Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2009/September

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



If I upload a company logo that is trademarked is that logo protected from any trademark infringement by users of Wikipedia?

Thank you,

Andrea —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janimationinc (talkcontribs) 15:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Legally protected, yes, as long as you make that clear when you upload the file. Technologically protected, no -- no more than it would be on the company's own web site. Powers T 22:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
It depends on what license you select. You can not upload as "permission for Wikipedia only", that's not allowed. Your options are a free license or full copyright protection. If you choose a free license (assuming you are authorized to do so), then anyone can use the image anywhere for any purpose including mashups and photoshop fun. If you upload it as a copyrighted image, you retain all rights but Wikipedia can only use the image if there is a valid claim of fair use for each and every instance where the image is used. Thatcher 03:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Andrea is talking about trade marks, not copyrights - the two are related, but are quite different. The direct answer to her question is that uploading a company logo to Wikipedia has no bearing on its trade mark status either way. Such marks are legally protected wherever they appear, provided their owners continue to assert ownership and use of them and defend them in court from infringement. However, as you say, there may be copyright issues that prevent Wikipedia from being able to accept the uploaded logo. Generally, we need images to be uploaded under a free license and companies are generally uncomfortable with doing that, for obvious reasons. -- Hux (talk) 05:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Book published in 1966 without notice

I have a question about a book published in 1966 that does not have a copyright notice. According to copyright rules, the lack of a notice on a work published in the US between 1923 and 1977 is in the public domain. My question is does notice mean the work needs to physically have the copyright symbol or the word copyright on it? The book in question is Origins of North Dakota Place Names by Mary Ann Barnes Williams. The dedication page merely says "Mary Ann Barnes Williams/Washburn, North Dakota/January, 1966."DCmacnut<> 15:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

A proper copyright notice for visually perceptible copies must contain the word "Copyright" or "Copr." or the "©" symbol, the year of first publication, and the name of the copyright owner. In a book, the notice must be placed on the title page, the page immediately following the title page, either side of the front or back cover, or the first or last page of the main body of the work. Copyright Notice, U.S. Copyright Office Circular #3. — Walloon (talk) 04:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Medical journal CC-BY-2.0

I am doing a good article review for Lujan-Fryns syndrome. There is little information on treatment, one paragraph in one article. Very hard to rewrite to avoid plagiarism without doing original research/synthesis. But, the original journal is licenses CC-BY-2.0. So I can copy the whole paragraph as long as I cite it, yes? I've linked to the journal in the edit summary and in the reflist. Here is the original article for verification. Any problems? Thatcher 03:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, this page is for copyright-related questions about media (usually images) uploaded to Wikipedia. We don't deal with copyright issues to do with article text. Having said that, since I've got this far I'll offer my opinion anyway, which is that, yes, if the original work is CC-BY-2.0 you can use the whole paragraph unedited as long as you cite the source. Hope that helps! -- Hux (talk) 05:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

British Columbia route images

Okay, I need some level heads here. TotallyTempo (talk · contribs), Emarsee (talk · contribs) and myself are in disagreeance on the use of these fair use route markers on all but the route they describe.

According to the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure website's copyright notice:

Copyright © 2007, Province of British Columbia

All rights reserved

This material is owned by the Government of British Columbia and protected by copyright law. It may not be reproduced or redistributed without the prior written permission of the Province of British Columbia.

which leads to the {{Non-free British Columbia traffic sign}} copyright (fair use) license tag we created for this. I do not believe that inclusion of, lets say for example, route 7B logo on anything but the route 7B page doesn't significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, which is WP:NFCC#8. I did not originally remove the images recently, that was done by Rettetast (talk · contribs), however TtoalyTempo reverted the changes on British Columbia Highway 7 with the edit sumary of "RV becuase we actually can use Highway markers." I reverted this because he hadn't established the need for it, and then added the FURs to all the images again.

What I am wondering is does someone unrelated believe that these route markers satisfy WP:NFCC#8?

Thank you --Admrboltz (talk) 04:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Image description


I need to add copyright info to several images, but I cannot seem to locate the socalled "image description page" - how do I do that ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allangam (talkcontribs) 07:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

See my reply to your cross post on the Help desk. —teb728 t c 07:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Use of pictures

To whom it may concern

I would like permission to use the pictures on Genital warts in a medical article that will appear on the medical/health website, Health24.

It is a respectable site and the pictures will not be used for any other purpose than medical information. You can visit the website at

Kind regards

Wilma Stassen – Health24

[email removed]—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

  • We can't give you permission for this, but if you read the license notice on the image page for the image you want to use, it will inform you of the conditions for using it. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

GFDL vs CC licence

BD-propagande colour en.jpg

Media on wikipedia must be licenced under a free licences e.g. the GNU GFDL or the Creative Commons licences. My question is, put simply, whats the difference between the two? --Drogonov (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It is better to avoid licensing an image under GFDL only. This license is cumbersome for the distribution of signle image prints (postcards etc). A good explanation is available in the cartoon. Wikipedia is now migrating its content from GFDL to CC. Sv1xv (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
And we're looking at forbidding GFDL-only; see Wikipedia_talk:IUP#GFDL-only_uploads. Stifle (talk) 09:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
This is extreme. I would prefer to "strongly discourage" GFDL-only, especially not having it as a regular choice in upload menus (already done on and on Commons). And to keep GPL and GFDL-only as options for images already licensed elsewhere under them. Sv1xv (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is now migrating its content from GFDL to CC." According to the cartoon, the GFDL is too long for a single image as you say. Why would this have bearing on wikipedia? Because at the bottom of every page the GFDL is linked anyway. So you just link to the licence. Forgive me if this sounds strange. --Drogonov (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Because the image can be downloaded off the server by anyone anywhere, and it is supposed to have the GFDL attached, which it does not. Thatcher 03:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
That someone might disobey the license is no reason to forbid it. --B (talk) 04:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Using the GFDL makes an image effectively unfree for offline use, e.g. in a paper advertisement. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with that. If you're going to use a work I created in another open source/free content work, then I have no problem with that. If you're going to use it in a commercial project that does not contribute to free content, you shouldn't expect the free content world to be a source of free stock photography. --B (talk) 11:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
But if that's what the free content world is trying to provide, why not? Powers T 13:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Free content is about creating VIRAL free content, meaning if you want to use it, you have to in turn release your new work under a free content license as well. Otherwise, you're just an unpaid labor force. --B (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Not all free content is released under a copyleft. Some of it is even released into the public domain. Is that not "free content" by your reckoning? Powers T 21:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Free content is about making content that's actually free to use. Restrictions, intentional or effective, make content less free. Stifle (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Image NoDoz.jpg

Hey I uploaded the image File:nodoz.jpg to the page NoDoz. I believe it is non-free media because it is a low-resolution picture of a commercial product. However, what would the licensing be for it to be legal on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricknightcrawler (talkcontribs) 01:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added the appropriate template - otherwise, it looks all fine :) . - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 17:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Info for file


I am not sure what the license and source means for the image. I was able to get the photographer's name and spoke to a person who works with President Bush's archives from his presidency. She seemed to think it is ok to post the photo since it was a present from Laura Bush and photos from the same photographer and event are in the public domain website for President Bush. Let me know what you think.

If it has to be deleted, than that's ok. I thought I had everything I needed. Sorry. Thank you,

SLP —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slp004 (talkcontribs) 13:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to see what else is needed for this file to be ok to post. One of these files should be deleted anyway because I had trouble and accidentally duplicated the upload since this was my first time doing it. I thought I had enough information, but this is the first time I am adding files, so I do not fully understand and do not intend to break any copyright laws. I spoke with a woman from the U.S. Government who handles the archives for President Bush. She told me that this was a gift from Laura Bush so therefore it can be used as long as it is not for personal gain. She also told me the name of the photographer and when the photo was taken. She told me that because photos from the same event are on President Bush's frozen in time website that it is probably ok to post because those photos are considered public domain.

Let me know what your thoughts are on the matter. The photos may be removed if they don't comply. I thought I got everything I needed. Sorry.

Thanks Slp004 (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Since it can not be used for personal gain, then it is not eligible as a free work. Free works by definition must be usable by for-profit ventures. Thus, this image is not clear of copyright. It needs to be tagged using a fair use tag of some sort, but in reality it should be deleted. Sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

These images from a NASA publication

I would like to use two images from this NASA publication. They do not appear to be (easily findable) on their Media Server. I assume the normal PD rules apply, and that the source would be the PDF? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

yes, you would be right. In an ideal world you'd be able to give more "proof" (for want of a better world) that the PDF was drawn up specifically for NASA, however - this is strongly advisable. - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 17:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

California State Archives

I was wondering if an image (a mug shot to be specific) in the California State Archives would be in the public domain. It is an image of Jack Dragna taken in 1915. I can't find copyright info for CSA on their website. If not, would uploading it under fair use need a less stringent rationale? --Ted87 (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that it was published also in 1915, then it would be in the public domain based on its date. Local and state laws vary, and some, more recent mug shots may not automatically be in the public domain, though. -Andrew c [talk] 04:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Defunct band images

It's OK to put a non-free image of a band that has split on Wikipedia, isn't it? FotoPhest (talk) 02:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

If the image is tagged with a copyright/licensing tag, has a fair use rationale (WP:FUG), and you are sure it meets WP:NFCC, then sure. Without specifics of the article and image, I unfortunately cannot say for certain if what you intend to do will pass muster. -Andrew c [talk] 04:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

USS Sterlet (SS-392) Image from 2K7 you didn't post

TomtheHand, where is your e-mail address? It's been over 2 years, I just got your message but your e-mail address does not appear on the link at the left. I have lots of images of the Sterlet and crew from 1JAN68-31AUG68, taken on a Nikon F Photomic Tn, using a 43-86mm 3.5 lens, on Kodak High Speed Ektachrome ASA 400, cooked for 31 years in the attic of a Long Beach, CA garage, moved to a Huntington Beach, CA garage and thence to a Sam's Photo shop in 2005 for digitization, including operator finger prints on every slide. I have the original slides, so of course, I am the owner.

So, how do I convince you?

You can find me as the Board Member-At-Large for the USS Sterlet Association on You will notice that the header of that site was taken from the photo I uploaded in 2K7.

Please, guide me on what I have to do to continue the accurization and dissemination of the history of the Sterlet.

We have a reunion coming up in Branson, MO 4 October, 2k9, so I don't have much time to get the word out.

Thanks for your help!

Ron Wagner (EM3-SS) [email address redacted]—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwag66 (talkcontribs) 07:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

According to the deletion log, File:UssSterlet-OkinawaFeb68.JPG was deleted because it didn't indicate what right Wikipedia had to use it. It needed a image copyright tag from WP:ICT indicating what license the photographer had granted. (BTW we don't generally communicate via email.) —teb728 t c 08:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Admins, delete this file I uploaded

A file that I uploaded is in violation of WP:NFCC#2. Thereby, I'd rather have it deleted now, rather than let it wait for a week. --Roaring Siren (talk) 11:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Image reviews at FAC

If anyone has the time, featured article candidates needs people who understand copyright and image use policy to check nominations for image licensing, attribution and usage of non-free files. Any help is appreciated. The list of nominations needing review is here (the links that are not struck or do not have {{done}}). Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look. Stifle (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Scanned newspaper articles as .PDF files

Hi all,

I'm the creator of the article about Daniela Malusardi (

I've a lot of newspaper articles and reviews from all countries about Daniela Malusardi (including one by famous dance critic Clive Barnes).

Is it possible to scan them, made .PDF files, and add them as references.

If not, is it possible to just report the exact words of the journalists, citing date of publishing and newspaper where they appeared?

