Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2009/July

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


Converting to SVG

Alright, a question here. So, there is this non free flag that I want to convert to SVG, but only a fair use version exists. Could it be possible to convert to SVG safely if I took a picture of this flag, abnd released it under a free license? Thanks in advance for your help. Connormah (talk) 03:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No, if the presence of the flag in the photograph is other than incidental, you would not have full ownership over the photograph. That being said, is there some reason you can't convert that version to SVG? File formats aren't my thing, but it seems to me that the resulting work would have the same copyright status as the original one, and therefore be usable under exactly the same rationale. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Not sure what it is exactly, but there is something about non-free SVGs that make them weary of converting non-free images to SVG. What license should I use for photos of flags flying, then? Can it be uploaded to Commons? Connormah (talk) 05:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
First of all, note that many flags are in the public domain, so these issues don't crop up. I assume Burnaby's isn't. The best advice I can give you (IANAL, etc.) is that if you are taking a picture in which the flag is the/a focal point, any copyright that exists on the flag will follow through to the photograph, and the latter will not be suitable for uploading to the Commons. If the presence of the flag is purely incidental, this is not the case. I am not an expert on determining where the line is, but those are the principles involved. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 18:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I am unsure about a copyright status of this flag. It is assumed that it is copyrighted, but I, for one am not sure. Would you reccommend to inquire about the copyright status? Connormah (talk) 05:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Picture that has no copyright

What about a picture that has no copyright that was made by drawing on photos for educational purposes?--ChubsterII (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

File:siamang_compared_to_bigfoot.jpg What about this image that has no copyright? It was made for an educational comparison.--ChubsterII (talk) 10:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe you misunderstand copyright and Wikipedia's mission. Everything is copyrighted, by default, unless you have an explicit notice stating otherwise. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, is licensed in a manner which allows third party re-use, modification, and possible commercial profit. All content needs to be licensed in a manner which is compatible with Wikipedia's overall licensing. Images that are "for educational purposes only", may be OK on university websites, or in class projects, or for non-profit ventures, but on Wikipedia, that excuse is not sufficient due to the encyclopedia being licensed freely. Therefore, the two images you uploaded are assumed to be copyrighted and therefor not appropriate for Wikipedia. The only exception to this is "fair use" images, see WP:NFC.-Andrew c [talk] 13:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Passport photo of a Russian Federation citizen with personal data

On Wikipedia (Macedonian language) have been uploaded a scanned photo of a passport ([1]) of a citizen of the Russian Federation with some personal data on it. As far as I'm aware with the copyright law (and the law as a whole) this is not allowed. Can you tell me if this is really a violation and advice me how to proceed? (There's a template in English, so you don't have to know Macedonian language to check this) Regards! --StanProg (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that we can't do much about it from here, seeing as it's another project. The best page to bring it up at would be here, but unless you know Macedonian... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I know Macedonian, but the Macedonian administrators usually seem to not "understand" why the copyrighted and other not allowed images should be removed. Just like the scanned article from a Bulgarian newspaper here [2] which they deny to remove even it's for quick deletion. In other words: I just want to be sure if this scanned passport is legally uploaded or not. --StanProg (talk) 15:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Status of File:NBL-logo.jpg

The image File:NBL-logo.jpg is the logo of the Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory, maintained by NASA. It is tagged with {{PD-USGov-NASA}}. I know that the NASA logo itself isn't covered by that, but what is the status of this logo? The uploader was assuming that "Individual departments aren't covered by these restrictions the way I read it" (see User talk:RadioFan/Archives/2009/July#Neutral Buoyancy Lab logo). As this looks too complex for either of us, can someone with the expertise make a decision on whether this file has the correct tag, or should have a different tag, or needs to be deleted, please? --RexxS (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Er, why isn't the NASA logo covered by the American government public domain? I'm not saying you're wrong, but the NASA logos seem to be tagged as being PD (here and here. Is there something I'm missing? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 01:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
You may be missing the first line under "Warnings" in {{PD-USGov-NASA}}:


but I'm no expert, which is why I asked. The rationale on File:Nasaseal.svg says it's fair-use, then it has a PD tag. Maybe it can be both PD and "restricted" (hence the {{insignia}}, which is on File:NASA logo.svg as well). I just want to make sure we tag this image properly. --RexxS (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Sure, but those restrictions aren't copyright/IP restrictions; it's still in the public domain. And skimming through the relevant law (IANAL! IANAL!), it doesn't look like they'd apply to the NBL logo. Either way, you should be able to apply PD-USGov-NASA to it, assuming that the logo was indeed a creation of NASA or some department/agency thereof. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 02:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Well I'm really lost now. I checked our Public domain article and found "A creative work is said to be in the public domain if there are no laws which restrict its use by the public at large." Yet the use of NASA logos is "restricted per US law 14 CFR 1221". And I just found {{NASA logo}}. The words "can" and "worms" are running through my head now. Hehe, it's obviously time for me to give up worrying about it. --RexxS (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Media tagged both GFDL and public domain

Recently I've been trying to clean up stuff in Category:License_migration_needs_review, and I've found the majority of the images that the bot can't process contain both the {{GFDL}} and {{PD}} or some variants of either. If the user wants credit for his image, it shouldn't be public domain... because that means anyone can do whatever they want with it, including taking credit. If the user doesn't care how the image is used, that's what public domain is for... and in the case of PD, anyone can ignore the GFDL stuff, because public domain says "do whatever you want". Logically an image shouldn't be tagged as both, and I'm trying to develop a method or consensus or something to deal with this. Is there a consensus on Wikipedia on how to deal with this?

Here's how I've been handling it so far (boldly, hopefully not recklessly):

  1. Check to make sure the image is actually free (a good number are mislabeled). Relabel/add fair use/speedy delete nominate as necessary.
  2. Look at the image history to make sure the license wasn't tampered with. I saw one case where a user changed the info from a copyright tag to GFDL, with no justification. Not cool.
  3. Look at the upload history. If the comments field shows {{GFDL-self}} and there's no wording in the image page about "I release this for public domain" then I remove the PD tag. Done.
  4. Check the user's contribs. If their first image upload was within a month of the uploaded image date, I assume they didn't understand what "public domain" actually meant, and remove the PD tag. I try to put a note on the person's talk page as well, telling them how to switch it to PD if they want.
  5. Otherwise I assume the user knew what they were doing, and remove the GFDL tag as superfluous.

Please let me know if I'm doing this right. RabidDeity (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Why remove the GFDL tag? If it was tagged as PD and GFDL by the original uploader - you should leave both tags. --Megapixie (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, if it's actually PD, the GFDL tag is meaningless. Is it really harmful to have meaningless tags on there? I'm not sure. ReabidDeity's approach looks reasonable to me, though a more conservative one would be to remove the PD tag on the assumption that the GFDL tag proves that that wasn't what was intended. No strong views, really. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 04:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

First off, it's best to be cautious and tag these GFDL instead of PD where there's a conflict. If an author says something flatly contradictory, such as "It's in the public domain, but I don't allow you to reproduce it unless you credit me", a judge would be likely to rule that the author clearly did not intend to release the work into the public domain, despite using those words. When there's a conflict, go with the more restrictive license.

Also, there are some cases where both tags are needed. If I take a photo of a PD sculpture, I may tag my photo GFDL (for the photo itself) and PD (in terms of the underlying statue). Or a composite image may be tagged with both. Or if I modify a GFDL image, but I release my contributions to the public domain, I may tag it GFDL, but PD as concerns my own modifications. – Quadell (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting points all around.
Megapixie and Steve Smith, the rationale behind trying to clean up the images that have both tags is because I do indeed think it's harmful to have both tags. Is an image with both tags free to use without attribution, or not? This is a question the tags are specifically designed to address, and therefore we should try to ensure the tags are used properly and clearly. It's especially an issue when bots are trying to migrate images to the Commons, or perform other maintenance (such as CC relicensing), and the legal status of the images isn't clear. I agree that it's probably safer to assume GFDL than PD, and I think I'll change my personal policy accordingly. Once the barn door is open it's impossible to put the horses back in.
Quadell, as for the first case I can understand different licenses on the original artwork and on the photograph of it, but in such a case the user should use text indicating the original sculpture is public domain, rather than {{PD-self}} as is typical-- unless there exists a template roughly saying, "This is a photograph of a 3 dimensional object which is in the public domain. Other licenses may apply to the image itself." This clarifies the status of the image, because according to {{PD-self}} the "work" is public domain-- one might reasonably assume the "work" in this case refers to both the object depicted and the photograph taken. Indeed, in your example attribution isn't necessary at all, and the only burden is in proving the original sculpture is indeed PD.
The other examples about modifying or compositing a GFDL image are rather dangerous. The original work is GFDL, and derivative works must also be licensed as such, unless I'm mistaken. By stating that your modifications are public domain, viewers might jump to the conclusion that the modified work itself is public domain, especially if you use any of the PD tags. This isn't true, because you can't strip the attribution requirements of the original work. We all see the distinction, but the average editor might not. All of the existing PD tags state that the whole work itself is public domain. This isn't what we want. Plus how do you handle levels of modifications? "This work is a public domain modification of a GFDL modification of a CC interpretation of a public domain work." Kinda makes me cringe. Maybe it's easier to just say, "Please don't do that," just because it's so difficult to explain and understand, even if it's not expressly forbidden.
Thanks all for your comments! If you disagree with any of my assumptions or find a flaw in this logic please let me know. RabidDeity (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I often use multiple tags on an image, with text descriptions, as in File:Columbia-15759-D.jpg. Sometimes text descriptions aren't needed, as in File:United States ten dollar gold certificate.jpg. If an image is tagged both {{GFDL}} and {{PD-some reason}}, without a description as to why, I'd say it's in an error state. But removing the GFDL tag is probably not a good way to fix it. It will take individual investigation, I'm afraid. – Quadell (talk) 12:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, also, your cringeworthy example of "a public domain modification of a GFDL modification of a CC interpretation of a public domain work" is not at all far-fetched. All text in Wikipedia is currently dual licensed under the GFDL and cc-by-sa-3.0... except for early edits "grandfathered in" previously published under the GFDL only by multiple authors. Those aren't under cc-by-sa. And some people's text contributions (like mine) are all PD. And some may be released under earlier cc-by licenses as well. So a single article can be licensed in byzantine ways. – Quadell (talk) 12:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Tag?

How do I add a copyright tag to the picture I uploaded?

I picked it from Sharon Cuneta's website and there is no copyright mentioned about the picture. I believe that the picture is free to use provided that its for a good intent.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrreyes (talkcontribs) 08:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The site you mention says "©1998-2002 Sharon C. Pangilinan. All rights reserved." I see no reason to believe Wikipedia has any right to use it. Sorry —teb728 t c 02:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the site was owned by Sharon Cuneta Pangilinan, but the picture was orignated and was taken from the magazine article SHARON-STRUCK by Karen Vera, Mega Magazine, August 2002 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrreyes (talkcontribs) 19:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
So does the magazine grant a license for reuse of the photo by anyone for anything? If so, see WP:COPYREQ for how to handle permission. —teb728 t c 20:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

cc-by-nc-sa incompatibility?

Resolved:  – ukexpat (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The contributor of Elevate Festival is contesting its copyvio speedy tagging by noting that the original content is licensed CC-BY-NC-SA. I assume the NC component makes this license incompatible with WP's own CC-BY-SA, but would love confirmation from a more knowledgeable editor. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. See [3]. NC-SA cannot be released under -SA. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
You're correct. However, in this case, the content seems to consist primarily of lists. Since there's so little prose, the article could probably be fixed with a little effort. decltype (talk) 11:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
It may not need to be, though. There's an assertion of permission at the talk page. I've blanked and provided information to the contributor on how to verify. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, both. Gonzonoir (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Mollie Sugden as Mrs Slocombe.jpg

Resolved: Thanks for review and assistance. – ukexpat (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Would like some thoughts on the non-free use rationale for this image. As background Mollie Sugden died today and this image appears to be a screencap, harvested from Flickr, of her in her role as Mrs Slocombe on the BBC's Are You Being Served. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 01:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The "unique historic image" tag is nonsense, I would say. But if the subject is deceased and no free photographs of her are known to exist, there's pretty strong tendency on Wikipedia to say that a single photograph for illustration passes NFCC #8, and the rest of the criteria also seem to be passed here (except that the resolution needs to be reduced). I'd say it's fine. Was there anything more specific you were wondering? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 01:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
No, it was the dead actor/screencap issue. Thanks.  – ukexpat (talk) 01:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Image reduced in resolution to comply with fair use policy, old version deleted. Mfield (Oi!) 02:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Smithsonian Institution

I was about to start downloading this recent picture of the Star Spangled Banner Flag from the Smithsonian Institution when I noticed a copyright claim at this page. How can the Smithsonian claim copyright when it's part of the US federal government? Or is it like the USPS, federal but not officially? Nyttend (talk) 13:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the Smithsonian is not actually an arm of the federal government. It is largely dependent on federal funding, but it raises its own funds and it is technically a trust. Thus as you say it is much like the Post Office or the Federal Reserve. It can, as it asserts, hold copyrights. Cool3 (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Some employees of the Smithsonian are federal employees, and some are not. Works created by the federal employees are in the public domain, works created by the non-federal employees are the property of the Smithsonian. — Walloon (talk) 09:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


I uploaded this photo and wrote that this photo made Nikola Pesic, who is also the autor of the artistic sculpture which is on th ephoto. I got the message that it is not clear who is the autor of the photo. I simply do not have the idea how to write this to be more clear than : Nikola Pesic is the author and he released this picture under GFDL licence in personal correspondence. For the same reason, some other photos of Nikola Pesic obtained in the very same way were removed from Wikipedia Commons. This is very confusing and I would really appreciate any help. Thanks in advance.--Maduixa (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

So the person who created the sculpture is the same person as created the photo, and he releases it under the GFDL? Sounds fine to me, since he would have all rights to the photo. You said he communicated this to you via personal correspondence; if it was by e-mail, maybe forward a copy to Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Are these copyright or PD-text ?

File:Sneaky Sound System - UFO (Goodwill Mix).jpg, File:Sneaky Sound System - UFO UK.jpg, File:Sneaky Sound System - UFO.jpg....are these truly copyrighted per the image page or is the design simple enough to be covered by PD-text ? - Peripitus (Talk) 21:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

In my layman's opinion, all three show sufficient creativity to be eligible for copyright, and are therefore appropriately tagged. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 01:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Is it a standard typeface or an artistic one designed speicifically for these covers? If it is a standard font, then {{PD-text}} applies, otherwise it is better to treat these images as copyrighted. In borderline cases like this one the decision also depends on the country of publication. Sv1xv (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Discussion on a couple of font forums (by others) has failed to identify a standard font here. Probably custom made for the covers and hence, as stated above, copyrighted - Peripitus (Talk) 23:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Song That Doesn't End, The - melody and lyrics in musical notation

I have created a JPG of the melody and lyrics of the song, "The Song That Doesn't End." I keyed the melody into a music notation program myself, and added the lyrics from the Wiki page about the song (although I could have sung them myself). . The page mentions the composer of the song, and I've included his name on the music. . Although the JPG is all my work, the melody and lyrics are not. . Should I upload or not? . --Paul E Musselman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmmn (talkcontribs) 06:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I can’t tell from the article, The Song That Never Ends whether the song is still under copyright. If it is, your image would be a copyright violation. But even if the copyright has expired, I can’t think of an encyclopedic use for your image. —teb728 t c 07:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Unless I'm very much mistaken, the song dates from the 1990s and would therefore still be under copyright. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 07:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
But then again, you could make a decent case for fair use here, I think, so it would be justifiable to upload it as non-free conent. Fut.Perf. 08:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
My reason for including the image/melody/lyrics is because an article about a song is virtually useless without knowing the tune! Paulmmn (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry but that is not an acceptable WP:NFC rationale. – ukexpat (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Has this question from neuro been resolved?


I just wanted to check if the question from Neuro on:

been resolved? I specifically asked Dr Seeman if anyone could reuse his graph and he said yes. This graphic is: Does License mean the database? I don't really understand what is further required.

thanks Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 09:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It's tagged as being released under the GFDL; is that specifically what Dr. Seeman said he was doing? Did he say that he was allowing anybody to re-use the image for any purpose? Is attribution required? As well, the graph lists quite a few authors; is Dr. Seeman the sole copyright holder? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 18:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Steve, this was the question and answer Dr Seeman gave me:

Just to be sure Dr Seeman are you willing to license it under GNU copyright which means others can make commercial use of it? He said Yes to that question.

   On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 9:15 PM, Philip Seeman <> wrote:
       Yes, that’s also ok with me.

