "outing" here, right?) Fut.Perf. 11:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

biography photos

The image File:pricerichard.jpg has come under constant copyright attack. I've posted it twice now. The image was taken by Richard Price himself. I am his graduate student assistant, and he personally gave me the image to publish freely on the wiki page about him--Richard Price (American anthropologist). Please contact me personally (<email removed>) with further questions or advice on how to get around this unnecessary roadblock. Lcyarrington (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest you read the instructions for uploading an image taken by someone else? Is there anything there you don't understand? You need to select an appropriate copyright tag and have Richard Price send a permission e-mail as instructed. Without this information, the image cannot be kept. (EhJJ)TALK 19:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
You say that the copyright owner has given permission for use on Wikipedia. Ironically this in itself is grounds for speedy deletion. Sorry, but Wikipedia does not accept permission for use only on Wikipedia. Permission must allow reuse by anyone for anything. —teb728 t c 21:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


Why was an official non-copyrighed photo of a state official that I uploaded with that officials consent removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nordik7 (talkcontribs)

Hi, which image are you referring to? I see no file uploads in your contributions, was it on Commons? Mfield (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
(old ec) Nordik7's log shows that the user uploaded the same image twice (one was deleted as a copy, the other as no license info) and then uploaded that image again without a license/source (deleted as I4 again). (EhJJ)TALK 23:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
What state was it (a US state)? Most official US state photos and documents are copyrighted, but laws vary from state to state. It is federal US content which is public domain. If you are talking about another country, there laws may vary as well. It would help if you told us what image you are talking about. If you claimed that you had "consent" to upload, that isn't good enough. You'd need to follow WP:COPYREQ so that we'd have that consent on file, and we could make sure the consent was for a free license. -Andrew c [talk] 23:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, sorry... File:ImageLJL.JPG was deleted on the 16th of February 2007 for CSD I4: Image lacking sources or licensing information for more than seven days., and again that same image was deleted on 19 August 2006 for the same reason. You had tagged the photo as PD-USGov and PD-self. You did not take the photo yourself, so the PD-self claim was invalid. And since this is a work of the State of New Mexico's government, not the USGov, the PD-USGov tag was also inaccurate. (the first time you uploaded the photo in 2006, there was no license at all, so that explains it's deletion). Basically, if you can link to a page that says this image is in the PD, or that official New Mexico state government works are in the PD then the image will fly. Otherwise, we'll have to assume that it is copyrighted and not appropriate for use here. Hope this explains the deletions. If you have further questions or need any other help, feel free to ask here or contact me personally. Thanks.-Andrew c [talk] 23:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Museum painting

I'd be interested in having an image of a portrait added to Wikipedia to illustrate a biographical article which has no images at the present time. The painting is in the collection of an American public museum. The artist died over 70 years ago.

Questions about this general situation:

  • Would such a painting be allowed here, without any copyright problems?
  • Could the image be copied from the museum's website, or would someone have to obtain an indepedent photo of the painting?

Thanks (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, such an image would typically be allowed. You can use {{PD-art-life-70}} to tag the image properly. You may use the museum's photograph so long as there is no artistic content to it beyond the original artwork (i.e. it's just a plain picture or scanned copy of the original art, without a frame or special lighting or other effects). (EhJJ)TALK 00:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

jpeg image

I am self-publishing my first novel and would like to use one of your images of a Victorian house to be inserted into the cover art of my book. please advise me if this is possible and how do I proceed. Thank you. (Wordmeister)

It depends on the licensing of the image. Which image is it? Click on the image, and look for the license tag. If the image is in the public domain, you could use it; if it has a Creative Commons license, you could use it subject to the terms of the license. If it has a GFDL license, technically you could use it but the terms are very cumbersome. —teb728 t c 00:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
(ec)A very similar question was asked a couple threads up, see here. It depends on what the image is, because we use images with all sorts of different licenses. Perhaps you could link to the image and I could discuss that specific license further, -Andrew c [talk] 00:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

please help me get this image publishable?