Thank you --A less 2000 (talk) 09:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey A less. Your second suggestion is the preferable one here. You can either use quotations in the main body of the text and then reference them to the newspaper - giving publication dates, authors etc. or you can paraphrase the critic and then include a "quote=" parameter in your citation. Either way, quotations should be no more than a sentence or two. Hope that helps, - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 09:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll go stronger than that, you must not upload the articles, as PDFs or otherwise, as they are, in all likelihood, copyrighted. Stifle (talk) 10:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, references are - well referenced. Not copied in full. --Sherool (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


Kehz99 (talk · contribs) Has uploaded a picture File:Yorubaw.jpg that appears to come from the BBC (9th panel). I presume his other pictures are also suspect. Wizzy 11:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Image from Library of Congress

I'm wondering if this image is in the public domain. I'm not particularly good with legalese, the link on rights information says NYWT&S staff photographs are in the public domain but not all photographs and this link says that this image is part of the NYWT&S selection. If someone in the know about these matters could respond, that would be extremely helpful, thanks! -SpacemanSpiffCalvinHobbes 20:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

From my quick glance at it, it doesn't look promising. There is no indication that that particular photograph was taken by NYWT&S; instead "Edward M. Stanton" is listed as the photographer, and you'd have to track down his dates. Google would appear to suggest that he was very much alive well into the '70s, making it likely that the photo is not in the public domain. On the other hand, I'm unfamiliar with the whole "no visible indication of copyright" ruling in the US. - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]
This particular picture was taken and first published in the US, in 1957.-SpacemanSpiffCalvinHobbes 21:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
In that case you have two chances — if the photograph was first published without a copyright notice, {{PD-US-no notice}} applies; if the copyright wasn't renewed on the image, you can use {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Stifle (talk) 11:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll try to find out how it was first published. The Library of Congress page doesn't say that. -SpacemanSpiffCalvinHobbes 01:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
For works published before 1964, the duration of copyright was 28 years unless the copyright was renewed for a second term. I find no indication in the U.S. Copyright Office database of registrations that any work by Edward Stanton first published 1950–1963 had its copyright renewed. For what it's worth "Alan W. Bell Company, Inc." was a public relations agency, which no doubt distributed the photo. — Walloon (talk) 02:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, since I can't find any indication that it was registered or renewed, I'll add the tag when uploading. -SpacemanSpiffCalvinHobbes 04:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Chinese police photo

I'm curious about the copyright status of the photo here; the caption says it was released by police, and now it is published on China Daily's website. The caption doesn't say anything about copyright status, but of course the blurb at the very bottom of the page has the usual stuff about how all contents of the site belong to China Daily. Judging from Article 2 of this, it looks like police photos may be copyrighted anyway. Does anybody familiar with PRC copyright law have any thoughts on this? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I can state with quite a high level of certainty that that image can be used here only as fair use, if that's what you want to know. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Cyrus-green (talk · contribs)

I came across this user's uploads when reviewing one of them that had been transferred to Commons. I'm not convinced the uploader has any sort of idea what "I, the copyright holder" means. I'm guessing everything needs to be either deleted or retagged as fair use, if there are any applicable cases for that. LX (talk, contribs) 08:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm going to run them through tineye to see if I can match anything. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • A goodly number of the images are from, and I've speedied those as copyvios. Some others are clearly copyrighted logos; those I have either speedied or made fair use where possible. The rest of his uploads are going on WP:PUF because chances are good they're taken from somewhere as well, just that tineye hasn't indexed it yet. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • My good faith is being stretched out of shape, but I've left him a warning not to upload any more images until he understands copyright and image use policy. I would be going for an indefinite block (in the sense of "no defined end time" rather than "infinite" if he uploads anything else. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Some of the images in his contribs ring a bell to me. This is a returning serial copyright offender who was previously indef-blocked multiple times in multiple incarnations. Please purge with fire. Sorry I can't right now think of any of the prior account names. Fut.Perf. 11:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
P.S. here's one of the accounts I was thinking of: Persia2 (talk · contribs). Possibly also Only green 2 (talk · contribs). Oh, and check out Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Persia2/Archive. Fut.Perf. 11:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I've started a new sockpuppetry investigation here. - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 12:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Note that at least at one point the Iranian state news service was (perhaps surprisingly) releasing images with a GFDL-compatible licence. I remember some old cases where apparently copyvio Iranian images turned out to OK after all. So this might not be quite as open-and-shut as it may first seem. Jheald (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded images

Dear sir/madam, The following images's copyright is own by me as i am Pradip Neupane. I do not know much about how to put the photos with correct copyright. please allow these image in Pradip Neupane's page. file:Dobatoma.jpg file:Pradip.jpg file:DOBATOMA123.jpg file:Front_foto.jpg

Yours truly, Pradip Neupane pradipco —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pradipco (talkcontribs) 16:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you take all the photos? Did you do all the designing? If not, you aren't the copyright holder. If so, you need to tag them with a license tag of your choice. Stifle (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Isn't "Unless they were specifically commissioned for you" a caveat to that? Or is that me being a bit funny. - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 17:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Depends on the country. In Ireland, at least, work that is specifically commissioned for you (outside an employer-employee relationship) is still copyright property of the creator unless you sign an agreement to the contrary. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Confusing copyright

I had uploaded an Image File:Sunrise at the Hali Aji Dargah & Masjid.jpg. It was licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 License. But suddenly, I found at the bottom of the Image a note saying Copyright Steve Kelly 2008. Is this Image indeed free or is it copyrighted. Thanks, KensplanetTC 10:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

How did you know it was licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 License? - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 16:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Flickr said so; the license was verified by a bot at Commons. The image later had its license changed, but CC licenses aren't revokable. Stifle (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Naturally (I just wasn't sure how much verification had taken place). Thankfully, I doubt many people change their minds, else we could get into a nasty game of "prove it". - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 17:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the Flickr bot uploaded it on Commons. Any idea about the current copyright status. KensplanetTC 18:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, we're in the clear as long as the image that we have was once licensed as CC-BY. The only flaw I can see is any delay in the process, but as long as FlickrUploadBot checked it was available as CC-BY (does it do this?) seconds before it was uploaded, then we're fine. Oh, and, if so, we can crop off the copyright notice. - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 19:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
FlickrUploadBot and FlickreviewR (sp?) both check Flickr licenses and save an archive to provide full and clear verification that the license subsisted when the image was uploaded. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Status of sculptures on monuments

File:Arthur Ashe Monument Avenue.jpg I don't think this can be copyrighted, yet others might. An image I'd gotten from Flickr was deleted last year on the principle that it contained part of a sculpture erected by a U.S. state government, which unlike the federal government, wouldn't be public domain. See here the 1996 monument to the tennis great Arthur Ashe. I'm not putting up the image I need to ask about because I'm terrified it will lead to it being irresponsibly deleted, but the Ashe image is in the same situation. The photo is by-sa-2.0 from Flickr, so that's not at issue, just the subject, which is a freestanding sculpture in the middle of the road in downtown Richmond, Virginia.

Yes, Paul Di Pasquale sculpted that bronze windbreaker and oversized glasses, built on land run by the Richmond Planning Commission, and was paid by an semi-independent fundraising foundation charted by the state of Virginia, which unlike Florida doesn't seem to have a rule granting PD status to its works. So if there is a copyright, who would own it? The sculptor? The monument foundation? The state government? The city government? If it needed a fair use template, what would it need to say? I understand that many 3D works need one, but this is definately not in a museum where a single artist's copyright is discernible. What if it was cropped to only include the engraved podium, is that copyrighted 3D art?-- Patrick {oѺ} 19:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Presumably the sculptor is the copyright owner (even if the sculpture is erected by the Federal government). According to Commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama#United States, there is no freedom of panorama for artworks in the United States, even if permanently installed in a public place. (I agree that the Ashe image is also non-free despite the free license on the photo. I changed your Ashe image to a link, since we can use non-free content only in articles.) —teb728 t c 07:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
So, using more examples, you're telling me that the estate of Rudulph Evans would hold a copyright on this statue of Thomas Jefferson? Or Paul Manship's Prometheus? Does every film made there get specific permission from their estates? I just can't believe that's how it works. It must be that these "artworks" are different, and are covered, as part of the structure, under panorama.-- Patrick {oѺ} 16:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
According to the tags on the Prometheus, it is presumably in the public domain because it was displayed in 1934 without a copyright notice. (Under US law at that time a work was under copyright only if it was “published” with a copyright notice, and if the copyright was renewed 28 years later. See Public domain#Before 1964.) Although the tags don’t say so for the Jefferson sculpture (first displayed in 1943), it is probably in the public domain for the same reason. But due to a change in US copyright law, a work created in the US after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is given a term lasting for the author’s life, plus an additional 70 years after the author’s death. (See Public domain#Since 1978.) This change brought US copyright law more in line with other countries.
But US law on freedom of panorama is different from many countries; see Commons:Freedom of panorama for the analysis of experts. —teb728 t c 22:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I knew those wouldn't be the best examples, but surely there are examples other than Arthur Ashe which are relevant to my questions. Such as is the podium considered "3D artwork"? How much of the statue need be shown before it needs a template? Besides monuments, I also need to ask about highway signs. I fought this off before, but I fear it being brought up again where users thought that a welcome sign at the border was copyrighted work of a nameless artist.-- Patrick {oѺ} 23:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Perhaps someone else could give a better answer: I would say the artist has copyright on any part of the sculpture that shows his/her creativity. Unless signage is unusually creative for signage, it wouldn’t be creative enough to have copyright. —teb728 t c 05:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that makes some sense. However I'm not fully convinced that these monuments don't count as part of buildings, if for no other reason than that copyright seems so unenforceable. Next, the thing about the highways signs is this: do any of these images need fair use templates? Again, some artist designed them, individual U.S. states paid for them to be put on state (or federal if its a highway) owned land, yet it seems even more illogical that there could be a copyright.-- Patrick {oѺ} 06:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Crown copyrighted imagery

I have found an image online of the current Commandant General Royal Marines Andy Salmon, which is Crown Copyrighted, but which I believe may be permissible for use on wikipedia. Am I correct in assuming this? If so how would I go about uploading it under this rationale? It would be helpful if somebody could guide me through the process. Moreover once uploaded, what would the restrictions be upon the usage of this image? I assume it would be permissible for illustrative purposes in the Andy Salmon, but would it also be permissible in alumni lists for instance? Lastly does anyone know if there is a designated online depositary of UK Crown Copyrighted images or is that too much to hope for? Thanks Flaming Ferrari (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry no, we can't use it even in the biography. Unfortunately Wikipedia's policy on non-free content is significantly more restrictive than fair-use/fair dealing law. In particular, WP:NFCC#1 says that we do not use non-free content if it could be replaced by a free replacement. Probably a PD photo was made when he was awarded the Silver Star. In any case, since General Salmon is a living person, a free replacement certainly could be made. —teb728 t c 06:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The argument that Wikipedia is more restrictive than fair use law allows is repeated often, but I don't think there's any truth to it. Fair use is kind of nebulous, and we're following one interpretation of it. I personally believe our interpretation falls in line with what fair use was created to do, and that people thinking that fair use would let them get away with a lot more are just plain wrong. Some people think that reciting the word "fair use" is some magic spell that allows you to infringe on copyrights at will under any flimsy rationalization. DreamGuy (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


File:Abuja stadium.jpg has hits on - but I can't identify the flickr page.

File:Hilton hotel abuja.jpg is also here.

File:National mosque.jpg can be found here.

File:Abuja skyline.jpg is also on flickr somewhere - how do I check the license ?