       On 06/04/09 7:11 AM, wrote:
           Wikipedia has further asked me if you would permit the graph's copying by people outside Wikipedia?
           On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Philip Seeman <> wrote:
               Yes, that’s ok to use.
               Philip Seeman.

at the time I thought Dr Seeman would not allow this if he did not have copyright at his discretion however, the subsequent reminder on my talk page from Neuro that I needed to include a license I have only recently thought may have meant the journal and not Dr Seeman. So I contacted him last night and he said I had best check with Wiley to be sure. So I am waiting for their reply. I have a feeling with this that Dr Seeman was probably right in the first place and the graph is ok, but I will check anyway.Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 00:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Please delete this file, I didn't realise we needed permission from the vendor and it might be weeks before it comes thru.Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 05:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 05:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Ultimate Driver Fanstite Logo.png

Why is this against copyright?, I made it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmet1994 (talkcontribs) 00:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason it's tagged for speedy deletion is that it lacks a copyright tag; you need to decide what license you're tagging it under (or whether you're releasing it into the public domain) and then tag it appropriately. However, did you also take the photograph of the car? If not, that image is derivative work, and the copyright holder of the image from which the car was taken would also have rights to the logo. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 01:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

1874 Board of Trade report

A pdf of an 1874 British Board of Trade report is online at HMSO. As this document is now 135 years old, can I extract a sketch map from it and attach it to a Wikipedia article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilucidate (talkcontribs) 08:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. --Carnildo (talk) 09:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


The reasoning that this image is in the public domain does not seem to be correct. There is no evidence that this photo is a work of the United States Federal Government as claimed. (Whenever would have they made this photo anyway? The page linked to by the uploader guesses the image at 1942, but Shostakovich would have been hunkered down in Russia then, and had not travelled to the USA yet. I highly doubt the "Office of War Information" hired a photographer to take a portrait of Shostakovich in Russia in the midst of WWII.) Regardless, the page is clearly stating that the photo is merely a holding in the Office of War Information Collection of the Library of Congress. If you follow the link on that page saying "How to obtain copies of this item" (I can't link it because Wikipedia parses it wrong, which may be a bug someone may want to look into), you will see that it says first and foremost: "The Library of Congress generally does not own rights to material in its collections and, therefore, cannot grant or deny permission to publish or otherwise distribute the material." This image is probably a copyright violation, what dost thou in charge think?--Atethnekos (talk) 03:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You have a valid point but as this image is on the Commons, so you should bring up the issue at commons:Commons talk:Licensing. ww2censor (talk) 04:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Will do; but shouldn't it be removed here as well or as soon as possible (assuming it is a violation)? Or will it be removed here only when it is removed there?--Atethnekos (talk) 05:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
It actually isn't "here" at all; images hosted at the Commons can be piped directly into Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, but cannot be modified or deleted locally. Right under the image it says "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. The description on its description page there is shown below." Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 05:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. They should make that clearer when they state the images are from the Commons. Obviously the "from" relation could be a lot of things (e.g., that it was imported from there to here). If it said instead "This is a file hosted by the Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia" or something to that effect, the relation would be much clearer.--Atethnekos (talk) 05:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


The above file has an awful lot of fair use templates, some of which seem to be there only because "it looks pretty". Do all of these really fall under fair use? It's debatable, I think. Opinions? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"Because it looks official" probably isn't defensible as fair use, especially as it directly contradicts the purpose of trademark. Unless it's used specifically for identification and in a very limited context, it might not be OK to use. See also Wikipedia:Logos and Wikipedia:NFCC#8 RabidDeity (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I dimly remember a recent hullabaloo about the widespread use of sports team logos under fair use. Can anybody remember where that took place? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 01:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos? Stifle (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

File:PQ with Segovia & Castelnuovo-Tedesco.jpg

Hello People, I continue to see a "speedy deletion" tag on my File:PQ with Segovia & Castelnuovo-Tedesco.jpg which is on my article titled Paganini Quartet. I did enter a copyright tag, so I am puzzled that this photo continues to be a candidate for deletion.

I also attempted to delete the warning template below the enlarged photo, as invited to do once the copyright tag has been entered, but still I see the speedy deletion warning.

Thanks so much for your assistance and all best wishes!

DtemiankaHT (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The description has no information about the photographer. Obviously it is not your own work. Why is it public domain? Sv1xv (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. Please forgive my clumsy efforts. I have again attempted to select the correct license and description, based on good-faith representation that this photo comes from personal estate files and photographer is long since unknown. Your further guidance will be much appreciated. DtemiankaHT (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
This may be a difficult case. When and where was the photo taken? Has it ever been published? In which country? Generally the copyright for works by anonymous artists in Europe expires 70 years after publication (see {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}). Sv1xv (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your continued interest. I believe the photo was taken about 60 years ago in the U.S. Part of it -- cropped -- was privately published by my father in 1986 for a special event. I believe it was taken by a friend of my father rather than per contract.DtemiankaHT (talk) 03:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
If it was first published in the USA between 1923 and 1977 without a copyright notice, then it is in the public domain. If this is the case, tag it with {{PD-Pre1978}}, but you must describe accurately its creation and publication history. Sv1xv (talk) 03:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I have followed through as you recommend, please advise. Thank you. DtemiankaHT (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I have had no response to my last query and would much appreciate your review & comment on revised information I have provided, prior to deadline for deletion tomorrow. Again, this photo is property of my father's estate and was privately created. Thank you.DtemiankaHT (talk) 04:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Antonia Bernath CUCKOO.jpg

Resolved:  – ukexpat (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

(copied from my talk page)

Hi Drilnoth,
I've been away on business, so didn't know that an image I uploaded (Antonia Bernath CUCKOO.jpg) had been tagged for deletion, and then deleted on 1 July 2009. I've only logged on to Wikipedia today, so apologies for delay on this - it's my first chance to respond to the tagging and request an undelete.
I understand that the reason giving for tagging this image for deletion was "possibly unfree File".
I'm the producer of the British feature film CUCKOO and I am copyright owner in the film. I commissioned and paid the stills photographer who took the photographic image "Antonia Bernath CUCKOO.jpg" and also signed the contract which transfered the rights to me so that stills from the film could be used in the public domain. I also signed the agreement with the actors' agents which transfered image rights to me so that we can release these images into the public domain.
I would like to request an undelete of this file and restoration of previous page because I can confirm that the file is free for use.

Archie424 (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I see. That makes this pretty complicated. I'm going to start a section about this at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions since I'm not sure how situations like this are usually handled... there some others who might know of similar past discussions can comment. If there seems to be a consensus that the image should be restored, I'll be more than happy to. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

(new discussion)

As I said, I'm not yet familar with how this kind of thing is handled and would like some more input. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Have this fellow e-mail, preferably from some sort of non-free e-mail address (or failing that from a free e-mail address listed on the film's website, or something -just so we know it's not somebody who signed up for a gmail account to impersonate the movie producer), explaining the situation. OTRS agents are generally admins as well, so whoever deals with the ticket can undelete it. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 18:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
For more information have him read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. —teb728 t c 21:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
And also WP:IOWN. – ukexpat (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks all for information, advice and links. Will e-mail from non-free e-mail address to explain situation. Archie424 (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Subdivisions of Ürümqi-China.png

Resolved: Not a copyright question.  – ukexpat (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Image is not helpful at all. The colors must be tagged with explanation about what they refer to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This does not appear to be a copyright question. Please contact User:ASDFGH who uploaded the image to Commons and discuss with them. Thanks.  – ukexpat (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Museum website's picture of person who died in 1990

Hi. Would it be OK to use this picture: in the Michael Bigg article? I don't know who owns the copyright; it is probably not the Sidney Museum. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that no free (i.e. either public domain or licensed under a license that allows unlimited re-use by anybody for any purpose) image of him is known to exist, that should be fine. Make sure you put a fair use rationale on the file page once you've uploaded it (let me know if you need help). Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 17:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Steve. I've uploaded it.[4]. Please let me know if the rationale needs improvement. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 04:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright of Screenshots

User:J Milburn keeps adding this tag to [[{{non-free}}|this tag]] to Adam Wilson (The Young and the Restless) due to the number of screenshots on the page. But I don't understand how this would be a problem, as several articles of this matter have several or even more screenshots on their respective pages, given that screenshots are the only way to illustrate storylines. Candyo32 (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
All non-free images on Wikipedia need to comply with our non-free content criteria. I suspect that J Milburn's contention is that not all of the images you're using comply with criteria 3a and 8. Please let me know if that clarifies things at all. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 00:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
It clarifies, but I think that the images comply with definitely 3 (images could be used on several pages) and 8 also. Several pages in the Soap opera portal have several screenshots, and I don't understand why this is a problem. Candyo32 (talk) 00:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
The four at the bottom need to be deleted, if nothing changed. The stated purpose of these files, on the fair use rationale, is simply "Illustration". That is NOT a valid fair use rationale purpose. I've tagged those four images as problematic because of that. Please review our non-free content guidelines, and how a fair use rationale should be written, instead of looking at other articles that may likely have just as bad image abuses. -Andrew c [talk] 01:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I have to concur with Andrew c... the 4 spot images don't seem to be doing much more than "the character looks like...", which the infobox images cover quite nicely. And as for "Several pages in the Soap opera portal have several screenshots..." that raises two things:
  1. Look at the images on those other pages, how they are used, and how they are FURred. They may give a better indication of what is usable and how to justify it in the FUR.
  2. Those pages may have exactly the same problem as this one.
- J Greb (talk) 01:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I fixed the purpose on the pictures to give more understanding. Candyo32 (talk) 02:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
You added the text This image is used for purposes of critical commentary and illustration in the Adam Wilson article, a subject of public interest. The image being used to illustrate a specific and notable plotline of the character's history. to each image. For images that are used in the infobox and/or for clear subject identification purposes, default text like this tends to pass muster. But personally, I think you need a different rationale for each image. What is the specific and notable plotline the image is depicting? What is the critical commentary? -Andrew c [talk] 03:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I edited the purpose on the images again, to try to suffice. Candyo32 (talk) 03:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia copyright

File:Veitshakmah.png is tagged with {{wikipedia-screenshot}}. Not sure how useful this image is, so perhaps it should be taken to FFD, but right now it's up for deletion as an orphaned nonfree image. Is there any way in which this isn't {{PD-text}}? Nyttend (talk) 01:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree it could be PD-text. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 01:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Looks uncopyrightable to me. Not sure what purpose it's supposed to serve, though. Algebraist 01:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
According to the upload the purpose is “to identify a font issue with firefox”. Apparently associated with this issue. —teb728 t c 05:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Book cover

I'm writing an article about a book called The Rise of Scourge and I have a picture of the cover from a website in My Pictures on my pc that I'm trying to put in my article. I don't know how to get any copywriting info from the website, if they have any. And, can I scan the book off and use it without all of that stuff, or do I still have to get permission from the artist or someone like that? Or take a picture with a camera? This is my first article and I'm completely lost on the image stuff. Melkittycat (talk) 02:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

There's ample precedent that a picture of a book's cover is acceptable for us in an article about the book. You'll need to tag it as non-free and include a fair use rationale, though. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 02:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Copyright — the right to copy. — Walloon (talk) 05:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Uploads by ElPilotoDi

User: ElPilotoDi uploaded a massive number of images, and most (or perhaps all) of them have been tagged for deletion (see user talk page). If possible, I would like to help save some of them as I feel they are low resolution, and could possible satisfy WP:NFCC. I am pretty sure the user's first language is not English, which may explain the terse statements in the justification section. For a particular example, see File:ROL3Cast.jpg. Let me know if there is anything that could be done to help, or if it's a lost cause. It seems like quite a bit of work. I have seen some examples of images (e.g., A Shot at Love) which have, at least until now, survived deletion. Is this the sort of summary which is needed or is the source tainted? Thanks. Plastikspork (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I am by no means an expert, but those rationales look iffy to me. – ukexpat (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Right, the rationals on ElPilotoDi's uploads are very iffy. It would be great if I could see an example which was not iffy, if such an example exists. Other examples that I have seen include File:Topmodel1.jpg, File:ANTM2.JPG, File:Antm3b.jpg, ... From the justifications given in those images, it would appear that a similar justification could be used for File:ROL3Cast.jpg? Or all the existing examples flawed as well? Thanks. Plastikspork (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I think they are all very iffy. Expert eyes please? – ukexpat (talk) 00:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I've already tagged most of them for deletion for various reasons. The user has been emailing me about them, so I added an explanation of the messages. I think it's a case of the user thinking you can upload anything and slap fair use on it. Stifle (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I would like to know if there is anything I can do to help save some of them. I would be happy to help fill out the fairuse portions if it is possible to save any of them (e.g., the examples I provided above). Thanks again. Plastikspork (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think any of them can be saved as none appear to meet any of the non-free use criteria. – ukexpat (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Does that include: File:ANTM_Cycle_4.jpg, File:Antm5.jpg, File:ANTM6.jpg, ...? It appears they are being used for the same purpose as File:ROL3Cast.jpg, and the examples which I provided above, which have now been tagged. Is there any example of a screenshot of the cast of a television show which does not violate policy? Thank you. Plastikspork (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes those too, IMHO, as a free use image could be created of the individuals or the group - they are all still alive. A screenshot of dead actor in character is probably OK. Take a look at Mollie Sugden - the ibox contains a low resolution screenshot of her in character. – ukexpat (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems extremely unlikely that they will ever all be in the same place at the same time again, as there are so many people in the picture, but I understand the rationale. I completely agree when it comes to the images of individuals, but large groups could be debated IMHO. Thank you. Plastikspork (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright status of license plates

A recent edit to the Mississippi article added an image of the current license plate used in the state. The image was uploaded by User:Zul32, who has uploaded a number of scans of states' license plates; he collects them apparently. In the image description page seen here, Zul32 claims that he is the copyright owner of the work since he scanned the plates, which I highly doubt. This should be changed to show the true copyright holder of the design, but who copyrights plates? Are they a work of the federal government and thus under Public Domain, or do the states hold their copyrights? Or does the designer hold it? I googled "license plate copyright" and some other terms to try to figure this out, but I couldn't come up with anything solid. Does anyone know who holds these copyrights? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I can only speak for the Mississippi plate via Mississippi law, as a Mississippian.. Mississippi logos, insignia, art and such are copyrighted by the State and are not public domain per - ALLSTRecho wuz here 03:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
These designs are generally property of the respective state (agency) that designed them, but some states, such as Arizona, for example, seem to license the works of their employees more freely than do others. See Category:State government image templates for the specific policies of some states. The user in question created a derivative work of a copyrighted work but does not hold copyright privileges for the scanned image. However, unless I'm missing something, states' plates should be able to be used in articles here as copyrighted promotional images, as they are promoted on state DMV websites for informational reasons and, particularly for optional or extra-cost designs, as advertising to generate revenue for the state. Such ad images should be fine with the correct tag (not public domain or as the intellectual property of the uploader). Qqqqqq (talk) 05:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
If the license plate is very simple it may fall under what we call at Commons PD-text (see Commons:Template:PD-text). Some states may also place their designs in the public domain. Generally though, they retain copyright on plate designs, because they want to charge people a premium for their fancier ones. Dcoetzee 06:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Of course they could be used as non-free Fair Use, if it were in an article or section where the plate(s) are the subject. For example, even the current Mississippi license plate being used at Mississippi should be removed from there, per our non-free policies, as it's only decorative and is not illustrating anything in the actual article content. - ALLSTRecho wuz here 20:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

My drawing of a flag

I depicteded the flag of an entity in a drawing, then saved the drawing as .png. The entity flag is typically displayed at a slight angle, with the flag appearing to be waving. In contrast, my drawing is oriented on vertical and horizontal axes without the waving. My drawing's purpose is to aid recognition of chief characteristics of the entity flag, which the entity uses as a logo. Is this a derivative work, though it was not traced from the original? How far does "derivative" go? Do I tag the image with {{logo}}? For an example of what I am talking about, see this similar flag compared to the flag logo shown here Thank you in advance. Newportm (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That is certainly a derivative work, and would be subject to the same copyright restrictions as the original flag, whatever those might be. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, then I should ask (a) whether the example I cite is correctly tagged, and (b) should I tag mine the same way? Newportm (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Unless the uploader holds the copyright on the original flag, that is not correctly tagged (it may still be in the public domain, but not by reason of the uploader so-releasing it, as claimed). To know how you should tag yours, I'd need to know the copyright status of the flag itself. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 04:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Family picture

I have a question about a picture of my now deceased great grandfather that I would like to use for his Wikipedia article. The picture has been in my family's possession for years. It was taken sometime between 1940-1960 and looks to have been professionally taken (ie he is in a suit and posed). It contains no copyright information and my mother has no idea who took the picture. Is this acceptable?DianeRR (talk) 03:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably not. Do you know what country it was taken in? Do you know if it was ever published? If you can ascertain that it was taken as work for hire for your grandfather, then the copyright would belong to his estate and whoever controls that could opt to release it under a Wikipedia-appropriate license, but that strikes me as about your best hope. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Work for hire has a narrow definition under U.S. copyright law. The photographer had to be the subject's employee (and not an independent contractor for hire, as most portrait photographers are). Or the photographer had to explicitly assign the copyright to the subject. Otherwise the photographer would retain the copyright. — Walloon (talk) 06:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It was taken in the United States. It MAY have been used in one of his articles but I don't know this for sure. I think I will use one of the pictures in the Univ of Florida collection and just get their permission.... seems much easier!! Can you direct me to the Wikepedia license that you mention? I will contact them for the permission and go from there. Thanks for the feedback. DianeRR (talk) 04:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Self-referencing source - legit & allowed? seems to reference itself as the source, which makes me wonder where it actually came from (?)