I've filled out a copyright thing and I've added a rationale to the page. CAn someone tell me if I need to do more to get this image active, and/or if I'm somehow gotten the whole methodology wrong? A Friendly Nerd (talk) 23:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the logo on the official website [13] be used instead of this one. Furthermore, under Purpose of use, I would explain why it belong here, not that it is commonly found on the internet. Something like what you'd find if you used {{Logo fur}} rather than the generic template. (EhJJ)TALK 23:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep Calm and Carry on in PD?


Is this imagae in the public domain under Crown copywright? It was created by the UK government in 1939. [14]--DFS454 (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say Template:PD-UKGov seems to apply, but I'm not clear if these are unpublished works (or if that even matters in this situation). -Andrew c [talk] 17:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

correct way to upload

Hi, i was wanting to upload this image [15] to the Colombians in the United Kingdom article. It says some rights reserved, and after contacting the owner of the picture I was told that I am fine to use it and all of his photos should be non-profit with attribution. Could someone please help, because I am not that confident with uploading files. Also I have already uploaded [16] as I recieved permission of the Flickr user to use this as well. I am not sure if I have uploaded it correctly, as the previous time I tried uploading, it got speedily deleted. Thanks Stevvvv4444 talk 19:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time to reply in full, so I'll get back to you if no one else chimes in, but "non-profit" photos are not ok on Wikipedia. Our license requires that photos be allowed for commercial use, therefore a "non-profit" photo would fall under our "non-free content criteria" WP:NFCC. Sorry.-Andrew c [talk] 19:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
The second photo you mentioned (File:Colombianfestivaluk.jpg) is is copyright "All rights reserved." If the user is ok with it being used freely, they should change the tag on the Flickr page. Otherwise, we'll need to delete it. Sorry, (EhJJ)TALK 19:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

File:73 vega.jpg

File:73 vega.jpg seems to have no tag, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a free image could reasonably be found or created. Moreover, this image seems to be identical to that found on this page, a copyrighted publication. Thank you. CZmarlin (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have tagged it as a copyright violation. This should be an easily replaceable image, so would not even pass with a fair-use rationale. ww2censor (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

How to Properly Use an Image covered by GNU Free Documentation License


I have a question on the GNU Free Documentation License.

I would like to use some images on Wikipedia that have been published under this license. Here is one:

Let's say I would like to use this image both in a handout and in a short instructional video. I just want to be clear about what the license requires me to do.

For these uses, do I need to include the full text of the license in the document or video itself? In the first example, if I did this, the license text would probably be longer than the document. It would also be a bit cumbersome to read in a video.

Or is it enough that when I include that image in a document, I have a footnote attributing the original author, indicating that the image is used under the GNU Free Documentation License and providing a link to the full license text online?

Similarly with the video, I would indicate in a credits slide at the end that this particular image was authored by so-and-so, and is used under the GNU Free Documentation License.

Is this considered sufficient under the license, or do I need to do something else?

Thanks very much for your help.

Best Regards,

Justin (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

We can't give you legal advice here. I would suggest you read section 4H of the GFDL. Stifle (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Two questions on modern art images

I'm expanding the article on John Cage's famous "silent" piece, 4′33″, and I'd like to include two images, both of which seem problematic. One image I'd like to see is a sample of the "score", the problem being that the score is just a single page, and we're only allowed to include fragments of contemporary scores (Cage died in 1992, the composition in question was created in 1952) under fair use. Is it permissible to include an image of the entire page (i.e. like this one: [17]), in very low resolution? In a sense, it would still be a fragment, because all 4′33″ editions also include an explanatory note, either on the same page or on a separate page... Or would it be better to include just "I. TACET", or simply "TACET" in Cage's hand? Wouldn't work as well for the article, though.