Wizzy 08:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"No free equivalent" criteria

Does this mean that fair use image can be used only if its not possible to create a free image ever or only at this time. For example, computer created non-free image of a proposed or under construction building. There is no free pic of the building now, but could be created easily once the construction is completed. Is it OK to use yhe image until the construction is over? (See File talk:Mirax Plaza Ukraine project.jpg)

Thank you. —SpaceFlight89 16:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I would say that as long as the image meets all the other non-free content criteria, it's OK to use until the building's built. Stifle (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Amateur video, unknown source

In the article July 2009 Ürümqi riots I currently have this video in the External links section, and I was considering either taking a screen capture or converting a small chunk of it to ogg and using it to illustrate a section of the article; since it shows people during the demonstrations that triggered a major riot, it's basically irreplaceable (image taken of a one-time event, no free replacement will ever be available) and it's a better illustration than words alone can give (just saying "x amount of people" doesn't convey the point very well, numbers don't mean much out of context).

The problem, though, is I have no idea who to credit. The video is currently on YouTube, but the one on YouTube is only a copy of the original—according to the 'watermark' in the corner, it was taken from Youku (Chinese YouTube). I can't find the original, and this copy has no information on the source, so even if I were to try fair use I wouldn't be able to credit anyone. Is there anything to do about this, or do I just have to give up and not use it in the article? (And is it even acceptable to link to it at the bottom, or is that like linking to a copyright violation?) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Non-free state government license/source tags

It would be great to get some input at the following TFD: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 2#Non-free state government license/source tags. Thanks. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Lady Elizabeth Histroical photos

The following website shows a Historical photograph of a ship called the Lady Elizabeth. Under the description below under the photo are as follows:

Title: Lady Elizabeth (ship)
Creator: Unknown
Description: Built 1879. (Information supplied with photograph)
Original format: copy print : b&w
Digital format: image/jpeg
Publisher: John Oxley Library, State Library of Queensland
Image number: 133114
Digital ID: picqld-citrix09--2004-04-30-14-51
Rights: This image is free of copyright restrictions. For further information
Source: Item is held by John Oxley Library, State Library of Queensland.
Large image:
The large image will be 4 times larger than the one on this page so may take some time to download

Where it shows Rights, it says "This image is free of copyright restrictions". Am I allowed to use this photo without permission for my page on the ship "Lady Elizabeth" but still list the source and who is holding the photo as well asd its location??Lukeduk1980 (talk) 02:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You have correctly tagged File:Lady Elizabeth.jpg as {{PD-Australia}}. I added a link to the your link to the source page; so that people can verify it. You can use it in the article, but you should put the source and credit information only on the image page. —teb728 t c 04:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Adding Copyright Tag

I forgot to choose an option from the drop-down copyright tag menu when uploading an image. How do I return to that menu? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jla5133 (talkcontribs) 03:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Just go to the image description page (File:St Croix EMS Dive Trailer and Rescue Truck.jpg?) and add the appropriate tag ({{PD-Self}}?). —teb728 t c 04:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Public domain question

I am confused whether a logo is in public domain or not. Would this logo at around 0:10 qualify for public domain? As far as I understand, there's a certain threshold of originality that a logo must meet in order for it to be to be non-free. I'm not sure whether overlapping coloured circles with the text "11 CHCH TV" would qualify for public domain. I would like hear your opinion on this issue. Thanks.  єmarsee Speak up! 17:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

A logo does not have to be PD to be used on Wikipedia. See WP:LOGO.  – ukexpat (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I think it probably would (just about) qualify as public domain, but then again, as Ukexpat says, why risk it? - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 17:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I think its public domain as it is not original enough, see Template talk:PD-textlogo for info about that. Powergate92Talk 04:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses. I've asked Black Kite about this and he said it qualifies for PD. The reason I ask this question is because there are users out there who intend on removing all instances of non-free historical logos from Wikipedia.  єmarsee Speak up! 04:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Reusing attribution-only text

I have a question that arose on the Dutch Wikipedia. If you have a source that is free for any use, but requires attribution, can this text be used in wikipedia articles? The idea is to use a source attribution template, much like the ones in use for public domain works: Category:Wikipedia sources. Is this possible ? Attribution-only seems to be compatible with CC-By-Sa, but I'm now aware of a precedent of this in the English Wikipedia. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 11:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Yes, attribution is fine. (Restricting derivative works would not be, though.) Stifle (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

OR (if that's the correct description) in photo (probably photoshopped)

Taking a look at something unrelated, I found this File:Pricegougeexample.jpg - no longer in any articles as it was removed from the only article using it, it seems pretty clearly original research or - I'm not sure what. I'm assuming someone has added the price to make an example of something that might in the original photo have been on sale at the original price. So, what's the procedure here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talkcontribs) 15:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I actually doubt it was Photoshopped. If you go to the link to the source for the image (I was checking because the uploader said he did it but cited it to a website -- turns out it was his site, so no conflict there) you see that it's in Singapore dollars and not US dollars. Calling it price gouging is OR, and it's orphaned, and misleading to most people who would think it's American dollars, so I put it up for deletion. DreamGuy (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I did wonder about what dollars it was but missed the website bit. But as you say, most people will assume it's US dollars... Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
It's not shopped. It obviously doesn't belong in an article, unless we have reliable sourcing asserting that Monster is 'gouging' people on its power strips (AFAIK most of the sourcing talks about cabling, not power strips). Even then caution is advisable. Protonk (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

how would i know if a picture...

how would i know if a picture i got from the internet has a copyright or not?

does this picture have a copy right? what about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabbi4455 (talkcontribs) 17:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

how do i know if it is public content or not? is it ok to post a picture to a wikiperdia site like new york city and post a picture of a buildings, if it is public content? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabbi4455 (talkcontribs) 17:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have permission to use a photo, but...

I am editing filmmaker Wayne Kramer's wikipedia article and I know him personally and so was able to obtain a photo that was taken of him with his camera (he owns the copyright) and he told me that I can use it on his Wikipedia article. I'm confused by the rules in terms of uploading photos. He sent me the photo via e-mail and told me to use it. Is that permission enough, or do I have to forward the e-mail to someone at Wikipedia?

RyanGFilm (talk) 10:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

See WP:COPYREQ for how to handle permission. Notice that permission for use just on Wikipedia is not enough; Wikipedia requires permission for reuse by anyone for anything. —teb728 t c 11:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Best thing would be for the copyright holder to e-mail OTRS a WP:CONSENT form. Second best thing, is for you to forward the e-mails you received to OTRS. Keep in mind what TEB728 said. The permission must specify a specific free license, as "permission for my article" or "permission on Wikipedia" is not sufficient. Hope this helps, good luck. -Andrew c [talk] 14:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)



I want to copy photos to my own website. I see that the page says that the photo can be used in any way. Does this mean I can copy it to my own site and use it? And if other photos has the same FREE copyright, can I copy all of them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I sell indigenous tree and plant seeds and need the photos for illustration purposes only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The link:

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you can use that image on your own website (please do copy and don't hotlink), as you can any images with identical licences. Be aware though that some licences look similar but are in fact completely different! It might be worth asking here if there are any other particular photographs you would like to use. - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 16:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
WP:REUSE discusses this in more detail. The licensing part of the image description page is what you need to look for. -Andrew c [talk] 16:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Be careful about using this image: While the {{PD-Self}} tag generally means the uploader gives up their rights to a file, this uploader may be mistaken about their rights to File:Sausage Tree in Botswana.JPG. The description says it is "A Sausage Tree in use as an airport departure lounge." The tree in the photo is obviously not inside a lounge; so it looks to me that what is in the lounge is a photo of a tree by someone else, which the uploader has no right to redistribute. —teb728 t c 20:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Hmm... interesting take. Though I personally believe that bench in the shade is acting as a makeshift "lounge" for some minor airfield in Botswana. Looking at the pixels at full resolution makes me believe this is not a photo of a photo. -Andrew c [talk] 21:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Oops. On second thought I think you are right; I misread it: I would have sworn it said it was in a lounge, but is it says in use as a lounge. —teb728 t c 22:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Image from PNAS

I was wondering if it were possible to upload an image that was published in an article of the Proceedings of the Royal Society B. This is where the journal article is located: [1] This is where a copy of the file is located: [2] I don't know if it really is under Fair Use, or if PNAS allows its work to be uploaded under a free license. I need it to illustrate this article which I am planning on doing a GA nom on. Thanks! --Spotty 11222 19:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The RSB site has a copyright notice at the bottom (Copyright © The Royal Society 2009), so that image is copyrighted and not acceptable for use on Wikipedia. – ukexpat (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Um, well, fair use law in the US is pretty broad - much broader than the rules Wikipedia imposes upon itself. Would you using it constitute WP's definition of fair use? Probably not (feel free to disagree below). The Royal Society do seem to copyright their works, but you could always try to get them to release it under a free licence. - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 20:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, there is no other way to illustrate the article, and I couldn't find any other images, let alone those under a free license. I guess if I scale it down a fair bit and reduce the resolution, that'll qualify? --Spotty 11222 20:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think so. Someone could take a photo of this fossil or another fossil of the same dinosaur and release it appropriately for use on Wikipedia. Is this any different from the situation we find ourselves in with respect to images of living people? – ukexpat (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
That probably won't happen, as the fossil isn't public and researchers aren't in the habit of taking pictures just to release them to Wikipedia. --Spotty 11222 21:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
What happens in other similar articles? Are copyright images used under the non-free use criteria? Maybe the relevant Wikiproject has a view on this issue. – ukexpat (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
WP:PAL and WP:DINO doesn't have any guidelines for the use of non-free images. In most other paleo articles, the articles are either stubs that don't have images, or have reconstructions. I'll inquire and see if someone can make an illustration then. --Spotty 11222 21:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
A page at the PRSB's web site indicates that the author of a submitted paper retains the copyright (see point #5). This implies that someone could write to the author to see if he would release the figure under GFDL. The journal itself could probably release it (as the author's agent) if they were broad-minded enough. EdJohnston (talk) 03:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

File:UCLA Bruins Logo.png

This image is hosted on Wikipedia. There are notations in its history that it is a non-free image as well as specifically why it is non-free. I posted comments about this on the article talk page but I am concerned that there may not be much traffic there. Someone tagged this as a public domain image which is misinformed. Now other editors are putting it into userboxes and growing attached to using it in non-article space, etc. I understand Wikipedia's policies on copyright to be stricter than this makes them seem. Am I the only person of this opinion regarding this image? Thank you for your interest.  –Newportm (talkcontribs) 07:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree; it is clearly not a textlogo. I reverted File:UCLA Bruins Logo.png to the latest {{non-free logo}} version. If it gets reverted back, it should be nominated at WP:PUI. (I restored all the former use rationales, but probably the season use rationales are inappropriate.) —teb728 t c 08:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Most if not all of the use on user pages resulted from its use in the {{User ucla}} user box. I removed it from there, noting in the edit summary that the use was a trademark violation since UCLA reserves that logo for UCLA athletics. (It is a trademark violation even if hypothetically it is not a copyright violation.) —teb728 t c 08:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Over the last year, User:BQZip01 changed a lot of college sport team logos to trademark, vice non-free logo. This was part of a long, drawn out debate on the use of sport team logos in college sports. Some of the decisions made with respect to these logos I think were inaccurate. Some were accurate. Have a look at User:BQZip01/FBS Trademarked logos. With respect to this particular logo, I concur it is not free of copyright. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


If I make a map using shapefiles from various sources ESRI, CDC... Can I put it on wiki? if not where do I find base data for country boundaries and admin districts for Europe, that I can use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Broecher (talkcontribs) 01:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Using an image on the other language's wikipedia

Hello, i tried to use Bill Hicks photo which has uploaded on en.wikipedia, on tr.wikipedia but it could not be possible i think that for copyright. Is there any way to use the photo on tr.wikipedia? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Since neither version of the image is free, it cannot be uploaded to Commons. That means that in order to use it on tr Wikipedia, you would have to upload it there. If you do that you should use the color version because that is version that corresponds to the info on the image description page. The BW version has an unknown source and an unknown license tag. —teb728 t c 09:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I would do it sooner rather than later, given that an argument may ensue about whether that fair use image meets our criteria (replaceable?). Oh, and I don't know how strict the Turkish fair use guidelines are. - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 10:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationales

Please show me , how to add the fair use description, while I upload and picure or information.