This page attributes (a smaller version of) the photo to Lucent Technologies. —teb728 t c 04:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I understand that you found a smaller version attributable to Lucent, but does that make it acceptable to use the larger one when there is no definitive source for it? Just curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Littleton Blue Crown web .jpg


I was told that the above image would soon be deleted unless I could find a fair use image. I want to use this image because:

1. It Illustrates a three-dimensional abstract sculpture particular to a series of works produced by the artist Harvey Littleton. It is impossible to describe in words how this abstract series looks without using a photo of one of the works to represent the ouevre.

2. I do not know where or how to get a fair use image of this particular sculpture. If you tell me how this is accomplished, I will do it. I could ask the sculptor if I can put it up, but how do I transmit his permission to you?

3. The image is a low one resolution and cannot conceivably be used for commercial purposes. The thumbnail representation is good only to give an idea of what the series looks like.

I look forward to your response,

Glassnote (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If the copyright owner is willing to license File:Littleton Blue Crown web .jpg under a free license like {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}, see WP:COPYREQ for how to handle permission. —teb728 t c 19:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
As to your question 2, see WP:IOWN. – ukexpat (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

photo of Richard L. Hay (scenic designer)

I have permission from the creator of this picture (Richard Hay scenic designer.jpg) to have it available to anyone to do anything with. I thought the Public Domain tag expressed that, but reading the Public Domain page convinced me that wasn't right. I found the upload page confusing and I obviously guessed wrong. What tag should I choose to add to this picture? There are no limitations on it by the creator at all. Would you please answer on my talk page? Thanks.JanetFA (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

At File:Richard Hay scenic designer.jpg you wrote, “Permission from Amy Richard, media director, Oregon Shakespeare Festival, to be used in Wikipedia and for any Wikipedia users.” If that is what the permission is, it is not enough; Wikipedia wants permission for reuse by anyone anywhere for anything (not just “in Wikipedia and for any Wikipedia users”). If Ms Richard is willing to license it under a free license like {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}, see WP:COPYREQ for how to handle permission. —teb728 t c 19:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
And also see WP:IOWN. – ukexpat (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Biography articles and photos

If one is working on an article about a living person whom they know casually and the subject has provided an image that appears to be a snap shot, what is the best way to upload that photo in regards to copyright considerations. John faul (talk) 02:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Find out who owns the copyright to the photo and whether they are willing to release it under a free license. Algebraist 02:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

copyright mystery

Hello there,

I doin't understand what's going on with the copyright question Wikipedia apparently has with my uploads. I am relatively new to this, but I did the upload using "this is my own work" and listed the copyright dat and the owener, which is me in the question box below on the ipload page. So I guess 'm stuck. I also am not sure where or how to ad a tag on the uploaded pictures as requested.

Thanks (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Knightflyte —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures| (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC) ]] comment added by Knightflyte (talkcontribs) 22:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The images (especially the logo) appear to have been taken from the documentary. In what sense did you create the images yourself? If you created the images for the documentary, then the images would be owned by the producer. Even assuming that you are the copyright owner, you have not granted a license for Wikipedia to use the images. Because Wikipedia content is reusable, Wikipedia requires as a matter of policy that image be licensed to allow reuse by anyone for anything. —teb728 t c 07:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


User:BigBossBlues claims to be the copyright holder of this collage, but in fact, it's made up of images uploaded by several other Users. Is that copyright claim valid? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if there is enough creativity in the collage for a copyright. At least the sources must be specified—both to satisfy Wikipedia policy and to fulfil the attribution requirements of the component licenses. —teb728 t c 07:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Nimbus103Enginecutaway.gif and File:Nimbus103Enginecutaway2.gif

I tagged both of these images with {{di-no license}}, as in the original edit, no copyright information was given. The uploader of these images replied, "Originally created for the Bristol/Siddeley Aero Engine School technical manual circa 1960. No copyright information included in manual." I know that if this had been created in the United States in the 1960s without a claim of copyright, this would have lapsed into the public domain by now, but I do not know if British law has a similar rule. So, are these still in public domain, or are they still copyrighted? NW (Talk) 19:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

No copyright notice was required on a work under the UK's 1956 Copyright Act. Under the 1956 Act, the duration of the copyright for a drawing was for the life of the artist plus 50 years; that has now been extended to 70. In the case of an anonymous work of art, the duration under the 1956 Act was 50 years after publication; that too has been extended to 70 years. Thus, under the URAA, the drawing is also under copyright in the U.S., for 95 years from publication (through 2055). — Walloon (talk) 06:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


I create a Schematic diagram of Stargate, can i put it on wikipedia, if yes, what information i should add in description, if not, why!Vilnisr (talk) 07:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Robert Kiyosaki picture

This picture has a license that I find somewhat dubious. What should I do when I encounter pictures like this? TastyCakes (talk) 01:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This particular images is on the commons and seems to be a press release style photo similar to a load of others on the website which the uploader has quoted as being the author. All images from that website are copyright per their terms page. In similar cases it would be best to ask the uploader to arrange an OTRS permission as details at WP:PERMISSION and if that is not forthcoming you can mark the image as lacking permission. I have tagged this image on the commons as lacking permission because the uploader is not an active editor, so any request will likely not be acted on. ww2censor (talk) 02:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

What to Put on Logo of Defunct Organization

The image I uploaded is a logo of the Ethiopia United States Mapping Mission, an organization that no longer exists. There is no copyright. I obtained the file from Lee Miller, the webmaster of, and he sent it to me in an e-mail with permission to use that image. What other information do I need to put in the copyright status?

File:MM_Logo PNG.png

Bill (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If I understand correctly that the logo was created by the U.S. Army, the correct tag is {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}}. —teb728 t c 05:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


This picture of St Michael church in Cuenca (File:Saint_Michael.jpg) looks to me like a copyright violation from the image at - should it be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thrapper (talkcontribs) 10:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have deleted the image. I think also that the uploaded admitted to "extracting" the file from a webpage doesn't help either. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.-Andrew c [talk] 15:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Sinclar Oil Station photograph

I've uploaded a photo I took -- (File:Sinclair oil philipsburg.jpg) -- to the Sinclair Oil Corporation wiki entry. I corrected an earlier concern about the copyright notice but a user has subsequently tagged this photo for speedy deletion. Still unsure what the problem is exactly, and would appreciate some guidance. Thanks! --Dontexpect (talk) 11:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I deleted it because it was an unambiguous copyright violation of If you click on the link to that page, you can see under the image "© All rights reserved." If you are in fact the flickr user lukevargas, please log into your flickr account, and change the license of the image to one of the 2 creative commons images that are compatible with wikipedia. See the chart at the top of Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr for what 2 are acceptable (CC-BY and CC-BY-SA). Once you have updated the license on flickr, contact me or any other admin, and we'll gladly undelete the image. If you are not lukevargas, you are welcome to contact them and request that they change the license in order to "donate" the image to Wikipedia. Otherwise, we cannot accept images that have been published elsewhere without documentation from that source that the image has been licensed freely. I hope you understand.
With that out of the way, the issue you encountered when you uploaded the image is that you didn't choose a license template. The upload form, found Special:Upload, has 4 boxes. The source filename, the destination filename, the summary, and the licensing. In the future, make sure you choose the correct license from the licensing drop down window, or make sure that you manually add a licensing template. A completely list can be found WP:ICT/All. Also, filling out template:information is quite helpful as well. Hope this helps. Feel free to ask more questions if you have any, and sorry about deleting your image (we just take copyrighted work seriously). -Andrew c [talk] 15:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable Fair Use Dispute

File:Topo Surveyor.jpg

I guess I am disputing that another available image can be used in place of this one. This is an actual image of a soldier surveying in the field in Ethiopia with actual Ethiopian rodmen. It also demonstrates to the viewer just how badly the African bush can damage a truck. Not something that a generic image can do. The owner of this image gave me written permission to use it in an e-mail which I have forwarded to Is there anything else I should be doing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armysurveyor (talkcontribs) 21:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope, just have to wait for the permissions folks to process the e-mail - may take a couple of days. – ukexpat (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Was this image a work of a U.S. Army soldier or employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties? If so it is the public domain.
If not, is the permission on the email for use only on Wikipedia? Wikipedia does not accept such permission: Permission must allow reuse by anyone for anything.
By the way be careful of the capitalization on templates; capitalization is significant. I fixed your capitalization in the "disputed" tag on this image. When you see a red link, that is a sign of a broken link. —teb728 t c 22:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Post software screenshot in Wikipedia article

How can I submit a screenshot of software for which the company that is the author and developer is willing to post it on Wikipedia for use by anyone with the only request being attribution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afelloweditor (talkcontribs) 02:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The easiest method is for a company representative to follow the process set out at WP:IOWN. – ukexpat (talk) 03:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


Resolved: deleted Spartaz Humbug! 20:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to request this file be deleted, as it was one in a series of screwups I uploaded. On top of that, I forgot to mention its copyright status. Could you delete it along with File:Lolipop.pdf? Thanks- a little insignificant 19:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

File:American Idol Experience stage.png

Does the incorporation of the American Idol logo in File:American Idol Experience stage.png restrict its free licensing? Powers T 13:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking because this was a public theatre scene, that some sort of freedom of panorama might apply, because the logo is not the sole focus of the image. So I went to Times Square and checked out those images, which also contain non-free logos in some of them, to see if they had a special tag attached to them. I thought I remembered something along those lines. I didn't find anything. Maybe someone else knows? I believe, since the logo is displayed publicly, and the focus of the image is not just the logo, I think it should be OK, but don't quote me on that. -Andrew c [talk] 13:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, though I'd like a few extra opinions just to corroborate that. =) Powers T 01:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Band press pack photos

If an image is part of a package of several images for the media/press to use from a band. Can those images then be used on that bands wikipedia article?  ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimaher (talkcontribs) 06:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

In general, no. Such images are still copyrighted and should only be used if it is impossible to take a free image. Powers T 12:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Also even if they were not replaceable, non-free images are used only if they identify the subject or otherwise significantly increase reader understanding, and multiple non-free images are not used if one will do the trick. —teb728 t c 22:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Images from My own Website

I have a homepage of my uncle. I have full rights on the images that I used in the Homepage. Now I what to add the same page and create an article for my uncle in Wikipedia.

Whether I have any copyrights problem in using the image, though they belong to a website (website owned by myself).

Pprashh (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The easiest thing to do is to just add a copyright notice on your website stating you release the images under a free license of your choosing (i.e. CC-BY-SA). You could have a one line notice under each image, or a general disclaimer for the whole site. This way, anyone can easily verify the licensing status of these images from the original source website. Another option would be to send in a permission declaration via e-mail to the OTRS system.-Andrew c [talk] 13:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


Resolved: Image deleted. – ukexpat (talk) 03:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Expert eyes on this one urgently please. I am not sure the NFR holds water and it's also an image of a minor so probably a BLP violation as well. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 21:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The image of the girl was broadcast live around the world, so it's not a BLP violation, according to our BLP policy. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah - it's vital that we have a picture of a crying distressed child to use in articles. Can we not delete it under FU? Do our readers need a picture of a crying child to understand the concept of a crying child? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameron Scott (talkcontribs)

Your edit summary "get the fuck out" is totally unacceptable. Please calm down and get off your high horse. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm perfectly calm - "get the fuck out" is simply a phrase than means "I think your reasoning is incorrect", If I had said something like "you fucking cunt" or "listen fuckhead.." or "mutherfucking twat" or the like you'd have a point. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Then in future, please try "I think your reasoning is incorrect" instead. You'll find it works better. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
If you want the image deleted on the basis that the fair use rationale is not sufficient, take it to WP:FFD. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Per Ukexpat and Cameron Scott's comments, I support the removal of the image from the article, and it's deletion from Wikipedia. Pyrrhus16 22:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Then take it through the proper process, please, instead of this bizarre hysteria about BLP, and people running around removing it and cursing. That's just silly. If there's a bad fair-use rationale, the process will remove it, so let it happen in due course. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, the hysteria comment wasn't directed at you, Pyrrhus. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
FFD would require this image to sit around for 7 days, we shouldn't have to wait that long to get this distressing image removed under common sense criteria that we really need a picture of a distressed child in order to explain that the daughter at a funeral would be distressed. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I've replaced it with this image, which should at least calm the BLP hysteria, and has correct info and non-commercial use infringing resolution. MickMacNee (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Better, but not good, but please assume good faith and stop using the word "hysteria" Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

We don't need images of distressed children to illustrate children being distressed. Every reader knows what a distressed child looks like. Unless the specific event of this child being distressed proves notable in the long run, there's no reason to require these images for illustrative purposes. I believe these clearly fail WP:F #8 in not adding significantly to reader understanding, and their absence not being detrimental. In addition this is an image of a living person and a freely licensed replacement could conceivably be found. Unless a very compelling argument can be made otherwise, we don't allow fair use images of living persons. Quite apart from fair use issues, we have a policy concerning living persons of if in doubt, don't. Paris Jackson is not notable enough to merit an article of her own so her privacy should and can be respected. Mfield (Oi!) 23:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

  • There should not be any non-free images in the article at this stage. Firstly, they are probably replaceable- it's a little early to tell. Secondly, and more importantly, this is a current news event, and we have little right, ethically or legally, and certainly no right policy-wise, to be using content from other news sources without a very good reason. These are their images, and we should not be using them to decorate our articles. J Milburn (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    Both the images mentioned are clearly copyright violations and therefore can be nominated for speedy deletion. They don't need to be brought to WP:IfD which takes at least a week. ww2censor (talk) 06:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    Sadly not. CSD:F9 does not include images where a fair use claim has been made. Stifle (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    Actually Stifle you are right. Once the fair use rationale was added by SlimVirgin, it no longer could be speedied. ww2censor (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

iPod shuffle 1gb

how many songs can you download —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Wrong kind of media question. Perhaps you want the ref desk? WP:REFDESK. -Andrew c [talk] 21:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


question. what on earth do i have to do to prove i took the photo which some genius removed. would u like me to send the negative \? it is becoming so that it aint worth adding to wikipedia with these constant battles. readd my photo !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 5b3TnY (talkcontribs) 00:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You listed a photographer of the image, and said the source was On Wikipedia, if an image has been published outside of Wikipedia, we need evidence of how it is licensed. You can establish that by either logging into your website, and adding a licensing disclaimer regarding that image (and any other content you want to donate), or you can verify the re-licensing via e-mail, through our OTRS system. See WP:IOWN. You should probably send the e-mail from the one you listed when you uploaded the file, or an e-mail address listed on the contact page of the website. Once we have verified the permission, we can easily undelete the file for you. I apologize if this is frustrating, but keep in mind that ANYONE can upload anything they want due to the openness of our software. We have these strict rules regarding permission in order to respect the copyrights of others, given how easy it is for others to upload copyrighted work. Better to be safe, than sorry. -Andrew c [talk] 02:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

US standards general use small 34

Hi there, with regards to the picture US standards general use small 34.jpg, I want to edit the copyright info so that it won't be removed, but can't find where I shoud enter this. Can you send me a link to the corect page? Many thanks Timyeomans33 (talk) 12:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

To make a link to an image, you have to (a) use the prefix :File: or :Image: and (b) type the name correctly. Thus: File:US Standards General Use Small 34.jpg. That link leads to the page where copyright details should be given. Algebraist 12:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
This logo image is copyright of the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America so you cannot edit the copyright so that it won't be removed from an article. The only way this image could possibly be kept would be if it was used with a fair-use rationale but the rationale must justify its use in the article where it now resides. There seems little possibility that a rationale could be written for it to be kept in Certification mark because a freely licenced image should be easily available, so its use there would fail WP:NFCC#1 for non-free images. Find a free image and use that instead. ww2censor (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies. I don't know too much about copyright issues in general. To clarify, I work for Allergy Standards Limited, we operate the asthma & allergy friendly program in partnership with the asthma and allergy foundation of america, as such we share the copyright to the image. Does this make any difference? Many thanksTimyeomans33 (talk) 10:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Organization Logo marked for deletion

I received a note that I did not have the proper fair use rationale on the logo File:JACPAC Organization Logo.jpg. This has been corrected and I wondered if I could get mark for deletion removed of if there was something else I need to do. The organization provided me with the logo for the use in this article Joint Action Committee for Political Affairs.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacpac (talkcontribs) 18:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It looked OK, but I've tweeked it. Check out the page history to see exactly what I did. We have a template for fair use rationales for logos, which is more detailed than the text you wrote. That said, since this logo is just type and simply geometry, it is probably Template:PD-text anyway.-Andrew c [talk] 20:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Citizendium: Copy-pasting from Citizendium to Wikipedia?