Another image I'd like to add to the article is one of Robert Rauschenberg's paintings that inspired Cage. There are two kinds, all-black and all-white, and images of both are readily available on flickr: all-white and all-black. The all-white painting is particularly relevant, according to my sources on Cage, but the flickr image seems to be of dubious origin (compared to the all-black which is clearly a photograph taken at a museum). Suppose I do include the white painting image from flickr, where do I upload it, here or to Commons? And what type of license should I choose, CC because of flickr or fair use because of the fact that Rauschenberg only died recently and the artwork is from the early 1950s? Or should I refrain altogether from the white painting image (given how it may be a scan from a book, for instance) and upload the all-black one? The "which license" question applies here, too.

I'd appreciate any help. --Jashiin (talk) 12:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the score would be fine, in this instance, as it would not compete with other uses of the work — I strongly doubt anyone would be able to sell a score of 4'33".
For the artworks, if their copyrights are expired, put them at Commons. If not, you can upload them here under fair use, but only if you can make out a non-free use rationale, which requires, among other things, attributing the copyright holder. Stifle (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't normally upload images : 96.4 The Wave

File:Thewaveswan.jpg - I don't get what copyright status i should provided. I've done averything i can, yet it is still deleted. Someone Help. Jonny7003 (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You need to say that the logo is copyright to the radio station, and that you're using it in the article inbox because it is the image used to identify the station, and therefore adds something significant to the reader understanding of the topic of the article, that it is not replaceable by any free image, and that for the above reasons and because it is of low resolution and used purely for informational purposes, it is legally permissible under U.S. fair use law, and under WP's restrictions on non-free content.
If you identified it as "a logo" from the options when you uploaded it, the upload process should have slapped a {{logo fur}} template on it, and done all of the above for you automatically.
It seems a bit mean spirited of Stifle (talk · contribs) to have deleted it, rather than simply adding {{logo fur}} himself, but there you go. Jheald (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
The other logos on the article also have FUR issues. It isn't clear to me why we need to show either or both past logos, and it isn't spelled out in the FUR. Please fix the FUR if you understand how and why these images are being used under our policy. Thanks.-Andrew c [talk] 17:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I could not fix the image as it did not specify the copyright holder, as required by WP:NFCC#10a, and it was an excessive use of non-free images. The uploader throws around words like "fair use", "licensed", and "legal" without appearing to understand what they mean. It appears to me that he is unfamiliar with Wikipedia's non-free image policy and is just hoping the deletion messages will go away (they won't). Stifle (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Public School?

I have an image provided by my city's local government of a public high school. What copyright does this fall under?

It's not enough that they provide an image. They have to license the image so it's usable by any one for any purpose. See WP:COPYREQ --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 03:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I presume you mean the image on this page which looks like the identical one. The whole GFH website is copyright according to the copyright notice, so if the local government are prepared to give you a free licence to override that and to use it for anything, including commercial use, not just on Wikipedia, you should follow the instructions on WP:COPYREQ fully. Good luck ww2censor (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Why not just grab a camera and go take a picture yourself? Then you can upload here and release under a free license. Problem solved. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
    • The image they have is a really nice one, and I'm not exactly a professional photographer. I'm going to try to get that one, since there's no way that I could get a shot from that angle anyway. Swampfox1942 (talk) 02:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Also, how should I go about obtaining this license? Swampfox1942 (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
As Rat at WikiFur (talk · contribs) and ww2censor (talk · contribs) both said, you'll need to follow the instructions at WP:COPYREQ. Good luck. (EhJJ)TALK 04:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
And as Hammersoft said, it may be much easier to make your own photo. —teb728 t c 04:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


Are you allowed to upload images from tinypic? I'm currently trying to do so and having filled out the form sufficiently with the url, destination filename and summary, it will not let me upload.Onetonycousins (talk) 11:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The file needs to be uploaded from your computer. Regardless, the pictures at are not free, so make sure you have a good reason to upload one to Wikipedia. In general, pictures from that website are not allowed on Wikipedia. See WP:NFCC for details. (EhJJ)TALK 14:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Images Removed from article

Hello, I have a question, somebody removed an image I added to a page that I created, they left a comment that says: "Image with inadequate rationale removed".