RajeshB —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajeshbiee (talkcontribs) 20:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Does this advice make sense to you? - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 20:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to Copy pictures for a school project

I would like to Copy pictures for a school project. I would like to use the pictures from the following topics:

Greenbelt Park, First Ladies National Historic Park, Mesa Verde National Park, and Ninety Six National Historic Site

My project involves national parks around the U.S. I would like to make a video using pictures from these topics. PLease let me know. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Each picture has its own license. Click on each picture you want to use; that will take you to the picture’s image description page. That page should have a license tag. If the tag says the picture is in the public domain, you can use the picture without restriction. If it says the picture is licensed under a Creative Commons license, click on the “Official license” link and follow the conditions there. If it says the picture is licensed under the GNU Free Document License, follow the conditions at WP:GFDL. If it says it is licensed under both, you can choose one; the correct choice is Creative Commons because one of the GFDL conditions is that you include the entire GFDL license. —teb728 t c 02:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there a FU distinction between a photograph of a BLP and a non-free promotional photo of them in their role as a character?

I recently deleted a photograph of the well known living actress Kristen Kreuk (see log here; a new version has been uploaded) as a violation of Wikipedia:Non-free content#Unacceptable use → images → #12. Specifically, it was and remains my understanding that fair use does not validly cover copyrighted images of living people because a free image is possible to be taken. The user has made the distinction that the image is stated to be of the actress in her role as Lana Lang on Smallville rather than simply a photograph of the actress, and is being used in the article on the character rather than in an article on the actress herself. The image is a promotional copyrighted photograph of her from this website. So, for fair use purposes, is there a meaningful distinction to be made in this situation? Is this valid fair use simply because it is a picture from a website promoting the actress in her character role, and being used in an article on the character she plays? To my mind it remains, nevertheless, a non-free, replaceable photograph of a living person regardless of the use to which it is being put and where it comes from, but I do find some of these fair use questions slippery.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

  • The usage is reasonable in an article about the character (assuming it passes all the other criteria of WP:NFCC) as any image of the character will be non-free and thus not replaceable, but is not valid in an article about the actress for that reason. Black Kite 17:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
In this particular case, the removal was correct in my opinion, because the original image was just a promotional still of the actress, easily replaceable by a free equivalent, thus failing NFCC#1. Precedent and current practice suggests that the use can acceptable if the image significantly increases the reader's understanding of the subject, and conveys information a free image of the actor would not (NFCC#1 and NFCC#8). Regards, decltype (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you both for the opinions. Reading NFCC I think this image does fail 1, as any good picture of the actress would fill the same hole the current one does, is not impossible to do, and it's not the type of situation where she's 40 years older so no equivalent image could be taken. As for 8, that seems to me a judgment call that requires experience and examples to pull into focus to define its limits. I just bet this has been debated in detail in the past, but it's not an area I dabble in much so I don't know where to look.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I share your sense that this is slippery, Fuhghettaboutit, but I know that it is at least standard to incorporate an image of a living person actively portraying a character. I learned this when I nominated one of these once for FFD, and it was kept by User:Quadell for that reason. I had a not-particularly-productive conversation about it here. But I agree with your original deletion as well, since this was clearly not a photograph of the character, but the actress. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting Moon. That past discussion is informative but similarly murky in its result. This is a strange one because I feel like this is common enough that we should be able to point to X which says THIS IS THE POLICY (or consensus interpretation) but apparently that's not the case. The boundaries here are fuzzy for me. If this was a picture of Kristen Kreuk wearing some kind of iconic suit from the show, would that change matters—make it more clearly her character from the show and so fair game for fair use? Here we have a simple photograph of the actress with nothing in the photograph itself relating it to the show. The relation comes only from the fact that the photograph appears on a site promoting the show. Since there doesn't *appear* to be great definition in the area, maybe this should be broken into a wider forum for discussion to drum up some clarity through community debate. I'm happy to be wrong in the deletion but I want to know what I should do in the future and provide transparency for others.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I gave up after that one. :) If you decide to take to a wider forum, please let me know. I'd really like clarification on that as well. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't see what's so bad about etchings, as long as they're not done in courtroom sketch style :). Interestingly, while the Susan Boyle drawing caused a huge controversy, the use of such in the article of the much more notable Haakon Lie seems to have gone unchallenged for years. decltype (talk) 06:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

A single low-resolution screenshot from a single TV episode or film to visually identify the fictional character portrayed therein should not be a controversial non-free use. A photograph of the actress off-set and outside of the television work is not the same thing as a photograph of her in-character because it will present different information. TV and film production teams style the character in a particular way deliberately chosen for that character. As noted above, promotional/publicity stills, which though connected with the show, may just show off the actress's good looks. So when in doubt, replace a promotional photo with a screenshot, which is indisputably of the actress in-character and thus not equivalent to any photo of the actress generally. Postdlf (talk) 23:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

So if I'm reading you correctly, your position is that File:SmallvilleLana.jpg is invalid fair use in Lana Lang (Smallville) (because it's just a picture of the actress with no clear tie to the show), and should be replaced by a relatively low resolution screenshot. That seems reasonable to me. What's not reasonable is that this is uncodified anywhere as far as I can tell. We need a clear set of instructions somewhere or we're doomed to host lots of violating photos and to repeat conversation similar to this one in the future.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
The description page for File:SmallvilleLana.jpg actually identifies it as a screenshot, with the specific episode from which it came. If that's true, then I don't see a problem with it and the only issue is then whether it might be replaced with a better screenshot more illustrative of the character. It's possible that File:SmallvilleLana.jpg is actually a production still, which is a photograph taken onset during filming (whether while the cameras were rolling or not) rather than an actual frame from the TV show itself. A production still is a more useful promotional image than a publicity still, by which I basically mean a glamour shot of the actress. But I would think a screenshot is preferable to either because it is necessarily from the work in which the character exists. Which might just be my roundabout way of saying we should always use a screenshot. Postdlf (talk) 05:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I should have said the previous image, which was from here and gave no indication it was a screenshot. Anyway we're here about the general rule rather than this particular one.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Others more conversant with US copyright law may feel free to correct me, but I strongly doubt that this would be deemed invalid fair use. The question is whether it meets the much stricter requirements of WP:NFCC. Even if NFCC#1 is fulfilled by an in-character screenshot, there's still NFCC#8. If the image could be said to significantly increase the understanding of the subject, and there is critical commentary of the subject's attire or general good looks, there is a much stronger fair use justification (and by fair use here, I really mean NFCC, but we still call it a "fair use rationale", so there you go). Regards, decltype (talk) 06:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I am of the opinion that a picture of a living person in ordinary clothes shouldn't be allowed, even if that person happens to be playing a certain character at that time. If the person is wearing a particular costume, makeup, etc., that would not be evident if that person were photographed in "real life", then it's probably OK. Stifle (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    • You're making a common inversion of the living person criteria; the image isn't replaceable just because it happens to show what a living person looks like, it would be replaceable only if it communicates nothing but what the living person looks like. A screenshot necessarily has more information, even the character is wearing "ordinary clothes" (whatever that means). It's still the character's costume no matter how "ordinary" it may appear to our uninterested eyes (I've never watched Smallville), because all of that styling—hair, makeup, clothing, etc.—was deliberately chosen by the show's production team with that particular character in mind. A screenshot of a TV/film character should always be appropriate to illustrate the article on that fictional character. Postdlf (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

How to properly set copyright tag

I don't understand how to set the copyright tag to the image below that I have loaded. I used what I thought was correct : Non-free promotional and Withpermission (also listed below). But I get the following:

This image or media does not have information on its copyright status. Unless the copyright status is provided, the image will be deleted after Sunday, 20 September 2009. Please remove this template if a copyright license tag has been added.

What am I doing wrong. I have gotten permission from the owner.

File:HZurich250.jpg {{Non-free promotional}}{{Withpermission}}—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrnhoops (talkcontribs)

(Edited to change image display, and transcluding templates, into links--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for the mods Fuhghettaboutit ... I'm slowly learning the Wikiworld :) Jrnhoops (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

After further research, I thought I had found my mistake. I was placing the tags in the Image Load comments section instead of the the File Edit description section. The image now has what I thought was the correct copyright information, but when I view my article with the image, it states that the image is a candidate for speedy deletion. There are 11 codes listed (F1-F11) in the accompanying link, but I don't know which applies? What am I missing? Jrnhoops (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You say you are using with permission, but can you provide evidence of such permission? Intelligentsium 00:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have an email confirming the permission. Jrnhoops (talk) 12:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Send it to, quoting the image name.
F1-F11 are reasons why images should be deleted; it appears that this one was marked for being deleted because you said we have permission to use it on Wikipedia only, which we don't accept. Please don't reupload images over and over again until you find a tag that doesn't say "this image will be deleted"; it won't help and will attract suspicion. Stifle (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Simple Copyright question

I have uploaded an image that I took myself, and want to give it a Creative Commons type of copyright (meaning I want it to be used as long as they say where they got it from), but I'm new at this and I have no idea exactly what text I should type in the box when I edit the text. Help?

This is the page: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwillemsen (talkcontribs) 01:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I gave the image a blank Infomation template for you to fill out. Under desctiption say what it is. Under source say I took it myself. Under date say when you took it. Under author say [[User:Cwillemsen]] or give your name. Under permission say {{cc-by-3.0|Attribution details}}, substituting the credit you want for the Attribution details. —teb728 t c 08:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
More on copyright tags, see WP:ICTIC. -Andrew c [talk] 13:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


Julie Holder created and wrote THE FLUMPS. Why is this not credited in the article. H.Holder —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

If you have a reference that verifies that, add it with the reference to The Flumps, or request it on the article talk page. —teb728 t c 11:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

old photo on the internet


I'd like to write an article on the ship, SS Salado, which was wrecked in 1897. The photo is well over a hundred years old.

I've found a photo of the ship on this website:

Is it permissible to use this image from this website? And upload it to Wiki Commons? If so, how would I code the licensing requirements?

kind regards Poyt448 (talk) 08:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the caption on the photo? It does not show the Salado but rather a generic steamer for which there is no particular reason to believe it is old. —teb728 t c 10:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
For future reference, Commons does not take fair-use images. Intelligentsium 01:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

What license covers screenshots of text terminal (console) applications?

I have screenshots for use in IBM AIX SMIT. They are purely text based, looking like a menu written in white fixed-width text on a black background, and contain no graphical content. The only thing that could be considered copyright is the choice of words and the layout of the characters. (It's not quite the "output" of a command, since it is an interactive tool.)