Some Citizendium articles far exceeded the corresponding Wikipedia articles in quality. Now the bottom of Citizendium pages, the licence appears as "Creative Commons-Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license". This appears to be the same licence that wikipedia articles are released with (Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0), although they are also released under the GFDL. As such, am I correct to assume that Citizendium articles may be DIRECTLY copy/pasted into Wikipedia, as long as the source is given attribution?

If so:

  • How should the source attribution be given?
  • Would it be possible to add the instructions to some wikipedia policy page? There was one discussion here, but still no official policy that I could find. --Marcus 12:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Citizendium Porting. They have instructions, and their talk page is probably a better place to get answers to your questions. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Alright, thank you! --Marcus 08:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Garfield the Cat.svg

File:Garfield the Cat.svg is used on two articles but only has a fair-use rationale for one of them. The fair-use rationale it has is oddly phrased as well, considering the character a "logo" and representative of an "organization" called "Garfield (character)". How can I tag these problems to be corrected?

My other concern is with having a vector image of a copyrighted character; does that post problems under our "low-resolution" requirements?

-- Powers T 10:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

To dispute fair use rationales, we have Template:Di-disputed fair use rationale, but that puts the image in a speedy deletion queue if the issue isn't addressed. Alternatively, since this seems rather minor, you could try to fix it yourself. It appears they just used a default fair use rationale template and weren't careful when filling out the parameters. For the article that doesn't have a fair use rationale, you could remove the image from the article and added Template:Missing rationale2. Or you could just add another FUR that mentioned the title of the 2nd article. Finally, non-free SVGs are considered generally ok, as long as they are not rendered at excessively large resolutions. Personally, I sort of agree with you and have, in the past, taken issue with some aspects of SVGs. But this seems to be fine in this context, given the community consensus on using non-free SVGs. -Andrew c [talk] 12:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Note: I corrected the link in my text above; I had linked a jpg instead of the svg. Powers T 18:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • There's a big flaming row about non-free SVGs on WT:IUP. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright status of family photograph.

I am looking for clarification regarding the use of this photograph in Wikipaedia. This is a scan I have made from a photographic print in my possession taken by a portrait photographer's called Swaine in about 1900. The photography firm no longer exists and it is a reasonable assumption that the photographer died more than 70 years ago, rendering the copyright lapsed under English law. It is a private family portrait of a family member and has never to my knowledge been published anywhere before. Having ploughed through the wikipaedia information on copyright I am quite unable to see how it applies in this case; it simply doesn't appear to address this situation (odd since it must be very common). It seems to me that no-one has any copyright claim on this photo in any country and that it is therefore free. Can anyone clarify this? If it is not unambiguously free, at what point would it become so; how many years after it was taken or after the photographer died? I ask partly because I also have a much earlier photograph of the same person, taken in about 1870. File:Lieutenant_General_Harry_Hammon_Lyster_VC,_CB_in_about_1900.jpgErwfaethlon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC).

If all you say is true, the photo is in the public domain in the UK and the US. — Walloon (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's reasonable to assume the photographer died before 1939, though. A 25-year-old in 1900 could easily have lived to 64. Powers T 19:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You make a fair point but my assumption of when the photographer died is based on what is reasonably likely rather than what is theoretically possible; an 18 year old photographer could have lived to be 100 and died only in 1982 but it isn't likely. This is a formal portrait of an elderly General taken with a plate camera by an established firm of photographers; it seems reasonably probable that such a portrait would have been taken by the proprietor of the firm or a senior member of his staff. Someone of say 40 years old would have done very well to live to 1939, if he was 50 it becomes extremely unlikely. I must agree there is an element of uncertainty but it seems a very small one. Erwfaethlon (talk)

Whether it is small enough to ignore, however, is highly questionable. Powers T 00:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Per the UK Intellectual Property Office, "copyright would have expired on 31 December 1994 or earlier", unless the photo was still covered by copyright in another European Economic Area country on 1 July 1995. If the post 1996 rules (life + 70 years) do apply, then the rule on works of unknown authorship may come in to play: if "it is not possible for a person to ascertain [the photographer's] identity by reasonable inquiry" (Copyright, Designs and Patents 1988 section 9(5)) then the photo is of unknown authorship and the copyright term is 70 years from creation or publication, which would also put it out of copyright. From what I can make out, in English law there is no need to speculate on when an unidentified (and unidentifiable) photographer might have died. -- AJR | Talk 01:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I think this is public domain because it was taken in the UK before 1945, or, in the alterantive, the identity of the photographer is unknown and impossible to determine by reasonable enquiry and the photograph was published over 70 years ago. Stifle (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Harry P. Cain

When you look at the Harry P. Cain site, you will see that there is a note about a file picture that was added by someone, but taken down by the admins, because they couldn’t authenticate the license or copyright. It is the same picture that is attached, although this one may have better resolution (the other one was lifted from the Congressional Biography website).

I recently updated this site based on a book about the subject I have written. On the site, there is an indication that someone previously tried to add a picture but that it was rejected because of questions concerning its license or copyright. I am brand-new to navigating within Wikipedia and don't know where to go for information. Several days ago, I tried to upload a version of the same picture that had been taken down. On the upload form, there were a number of questions about the image I didn't know how to answer. Here is what I DO know. . .

  1. The first version of the picture that was uploaded and taken down is from from the official U. S. Government biography of Cain on the internet - That appears to me to be an official governenment site or source.
  2. The portrait that the picture was taken of is Cain's official Senate portrait, painted by Irving Sinclair in 1949. Sinclair died in 1969.
  3. The original painting hangs in the home of Cain’s son in Williamsburg, VA. He is cooperating with me on the book and I’m sure would allow the use of the picture. He is the owner of the portrait. It is hard for me to belief that Sinclair's estate could still have any rights to the picture that was sold to Cain.
  4. The photograph of the portrait which I have and tried to upload is one of about 40 copies I have in my possession, provided to me by Dain's daughter who lives in Tacoma, WA, also cooperating with the book. There is no copyright information (or any other information of any kind) on the back of the picture.
  5. I assume that Cain's Senate staff had photographs of the portrait made to send to constituents.
  6. It is certainly possible to contact Harry P. Cain II (son) om order to get permission to use the picture, if necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmarksmith1 (talkcontribs) 05:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Let's try and short-circuit all this.
  • When Irving Sinclair painted the portrait, was he employed by the US Federal Government and acting in the course of his duties? If so, the image is not subject to copyright.
  • Was the portrait first published in the USA before 1978 without a copyright notice? If so, it is not subject to copyright.
  • Was the portrait first published in the USA before 1963? If so, was its copyright renewed? If not, then its copyright expired 28 years after publication.
That's at least three ways this image would be OK. Stifle (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Old books using old photographs

I would like, if possible, to use photographs from a UK book about a school. The book was published in 1916 ( you can see a library index of it here ). The photographs in it are unattributed, and date from 1895 to the date of publication. I'm surprised they list the school as the author; I don't have it with me at the moment but I believe the driver of its publication was W.G. Benham, also the printer, died 1944 (only 65 years ago!). Thus the photographs would be PD in the US, but I would like some advice as to whether they are copyrighted here in the UK, as I would like to upload them to commons. Cheers, - Jarry1250 [ humorousdiscuss ] 15:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure, as a general rule of thumb, "If the work is anonymous or a collaborative work (e.g. an encyclopedia), it is typically in the public domain 70 years after the date of the first publication." See <>. I would think since the photographs are unattributed, and no one author is listed, this would apply, and thus make the work in the PD in the UK. -Andrew c [talk] 20:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, that's just the answer I was looking for. At a push, could I ask whether a specific tag exists for this condition here and/or on commons - and can I assume, if not, a standard public domain tag would be fine? - Jarry1250 [ humorousdiscuss ] 15:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
commons:Template:PD-UK-unknown. -Andrew c [talk] 19:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, wonderful, thank you. Just found out that since I last got the book out, they stopped anyone withdrawing it. Oh well, guess I'll have to take the scanner (digital camera) to the book then! :) - Jarry1250 [ humorousdiscuss ] 19:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Trying to resolve copyright issue re use of image

I am actually the copyright holder/owner for everything related to Singing Fools including the image which Chelseamorning2006 wishes to post with this article. I am having trouble knowing if I successfully resolved the issue the first time it was raised today by the first editor and then again by the second editor. It is also "fair use" since it was originally released as a promotional photo to the global media--I put that in the fair use rationale which I just tried to post. I hope I have sorted this out but if there's something more I need to do, can you pls advise me? Thanks. Chelseamorning2006 (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

What image? Stifle (talk) 13:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Presumably File:Darthgrab 2.jpg. Looks ok to me at first glance. -Andrew c [talk] 20:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Topo Surveyor Image

JPG-GR deleted my image, Topo Surveyor.jpg from the article, "Ethiopia-United States Mapping Mission." I left him a message but I am writing here as well because JPG-GR's talk page has a message that his time on Wikipedia issues may be limited right now due to personal reasons. This is my first article and I'm afraid I may be handling it all a bit clumsily. I believe I erroneously tagged the article as non-free because the author's e-mail, which I sent to the permissions folks, was originally vague; something like, "Bill is free to use any of my pictures," or something like that. The permissions people sent me back an answer to my e-mail saying that permission was denied, however if I got a clear statement from the author saying that the image could be released under a general license, they would reconsider. I have since gotten a clear statement from the author in an e-mail which I forwarded to permissions a day or two ago, giving his permission to place the image in the public domain. He even used Wikipedia's own statement, which I sent to him, which said, "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible, I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law." Then he added his home address and phone number to the e-mail. Therefore I believe the situation has changed and the image should now be assumed to be in the public domain, so I would like to upload it and again with a free license tag while I'm waiting for the response from permissions. I was proud of that first article, but now it just isn't right without that particular image. Is it OK for me to do this (upload again and retag)? Should I have retagged the image as free while I was waiting for a response from permissions in order to avoid the deletion? I guess I've got a lot to learn. Thanks for your consideration. Bill (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The permissions folks are all volunteers and it can take several days for them to process incoming e-mails. When they get to yours and assuming it's OK (as I am sure it is) they will undelete the image and apply the proper tags etc. So, you haven't done anything wrong, the process just takes time. Please don't reupload while the permissions process is pending. – ukexpat (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

permission to use your puzzle ball logo in a brochure for a K-12 district on Wikipedia - what it is and when it is appropriate to use it

I am putting together a trifold brochure on Wikipedia - what it is and when it is appropriate to use it. I am a School Library media Specialist and I have found that most students and even some staff do not understand that Wikipedia is not appropriate for citing in research papers. it is a great resource but due to the everyone editing, facts must be verified for research elsewhere and that source quoted. Anyway, can I have permission to use the puzzle ball logo in my brochure? Thanks! Teacherandlibrarian —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we do not give out permission to use our logo. -Andrew c [talk] 20:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
This usage may well consitute fair use, though. I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. Algebraist 20:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • You're contacting the wrong people in this case. The Wikimedia Foundation owns the rights to the ball logo. You can contact them using the information here. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair use - Did I do it correctly?

I have never uploaded an image under a fair use claim before. Would someone please take a look at File:William S Taylor.jpg and let me know if I have done it correctly? Is any more information needed? Acdixon (talk contribs count) 17:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You did well with the non-free use rationale, but an image also requires an “image copyright tag.” The tags for non-free images are listed at WP:ICT/FU—in the case of a non-free painting would have been {{Non-free 2D art}}. But this painting seems actually to be in the public domain; so someone has added the correct tag, {{PD-Art}}. —teb728 t c 22:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Required information

What is the minimal information required to verify an image's license status? I tagged File:NC_PlacemarksEditor.png as lacking permission as it was a professional software screenshot without indication that the uploader was the owner. User:Cush says at User_talk:MBisanz that the notes on his userpage indicating he wrote the software are sufficient to prove public domain status and that they should not have been tagged. I believe that license information needs to be on the image page in order for the image to be properly re-used. Thoughts? MBisanz talk 02:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It absolutely has to be on the image page where it can be found easily - it's not reasonable to expect editors to follow links all over Wikipedia to establish copyright/permissions. Maybe it would be easier for the user to e-mail permissions per WP:IOWN. – ukexpat (talk) 03:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
No. What I say is that the licensing tag I provided is sufficient. Or what else is the purpose of the licensing tag?
"I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible, I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law." There is nothing ambiguous about this licensing information.
And if someone has doubts about my ownership of the copyrights of my own software and screenshots thereof, then counter-claims must be substantiated. I will not tolerate being accused of copyright infringement just because someone is too lazy to look stuff up. If MBisanz has no evidence that I do not own the copyright then he should leave the matter alone. In fact I am furious about such overzealous adminship. Cush (talk) 07:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia generally does work on the honor system in many cases, and we do AGF. But we also take respecting the copyrights of others seriously. If you have published something outside of Wikipedia before, you need to either a) go to the official webpage of your software, and make a note how screenshots are licensed to demonstrate that they are in the PD, or you need to send in a declaration statement to OTRS via e-mail per WP:IOWN from an e-mail address listed on the contact page of the official website. In this case, it doesn't appear that there is an official website, just the forum where you posted it. Perhaps posting there and stating the screenshots are PD would be sufficient if you don't want to e-mail OTRS. We don't need someone providing hard evidence you are not the copyright holder. We err on the side of caution. If it was published outside of Wikipedia, we need evidence of permission. Hope this explains things. -Andrew c [talk] 13:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't see why I should produce evidence for being the copyright holder of anything. If you do not trust the editors to correctly select the licensing tags then you shouldn't offer them in the first place. My software has not been "published" or "released" at all. The screenshots of it are only used on my user page and I have selected the right licensing tags for each image, and that should be enough for you. I use the software to generate placemarks lists (wikicode), chronological charts (png), and maps (png). If you question the legality of material I post on WP you have to provide solid reasons for that and not just assume fraud on my part. Cush (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry but that's the way it works with respect to copyright releases on Wikipedia. With respect, we only have your word that you are the developer of the software. The only way for Wikipedia to connect you as User:Cush to you the developer of the software is for you to provide evidence. The simplest way is to follow the process set out at WP:IOWN. – ukexpat (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but that applies only to stuff previously published somewhere, not for (so far) entirely private material. I am a software developer, I sometimes write software out of fun or boredom, but I do not necessarily publish it anywhere. And I don't see why my word would not be enough. Cush (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, it appears you published the screenshots outside of Wikipedia by posting them to a forum. I can understand how your situation is different from say iTunes, as you say this software isn't "published". But still, the images were released publicly outside of Wikipedia, so we need to verify that you are the same person who posted to that forum at the very least. Would it be that hard to log into the forum and add a note "By the way, these screenshots are in the public domain". That said, images being used just in the userspace to promote software seems to not be encyclopedic. These images could possibly be deleted if they were nominated at FFD.-Andrew c [talk] 20:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Since that software is not available anywhere I doubt that posting screenshots constitutes promoting it. The point was rather to show how I produce the lists, charts, ans maps I occasionally post on WP. And what about those? Do I need to bring evidence that I made them with my software to show that I hold the copyright for them? Cush (talk) 09:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Uploading a picture of a band