The image was basically a team Logo for the Chilean first division tournament 2009....I found this logo on the main page of the team, and I added a small picture next to the team's name on my page. I did this same procedure for all the teams in my page, and only three pictures were removed...I would like to know why. any comments?

The page I created is Torneo de Apertura de Chile 2009 and the images were removed from section 2 and 3.

any help will be appreciated. thank you Chagousa (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyrighted images, such as these logos, need a fair use rationale for each use. Currently, the images are being used in Torneo de Apertura de Chile 2009 without good reason. While the logos make the page more graphically appealing, it is misuse of copyrighted images to have them there. Sorry. (EhJJ)TALK 21:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
And the reason why only a few logos were removed is that they were removed by an automated bot. Although person would probably have removed them all at once; the bot removes only those that it notices. Presumably the bot will remove the other logos later (unless you remove them yourself). —teb728 t c 22:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Chevy Vega 12-05-05.jpg

File:Chevy Vega 12-05-05.jpg seems to have been uploaded with the comment that it is my pictures. However, this image seems to be a cropped version of that shown on this page, and it clearly identified as This image is distributed as Rights Managed. Thank you. CZmarlin (talk) 02:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Fear not, it has already been deleted as a copyvio. ww2censor (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, image speedy deleted as copyvio, and I gave the user a last warning regarding improper uploads. I won't personally be monitoring the situation, so if the disruptions continue, you can contact me on my talk page or take it to one of the admin boards. Thanks for bringing this to attention.-Andrew c [talk] 03:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Ack, tons of copyvios or unlicensed images in this user's history. Anyone want to help go through and tag these images (either as needing licenses, or as copyvio)? -Andrew c [talk] 03:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
For reference, the user is Vegavairbob (talk · contribs) —teb728 t c 03:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I have tagged the rest of them. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 04:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


File:Linus_Pauling_Werner_Kuhn_Wolfgang_Pauli_big.jpg and File:Langmuir_Blodgett_Möbius_Kuhn_(LBMK)_layer.jpg I use the above two files on the page Hans_Kuhn since Wikipedia has the licences as indicated. I hope that they are correctly implemented.

- Please erase the file: File:Linus_Pauling_Werner_Kuhn_Wolfgang_Pauli.jpg‎ Yes check.svg Done Its to small and not useful. Thank yiu for your help CarsiEi (talk) 12:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The second file is from a foreign journal, but I don't believe that it is considered to be in the public domain in the US as there is no indication it is not under copyright protection in its country of production. Perhaps someone who know more about this can elaborate. (EhJJ)TALK 14:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Per your message on my talk page, you indicate that you have permission from the original creator. Do you have this as an e-mail or otherwise written? If so, it would be best to use to OTRS system. If not, what specifically were you permitted to do with the image? To use it on Wikipedia as free media, permission needs to be granted for any use, including commercial (for profit) use by anyone. If that permission was not given, then it may permissible to be used as non-free media. Could you explain exactly what permission was given to you? Thanks! (EhJJ)TALK 16:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

We hereby grant permission for the requested use expected that due credit is given to the original source. For material published before 2007 additionally: Please note that the author's permission is also required. Credit must include the following components: Author(s) Name(s): Title of the Article. Name of the Journal. Publication year. Volume. Page(s). Copyright Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA. Reproduced with permission. Bettina Loycke, Copyright & Licensing Manager, Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Boschstr. 12, 69469 Weinheim, Germany.

Ich bin mit der Übertragung des Copyrights für den Wikipedia-Artikel einverstanden. Dietmar Möbius ( Thats German and means: I agree to give the copyrights (of this figure) to the Wikipedia-article.