Does this need to be covered as "fair use", or can I make these images public domain? Gareth.randall (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Because these are text only images perhaps they will be covered by the {{PD-ineligible}} template but if could we see some images we can give you better advise. ww2censor (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
As an image, it would probably be PD. However, you should also consider the copyright which may be claimed on the text. Could we quote that much text in an article? (ESkog)(Talk) 14:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I have made the images available on my user page. I am interested to hear your thoughts. Gareth.randall (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Any thoughts? Images are "File:Screenshot of IBM AIX SMIT Initial Menu.png" and "File:Screenshot of IBM AIX SMIT Change or Show Characteristics of a User Screen.png". I have put these as "Fair Use", and added a justification. Gareth.randall (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Slyusarchuk Andriy.jpg

This image has been deleted -- . I'd like to request more info on why has it been deleted and if there's a way to bring it back. The image was originally taken from Ukrainian Wikipedia, to which it had been previously uploaded by an experienced and very active user --Користувач:Albedo . I doubt that its copyright status is not in accordance with Wiki guidelines. Thanks. NazarK (talk) 09:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

According to the message on your talk page, your image copyright page did not have an image copyright tag indicating that the image was in the public domain or licensed under a free license or being used as a non-free file. In other words it was apparently not a problem with the file but with the documentation. —teb728 t c 10:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I've uploaded the image again, indicating the license type identical to the original Ukrainian Wiki. Here's the English link to the image:,_Andriy.jpg . And here is the Ukrainian one:Файл:Слюсарчук_Андрій_Тихонович.jpg . Hope I did everything correct. Thanks. NazarK (talk) 11:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Again you have provided no tag; the Ukrainian image is tagged with {{fairuse in|article name}}. Here that tag is {{non-free fair use in|article name}}. Here it also needs a non-free use rationale. —teb728 t c 12:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, Andriy Slyusarchuk is a living person, isn't he. If so, that image is not usable unless you can come up with a really good explanation of why a free photo could not be taken of him. Sorry, —teb728 t c 12:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The Ukrainian image has most of those problems too: The {{fairuse in}} tag says it needs a use rationale, which it doesn't have. And critierion #1 at uk:Вікіпедія:Критерії добропорядного використання says replaceable fairuse images can't be used. —teb728 t c 12:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
ok. :) thanks for this elaborate explanation, teb728. this makes it much more clear to deal with. "a really good explanation of why a free photo could not be taken of him" is because I'm not able to go hunting for a free photo of Mr. Slyusarchuk on my own at this moment :) I'm not sure if the uploaded image is really copyrighted at all. it may be free as well. It was just taken from press. it's not stated anywhere how it came to that press article... I've added the {{non-free fair use in|article name}} tag. tell me if there's anything more I can do about it (except for taking a picture of Mr. Slyusarchuk myself :) I doubt that any copyright issues on behalf of the copyright holder (if there is any) would ever arise about this picture.... thanks again. NazarK (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

MasPar photo

Resolved:  – ukexpat (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Can I use photo of MasPar computer processor board from this source: It's a site of University of Bergen computational lab. -- Softy (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The short answer is no (unless I'm missing something here). You can invite them to donate it, though. - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 18:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

File:James Kibble.jpg copyvio?

Resolved:  – ukexpat (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Can't work out how to {{pui}} something on Commons. Anyway - File:James Kibble.jpg used on Salesian School, Chertsey looks suspciously like 39293.jpg on the front page of - maybe it has been uploaded by the original photographer, but it looks iffy. (talk) 23:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Commons:Commons:Deletion requests is the only forum they have. The easy way to use is is to use the "Nominate for deletion" link in the toolbox. —teb728 t c 00:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
For something like that, you could also speedy it with {{copyvio|}}. --dave pape (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

SuperFerry 9 sinking

Resolved:  – ukexpat (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

When SuperFerry 9 sank, the Philippine Navy released photos that they had taken to international news organizations. Some examples are here[3] and here [4]. Could these be uploaded under the Template:PD-PhilippinesPubDoc license? Shinerunner (talk) 02:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Based on the template I'd say no, since the wording pretty clearly refers to textual documents, which would rule out photos. However, it might be that the law it refers to is more general than that and that the template was specifically designed for textual documents. I don't know. I tried to access the source link on the template to confirm that, but it just times out for me. -- Hux (talk) 05:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Here is a copy of the text from the article on the Act in question:

"Government copyright under Philippine copyright law is established in Section 176 and its subsections. Under the section, all official Philippine texts of a "legislative, administrative, or judicial nature" or any official translation of those kinds of texts may not be copyrighted and are in the public domain. Aside from government documents, no work of the Philippine government, as well as the works of government-owned and/or controlled corporations, can be copyrighted (images, documents, and the like). However, prior approval is needed if a government work will be used for making a profit (most notably the Philippine constitution).

There are exceptions to the rule: the author of any public speaking works may have the works compiled, published, and copyrighted, and the government is permitted to receive and hold copyrights it received as a gift or assigned. However, such copyrights may not be shortened or annulled without prior consent of the copyright holder." Shinerunner (talk) 08:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that Commons:Template:PD-PhilippinesGov is a redirect to {{noncommercial}} due to that clause about "making a profit" (see Commons:Template_talk:PD-PhilippinesGov). --dave pape (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, it's not the answer I was hoping for but I do appreciate the quick responses to my question. Shinerunner (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Uploading info

Resolved:  – ukexpat (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hallo, I need to upload a file (logo) for an article, how can I do so, since I don't have the required access. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnasophiaHeintze (talkcontribs) 09:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure you do, when your account is four days old and you have more than 10 edits. Log in and go to the toolbox on the left side of your screen and select the Upload file link, then follow the instructions and give all the details asked for, such as description, source, author. date of image, and especially the type of permission under which the image is being licenced. ww2censor (talk) 11:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Also, we have WP:IFU for users who are having upload troubles, don't have an account, or haven't been autoconfirmed yet. -Andrew c [talk] 13:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
And for logos, see WP:LOGO. – ukexpat (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

An image I uploaded

Resolved:  – ukexpat (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

How can I delete an image I've uploaded? It was an accident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmoney5646 (talkcontribs) 00:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Tag it with {{db-author}} —teb728 t c 01:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Public domain question

I'm wondering if the source info for this image would be adequate to verify that it's in the public domain; is it acceptable to trust the library/archives that provide the image regarding its publication information (that it comes from Argonne National Laboratory, part of the US government), or is that not enough? Thanks — DroEsperanto (talk) 12:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That should be fine—you've made a good-faith attempt to verify the copyright status, and relied upon the archivist to credit the photographer correctly.
Note that if it had only identified the source, rather than the photographer, there might be a question of whether Argonne was redistributing someone else's copyrighted work under licence (e.g. licenced for non-commercial use only). In that case, use on Wikipedia could be problematic.
Other images on that site fall under this policy, but because this photo is credited as a U.S. government work, the public domain rules apply, and negate rights claims by the University of Chicago for that photo. TheFeds 17:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I just looked at the Argonne National Laboratory article, and it looks like they're operated by a contractor on behalf of the U.S. government—works by a contractor on behalf of the U.S. government are not necessarily public domain. And in fact, checking the history page on ANL's website, it looks like in November 1942, when the photograph was taken, ANL had not been officially founded as a national lab, and was instead still part of the University of Chicago's metallurgical laboratory.
My previous comment relied upon the assertion that ANL was a U.S. government facility at the time of the photograph, and works credited to it were therefore public domain in the U.S.—but that seems to be inapplicable now. Now, I'm forced to assume that the archivist was in error, either about the date of the photograph, or about the photographer. In that case, the general rules for American copyright should apply.
If it was published without a copyright notice, prior to 1977, it's probably in the public domain. However, that's very difficult to determine, without having direct access to such a copy. (Maybe you could contact the University's archivist for details?) Otherwise, there are several scenarios in which it could still be in copyright, in the worst case until 2062 (120 years post-creation).
Your best bet would be to look into a claim of fair use, based on WP:NFCC. I think this would satisfy those requirements. TheFeds 18:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, okay, that makes sense. Thanks for doing all that research! I may look into fair use if I ever start working on that article extensively, but I've just been trying to build up the University of Chicago category at Commons. I've also been uploading images from there as public domain if their date says they're from before 1923; that's kosher, right? Thanks again! — DroEsperanto (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Only if they were published before 1923. --NE2 01:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
If a picture is dated pre-1923, is it okay to assume that it was published before 1923 (e.g. this photograph?)— DroEsperanto (talk) 07:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
No. --NE2 11:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Ahh, well I already uploaded a bunch under that justification. What should I do? — DroEsperanto (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Which license do I use?

Resolved:  – ukexpat (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I just uploaded this image, the owner gave me permission before through e-mail, but it was deleted, so I read the copyright guidelines, which said the owner could make a "copyleft", which she has now done (See:, but I'm still not sure what license I should use, I tagged it as being unsure of the correct license and it said "This image has been placed in a queue for experienced editors to look at. There is no guarantee this will occur before 7 days. If you would like to ask a question now please do so at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions." - So, any help deciding which license should be used would be appreciated. Thanks. TheoloJ (talk) 19:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It's resolved now, thanks. TheoloJ (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Airforce manual

Resolved:  – ukexpat (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Are images in the airforce manual in public domain(with the exception of the logo)? I'd like to extract a few images from page 49 pertaining to 9/11. Thanks.Smallman12q (talk) 20:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

So are airforce manuals considered to be in public domain; and if so, can we use their images?Smallman12q (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Dennis William Sciama

Resolved:  – ukexpat (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I found this photo [5], can any one help me to found out what the license is and to upload it?--Gilisa (talk) 08:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Can you show what page it is hosted on? We can't determine the copyright status of the image just by looking at the image. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Sure, sorry that I forgot to do it. There are several options [6][7][8][9]--Gilisa (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • There's no evidence from any of those pages that any of the various photos of him are available under a free license. Sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
It's ok, if I was thinking otherwise I wouldn't been writing here. How about this one[10]?--Gilisa (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
There is no evidence that this is freely licenced either. Unless an image, or website specifically states it is in the public domain or released under a free creative commons licence, you have to assume the images are copyright and therefore not usable by us. However, because this person is dead it might be possible to claim fair-use for one of these images but the image you chose MUST pass all 10 of the non-free content criteria. ww2censor (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, that's helpful!--Gilisa (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler paintings

I was vaguely surprised that there are no examples of Hitler's artwork on Adolf Hitler. An image is important to understanding why he was rejected from art school... Anyhow, does anyone have any idea of the copyright status of Hitler's paintings? They were almost all made before 1923, but I really don't know. I'm thinking of adding this one in particular. Lithoderm 02:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

No matter 1923, the country of origin are not the US. Hitlers copyright will expire 70 years after his death, thats on January 1, 2016. --Martin H. (talk) 03:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, if the image was first published in Germany prior to 1923, the image can be used under {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. Stifle (talk) 11:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I mean, who would prosecute us for using these? The estate of Adolf Hitler? It sounds rather ridiculous. Who owns reproduction rights to his paintings? Lithoderm 23:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
The copyright holder might be the state of Bavaria. Besides, whether Wikipedia will be prosecuted or not is irrelevant. Garion96 (talk) 23:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Historic image

Can pictures of deceased people be considered {{Non-free historic image}} for using in the infobox? Do these images meet NFCC#8, by helping to "identify the person the article is about"? (example:File:Oskar Schindler.jpg.) Thanks. —SpaceFlight89 05:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes by consensus, use in the infobox to identify the subject satisfies NFCC#8. The use, however, must satisfy all the other conditions of WP:NFCC: In particular, there must be a non-free use rationale; a non-free picture cannot be use if a free picture would serve the same encyclopedic purpose; more than one picture cannot be used if one would do the job; and the use must respect commercial opportunities. —teb728 t c 08:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Malankara division.JPG.