I uploaded it, and had no idea what tag to put it under so I chose one I thought was most appropriate out of the options that were given but it got deleted. So, what do I put it under? It's this really small-time duo, and there can't be much copyright on it. It was uploaded on their MySpace; that's where I got it from. See: [5] So what tag do I give it? Thanks. And please answer on my talk page. Othatzsokewl (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The prominence of the band is utterly irrelevant to copyright status of images of the band. It's up to you to discover who holds the copyright and convince them to release the image under a free license. Algebraist 18:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
The answer to your question of what tag to use is: Use the tag that corresponds to the free license that the copyright owner has granted. You should assume that anything you find on MySpace (or anywhere else) is copyrighted; an picture is automatically copyrighted simply by being created. —teb728 t c 21:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Moreover every MySpace page has, rightly or wrongly, a copyright notice at the bottom: ©2003-2009 All Rights Reserved.  – ukexpat (talk) 01:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Does MySpace really have the right to prevent someone from declaring that their own MySpace page is public domain or available on a free license? I suppose the terms of service could include such a statement, but I'd be surprised if that were legally permitted. Nyttend (talk) 01:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
That copyright notice is a lie, as so many are. MySpace's terms of use do not involve transferring any copyrights to MySpace. Algebraist 02:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
While it's certainly true that many companies falsely claim copyright protection, that's not the case here, so calling it a "lie" is unfair. MySpace's terms and conditions (which are, unlike those of most companies, admirably clear and understandable to people who don't have law degrees) stipulate the difference between the content they do own and the content the don't. The copyright notice implicitly pertains to the former. -- Hux (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Carnival de Cuba

I am always coming across problems like this on Wikipedia, I understand that copyright status is important and I have been given permission to use every single photo I have added to Wikipedia via Flickr. I mainly upload photos to accompany ethnic groups in the UK articles, the most recent upload ( has been threatened for deletion. Copyright status can be complicated for Flickr users and it even is for me, I have asked the owner of the photo themselves for permission, they often are unceratin how to change to copyright status and show that they have given the right for me to use it, however they are always happy to comply and only ask that they are stated as the creator (which I always do), I have even left a comment on the Flickr page of where it can be found ( Is there nothing that anyone can do, because I see it as harrasing and annoying the already kind Flickr user by continuously asking them to double check their pictures status or email wikipedia to prove that they have given permission. I have been given permission by them to place it on here, yet more often than not the image has disappeared the next day. Help would be much appreciated, thanks Stevvvv4444 (talk) 21:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly when you say, "I have been given permission by them to place it on here", you mean that you have been given permission for use on Wikipedia. But Wikipedia does not accept permission for use only on Wikipedia. Permission must allow reuse by anyone for anything including commercial use. The reason for this policy is that Wikipedia has a goal of producing reusable content—content that can be reused by anyone including commercial use. When you upload a flickr image that has a non-commercial restriction, you set yourself up for frustration. —teb728 t c 21:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any other way round it than to ask the Flickr user to change the copyright status of the image. I know it can be frustrating. I'm currently wanting to use an image on Flickr in a Wikipedia article about a band and have received e-mail permission but the user hasn't changed the copyright status. Perhaps what we need is a very clearly worded message that tells Flickr users how to change the copyright status. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


statement rather than a question, re the item on the bbc website (UK news 17 july) regarding copyright infringement of downloaded images, those pictures DO belong to the national portrait gallery (and through them to the nation collectively) NOT to wikipedia/wikkimedia or its representatives/members. UK museums and art galleries are for the most part very public friendly; I dont think any country has anything approaching the same liberal free entrance policies. You are abusing the system and the general public will be hurt as a consquence. I'm usually wikki's best fan but dont be so disengenuous. Dr. G. Mackenzie —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but the WikiMedia foundation has its own lawyers to advise it on this extremely unclear legal point, and does not require your advice. Algebraist 20:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Dr. Mackenzie: Thank you for your input. However, this page is for users to ask questions and get help with posting images and other media on Wikipedia. It is not a forum for getting one's opinion across about what Wikipedia's copyright policy should be. Also, those who offer help here are simply other Wikipedia users; I highly doubt anyone from the WikiMedia foundation ever comes here! -- Hux (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
In the USA, where the Wikimedia Foundation is established, copies of uncopyrighted 2D images do not attract a new copyright. Stifle (talk) 13:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Photographs of the Yom Kippur War

I recently found a book printed in 1974 on the Yom Kippur War. The book contains a lot of photographs, and surprisingly it is not copyrighted. Does this mean I can use these photos here? --Sherif9282 (talk) 13:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

How do you know the book is not copyrighted? Where was it published? Algebraist 15:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
In Lebanon. The book does not mention any copyright. It neither state that rights are reserved by the publisher nor that permission must be obtained from the publisher to reproduce any part of the book. There is nothing to indicate the book is copyrighted whatsoever. --Sherif9282 (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
The author of any artistic or literary work shall, as a result of the creation of the work, have an absolute property right over his work and shall reserve all his rights without having to follow any formalities.
[6] It would appear that Lebanon's copyright is inherent (like in the UK and more modern US creations) - you don't have to say something is copyright for it to be so. They are also signatories of the Berne Convention. There seems to be no provision for exempting older works, and so I think it can be assumed that it applies retrospectively. This would mean that you can't use the book, as you would be violating copyright. - Jarry1250 [ humorousdiscuss ] 08:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
This book was not developed by a single author or number of authors. This book is the product of Dar Asayyad (the publisher and author), and specifically the research center at Dar el-Sayyad. Hence the above statement does not apply here. I'm not sure which of the following does:
In the case of a collective work, the natural person who, or legal entity which, took the initiative to create the work and supervise its execution shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be considered the copyright holder. Or:
In the case of a work created by natural persons working under a work contract for a natural person or legal entity in the course of performing their duties or professional obligations, the employer shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the copyright holder and shall exercise the rights provided for in Article 15 of this Law.
I believe its the first one. Which one is it, and does this change anything? Additionally, this copyright law certainly covers the author(s)/owner of this book as literary work. Does it also cover the book's photographs? There is no information regarding the author(s) of any of the photographs. --Sherif9282 (talk) 09:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


Hi- could another pair of eyes take a look at File:Tamsel bw.jpg? I don't know quite how the licensing there works and don't want to delete it incorrectly. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

300 year old paintings under copyright in US??!

At Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Charles Carroll the Settler/archive1 the question has come up on a completely novel theory that 300 year old paintings (i.e. painted before 1789) can be copyrighted in the US. One editor has argued this at length, and frankly one of us must be missing something. The article is Charles Carroll the Settler and the paintings are File:Charles Carroll the Settler.jpg, File:Mary Darnall Carroll.JPG, File:Benedict Calvert.jpg. As I understand his argument, one of the paintings was photographed and the photo published in 1999, so that the publishing date is the controlling factor. My argument so far has been (jaw dropping, head scratching), but I'll be more specific here: nothing created before 1790 (1st US copyright law) is protected by US copyright, no painting created before 1909 (1st copyright law protecting paintings) is protected, and nothing created by an author who died before 1939 (counting from 70 years after death of author) is protected. 3 strikes and he's out. Any help appreciated. This type of thing should not hold up an FAC. Smallbones (talk) 04:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't read the whole thing, but his premise is correct: an unpublished work that was first published before 2002 may still be copyrighted, no matter when the author died. It was only in about 2002 that U.S. law made unpublished works expire in life+70, after a "grace period". Before that, there was no expiration at all for unpublished works. See, for instance, commons:Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 16#Some questions about old photos (U.S.). --NE2 04:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
So, what (if anything) constitutes "publication" for a painting? —teb728 t c 07:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
As far as I know, making copies available to the public, either in a book or as authorized prints. --NE2 07:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Smallbones and disagree with NE2. There are numerous reasons why that work is in the U.S. public domain. An original work of art is published in one of several ways: (1) copies of the work are made available to the general public by the painting's copyright owner (or his licensee); (2) the original work is offered for sale to the general public (e.g., through an auction, or a gallery sale) before 1978, even if it is not sold; (3) the original work is sold, gifted, or otherwise distributed to a select person or organization (i.e., not the general public) before 1978, and the artist put no restrictions on the work's dissemination; (4) the work was displayed to the public before 1978, and the public was allowed to copy it (e.g., by photography).
It would be very, very unlikely that none of those four methods of publication ever occurred to those 18th-century paintings before 1923.
If the work of art was published in the U.S. before 1923, or outside the U.S. before 1909, it is in the U.S. public domain. If it was published for the first in the U.S. between 1923–1963, and the copyright was not renewed, it is in the U.S. public domain. — Walloon (talk) 10:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
"A work of art that exists in only one copy, such as a painting or statue, is not regarded as published when the single existing copy is sold or offered for sale in the traditional way, such as through an art dealer, gallery, or auction house. A statue erected in a public place is not necessarily published. When the work is reproduced in multiple copies, such as reproductions of a painting or castings of a statue, the work is published when the reproductions are publicly distributed or offered to a group for further distribution or public display." --NE2 10:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
You're quoting post-1978 criteria for publication. For pre-1978 publication criteria, see for example Grandma Moses Properties, Inc. v. This Week Magazine, 117 F.Supp 348 (S.D. N.Y. 1953):
This circuit has said that the ‘common-law right is lost by the general publication or unrestricted sale of a single copy’. [Publication criterion #2 above.]
Thus, regardless whether [painting] No. 563 was an original or a copy of No. 550, the unrestricted sale of No. 563 [in 1944] carried to its purchaser and his successors, including this defendant, the untrammelled right to reproduce at least No. 563 unless the procurement by plaintiff's assignor of a statutory copyright on No. 550 in May of 1948 dictates otherwise. [Publication criterion #3 above.]
Walloon (talk) 10:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
"In cases where general publication has been found, the creator had made his work available in a manner that suggested that any interested person could have a copy." --NE2 15:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • An image created in the USA before 1978 and first published in the USA in 1999 is copyrighted through 2047, or until 70 years after the death of the author. See [7]. Stifle (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Not created in the USA, but in the proprietary colony of Maryland, sometime before 1717 (which is more than 70 years ago) when the artist died. Inevitably it has been published (per Walloon above), since it has been inherited, sold, repurchased by heirs, placed at auction (I believe in 1903), and given to a public library where it was displayed. Smallbones (talk) 15:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • IANAL, but it's unlikely that the 1712 painting File:Charles Carroll the Settler.jpg is copyrighted. It was created (and no doubt displayed) under the terms of the Statute of Anne and Maryland common law copyright. Neither law allowed for a copyright of 300 years, so the painting would now be public domain under either law. Later U.S. federal law did not retroactively extend copyright to public-domain works that had been published under the terms of previous law, even if the previous law used a different definition of "publish". Eubulides (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Eubulides, the Statute of Anne does not apply here as it covers printed work, not paintings. The common copyright law article claims the law is repudiated in 1834, but it is only for published works, not unpublished ones; state laws govern unpublished works as stated in Copyright Act of 1909 (later superseded by the 1976 law). Hence common copyright law and perpetual copyright applies to unpublished works. This perpetual right is transferred via material acquisition.[8][9]
Walloon does raise interesting possibilities. However, S.D.N.Y. ruling applies only to the 2nd circuit, perhaps one can(?) claim precedent in other states, but like William S. Strong says, there is no guarantee.[10] Maryland is in the 4th circuit. Regardless, let us consider its possibilities. Stephen Fishman explores the remifications of Grandma Moses Properties, Inc. v. This Week Magazine, 117 F.Supp 348 (S.D. N.Y. 1953) in his Public Domain. Yet Fishman also states "But some art created over 100 years ago or more could still be protected by copyright."[11] The situation for Charles Carroll, the "Settler" is not as ludicrous as some keep suggesting. Fishman follows up, "The greatest single body of public domain art comes from works for which the U.S. copyright term has expired. But determining whether a copyright has expired can be complex. You'll need to determine which of several copyright terms apply to the work in question." As far as I see it, no one here bothered to verify if the work is in public domain (I am seemingly the only one who investigated its history), Smallbones has even been misquoting the facts about File:Benedict Calvert.jpg as that for File:Charles Carroll the Settler.jpg. No, Charles Carroll, the "Settler" was not placed for auction in 1903, nor did Commons declare a concensus that it was in public domain; I would kindly request Smallbones to carefully check his facts before making assertions on the copyright status of Charles Carroll, the "Settler".
So what about Charles Carroll, the "Settler"? How did it come into the hands of Maryland Historical Society. The painting was not donated to the society, it was bought by them in 1948 ("Designated purchase, 1948.22.1").[12] Did that constitute publishment? According to Strong, probably, but not in the eyes of Congress.[13] Was it a no-copyright notice publication, thus falling into public domain? No. As Strong puts it, "A painting does not need to bear copyright notice when the painter sells it; a unique canvas comes with the exception we are discussing here."[14] In fact, the sale carries along the common copyright law imbued in the unpublished-before-the-sale painting.[15]
In 1937, the Baltimore Museum of Art held a 200-year celebration for the birth of Charles Carroll, exhibiting a lot of memorabilia, related to the man, under the permission of their owners, shipped at the expense of the organizers.[16] (Side-note: "the large collection of Carroll family portraits inherited by Charles Carroll MacTavish and kept for the past forty years at his house in Rome. None of the collection was lent to the exhibition of Charles Carroll memorabilia at the Baltimore Museum of Art in 1937, celebrating the second centennial of his birth."[17]) There is a reason I asked at the FAC to investigate The bicentenary celebration of the birth of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, 1737-1937. It is the brochure for the exhibition and it states on page 104, "This portrait and the companion portrait of her husband, Charles Carroll, the Settler (1660-1720) were painted by the German artist Kuhn who lived ..."; hence, the owner has graciously permitted the painting to be exhibited. I dare put it that no photography was allowed at the exhibition—no photos exist. As I see it, if the painting was reproduced in this brochure, then a lot of things would be resolved; if there was no copyright notice for the reproduction, then the portrait has been published without a notice in 1937, if there is, since there is no record of renewal for this brochure, then the copyright has lapsed for non-renewal. Otherwise, this painting is either copyrighted until 2044 (1948 + 95 + 1) if we believe the sale of an unpublished painting constitutes publishing, or until 2047 (first published in 1999). Jappalang (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
It's true that the Statute of Anne covers only printed work, but I doubt whether the same was true for Maryland common law copyright. I am also skeptical that Maryland common law copyright was perpetual. (Perhaps someone who is up on colonial and state copyright law in Maryland can speak up.) On a related topic, I am skeptical that anyone can prove copyright for this work. It does not suffice to show that one has legally purchased the painting: one must also have written transfer of copyright from the original author (possibly indirectly through intermediate copyright owners, with a complete chain of title needed for every sale). An image that does not have an owner is effectively uncopyrighted. Again, IANAL, but I see no legal obstacle to reproducing this work. Eubulides (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
The copyright would still rest with the heirs of the painter, would it not? --NE2 21:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
If current copyright law had been in force all the way back to 1700, and if there was no written transfer of copyright, and if the painting was not a work for hire, then yes, the copyright would rest with the painter's heirs. Quite possibly there was no written transfer of copyright, but the other two conditions are either unlikely or plainly false. Eubulides (talk) 08:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Eubulides, there is a written transfer of copyright—the sales purchase by the MHS in 1948. To claim there is none would be false. If there is an assertion that the sale to the MHS did not have such an agreement, then one has to verify with the MHS. As has been stated, those wanting to show this portrait is in the public domain should do investigations and show the terms for this image to be in public domain are verifiable. All the talk so far here advocating such are mere postulations; no advocator has even bothered to do research on the history of the image concerned except to argue on the laws. It is akin to arguing for a defendant without bothering to know the details of what he or she has done. Jappalang (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I have not seen the bill of sale by the MHS. In the FAC page you referred to it as a "donation"; was it actually a donation, or a sale? Anyway, a bill of sale for a physical painting is not the same as a transfer of copyright, and nowadays these bills of sale typically do not transfer copyright. I think it unlikely that the 1948 MHS bill of sale (or donation, or whatever it was) would have done so. Even if it had, that would not establish copyright, of course: one needs a complete chain of title back to the original creator. I still think it's unlikely that the painting is copyrighted. My argument is not 100% ironclad, but the same is true for most public-domain image on Wikipedia: it's typically possible (though unlikely) that an image like (say) File:G.V.-Hudson-Auckland-Islands-Party.jpeg, which Wikipedia says is public-domain, is not actually public-domain. For this 300-year-old painting, we should look for a realistic assessment of probabilities, not for 100% logical proof; and in all likelihood this image is public-domain. Eubulides (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
It was a sale. The "donation" bit is a mistake on my part, an assumption carried over from the investigations of the Benedict Calvert portrait. The sale of an unpublished work of art carries with it the common copyright law imbued with it.[18][19] You would not need a "complete chain of title" either; if the painting is inherited, the common copyright goes with the inheritence. The onus is on the person, who wish to claim the image is in the public domain, to prove that there has been a publication before 1999. Jappalang (talk) 01:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Assuming there was a valid sale of the painting in 1948 that by implication transfered any common law copyright, that copyright has now been extinguished since the painting has been published. For Wikipedia purposes the only copyright that matters now is the federal copyright. Again, I am not a lawyer, but I see no provision in the federal copyright law that says that if you own a physical copy of an unpublished work (and the corresponding common law copyright, which was transferred by implication and not in writing), then upon publication you own the corresponding federal copyright. On the contrary, federal law says that that initial ownership rests with the work's author (or employer, if a work for hire) and that any subsequent transfers of copyright must be in writing. At this point it would be difficult to prove that anybody owns whatever U.S. federal copyright hypothetically exists on that painting. Eubulides (talk) 03:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
If you had read the references I supplied (presuming you are in US, hence able to read the Google previews), you would surely have read "Prior to 1978, explicit written instruments were necessary to transfer federal copyright, but not state law rights in unpublished works. State common law would often infer a transfer of copyright from transfers of the physical object, if the work were unpublished. (Nimmer, op. cit., Article 10.09. See further discussion in chapter 9.) In essence the law assumed that if you were parting with the means of reproduction—be it a painting, photographic negative, in some cases even a manuscript—you intended to empower the new owner to reproduce the work." and realize the flaws in your comments. Furthermore, pre-1978 federal law did not supersede state law (common-law copyright), as quoted below and: "Before 1978, unpublished works were not protected under federal copyright law at all. The application of federal "statutory" copyright protection began to apply only upon publication of the book, music, or other work. ... Up to the time of publication, however, the work enjoyed something known as "common-law" copyright protection. This protection was not part of federal law, but the rights were instead generally recognized and enforeced under state law. Common-law protection applied automatically, and one of its most signficant traits was that it lasted indefinitely." It is only in 1978 that federal law is enacted to abolish common-law protection, but it afforded those unpublished work owners the federal protection of 25 years or more (ibid). Jappalang (talk) 04:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