Both credits I indicated on the figure and the text to figure within the Wikipedia article. CarsiEi (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That license is not compatible with Wikipedia, and even if it was, would need to be sent to Stifle (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

What is the next step? Do you suggest to forward the two e-mails (by the author and the journal of the article) to (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Permission to use on Wikipedia is essentially worthless to us. We accept media under two broad types; fair use and free license. If the image(s) in question are not available under a free license, we must use them under fair use. Permission to use is not free license. For your next step, I recommend reading Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Use of album cover

I'd like to contribute to make an article about the Alice Cooper album "School Days". Therefore, I've had the album cover scanned and would like to know whether I can use it in the article or not. If second is the case, I'll write it witout image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parasoless (talkcontribs) 09:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you can upload it as long as it follows our WP:NFCC and you upload it correctly (here's the link: Wikipedia:Upload/Non-free album cover, please read the instructions on that page before you upload the image.) (EhJJ)TALK 12:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


Hi, I uploaded File:Colombianfestivaluk.jpg with the permission from a Flickr user, I have been told that its status needs to be approved by either

  • making a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en..., stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license.

I contacted the Flickr user who has in turn sent an e-mail to Wikipedia. Despite this, the image remains listed for speedy deletion. This is becoming a joke, as it is one simple picture, that I have been given permission to use, and although I know copyright status is important. This has surely now been confirmed. Stevvvv4444talk 16:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

  • The image source on Flickr is tagged as all rights reserve. I.e., it's not a free license. There is no evidence on hand that indicates the image has been released CC-BY-SA 3.0. Maybe the e-mail you have from the person indicates this, but that evidence is not at hand here. Getting permission to use on Wikipedia is NOT equivalent to a free license. You must obtain release of the image under a free license. Please see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • One really simply way to solve this issue, if you are in contact with this flickr user, is to ask them, if they intend to donate the image to wikipedia, to simply change the flickr license to either CC-SA-BY or CC-BY. -Andrew c [talk] 19:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Otherwise, ask that user to send you the e-mail he received in response to his e-mail. It should contain the OTRS ticket number, which will need to be added to the image description. But, as Andrew c (talk · contribs) suggested, changing the license on the original file on Flickr is the easiest way to go. (EhJJ)TALK 19:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok, I have contacted the creator to see if he can change the status on Flickr, I hope this finally obides by Wikipedias rules if he chooses to do so. Stevvvv4444talk 12:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Changed status

Hi, I have noticed that the creator has changed the status to the correct type (, could someone please aknowledge this for the Wikipedia file, and remove all of the deletion tags etc. Thanks Stevvvv4444 talk 16:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I have uploaded the largest file from flickr. ww2censor (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Great, thanks for the help Stevvvv4444 talk 18:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Congratulations on getting it fixed, and I am sorry that the image policy is such a pain. —teb728 t c 19:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Need help

Methron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has a continuity of uploading files, stating they are the copyright holder, and moving on. This has never been the case on any of his uploads. For one of his latest see File:AkronFlag.png. I'm looking for a firmer template that explains copyright, as they obviously don't get it; possibly one that states in will result in a short block if the problem continues. It's hard to keep track of them on here and Commons and feel something "stern" might help the problem a bit. Thoughts? Thanks, §hepTalk 01:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

While I would not be emphatic that this is a WP:RS, this site indicates the flag was designed by Mayor Don Plusquellic and his Chief of Staff, Joel Bailey before 1996, so this editor's date of 2-26-09 contradicts that, as does this 2007 online flags catalog. I suggest you WP:FFD it. ww2censor (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
So much for that, blocked as a sock. I updated the one with a FUR and will let the other get deleted for lack of copyright tag. Thanks, §hepTalk 20:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Issue considering the source of the image

Hello, I received an email regarding to the File:Stein1.gif that I uploaded. The administrators notified me that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content. I created this file (image) and uploaded, because I needed to use it for upgrading information about CITY College, Affiliated Institution of Sheffield, They also mentioned that photo will be removed. Please tell me how we can solve this problem and keep the photo? Many thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Floropoulou (talkcontribs) 09:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You need to indicate the source if the image, even if it is just "I photographed this image myself" --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 10:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

copyright questions

Hi there,

I am the original painter of the artwork that had been posted on

Your bot now have deleted the artworks (each)

Can you please advise what exact selection choice shall be made on copyright to restore the images on the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asztro (talkcontribs) 21:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)