I am the author of File:Malankara division.JPG what should be taken as license and copyright?? --Jithinsamgeorge (talk) 07:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You can use whatever license you'd like to release it under. If you want to release it into the public domain, use {{pd-self}}, or you can select any of the free licenses listed here.— DroEsperanto (talk) 07:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


I so much love Wikipedia. Well am a new member of Wikipedia. Is it possible for me to publish my information in Wikipedia? If yes, how. Please i need a vivid loaddown on how to create and establish my own wikipedia. Thanks

This page is for questions about copyright and images on Wikipedia. If you have a question about how to use Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Help desk. Stifle (talk) 11:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Usage of the ruby logo from Wikipedia in a shopping site

This Bulgarian shopping website uses the Ruby Logo by Yukihiro Matsumoto, licensed under the Creative Commons license, as a favicon and as an image for the link to their log-in page. I have written a comment in the Bulgarian Wikipedia but it remains ignored. I have alerted the site owners and they did respond three weeks ago that they will talk about that with the people responsible for maintaining the site, but nothing has happened as of yet. The exact issue is that I don't want to indulge in the lengthy process of defending the license terms. So if anyone is more motivated than me, you're welcome to do that.

This is the file I'm talking about: Ruby logo.svg

--Prizrak (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It's really from the Ruby Visual Identity Team and is primarily used for the Ruby (programming language). It may not be wikipedia's "problem" per say, but rather that of those who maintain Ruby. I'm not an "expert" in these matters, but this is my $.05(I account for inflation Smile.png) .Smallman12q (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Pictures of copyrighted works

Can pictures of copyrighted works be licensed into the public domain?

Obviously the copyright for the picture itself belongs to the person who takes it, but when this picture shows only a work which may be copyrighted with a different license I think that it can be some sort of copyright infringment.

Here's an example: File:Diari de Girona 002.jpg. Can this picture be on the public domain if the newspaper's design is not?

Sorry, forgot to sign. -- (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That is a pretty faithful reproduction of the newspaper. Were it off in the corner and not the sole focus of the image, there would be no problem. In this case, I believe it's copyright infringement. @harej 01:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
A photograph of a newspaper, in which the newspaper is the "centerpiece" will most likely not qualify for public fact, it can probably only be used under fair use. There have been related discussions in the past, but I can't find them atm...I'm not an expert in this matter, so its best to wait for further discussion, but I'm quite sure that in this case, the answer is no.Smallman12q (talk) 01:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
In regard to the original, general question - there are occasional exceptions, such as freedom of panorama. But that newspaper photo is a straightforward copyright violation. I have tagged it as such. --dave pape (talk) 01:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Public domain photos found in a copyrighted book

I recently bought a five volume edition of "The Photographic History of the Civil War, and I wanted to scan and upload some photos from it to wikipedia. However, the book is in copyright. The photos aren't however. So is it ok to upload out of copyright photos, found in a copyrighted book? Bernstein2291 (Talk Contributions Sign Here) 02:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if the photos are public domain, the author of the book did not create a new copyright on them just because he used them! Sv1xv (talk) 05:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
The above is correct. However, you must be sure that the photos weren't in copyright when the author published the book. Unless you have evidence that they were published (not taken, but published) before 1923, there is no guarantee that they're in the public domain. — DroEsperanto (talk) 06:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
The ten-volume Photographic History of the Civil War was first published in 1911, on the 50th anniversary of the start of the Civil War. The current edition is a reprint. The copyright on the new current edition refers only to new material (introduction, cover, etc.) All of the volumes are now online at Google Books;, e.g., the navy volume. — Walloon (talk) 07:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

National anthem of defunct state?

Is it acceptable to link to a Youtube video with virtually no video, only audio, featuring the National anthem of South Vietnam (now defunct)?. (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

There are two possible copyrights involved in a music recording: the songwriter's copyright, and the sound recording copyright. The national anthem is probably in the public domain, but the sound recording is probably under copyright. Who recorded it, and when? � — Walloon (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
According to WIPO, Vietnam's copyright lasts for 50 years. So the music and lyrics will be in the public domain, however, I need to known when a recording was made. But, since it is in the public domain, I can try and make a instrumental recording once I get my main computer back. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Question of use of personally owned photo where original author is unknown

Hello. I want to upload a photograph belonging to myself and family of a family friend who appears on Wikipedia. The image is a personal possession and an original image and not a duplicate of a commercial image, etc. However the original photographer is unknown, so I ran into problems when I went to upload it, as there didn't seem to be a category that fitted. What is the appropriate niche, perhaps the one that considers permission from the author is the closest? Thanks for advice. LSmok3 (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

In most countries, anonymous works are 70 years after it was published, only if the author does not become known within that period (which is when it reverts to 70pma). But, it might qualify for {{PD-US-no notice}} if you have evidence it was created before 1977 (yet does not include information which was required by US law at the time). ViperSnake151  Talk  19:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I think {{PD-US-no notice}} is relevant only if the photo was published before 1977. It looks to me like LSmok is thinking of publishing the photo for the first time. —teb728 t c 01:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this is an unpublished work. According to [11], it had to be created before 1889 if the author is unknown. --NE2 01:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm having some trouble understanding the situation, I'm afraid. Firstly, I am not in the US, I'm in Italy, and the photograph belongs to someone who lives here, although it was probably taken in the UK, and is an image of a UK national. It was taken in the late 50s or early 60s. However, am I right in understanding that even though it is a non-commercial image and a family photograph, and a personal possession of someone who has given their consent to its use, it cannot be used simply because the person who orginally took it is unknown? That's a shame and bit bizarre. . . LSmok3 (talk) 12:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
When people give you a picture they don't give you the copyright. In Australia, though if you have the original copy and the photographer has died, then you get title to the copyright too, (unless they granted it to some one else). And in Australia copyright has to be granted in a written form, an oral permission is not enough. Though this is not rules as in Italy! If you do own copyright then you can publish on Wikipedia for the first time. What we need is a good description of the copyright and public domain in each jurisdiction. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, seeing as we don't know who the orginal photographer was, I can't say if they have died or not, although it's more than likely considering how long ago it was. Yes, the image is unpublished, just taken for familial purposes. As to the point about jurisdiction, I took a look at some pages on Wiki regarding copyright issues and it seems that because Wikipedia in ll its incarnations is hosted on servers in the US, it is US law that holds sway, regardless of orginal country of origin? The thing that puzzles me is that you seem to imply that an image is copyrighted automatically to the author; I was hitherto under the impression that copyright was something that had to be obtained or applied, rather than something that just automatically applied to something, thus the frequent phrase 'copyrighted image', but maybe I'm incorrect in that. . . LSmok3 (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Certainly nowadays copyright is automatic without any registration or notice. Also one country recognizes copyright from another country, so USA recognizes Italian copyright. We need an article on Italian copyright law to explain the rules that would apply to this image. For books this counts as an orphan work. For Wikipedia this counts as an unknown source. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I see. So, all in all, does that mean I can't really use it on Wikipedia? Or if I can, how would I go about doing so? LSmok3 (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

2D pictures of old artwork

In the WikiProject Japan a question was raised if some pictures I uploaded might be copyrighted. The pictures in question are File:Exterminationf of Evil Tenkeisei.jpg, File:Extermination of Evil Shinchū.jpg, File:Extermination of Evil Shōki.jpg, File:Extermination of Evil Vaisravana.jpg. My understanding is that pictures/scans of old 2D objects lack originality (unless selective photoshop enhancements were done, which I cannot see here) to be copyrighted. The depicted objects themselves are PD since they are hundreds of years old. In my view also the (recent) photographs are PD. Is this view correct and can I upload these images under a PD license? bamse (talk) 17:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I followed a couple of your links and it looks to my untrained eye that they have valid {{PD-Art}} claims, as you have used on them. (That links to our PD-Art, I of course mean commons'.) If anything, maybe they have too many tags on them. - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 17:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, would you recommend using just the PD-Art tag and drop the others? Is it a mistake to put more than one tag? I put those license tags following a discussion here. bamse (talk) 18:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Now, if you were asking me personally, I would probably just go with the joint PD-Art/PD-Japanese (or whatever it is) licence tag, but in many a circumstance I'm not a good indicator of people in general. So may wait for them to comment :) . - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 18:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

TIME magazine cover

Resolved: Image deleted - copyvio. – ukexpat (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I am new to this. I uploaded [12] from my computer after downloading it from a website for possible introduction to the Glenn Beck article, but don't want to infringe on any copyrights or violate Wiki policy. Please advise as to how to proceed. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

P.S. - this is where I downloaded the picture from: [13] ObserverNY (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Since that is a non-free image, we can only use it if it meets our strict non-free content guidelines WP:NFC. Additionally, that image is missing a fair use rationale (WP:FURG), which is one of the basic things needed on an image page. If you note on the image page, there is a blank non-free rationale template. Please go back and fill the template out (you can hit the "edit" button next to the summary heading). The image is also currently unused, and we are not allowed to host unused non-free images (Meaning, if the image is not placed in an article it will be deleted). But the most important thing is WP:NFCC. You need to decide if the image meets all those criteria? Is it replaceable? Does it infringe on commercial interest? Does it significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic? etc.-Andrew c [talk]
Thank you. Okay, so under WP:NFC it says A magazine or book cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, it may be appropriate if placed inline next to the commentary, so it would appear to meet that. I'll go see if I can figure out WP:FURG. I didn't want to attempt to introduce it to the article officially until I followed proper procedure. If I am wasting my time doing this, please let me know. I don't want to make a big deal out of this. Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Would someone be able to advise if my addition of the TIME jpeg. to Glenn Beck is in compliance? Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
I don't think it is in compliance. If it was in an article about that particular issue of Time or about the cover itself, if it was in some way notable, it would be OK, but not IMHO in the article about Beck. I have removed it from the article. – ukexpat (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Adding a picture to an article

Resolved:  – ukexpat (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed today when reading an article on Knowshon Moreno that there is no photograph of him in the article. I have a good photograph that I took of him last year and would be willing to add it to the article. Can anyone tell me if that's allowed and if so, how I would go about doing it? I appreciate your time. Signed, jkt1234

Ofcourse that's allowed; upload the image to Commons, then add it to the article. —SpaceFlight89 21:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
For help with linking to the image when uploaded, see WP:IMAGE. – ukexpat (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

All right, I added the image to commons and have edited the article to include the picture. I wasn't really sure where to put the picture in the edited page. Can someone see if I did it right? Thanks. Jkt1234 (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Jkt1234 (talk) 23:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


i read an article claiming that fernando torres is a girl disguised as a man to play the men's game, is this true?

Yes, you are confused, for that doesn't seem like a Media Copyright Question. (According to Fernando Torres he is 1.85 m tall, which is pretty tall for a woman.) Anyway, do you have a media copyright question? —teb728 t c 07:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

joe grech.jpg & il Kaccatur.jpg

Dear Sir,

These two photos were gieven to me by the singer himself. The phot was taken from his LP Album and Il Kaccatur is the sleeve cover of his 45 rpm published in 1967.

Please advise further

Please see WP:IOWN for the process to follow to release copyright materials for use on Wikipedia. – ukexpat (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Taurus394.PNG file

Hi, This file was created using the Wikimedia Commons file (linked with the article Sicilian wars) which was modified as per the permission given with the file. Taurus394 has been tagged for deletion because of a copyright issue - I though wikimedia commons files were free to be modified by anybody. Please letme know how I can get the copyright issue in line with wikipedia policy?