[20]. Jappalang (talk) 04:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I cannot read the Google Book references you cite. However, none of the quotes that you supply directly address the question I raised, as none of them speak to what federal law says about ownership: federal law makes no provision for the current owner being anyone other than the original author (or employer), or recipient of written transfer of copyright. Again, I am not a lawyer, but I still don't think it likely that there is a real copyright issue with this painting. If this is a real issue, I suggest that we bring it up with the Wikipedia foundation's counsel; we certainly can't resolve it in this forum. (As an aside, we've undoubtedly already spent waaaay more time on this in donated person-hours than the copyright is worth!) Eubulides (talk) 05:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Copyrights are inherited and can be assigned by will: "Copyright is the right of the author of the work or the author's heirs or assignees, not of the one who only owns or possesses the physical work itself." --NE2 05:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, of course; copyrights can be inherited even without a will (and this is mentioned in U.S. copyright law, using the phrase "operation of law"). Please amend my previous statement to add inheritance. The dispute here isn't over inheritance: it's over transfer of ownership in the ordinary sense of buying and selling. Eubulides (talk) 06:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it would seem plausible that the copyright is owned by the painter's heirs. --NE2 08:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

My line would be that there can have been no original common law copyright at the time the work was created. Let's leave aside the Statute of Anne for the moment – it never applied in Maryland – and look at the U.S. Copyright Act of 1790. It's worthwhile as an example of what was felt to be protected by copyright in the eighteenth century. It states that the "author or authors of any map, chart, book, or books […] shall have the sole right and liberty of printing, reprinting, publishing, and vending the same for the period of fourteen years". This was extended in 1802, "from the first day of January thereafter[,] he who shall invent and design, engrave, etch, or work, or from his own works shall cause to be designed and engraved, etched, or worked, any historical or other print or prints, shall have the same exclusive right…" Paintings were not included simply because they could not be effectively "copied" with the technology of the time. This is also why the Statute of Anne is concerned solely with the printing of books, not, say copying passages out longhand.
Hence, there was no common law copyright at the time of creation, because of the nature of the work, nor has there been any statutory copyright (which would have long since expired), as none of the U.S. Copyright Acts has been retroactive in this respect. The work is public domain. Physchim62 (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
That is an interesting thought, Physchim62. However, unpublished works remain unpublished by the time the laws come into effect and are covered as such. The laws did not specify "those created before this period" are excluded, but rather "the law covers those that have been published or unpublished by this time or later". Jappalang (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a side thought here... but while the paintings are most likely in the public domain, does the same hold true for the photographs of the painting? - J Greb (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Not according to Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. in US law. Photographic reproductions of visual works in the public domain were not copyrightable. ww2censor (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud. Painting this old are clear and obvious public domain. You don't magically get copyrights on things that never were public domain just because you take a picture. Unless these painter never showed these paintings to anyone and they just turned up in an attic right before the photographs in question were taken, claiming that the painting was never published is just nonsense. "Publication" for copyright law includes any sort of exchange or public display, which these obviously had a long, long time back. Claiming they are under copyright now is nothing more than copyfraud and an assault on the very concept of public domain. DreamGuy (talk) 22:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, publication requires copies to have been made. See my comments earlier in this thread. --NE2 23:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not one to usually be blithe about copyright, but I think at some point we have to say that works beyond a certain age should be assumed to be public domain until proven otherwise. Yes it is possible for a really old unpublished work to be subject to copyright, but in my opinion the burden of proof on Wikipedia should lie with the people arguing that this is subject to copyright and not the other way around. Right now there seems to be a lot of speculation that this might be subject to copyright because it might have qualified as unpublished until recently, but no reliable assertions that this is definitely the case. Copyright exists to serve the public good by protecting the interests of the content creators. In this case the painter is definitely deceased along with all plausible heirs and assigns for several generations. If, by a quirk of law, someone else has subverted the intent of copyright and managed to acquire a legitimate claim, then we can confront that if and when they choose to present their case. Till then, 300-year-old paintings will be treated as public domain in my book. Dragons flight (talk) 23:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment. As I argue above, it is a matter of the balance of probabilities, not 100% proof, and for this image it seems unlikely that there's a valid copyright. Eubulides (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, Dragons flight, I cannot agree in good faith. Several books on copyrights, even those that advocate public domain, give the advice to personally investigate and verify the works one wish to claim as public domain and use. Copyrights and trademarks for media professionals: "Thus, for a vast body of unpublised works, uncluding private manuscripts, photographs, letters, etc., here is the cautionary point to understand: Even thought the works are very old, for example, dating back to the early 1800s, they could still be owned and subject to full federal protection." Copyright law for librarians and educators: "Researchers accordingly must be watchful of two common possibilities. First, you might find a manuscript or other "unpublished" work from the past, but before you can conclude that it is in the public domain, you need to research whether in fact it might have been published in the meantime. Second, you may find a published work, such as a novel from the distant past, but some pieces of it may well have been added more recently and will enjoy protection under copyright law." As well as the books I have pointed out above. Due dilligence must be taken to ensure that we would not pass on our mistakes to those who would reuse what we have uploaded. Jappalang (talk) 01:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
NE2, your claim that "publication requires copies to have been made" was not true in the U.S. before 1978. I listed above the four different ways a work of art could be published. Each is supported by federal case law. — Walloon (talk) 08:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and then I linked to [21]: "In cases where general publication has been found, the creator had made his work available in a manner that suggested that any interested person could have a copy." --NE2 08:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Are you saying that your link contradicts any of the four publication methods I gave above? How? — Walloon (talk) 09:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
You quoted that "common-law right is lost by the general publication or unrestricted sale of a single copy". Read my link, which expands on what exactly that means. --NE2 10:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Claiming a 300-yr old painting is a classic case of the legal mind stretched beyond logical limits. Like DF said, let's get real here. It's PD. RlevseTalk 21:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Practical application of the rule of the shorter term

File:Rev. Robert Park.jpg, taken in 1951, is PD in the USA because it was published without a copyright notice before 1989. The photographer is anonymous; the books in which it was published (detailed at the image description page) were published in 1952 and 1964, written by a religious denomination and an individual (who died in 1989) respectively. I'm unclear as to the shorter term bit on the copyright template: in which (if any) of the countries mentioned in the template is this photo public domain? Nyttend (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The article on Rule of the shorter term has a table. — Walloon (talk) 04:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, that's not what I meant — for example, Canada doesn't apply the rule, so the template says that is "Canada (50 pma)". What does this mean? Is it PD in Canada because it was published 57 years ago, or will it be copyrighted until 2039? Nyttend (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
My apologies, I should have looked at the template. The abbreviation "pma" (Latin, post mortem auctoris) means "after the death of the author". So for example, "Canada (50 pma)" means that work will be under copyright in Canada for 50 years after the author's death. Under Canadian copyright law, where the identity of the author is unknown, then the copyright lasts for either 50 years from the publication of the work or 75 years from the making of the work, whichever is shorter. The notice in the template is intended only to inform those who would use the work further in the countries listed; Wikipedia being USA-based follows US copyright law. — Walloon (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I know the author's family and the operators of the website that hosts the book; since they gave permission for it to be freely downloadable, perhaps I'll ask them to add something to the website to clarify whether the book is released entirely worldwide, or whether they're retaining copyright for non-rule countries. Nyttend (talk) 04:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

File:20070616 Crown Fountain (6).JPG

I was wondering if this image could actually be considered free, other images of the fountain (such as File:20070621 Crown Fountain Water.JPG) have copyright tags, is that purely for the images displayed on the fountain rather than the fountain itself. Without the display does it qualify as a building rather than an artwork? Guest9999 (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Released by UK government = Crown Copyright?

File:Raymonsteedboy.jpg was recently posted in place of another file which was deleted pursuant to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 June 24#File:44027993 raymond other 300.jpg. The rationale for this one appears to be the same as the rationale for the previous one, and it looks like the same image to me. As before, though, there isn't enough information given to be sure if the expired Crown Copyright claim is valid.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Image Fair Use

I'm sure the image I want to have on an article does not comply with all fair-use rules or image-uploading policies, but I have to be sure before I upload it. I have uploaded other images with correct copyright banners, but with this image I am unsure. Please Help! I want to upload a modified image of the Pike's Peak International Raceway logo taken from website. Can I do that? If so, what copyright banner(s) must I use? Please leave your input on my talk page! -Mattokunhayashi (talk) 08:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

A logo, used on the article about the company, is one of the cases that's clearly okay under policy. Tag it {{Non-free logo}}. Then use the {{logo fur}} template to make a fair use rationale(click the link for instructions). --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


I am new here and i want to know if I'm allowed to translate the articles that already exist on Wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Translate to georgian (talkcontribs)

Do you mean translating from English Wikipedia to Georgian Wikipedia? This is allowed under the terms of Wikipedia's license (creative commons by-share alike). So what you need to do in Georgian Wikipedia is to attribute the translation to the English Wikipedia article. Here we have a template {{Translated}} that you can put on the talk page. Attribution in the edit summary is okay too. It is best to include a link to the article using [[:en:Article title]]. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

My picture

I uploaded a picture: File:Overhead View of Anini.jpg

It was originally from Panoramio. According to the Api Terms of the site, you are allowed to display certain content such as photographic imagery on your website. (section 1.1) My picture still has a tag that looks like this:

File:Insufficient Copyright Information.png

My picture is in the Anini Gallery. The other pictures in the gallery are also in Panoramio but do not have a tag and have a GFDL license. - Anini_PrasadBasavaraj.jpg on Panoramio Anini_PrasadBasavaraj_1.jpg on Panoramio

File:Anini PrasadBasavaraj.jpg File:Anini PrasadBasavaraj_1.jpg

The other pictures in the Anini Gallery that are also on Panoramio but have a GFDL License.

How is this possible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KRajaratnam1 (talkcontribs) 18:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

All three images are clearly marked with a copyright mark, so are not free images we can use. They should all be marked as such and deleted. The first image is on the commons and someone has already questioned the copyright status of that image which is why it already tagged. The other two were uploaded here and will be marked for deletion as copyright violations. ww2censor (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
True. If you want to use them on Wikipedia, get the uploader(who I assume is the photographer and therefore the copyright holder) to change the license on the images to CreativeCommons-Attribution, CreativeCommons-Attribution-ShareAlike, or Public Domain. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually File:Anini PrasadBasavaraj.jpg and File:Anini PrasadBasavaraj_1.jpg were uploaded here in 2007 before they were uploaded to Panoramio, so we have to assume they are actually the copyright of the original uploader, even if the image on Panoramio were copied from here by someone else, especially because the metadata is from the same camera for all the uploader's (3) images. However, File:Overhead View of Anini.jpg is still a problem and because it is a commons image it will have to be dealt with over there and as it is already tagged will most likely be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 23:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

My images made from screen shots of software

I have several images that I created and edited and released to the public domain. These are a few years old now. At that time, a screen shot or two from a single software package was fair use. I did not copy more than 2 images from any one software product or company. I pasted the screenshot (of my own data) into draw, edited and saved the image. It was my image, based in large part from a screen shot. No copyright.

My article is about using computers to manage your own diabetes data, so the material is relevant and necessary.

Diabetes management software

They are being tagged and deleted? Are they allowed or not????? I asked for help to figure out what else I had to do, it would have been just as easy for some admin to tell me what to do instead of giving me 5 links to all of the legal wiki stuff to figure out on my own. I appreciate there are legal issues, but you guys are killing the fun of being involved here. mbbradford 21:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's the issue - with respect, we only have your word that you are the developer of the software. Copyright is a serious issue for Wikipedia, so there are processes in place for copyright owners to release images for use on Wikipedia. Please follow the process set out at WP:IOWN and all will be well. – ukexpat (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Statue Jefferson.jpg

How would I tag this photo? Is putting the URL enough? How do I know which tag to use? {Cmguy777 (talk) 15:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)}

How did you obtain the photo? Who holds the copyright? Algebraist 15:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I got the photo off the web. All I have is the URL. I don't know who holds the copyright. I added the URL the second time I downloaded. I do not care if the photo is deleted. I looked at the tags. I could not find a tag that owner gives permission to put on wikipedia. I read that a photo can be used on a website if it is being used for educational purposes. {Cmguy777 (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)}

The photo copyright is probably held by the photographer, and its presence here violates that copyright. It will be deleted. Algebraist 17:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Assuming it is in the United States, the sculptor may have a separate copyright. —teb728 t c 22:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

If I was to get permission from the photographer and/or sculptor, then what copyright tag would I use? {Cmguy777 (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)}

The tag appropriate for the free license under which you have convinced the photographer and the sculptor (one Edward Hlavka, apparently) to release their work. Algebraist 02:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Or ask the sculptor/photographer to follow the process set out at WP:IOWN and the folks who handle permissions will tag accordingly. – ukexpat (talk) 03:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I can look into getting permission and tag(s) from the sculptor, photographer, and web site. {Cmguy777 (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)}

But is it art?

The Tate Modern is a modern art gallery in London. It has a large entrance hall which "is used to display large specially-commissioned works by contemporary artists" (from the Wikipedia article). There are multiple images of such works both here and on Commons which are marked as free, the exhibits include:

A giant crack in the floor: File:Shibboleth Tate Modern.jpg, File:Crack admirer.jpg
Slides: File:Test Site by Carsten Höller.jpg
Lots of cubes: File:Whiteread tate 1.jpg
Sun on the wall:, File:Tatemodernpowerstation .jpg

Can these be considered copyrightable works of art? If so are these images derivative works which cannot be released under a free license? Guest9999 (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, in UK compyright law if a sculpture is on permanent public display then taking photos of it is not restricted by copyright. See Section 62 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. The key point may be the word "permanent", but in my opinion (and I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if this is a valid interpretation) the fact that the Turbine Hall installations are site-specific and for the entire time that they exist as a work of art they are in the Turbine Hall might be an argument towards permanence. Whether "it can't be displayed anywhere else" is enough, I don't know - the other way of looking at this would be that the Turbine Hall works are only intended to be there for a limited period and are therefore not permanent like e.g. Nelson's Column is. -- AJR | Talk 21:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Is something located within an art gallery - even a public one - really on public display? Doesn't that usually apply to object is outside in a public place. Guest9999 (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Military insignia from WWII

I've uploaded an image Image:VIII_Corp.png and can't work out what an appropriate copyright notice would be. Help would be appreciated. --DuLithgow (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

We would ideally need a bit more source info to determine this. However it is most likely in the public domain. If it is the original insignia from the WWI version of the corps then it would defenently be public domain now (in the UK because Crown Copyright only last for 50 years and in the US because it was published before 1923). Also if it is from the 1944 version of the corps it would have entered the public domain in the UK in 1994 (or 1995, if the term lasts to the end of the year), and so would also be considered PD in the US since it was PD in the country of origin before 1996[22]. Unless there are some strange edge case here the tags would be either: {{PD-US}} and {{PD-BritishGov}} or {{PD-US-1996}} and {{PD-BritishGov}} depending on whether or not it was first published before or after 1923. --Sherool (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Irish cricket flag

I would like an opinion on the copyright status for File:Flag of Cricket Ireland.svg. The image was originally created in 2007 (at least) as File:Flag of Ireland cricket team.svg but deleted on February 20 because it was derivative of the Cricket Ireland logo, assumed to be copyrighted. The specific deletion request was {{db-f9|url=}}, where you can see that the three shamrocks is a subset of the overall logo design. The use of the special flag of green shamrocks on the blue background can be seen on pages like this and this. Also note that on Commons, commons:File:Flag of the Irish cricket team.svg was created on 3 December 2006 and deleted on 13 April 2009 because it was tagged with an inappropriate license and marked as a copyright violation. So—what is the appropriate copyright status and license tag for this new version on Is it a logo that should only be used in the infobox of the Ireland cricket team article and nowhere else, per WP:NFCC? Or is it ineligible for copyright as it is a simple geometric shape (I always find that a grey area) and can be used freely? Or is it a derivative work of a copyrighted logo (i.e. extracted from the original Cricket Ireland logo), and therefore also subject to NFCC constraints? Can Saebhiar (talk · contribs) legitimately use the {{PD-self}} license tag for his uploaded version? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a copyright violation to me. I tagged it {{pui}}. —teb728 t c 23:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Dncl.jpg

I'm unclear what the problem is with File:Dncl.jpg. The FairuseBot flagged these problems:

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

However, that information seems to already be in the image's description page. Am I missing something? Thanks. Chris uvic (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Salavat added the rationale after the bot tagged the article. —teb728 t c 02:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Photo of a New York State Senator

I have a black and white photograph which includes James H. Donovan, his finance director, some junior high school students (disclosure: including me) and our teacher that was taken when I was a kid at the New York State Tech. Fair VI in Albany. I do not recall who took the photo. The back is stamped "Compliments of James H. Donovan", with some scribble notes stating it was at the fair and dates of the fair, 2-24 & 2-25-86, but no copyright notices. Copies were also given out to other people. I would like to crop the photo to focus on the senator for use on his page. But I am unsure if this is allowed under copyright policy. (I also intend to crop out anyone that is still alive from the photo, myself included.) PaleAqua (talk) 04:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That photo would almost certainly be under copyright, and therefore only usable if it meets with Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. The use of a single photograph to illustrate a deceased subject is generally considered to meet those criteria, provided that no free photographs are known to exist. Accordingly, I'd say go ahead and upload it, but make sure to attach a fair use rationale. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 04:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, uploaded it at File:JamesHDonovanNYSTechFair1986.JPG. PaleAqua (talk) 05:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Non-free content review

In this archived discussion I asked what should be done when a non-free image that is appropriate on one article is being used on other articles where it is not appropriate. The reply was that that's what WP:NFCR is intended for. The problem, however, is that discussions of this type never get closed on NFCR. In particular WP:NFCR#File:Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving.jpg has been ripe for closure for a week, but nobody closes it. (NFCR discussions get closed when the file in question has been deleted or when there is consensus to keep.) —teb728 t c 06:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Mark Beaumont

I've uploaded two images for use in the Mark Beaumont (cyclist) article. I have emails from Mark himself releasing these photographs into the public domain which I have forwarded to In spite of this, the images have twice been deleted with little or no discussion or opportunity to explain their use. What gives? Stocksy (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

How long ago did you e-mail the permissions folks? They are all volunteers and it can take a while for them to respond. Once they have confirmed the permissions, they can undelete the images and tag them accordingly. – ukexpat (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 May 28#File:Mark-beaumont-2.JPG and the one directly above (assume that's the ones, you didn't specify which images exactly). First time around there was aparently no explanation for the claim that the images where public domain, and according to one of the users manning the OTRS que ticket #OTRS:2008090410025757 is not a release to the public domain, just an exclusive permission to use the images on Wikipedia itself. If you believe they misunderstood please ask the copyright holder to explicitly state that the images are released to the public domain (or a permissive license such as Creative Commons ShareAlike Attribution 3.0 or simmilar, not just for use on the Wikipedia site itself. --Sherool (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Quilt photo violates quiltmaker/designer copyright


Unless the photographer has express permission from the quiltmaker(s) and designer(s) to distribute images of their quilt on the Internet, he is in violation of their copyright on the quilt by distributing this photo. Unless the appropriate permissions have been given--which is doubtful, as the photographer does not even identify the creators of this quilt--it should be removed.Radishthegreat (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It is used in an article about the Hutchinson County Historical Museum which supposed focuses on materials from before the 1920s. Given that, the quilt could be in the public domain due to age (though frankly the quilt looks in very good condition and so might be modern). I'd suggest you start by talking to the uploader. Dragons flight (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the center text seems to include "2004", so it probably is modern. Dragons flight (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The same issue appears to apply to File:Quilt exhibit at Boomtown Revisited Picture 2123.jpg in the Hutchinson County Historical Museum article. ww2censor (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Reuse of an image with uncertain authorship from within a U.S. public domain source

Consider a case where an image was published in a U.S. government book c. 2001; the author is a government employee. The book was republished in HTML format on a U.S. government website. The site explicitly notes that the content of the site is in the public domain.

The image is a composite of two photographic frames; the date the composite was created is not known, but was probably prior to 1955. However, the neither the blended image, nor the photographs are credited to any person. From the content of the image, the originals were very likely taken c. 1950. It is plausible, but not certain, that the photographs were taken by a government employee.

Are we entitled to rely upon the U.S. government website's statement that the entire site is in the public domain, and use the image accordingly? Or are we required to ascertain the actual photographer and/or compositor (and the dates)?

And given that the image is a composite, possibly blended (e.g. airbrushed) to appear as one, does that constitute a derivative work of the original two photos (due to artistic input), and fall under a separate copyright? Or does the copyright (if any) of the original photographer apply?

Is an assertion of fair use required to permit the use of this work, or are there alternatives? (That might, for instance, permit the work to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons.) TheFeds 23:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

We can rely on the U.S. govt. assertion that the composite image is in the public domain. (Sometimes the govt. makes mistakes, of course, and additional evidence could cause us to revise this assumption; but it's a reasonable assumption.) If the original photos are reproduced only in very tiny forms in the composite, perhaps the govt. claimed fair use of copyrighted work. If the original photos are reproduced in fairly high quality in the composite, then it's reasonable to assume that the original photos are public domain as well. The composite is a derivative work, but if the composite was created by the U.S. govt. then the artistic / airbrushing /etc. introduced in the composite is in the public domain. Eubulides (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Poster transferred from sq.Wikipedia

Hi- I was wondering if anyone here could add a comment or two at User talk:Drilnoth#Birra Korca. I am not yet fully familiar with how images transferred from other Wikipedias but which seem to lack en.Wikipedia-needed information work. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

File Permission Problem

I received a file permisson problem on my talk page regarding a picture I'd uploaded and posted on my user page. I don't quite understand the problem, so if someone could reply to me on my talk page to help explain a bit better, it would be greatly appreciated. -6xB 22:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I presume you mean File:6xbsouthparkey5.png which has been deleted. While I cannot see the file, you were asked to provide permission for its use, so I presume it was a non-free image. Only freely licenced images are permitted for use on user pages. Fair-use images may only be used on this wiki if they comply with all 10 non free content criteria and have a suitable fair use rationale for each page it is being used in. ww2censor (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
It was a South Park style avatar created usign the tool at if you read the copyright info on the page it says that you are not allowed to use the artwork for any kind of commercial purpose, images that don't allow commercial use are not allowed on Wikipedia (doesn't matter that the use here is non-commercial, it needs to be under a free license that allow potential commercial use). However since you contradicted the source website by claiming that the image was in fact public domain you where asked to produce proof of this permission (a statement by the copyright holder), and when no such permission was produced after 7 days the image was then deleted as is standard procedure. --Sherool (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Derivative works of maps?

If I make a map showing features depicted on another, is that a derivative work? Specifically — if I take a free map of Beaver, Pennsylvania and (using my own computer) draw the boundaries of the Beaver Historic District that are shown on this map (just the boundaries, not including any special features), would that be considered a derivative work of the PDF? Or would I be able to license it as if I'd drawn random lines on said free map? Nyttend (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No-one here can give you legal advice. If the map you got the boundaries from was a British Ordnance Survey map, past events suggest their licensing department would come down on you like a ton of bricks. I suggest you avoid possible trouble and get the boundaries from a free source, such as the enabling legislation for the district. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

W3C accessibility guidelines and image copyright notices

The template {{MoS-guideline}} currently generates output that looks like this:

Does this usage conform to Wikipedia's copyright policy? If not, why not?

The blue checkmark is created with "[[Image:Blue check.svg|30px|link=]]", so that the checkmark does not link to Image:Blue check.svg. Avoiding the link means that visually impaired Wikipedians who are using assistive technology such as JAWS and Orca will hear something like this:

"This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style...."

thus avoiding mention of the (purely decorative) checkmark. Wikipedia:Alternative text for images #When to specify cites the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative in saying that images that are purely decorative, and which can therefore be safely ignored by visually impaired readers, do not need alt text; but such images should not have links because they would therefore be functional images (and functional images require alt text).

If it's Wikipedia policy that links to image pages are required, then we can do it this way instead:

This uses "[[Image:Blue check.svg|30px|alt=Blue checkmark.]]", which causes the blue checkmark to be a link to the image page, and causes screen readers to say something like this:

"Blue checkmark. This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style...."

This approach hurts accessibility slightly for this particular case. It will hurt accessibility noticeably more in other cases. For example, in {{Table of states in the German Empire}} it would require alt text for each of the flag images that happen to GFDL'ed, which in practice means that alt text would be required for all the flag images (for consistency), and this will make it noticeably harder on people using screen readers. If Wikipedia policy requires this, of course we'll have to do it; but I'm hoping that some other way can be found that is consistent with both Wikipedia policy and W3C accessibility guidelines.

Here's some history. I originally modified {{MoS-guideline}} to include alt text for the blue checkmark, with "[[Image:Blue check.svg|30px|alt=Blue checkmark.]]", which generates a blue checkmark image with alt text "Blue checkmark." Thumperward reverted this change, correctly observing "the icon is used only for decoration, so giving it a caption doesn't make things any easier for users with screen readers". I then installed the current version which uses "|link=" (to avoid the link) instead of "|alt=Blue checkmark.". I did this to some other templates too, but when I asked for such a change to be installed into {{Portal}}, Luna Santin wrote in Template talk:Portal #Remove link from image, for accessibility that the change shouldn't be installed, as "linking to image description pages is our standard means of attributing images to their contributors, as is required by many copyleft licenses including our own GFDL and cc-by-sa".

This topic has also recently come up at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) #Stubs icons and accessibility and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Xenobot 6.1. In some cases, such as stub icons, it appears that adding alt text is better than adding "|link="; but this question is about cases such as the above, where for accessibility it'd be better to add "|link=".

Eubulides (talk) 00:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The checkmark is licensed under the GFDL, so unless we're going to claim that it's {{PD-ineligible}} (I'm bad at judging that), I'd say that link's required. Maybe just contact Greg Maxwell and ask if he'd be willing to release it into the public domain? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 04:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
A public-domain alternative would work in this particular case, but I'm interested in solving the more-general problem. Where is the explanation of why the GFDL requires a link? I couldn't find it in WP:C. I'm asking because I would like a solution that satisfies both the GFDL and the W3C accessibility guidelines. (Similarly for CC-BY-SA.) If I don't understand why the GFDL requires a link, I can't propose a better accessibility solution. Eubulides (talk) 05:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, nobody really understands what the GFDL requires, especially as it pertains to images, which is one reason we're trying to stop using it. But the short answer to your question would be that section 2 of the GFDL requires that the copyright notice and the license be distributed with each copy of the document. Linking to the image page is how this is accomplished for images. Sort of. Did I mention what a bad choice the GFDL is for image licensing? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 05:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, this makes it sound like the GFDL is reeeally messy and that there is no Wikipedia policy or guideline in this area. However, as per GFDL section 11, old images released under the GFDL are now redistributable under CC-BY-SA 3.0. Hence if {{MoS-guideline}} satisfies CC-BY-SA 3.0 then we're OK, right? If so, I suppose I should have asked, "where is the explanation of why CC-BY-SA 3.0 requires a link?" Is an answer to that question written down anywhere? Eubulides (talk) 06:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Section 4 of CC-BY-SA 3.0 requires that all documents distributed under it include either a copy of the license or a link to it, and attribution to the "the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable)", which is the purpose of the link. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 06:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Uses of the template all provide a link to the CC-BY-SA license, so it's the "Original Author" requirement that's the issue here, right? But that requirement doesn't require a link. On the contrary, CC-BY-SA 3.0 4c is deliberately liberal about the technology used to provide attribution, saying "The credit required by this Section 4(c) may be implemented in any reasonable manner".
  • Attribution could be done, for example, by putting the Original Author's name in the image file, as a comment. Or it could be done by putting the Original Author's name in the name of the image file. Or we could put into each article a brief comment explaining how to find the attribution for a Wikipedia-hosted image file, given the file's name. Several other possibilities spring to mind.
  • For Image:Blue check.svg the problem is already solved, because that SVG file already contains the Original Author's name, as a comment in line 2 of the SVG file that says "By Gregory Maxwell". For other SVG/JPEG/PNG/etc. files we can simply ask that editors put the Original Author's name into the file, if it isn't there already. Surely this suffices to satisfy the attribution requirements.
Eubulides (talk) 07:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Good catch. Including the license in the file itself as metadata seems like the optimal solution here in general, and fortunately we can do it on basically all of our common iconography because it's all SVG these days. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia thumbnail generator does not currently preserve any embedded metadata. In general this proposal does not work for thumnails under the current system. Dragons flight (talk) 09:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Good point: what matters is what is delivered over the wire (often a .png), not the original image (often an .svg). So we are still in a terrible state: editors think they are contributing icons to an encyclopedia via CC-BY-SA, but then encyclopedia articles can't reasonably use the icons because the icons are CC-BY-SA! This is silly, and we need a better solution. I will try to think of one. Eubulides (talk) 10:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Isn't it great that SVG files are human-readable? Stifle (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

← The solution is to replace File:Blue check.svg with one that is in the public domain (like this one File:Blue check PD.svg). Then it can be used anywhere without needing the link (which is only of use to comply with a copyright licence). --RexxS (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That would work for this one case, but it's completely impractical for the thousands of purely-decorative images that are routinely used on Wikipedia: as we don't have time to generate public domain versions of every such image. Furthermore, it would in some sense be counterproductive to the goals of proper attribution to insist on PD versions: if we really want to encourage proper attribution, we should get proper attribution to work, and not insist on PD (which explicitly gives up on proper attribution). We need a better solution. I have thought of one but have not had time to draft a proper proposal. Eubulides (talk) 01:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
On the contrary, we have plenty of time. There is no deadline. Wikipedia has a goal of being a free encyclopedia. There is no goal of "proper attribution", merely a licensing requirement for non-free content. What we really want is to encourage is free content; and PD > CC-SA. Many decorative images already are PD for obvious reasons. For example, File:Flag of the United States.svg is used on 250000+ pages and contains this: "This image is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship". We need to be encouraging more of that, rather than encourage contributors to copyright tick-marks. Nevertheless, I'll await your your proposal for an even better solution. --RexxS (talk) 13:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
The Five pillars of Wikipedia explicitly list CC-BY-SA as the first license. Public domain is not one of the pillars, so insisting on public-domain for decorative images (or for any other part of Wikipedia) would appear to go against an important guiding principle. Anyway, I'll see what I can do about that proposal; it's not trivial to get consensus on something like this. Eubulides (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
The first words in Five pillars #3 are "Wikipedia is free content", before even a mention of a licence: Free content is the pillar, not CC-SA (which is merely a convenience for providing content which is almost free). Please understand that I am insisting on nothing. I simply make the point that PD images are preferable to licensed images of any sort for many reasons, and that most certainly there is no "guiding principle" that suggests we should prefer to licence images as CC-SA instead of PD. However, I maintain that decorative images, from ticks to flags icons, are inherently uncopyrightable and we make life harder for ourselves by using images which require attribution in those cases. --RexxS (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'll have to disagree: CC-BY-SA is listed in that pillar, and public-domain is not, which is an indication that CC-BY-SA is preferred in Wikipedia. I expect that is why the notice at the bottom of the window I'm typing this on says that I'm releasing this text under the CC-BY-SA and the GFDL, and am not making it public-domain. Certainly some decorative images (in the W3C sense) are uncopyrightable, but some just as clearly are copyrightable, and there is a gray area in between; and worrying about licensing and gray areas would be a real hassle for editors, if we forced them to worry about it every time they wanted to use a decorative image. It'd be much better to have a solution where editors do not have to worry about this and can get on with the more important aspects of writing a free encyclopedia. Eubulides (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
The mention of CC-SA in the pillar cannot possibly be construed as indicating a preference. It is merely stating a fact: "All of Wikipedia's text is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License" (my emphasis). That explains why when you type in text, you accept that licence for your text contributions. However, I concede the argument. When you upload an image, it does indeed recommend "Multi-licence with CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL". There's clearly no point in creating PD versions of decorative images if Wikipedia prefers us not to. --RexxS (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair use?