Basically, we need to you to state how you want to release your additions to the map. "Public domain" is probably going to be the easiest i.e. "You allows anyone to use it for any purpose including unrestricted redistribution, commercial use, and modification." Would that be appropriate? - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 18:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
What copyright can be added to this image depends on whether this is regarded as a new image or a derivative work. If it is the latter, then the new modified image would retain the same copyright. If the new image contains enough creative work for it to be considered a new image then the creator can assign any free licence he chooses. We need to see the original image to make some determination in this regard. ww2censor (talk) 03:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft Product Screenshots (Fair-use may not be necessary)


According to the official Use of Microsoft Copyrighted Content, it states that

You must include the following copyright attribution statement: "Microsoft product screen shot(s) reprinted with permission from Microsoft Corporation."

when using screenshots of their products. A number of screenshots of Microsoft products such as File:Microsoft_Office.png, lack such an attribution statement. Should one be added?Smallman12q (talk) 13:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I personally agree. I wonder if these deserve a new licensing template, since it doesn't rely in invoking "fair use", but instead requires the list of conditions? Gareth.randall (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
That would probably be the best fair-use is extremely limiting, anything(even with Microsoft's list of conditions), would likely be better.Smallman12q (talk) 22:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
It is important to distinguish between screenshots of a screen that contains only content that was created only by Microsoft, and screenshots that show a combination of Microsoft created content (such as the navigation icons of Internet Explorer) and content created by the user of the software. --Jc3s5h (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
It's not free enough, so we still need to use them under fair use. For instance, criterion #9 directly contradicts Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). --NE2 12:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
What NE2 said. You can tag it {{non-free with permission}} as well, but the usual fair use rules must be applied. Stifle (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
A template like {{Non-free with permission}}, but specifically for microsoft product screenshots would suffice. It does contradict #9...but it's still better than fair use.Smallman12q (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Since we're not following their criteria, we don't have their permission. --NE2 21:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the idea for such a template isn't new. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I didn't see that discussion before, thank you. While the idea isn't new, it should be noted that their screenshots could be used in a non-free manner off wikipedia if people comply with Microsoft's criteria.Smallman12q (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Not our problem. How we decide to use fair use is our decision. How someone else decides to use fair use is up to them. We're not their legal counsel. It's clear from their terms that their license is not compatible with free licensing. Therefore, it has to be used on Wikipedia under our non-free content policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Letting others know that it could be used in accordance to Microsoft's terms seems fairly polite.Smallman12q (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
At this point, I'm simply asking for a template that can be used on Microsoft screenshots that states that you may use the screenshot on another site if you abide by Microsoft's rules.Smallman12q (talk) 23:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Anybody? Thoughts...Smallman12q (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
...Smallman12q (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
No, the fewer license templates the better generally, we don't need to clutter things up with a special template per company to list what they do and do not allow (unless those permissions actually amount to a free license we don't already have a tag for). It would confuse the hell out of people trying to pick the right license tag, yeah you only want one for Microsoft, but most companies and organizations grant various permissions for various types of uses (educations, non-profit etc) so if there is a tag for Microsoft then why not the others? before you know it we have thousands of such things created by "helpfull" completeists. All that matter for our purposes is that those images are non-free. Additional information beyond that can be added in a free form fashion on a case by case basis. So if you want to go out and add a link to Microsoft's terms of use page to all Microsoft screen shots be my guest, but we don't need a new license template for it. --Sherool (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Insurance plans

I was recently looking at some British insurance plans from 1909. They were published by something like "Chas: E. Goad, Ltd. Civil Engineers, London". Charles E. Goad died in 1910, aged 62, but I don't know whether he was working until his death. Obviously, they are PD in the US, but when do / did they become PD in the UK? (I get confused with the "work of an employee" clause when it comes to determining length of copyright.) Thanks, - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 13:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

In the UK we have at this time lifetime of the author + 50 years, and this applied till the 1995 law. So this entered the public domain at be the end of 1960. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Yep. I have no idea who the original author was - and would like to know whether this matters. The point about lapsing after life+50 (since it was out of life+70 copyright by 1995) is a useful one (and not a quirk I was aware of), so thanks for that. - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]
If there is no author on the document I think it is just publication +50 years back then. I misunderstood thinking that the author was Charles E. Goad. So expire 1959. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Image of an artist's work

Resolved:  – ukexpat (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've been working with an artist to use a low-res picture of his own work in a relevant article. I just want to make sure to reassure him that releasing that low-res image under the Creative Commons 3.0 Sharealike license for that one image wouldn't affect his right to his original work or higher resolution copies of it used to make prints for sale. Thanks. -- Dougie WII (talk) 08:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Dougie WII (talk) 04:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No credit necessary

I have a picture of James Stuart Wetmore that I would like to add to the page, but I'm unclear on its licensing.

I have spoken to an historian at the Episcopal Diocese of New York, and he advises me that the Diocese has several copies of this particular publicity image of Bishop Wetmore. According to the historian, each copy is stamped on the back with, "Studio of The New York Times, Times Sq. N. Y. 36. CREDIT NOT NECESSARY." I have no information regarding the photographer.

If this is acceptable, what license should I use? If not, any suggestions on obtaining proper licensing?--otherlleft 13:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably Episcopal Diocese of New York owns copyright on these if they are publicity photos. The chances are that they have been published somewhere, if you can find an occasion where they were published without a copyright notice, you have a good chance of proving it is now in the pubic domain. Otherwise you should seek a donation of copyright from the diocese, fair use would also be possible. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Image:James W. McGhee.jpg

File:James W. McGhee.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) has had an open discussion at WP:Possibly unfree images/2008 March 8 for over a year an a half. Is it possible to get this closed out? If we can resolve this, it can be documented on the file page. Today the file was speedied, apparently without awareness of this protracted discussion. TJRC (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The consensus is obviously keep, where are the instructions for closing this? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


Hi. I'd like to get some feedback on this image. The original uploader, Stahlkocher, an admin on, says that when he uploaded the image three and a half years ago it was marked PD-US, as a result of lacking a copyright tag when it was published first in the US. The source page now shows no sign of a license. Given the image was uploaded so long ago there is a strong chance that DB have changed their image display system in the interim, and given releases to the public domain cannot be rescinded, it may be that the uploader was telling the truth. I would not be surprised if it is PD, as I have seen it in many different forms in many different places; it seems to be the most common picture of him. Is it safe to assume that it is PD, or does the lack of information presently on the source page mean it is unusable? Thanks, Apterygial 01:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm reading something contradictory in your summary. It may be I'm missing something. As I understand it, no one made a claim that Daimler Benz affirmatively placed it in the public domain. Stahlkocher is not saying that the DB site included a license. What he's saying is that it was published in the United States without copyright notice, during a time when copyright notice was required (i.e., pre-1989).
That's probably true, but when the US allowed for "restored" copyright in 1995, a work of foreign origin that had lost U.S. copyright status due to publication without notice would have become covered by US copyright, provided it was covered by copyright in its country of origin. I don't know the facts of this photo, but I would be unsurprised if it fell into this category of works. This is probably a good topic to take up on Commons, where it's currently hosted; probably at Commons Talk:Licensing. TJRC (talk) 01:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I've brought it up there. Apterygial 07:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Apley Hall restoration 2001.jpg


this image was photographed by me and edited by me [mil0scribe]and i am advisesd it is due for deletion due to a problem with the tag i have indicated that i am the author what more do i need to do ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mil0scribe (talkcontribs) 09:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Media Kid Vids


hopefully. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

A brand new user, Chandler Bonor (talk · contribs), has been uploading pics taken from Media Kid Vids. The site doesn't claim copyright, but many of the images are clearly publicity photos. How should this be handled? (talk) 09:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I tagged all the images with a non-free content license tag, all of them as missing a fair use rationale, all of them as orphaned, and some of them as replaceable fair use. I've also notified the uploader. All four images should be deleted within a week. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: File:Computer-translation Briefing for Gerald Ford.png

My name is Eldon Lytle (email - <redacted>). I am a co-author of the working article "Junction Grammar" and was the director of BYU TSI who commissioned this photo. I appear in the photo as the person giving the briefing. The photo uploaded is from my personal archives, not from any web site. I did not copyright the photo when it was taken and do not wish to place it under copyright now. It has been in the public domain since its original distribution in the 1970s. Kindly tell me what needs to be done to satisfy your concerns and clear it for use in the article.

UPDATE: I sent the email as requested, but need feedback to determine whether I have solved the problem sufficiently to have the 'deletion' notice removed on the working page. As of now the deletion tag is still in placel

Historic register photos

The following question was originally posted at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Note that there is further discussion at Talk:Longwood (Baton Rouge, Louisiana) where uploader states they have the original photos at home and would like info about verifying them through OTRS. I will leave this here for the media experts to advise the user. CactusWriter | needles 09:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Longwood (Baton Rouge, Louisiana) includes two black and white photos, this] and [this, which appear to be copies of photos available at a copyrighted webpage of the state of Louisiana (images linked from bottom of this page). The uploader asserts at Talk:Longwood (Baton Rouge, Louisiana) that s/he grew up in the house and took the photos, which is possible. I don't know, but my guess is that the uploaded photos are not separately scanned images from original photos, but rather are copies of the digital images at the state website. Perhaps the uploader does hold copyright to any version of the photos and can upload them legally. Is OTRS-based verification or some other process needed to establish the copyright status and to identify the photos correctly? Otherwise it appears the two photos are copyright violations. doncram (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I doubt that the state of Louisiana owns the copyright on the pictures it is showing on the historic register web site. It does not credit any one for them though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

All the images posted here are created by me.

Dejenie A. Lakew - website: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dejenie (talkcontribs) 00:01, 26 September 2009

CC-BY-SA-3.0 is better, it is designed to work in many countries, and is more up to date. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that the website clearly shows a copyright notice which means we cannot use your images right now as they stand, so if you want to release them with a free licence you need to change the notice on the website or send your permission to the OTRS team as described by WP:CONSENT. ww2censor (talk) 03:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Test pattern copyrightable

File:TESTPATTERN WFMJ.jpg is tagged as being nonfree-without-rationale; it definitely has no rationale, but is it really nonfree? Seems to me to be simply an arrangement of rectangles of various colours, plus a few words, and thus a fine example of what {{PD-text}} is meant for. Nyttend (talk) 01:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll extend this question to File:SMPTE Color Bars.svg — obviously this is a free image, but is it original enough to be able to be licensed under the GFDL and CC 3.0 SA? Nyttend (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
This image is {{PD-ineligible}}. The arrangement of the color bars is not creative enough to merit a copyright. They are just rectangles with primary colors: white, yellow, cyan, green, magenta, red, and blue. (See the Indian Head test card for a creative test pattern.) The text is just the call letters and location of the station.
File:D Yo scale.svg, File:2-Nitrodiphenylamine.PNG and File:Diatonic intervals.png are PD-ineligible, they are more creative that this test pattern. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 02:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Use of {{FAL}} template

Is the use of the copyright template {{FAL}} appropriate to File:Luisfayad.jpg? ww2censor (talk) 03:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure why not? Aside from the name implying it's art there is no restrictions or stipulations on the type of creative work the license can be applied to (IMHO images released under the {{GPL}} license are much more problematic (but still allowed), since that license was designed for distributing programming source code, not images), and it's a perfectly legit free license from what I can see if somewhat "obscure". --Sherool (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson "This Is It" promo poster for article

Is it possible to use this image of a promotional poster for MJ's concerts.