Is the use of the main photo in the Amr Diab article fair use? From the tag on the image page it seems that it should only be used in the article about the album from whose cover it is taken. I'm not too great with copyright issues, so any help would be appreciated. Copana2002 (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Beside that, since he is alive, someone could make a free replacement photo showing how he looks. I see it is now tagged for deletion as replaceable. —teb728 t c 22:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Image question...

hi i was just warned about some of the images i uploaded, but was wondering what to do as 2 of the images were referenecd to source. i have seen other images on wikipedia that i have seen on the internet. is it still possible to properly reference the pictures that have already been uploaed? i tried to update a file to give more info. and was wondering if this is now correct, or closer to it...

File:Build Bnglrcampus.jpg Thanks! J929 (talk) 01:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You did not indicate the licence for the image which is why it was tagged in the first place. All you did was improve the source information. The source website clearly shows a copyright notice, so this image is copyright. It is not freely licenced so it cannot be used here and will be deleted shortly. If possible go out, take a photo yourself and then you can release the image as a public domain image that we can use. ww2censor (talk) 04:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your time!!

J929 (talk) 05:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiSky Screenshot?

What license would this come under? The site says we can use any screenshots from its database for free, but I'm not quite sure what license that would categorise under... Thanks. --Dark dude (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you please link to where the site says that? Stifle (talk) 13:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, so I found this: [23]. So I can use the image under educational/non-commercial use, so long as it's cited to be from WikiSky? --Dark dude (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Well yeah, but not on Wikipedia unfortunately. Images restricted to non-commercial or educational use only are considered non-free and so can generaly not be used here unless they comply with the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, it even says so on that copyright page you linked to. --Sherool (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Hm... Well, the images were apparently taken by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, so surely copyright belongs to them as the photographers? And the license ( states all images can be used for non-commercial purposes, so do I still need to treat them as non-free content? Also, how would I go about legally putting an image from WikiSky on Wikipedia? It's for illustrating an article only, so surely reduction of image quality/resolution and giving credit to the copyright holder(s) in the non-free template would suffice? In any case, what license would I have to register the image under? Forgive my confusion, copyrights generally boggle me... --Dark dude (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the copyright would still belong to Sloan unless they transferred their copyright, which is unlikely. On Wikipedia, content is either under a license which allows commercial use, or it is subject to the full non-free content criteria. Rule 1 on the list is "no free equivalent". Pretty much any photo of the sky has an equivalent that is simple to obtain from any amateur with a telescope who is willing to allow commercial use of their photo. So a photo of the sky used under the non-free content rules would probably be deleted on those grounds. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 01:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Just to be clear, an image that can be used only non-commercially, educationally, etc., is not a free image. Stifle (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Claim that uploader of an image is the notable person depicted

How do we handle things like File:Andrew Demcak small.jpg? Is it usual to WP:AGF or does WP:COPYREQ need to be followed (in other words, email sent to OTRS, etc.)? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I would assume that it would be treated like a photo of a notable person taken by any other person. Nyttend (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, since the copyright holder of a photograph is the photographer, not the subject (unless copyright has been transferred by operation of law or contract), it should be treated as a PUF and the uploader invited to send in verification of permission to OTRS. Stifle (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Mark West (basketball)

The information I put on Mark West from is my work as I am the Sports Information Director at the school where Mark played. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hudsoncr (talkcontribs) 15:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

While this page is actually for media questions, you have added text, that appears identically on at least two websites NCAA &, and copied directly from one of them. This brings into question which came first and who actually owns the copyright. You will need to have someone from the NCAA send permission for its use per the instructions on WP:PERMISSION, otherwise we have no way of confirming the use is permitted or that what you actually wrote is your copyright as you seem to claim. For now the text has been removed from the article until permission is received. ww2censor (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


The file summary says that this picture is from, but I don't see any rating icons in that page. I think it should be erased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjinho213 (talkcontribs) 19:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Paddy Bradley.jpg

I got a message on my talk page stating "there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license". However it clearly states here that all images on that website are freely licnesed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Why then did I receive a message saying the image couldn't be used? Derry Boi (talk) 22:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that the page you refer to states: "Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License" however the source page for the image has no CC licence but it does have a clear copyright mark at the bottom right of the page, so it looks like you are out of luck unless you can prove otherwise. ww2censor (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Of course it's copyright. It's copyrighted under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 licence. Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.[24] We don't require images to be copyright-free, merely that they are copyrighted under a compatible licence, which this image is. --RexxS (talk) 00:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes - unless it says "all rights reserved" there is not a problem. All freely-licensed content is copyrighted. Dcoetzee 02:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright status

On the Wikipedia subject "Haight Ashbury Switchboard", I recently uploaded to you a file File:Death of hippie.jpg.

I received a message asking about it's copyright status etc. I'm not a lawyer so other than knowing there was no copyright I don't know how to respond to the question.

The uploaded file is a scan of a 4x5 placard from 1967. The placards were printed with funds donated from two organizations one of which was the Switchboard. I was a member of that organization. There was no copyright, the placard was simply an advertisement for a media event that we we supporting.

What should I add to the properties of the .jpg file

Thx Ron S —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grenachx (talkcontribs) 12:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me Template:PD-US-no notice would apply here. Published before 77 without a copyright notice, correct? -Andrew c [talk] 13:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Images in Gaslight

Two editors believe using three images in the article for Gaslight is OK because two of them supposedly are in the public domain, but I don't think the person who uploaded them (File:Gaslight 1944 trailer.jpg and File:Gaslight 1944 trailer(2).jpg) described them correctly. According to him, "This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977, inclusive, without a copyright notice" but he doesn't say where they were published, and he says his source for the images is the film's trailer. Since there's no way you could copy an image from a trailer and upload it, it had to have been found somewhere online, but he doesn't say where. It seems to me these two images are just screenshots (I'm positive the photograph of Ingrid Bergman confronting Charles Boyer in the dramatic final scene would not have been in the trailer), and neither one of them adds to the understanding of the article. Isn't the image of the film's poster enough? I'm very confused by a lot of the image rules but in this case I think I'm right. Thank you in advance for your help. LargoLarry (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify: he means that the trailer was specifically cut for and then released in the U.S. market, constituting first publication of the images it contained. Since he's claiming the trailer did not have a copyright notice, publication of the trailer in that way would have constituted publication of the images it contained into the public domain, per {{PD-US-no notice}}. Note that it's very easy to freeze a still from a DVD that contains an original trailer. -- Jheald (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
This should be easy to check (but unfortunately I can't from this computer right now). Gaslight is a film that's available online to watch. I know Hulu has it/had it. iTunes has it. iTunes frequently has an option to watch a trailer before renting/viewing. It'd then be easy as pie to get screenshots of the trailer and upload it. So if someone here looks at the trailer (I can't do it today, don't have access to my laptop with iTunes on it, but could tomorrow) they can confirm if those images appear in it and if the trailer has any copyright info on it. If they are in there with no copyright, case closed, they are correctly tagged and licensed. If they are not, then if the movie is free could start that up and see if the movie itself has a copyright notice on it. No notice on there would mean just change the description to say movie instead of trailer and keep everything else the same.
I can do this tomorrow if nobody can clear it up beforehand. DreamGuy (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The images in question reside on Commons. You need to take the issue up there. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I can't confirm the copyright status of the film but I can confirm that both of these image are in the trailer that is available on iTunes. ww2censor (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright status of File:SKY Network Television NZ logo.svg and File:Telstra.svg

Are the corporate logos File:SKY Network Television NZ logo.svg and File:Telstra.svg protected by copyright? They both include the company name combined with simple geometric symbols, and another editor (see history of each) maintains that they are therefore not protected by copyright. I would argue that the combination of name and symbol adds up to a copyrightable logo. -- Eastmain (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Names are not copyrightable, and neither (generally) is text. The arrangement of the geometric symbols may be copyrightable, but here they seem no more complex than, say Microsoft's logo. Powers T 20:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Live music

Would I be able to upload a mp3 of a live concert recording? It is fan recorded, so therefore the copyright belongs to the artist. The artist has said not much publically about bootlegs, not endorsing them (Grateful Dead have done this) or discouraging them (some Metallica bootlegs). Even if I were to use 30 seconds, I would be fine with it, since it would prove that the song was preformed before the album was released and all that stuff. Thanks. TheWeakWilled 02:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC) And yes, I know it can't be an mp3, I was just using that as an example. TheWeakWilled 02:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No. It would fail WP:NFCC#4 because it has not been previously published outside of Wikipedia. Oh, and of course most obviously WP:NFCC#2 because it does not respect commercial opportunities. It doesn't matter what the performers think of it (unless they and their producer license it). —teb728 t c 03:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I noticed that a few live songs have disappeared, and figures I should check in before I upload something. Thanks! TheWeakWilled 04:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

File:16 Sqn Saint.jpg (tagged with PD-self) is a user-redrawn version of a logo for No. 16 Squadron RAF; according to the image description, the logo has been in use since the 1960s. Obviously the copyright status depends on the original image; do I remember right that British military documents are crown copyrighted? If so, please tag for deletion, as the article already has a logo. Nyttend (talk) 03:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Crown copyright expires after 50 years so it depends when it was in service.©Geni 18:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

copyright laws

if you are not making money out of your presention, do you need to observe copyright laws? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, see copyright infringement. – ukexpat (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

move to commons

  • Hi, I need to use this file in, it's a GFDL picture, so can it be moved to commons? and, i don't know how to move, btw. Fcn (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Asthma Friendly logo v2.jpg

Hi there, my file:Asthma Friendly logo v2.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion (certification mark) due to no explanation as to why it is permeitted under the policy for non-free content. I am using the file because a picture of it is not available under free searches (eg google images) and an example of the certification mark is necessary for our entry on the certification marks trademark page. I am still trying to understand all the free use policies and trademark criteria in general, so please do let me know if this is not sufficient. Many thanks Timyeomans33 (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that there are a lot of certification marks and there is no particular reason to think that that one holds any special significance.©Geni 16:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
It may be helpful to read through WP:Non-free use rationale guideline and perhaps examine the non-free use rationale of some other images (e.g. File:Fight Club poster.jpg) to see if your article really has to have the Asthma Friendly logo in it. Fair use of copyrighted images should only be considered if that particular information is essential to an understanding of the article, and if no other means of presenting the information is available. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
If you are trying to add some more images to the certification mark article, it should be relatively easy to find several freely licenced images without having to resort to a non-free image as you have done. When you write "an example of the certification mark is necessary for our entry (my emphasis) on the certification marks trademark page", do you means you are specifically trying to add this particular logo to the article for some personal or work reason? If this is so, it might be regarded as a conflict of interest. ww2censor (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies, I'll go through your suggestions one at a time and hopefully can guide myself through this.
"The problem is that there are a lot of certification marks and there is no particular reason to think that that one holds any special significance" - Thank you for your point, there are indeed a number of certification marks, but these should not be confused with seals of approval, there are a huge number of seals of approval programs which do not test the product, but rather rely on manufacturer produced data. Certification marks are governed by a strict set of rules that the applicant must meet in order to be certified. In much the same way as the CE mark and the British Standards mark identifty products that have been tested to a specific standard, the asthma & allergy friendly certification mark also identifies products that have been tested scientifically to a specific set of standards.
" see if your article really has to have the Asthma Friendly logo in it" - there appeared a precedent for including an image of the certification mark on the page, as had been set by Semko, CE mark, etc and therefore it seemed logical to include an image of the asthma friendly certification mark.
" other means of presenting the information is available" - I have looked through google images for an appropriate free image to use, however there do not appear to be any in a presentable format.

" should be relatively easy to find several freely licenced images without having to resort to a non-free image as you have done.." - as I mentioned above, I did look for free images and could not find a presentable one, ie free standing image.
" you means you are specifically trying to add this particular logo to the article for some personal or work reason? If this is so, it might be regarded as a conflict of interest. " - absolutely I am trying to add this for a personal or work reason, however I feel that I have complied with Wikipedia's ethos of impartiality by not discussing the certification mark in terms of whether it is good or bad, just stating that it is a certifiaction mark, and its meaning. If you feel that I have made a statement that may conflict with the ethos of Wikipedia, please let me know and I will edit it appropriately.
I really do appreciate you all taking the time to make your comments, where do we go from here?Timyeomans33 (talk) 07:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

When I wrote " other means of presenting the information is available", I actually meant that the convention on Wikipedia is that we use images to convey information, not merely as illustrations or for decorative purposes. You should always ask yourself if the information you wanted that image to convey could be done in words instead. Now, I can see that you want readers to be able to recognise that logo, so I agree an image would be more convenient. I should point out that just because other images are on a page, it does not provide an automatic licence to add more. For each of the other logos, there is a description of its licensing that you can view by clicking the image. For many of them, they are too simple to be copyrightable, but the "Asthma friendly" logo certainly has copyright. The only way you can use it, therefore, is by claiming Fair use as I outlined previously. Please have a good look at File:Kitemark.png which is used in the article under Fair use and see if you can make sure that you cover the same points that it does. If you can do that, then its use in the article should be acceptable. Hope this helps. --RexxS (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this usable in the article "Bitch"

No, The design shows enough creativity to copyrightable, and it undoubtedly is copyrighted. —teb728 t c 23:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
But, copyrighted material can be used under fair use law. It's an example of usage of a word, it would be used once, in a non-commerical and educational context. Noloop (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately Wikipedia is not a non-commercial and educational context. The contents of WP fall into three main categories:
  1. Public domain: anyone can freely use and modify without restriction;
  2. Licensed by GFDL or CC-BY-SA: anyone can freely use and modify as long as they comply with the requirements for attribution laid out in the licence;
  3. Non-free content: used on the WP website courtesy of the USA "Fair Use" exemption to copyright - this content is not re-distributable and must be clearly indicated as such.
Wikipedia insists on a higher standard for inclusion of non-free content than "Fair Use" does. See WP:NFCC, particularly Policy numbers 1 to 10. This means that even though we could use an image under a fair use claim, we still require that the image meets more criteria because we aim for a free encyclopedia. In this case, examine #1:No free equivalent and #8:Significance. Would a free image (whether or not one exists yet) serve the same purpose? and would a reader still understand the article without that image? I suspect the answer to both is "yes" and that would remove the justification for including the image as non-free content. --RexxS (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
The purpose is to document the reappropriation of the term in pop culture. I haven't found any free examples. It's not likely there are copyright-free examples, because the obvious examples are things like t-shirts and bumper-stickers with relevant slogans. I'm sure one could understand this--and most--articles--without images. The purpose of images is to clarify, and provide concrete examples for the reader to consider. Noloop (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
The purpose of images on this encyclopedia is to convey information that is more efficiently conveyed in that fashion. Editors are encouraged to use images in that way, but not at the expense of providing free content wherever possible. It is one thing to add freely-licensed images to an article; it is an entirely different thing to add non-free images and it is not to be undertaken lightly. Our policy allows us to use non-free images if we meet certain constrains. One of these is "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". All I am saying is that if you can't convince others that this image significantly increases readers' understanding of Bitch, and that its omission would be detrimental to that understanding, then the image will end up being deleted as a violation of WP:NFCC. For what it's worth, I understand what the section Bitch#Reappropriation says as it stands. I honestly can't say that I'd have any deeper understanding if the image were on the page, sorry. --RexxS (talk) 23:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


(UK publication!) Is there any reason why this couldn't be transferred to commons under a anonymous + 70 years licence? Evidently, finding out the exact illustrator would be hard, but what with all the other components of a front page, are there any special rules to consider? - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 09:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


It has come to my attention that no matter how much information I enter, or how personally responsible I am for the creation of said image; when I post it in wikipedia, there is always a reason that it cannot be used. Fair enough. I will no longer place any images on your site. Problem solved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sambson (talkcontribs) 19:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean "personally responsible" for the images you uploaded. I've looked through your deleted uploads, and it appears that all of them were used under a "fair use" claim. Therefore, you do not own the copyright to any of those images and that would imply that you are not personally responsible for those images. On Wikipedia, we clearly favor free content. However, we do allow some "fair use" images, if they meet our strict WP:NFCC. If you have a specific question about one or more of your images, please feel free to ask. I don't want to discourage you from contributing. I'd like to help clear this up. If you don't understand why an image of your was deleted, I'd gladly explain. Keep in mind, non-free images have to follow our strict rules. It is almost always better to instead contribute content which is licensed freely (and you are welcome to license any image you personally created freely). So please, don't be discourage, and reply with specifics and I'd gladly assist you further. Good luck. -Andrew c [talk] 20:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)