Avenue 51 (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

If it satisfies all of the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and Wikipedia:Image use policy, then it should be alright to use under fair use in a relevant article. You'll need to fill out the Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline template, and include it on the file page. If you assert that it's an official promotional poster as part of the fair use rationale (allowing it to be used in a Michael-Jackson-related context), it's up to you to verify (preferably with a citation) that the image is authentic, and not just something being offered by that third-party website to cash in on Jackson's present notoriety.
Whatever you do, don't try to upload it as if it has a free licence—unless the copyright owner has authorized this.
Note also that this assumes U.S. copyright law is in force—if that image or your actions are covered under other jurisdictions' laws, additional requirements may apply. (For example: photographs of artwork, even when there's no apparent creativity inherent to the photo, can be considered infringement in some countries.)
Sorry that this process can be so complicated.... TheFeds 07:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


How is it possible that Image:Marnette.jpg can be considered fair use if the image says the author is "unknown" in one place and "someone" in another.. yet the fair-use rationale is that the uploader is the copyright holder and releases the image into the public domain? And if it's not, what is the appropriate way to tag it as such? Thanks. --Zoeydahling (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I have tagged it as a copyright violation. Thanks for pointing that out. —teb728 t c 22:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
It was deleted on Commons, but the user uploaded it here on Wikipedia. I have tagged it {{rfu}} —teb728 t c 07:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest vs tagging Copyright Violations

Resolved: Speedily deleted as a copyvio. – ukexpat (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The article Bum Bright is almost entirely plagiarized / copypasted from (if you look at from 2006, it predates the wikipedia article which was created in 2007). I tagged the article as a copyright violation, but the problem is this: the guy is a distant relative of me so I figure i have a conflict of interest.... so i deleted all my edits and reverted it back to how it was before. However, the fact remains that almost the entire article is a copyright violation and plagiarized. I think there are all of 2 or 3 original paragraphs in the entire article history. I am not sure what to do about this or who to take the problem to. Decora (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I had a look at the Wayback Machine, and concur with your assessment. The article from 2006 = the first Wikipedia revision from 2007, except for the addition of the nickname and whitespace.
It's definitely a show of good faith to declare your potential conflict of interest, but I'd say in this case there's no issue. You're making a determination of fact, rather than opinion, and have the evidence to back it up. I'm going to revert your last change and restore the {{copypaste}} tags above the copied sections. TheFeds 06:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
If that much of it is a copyvio copy and paste, I think it qualifies for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G12, so tagged. – ukexpat (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


how do i upload a picture to an article that i just expanded?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mack Brenholtz (talkcontribs)

See WP:UPLOAD, but it looks like you already uploaded it here. To add it to the article, see WP:IMAGE. – ukexpat (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Gerald Ford image

RE File:Computer-translation Briefing for Gerald Ford.png. I provided the email requested in your response, but the tag for deletion still remains on the image in the article text. Is this because I didn't do it properly or because Wikipedia hasn't had time to reconsider the problem?

Hi, no everything is correct - I replied on your talkpage. Black Kite 00:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Two images

howdy, i have uploaded 2 images File:KodaguGowdas1.JPG & File:KDKLogo.PNG, which has no copyrights in fact. This image is being used in the wiki page Kodagu gowdas. Since the image is related to "kodagu gowda community",, it can be used for any purpose or articles related to the kodagu gowda community. There is no problem in using these images, but i dont know y u ppl keep telling,,, the image will be deleted soon!! what kind of heck it is? please read the image description. or just tell me how to make the image free,,,. thanks Aravind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaep.kure (talkcontribs) 23:49, 28 September 2009

In order for Wikipedia to use these images, we need more than just your word that it's okay to use them. Under US law - the law that Wikipedia must abide by - such images are generally automatically copyrighted simply by virtue of their creation. However, there is a process by which such images can be cleared for use - please see WP:COPYREQ for more information. Until that's cleared up, editors will likely continue to flag these images for deletion, unfortunately. -- Hux (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
There are three ways to make an image usable on Wikipedia:
  1. Find out who owns the copyright, and get their permission. If you own the copyright, you can licence the material using a free licence. If someone else owns the copyright, follow these instructions to ask them to send a statement to the Wikimedia Foundation's volunteer response team giving permission. (If you can get free licence permission, consider uploading to Wikimedia Commons instead—those images can also be used on Wikipedia.)
  2. Prove that it's out of copyright, or that there was never any copyright in the first place. The best way to start determining this is to tell us everything you know about the photograph: when was it taken, where was it taken, who took it, was the image ever published (and where and when), was the copyright ever transferred, etc.. (For the old-looking round photograph, this is a good way to proceed.)
  3. Claim fair use, by satisfying all of the non-free content criteria and the image use policy. (This is not preferred, because the image can't be reused freely.)
When you say "This image has no copyrights but can be and should only be used for the articles or the contents related to the "Kodagu Gowda" community(A renowned community in South India)." and "Can be Used for any articles related to the "Kodagu Gowda Community"", you need to give evidence that this is the case. Usually, you'd do that by linking to the licence terms found on their website that say so. Also, there is a larger problem: your options for image licencing are free, or fair use. You can't say "free for certain topics" unless you mean to say that this image is being used under fair use and is not free.
Also, "public domain" is equivalent to saying "no current copyright exists". That's probably the wrong thing to tag the image with, unless you can prove it, because images are assumed to be under copyright unless otherwise demonstrated.
So, give us more information if you can. For now, I'm going to delete the incorrect tags. TheFeds 05:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Major Manish Pitambare.jpg

hi, I've got the image of Major Manish Pitambare throgh a forwarded email and I am sure it's a picture from a news paper cutting. So I added the picture to the Article Manish Pitambare and is now tagged for speedy deletion. Thogh I am usinng Wikipedia and contributing it from last one year, I hadn't added much files and really confused with the image policies... So anybody please help, how can I upload this image without the fear of deletion. Hbkrishnan (talk) 05:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

There is an incomplete fair-use rationale template on this image page and the purpose has not been stated. In order to justify the use of a fair-use image you must tell us the purpose why the image is being used and why this use is appropriate. Remember that fair use must comply with all 10 of the non-free content criteria. Missing or not complying with any one of the criteria is grounds for deletion which is currently the situation but you can fix that by filling in all the fields. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 05:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


I've noticed a new account, Tvontario (talk · contribs), editing 4 articles to add ELs to YouTube videos and playlists. When I took a quick look at one playlist, I discovered that the videos from The Agenda with Steve Paikin were posted by YouTube 'user', which gives every impression of being an official activity of TV Ontario. I guess we should get confirmation from TV Ontario that they are happy to have Wikipedia link to their YouTube videos, but I don't know how that side of Wikipedia works.

My guess is that TV Ontario have set up an account (but see WP:ORGNAME) to put ELs to their own YouTube videos into relevant articles. While there's an obvious conflict of interest here, I expect that those ELs will improve our articles in at least some cases.

I don't have enough time or clue to explain things to the person or people behind this account. Could someone more experienced step in and start a discussion with him/her/them? Thanks, CWC 07:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the media copyright question is. Are you asking if it is a copyright violation to link to official youtube videos? That said, if there is an account editing for the sole purpose of adding external links to one source, IMO that is a spammer. They should be warned, and if they cannot contribute to the encyclopedia without promoting their website, they will be blocked. I'll be glad to explain that to them. -Andrew c [talk] 14:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Woops, should have made myself clearer. I wasn't asking a question, I was asking for someone to explain things to the person or people behind user:Tvontario ... as Andrew c has now done. Thanks, Andrew! CWC 16:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Altered Image of Hawaii State Voting Results: Free or Unfree?

I posted a composite image made from a pdf image of the official Hawaii state voting results referendum on statehood (File:Hawaiivotesinset.JPG). I posted it as a public domain US government document. One user (User:Monkeybait) suggested it is a nonfree image copyrighted by the state of Hawaii. The original source for the image I created is a pdf posted here: This is all noted with the file upload. Is Monkeybait correct? Is the pdf a nonfree, copyrighted goverment document? If he is correct, do I have the right to modify and post the image? If the image is fair use and not free, how do I address the concerns of another user, ([User: Rettetast]) who has stated I need to provide a fair use rationale for its inclusion in Wikipedia. What is an appropriate fair use rationale? It is used to illustrate the fact of a state referendum in the Hawaii article. Thanks. Mrdthree (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Materials created by the various states are not subject to the U.S. copyright law provision that places almost all works of the United States federal government into the public domain. See Copyright status of work by the U.S. government. Since this was created by Hawaii, the work is property of Hawaii. As such, we must treat the material as non-free, as User:Monkeybait properly tagged it [14]. To fix the missing fair use rationale problem, please review Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline for guidance. You can modify the image, but the resulting work is a derivative and carries the original copyrights with it, in addition to your added work and the rights you claim/release on that work. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
What is your interpretation of this section: United_States_copyright_law#Federal_and_state_laws_are_not_copyrighted? In particular: Edicts of government, such as judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents are not copyrightable for reasons of public policy. This applies to such works whether they are Federal, State, or local as well as to those of foreign governments. Mrdthree (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Reasonable opinions could vary on this, but this strikes me as {{PD-ineligible}}. It's little more than a tablular report of a vote. TJRC (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

File:2009 UCL Final Sponsor.jpg

I'm trying to get 2009 UEFA Champions League Final to FA status, but a question has been raised at the article's peer review about the copyright status of this image. There is a suggestion that the image may be classed as a derivative work, and therefore covered by the copyright of the works it is derivative of. Can anyone shed any light on this for me? – PeeJay 20:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If that's actually the logo for the 2009 CL final, then yes, it's derivative, and shouldn't be on Commons. But that logo isn't the same as the one in the infobox? Black Kite 21:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
The final had two logos, as described in the "Venue" section of the article. But surely a photograph of a billboard can't be considered a derivative work? That's like saying that a photo of my Manchester United jersey is a derivative work because it displays the AIG, Nike and Manchester United logos, isn't it? – PeeJay 22:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
It's quite complex. Generally, it depends whether you were using the image in place of a normally non-free image (for example the club badge) in order to side-step the non-free policies. For example, if I took a picture of a product (say, a can of Pepsi) and used it to illustrate the Pepsi logo rather than as a general image of what a can of Pepsi looks like, then it's going to be non-free. In this case, the image is of nothing else except the match final billboard, and it's not really illustrating anything else other than to display that logo, which is why I believe that it's non-free. If it was a photo of, say, the stadium on matchday, and the photo happened to include that logo, then it wouldn't be. Black Kite 22:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I see. In that case, do you think that this image could be uploaded to Wikipedia as a non-free image with a Fair Use claim for the 2009 UEFA Champions League Final article? – PeeJay 22:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
It could be, although I'd point out that if the article went to FA, it would be pointed out during the review that, as a non-free image showing the logo, it's redundant to the image of the ticket, which is a free image and also shows the logo. Black Kite 22:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
How about the argument, then, that the image of the billboard shows the extent of the advertising for the match in and around the city of Rome? Would that make it passable? – PeeJay 00:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Mmmmmm, possible ... it might be an idea to take the image to WP:PUI to see if there's a consensus that it actually is non-free first. I'm not always right :) Black Kite 20:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Only sometimes, eh? :P Will take it to WP:PUI. Thanks again. – PeeJay 20:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Argentinian copyright and File:Julio_Olarticoechea.jpg

Article 35 of Argentina's Ley de Propiedad Intelectual (Ley 11.723 (235) del Poder Ejecutivo Nacional) sets the copyright for photographs at twenty years from the date of first publication. The WP pd-license tag Template:PD-AR-Photo says essentially the same thing; however, the corresponding Commons tag, Commons:Template:PD-AR-Photo also requires that the photograph have been created at least twenty-five years ago in order for it to be considered PD, a condition set out in the Berne Convention, Article 7(4). Two questions:

  1. Is it actually the case that both conditions have to have been met?
  2. If a file (for example, File:Julio_Olarticoechea.jpg) was clearly created more than twenty (but not necessarily more than twenty-five) years ago, but the uploader provides no information about its date of publication (if indeed it ever was published), how should the file be treated?

--Rrburke(talk) 13:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Old maps

There are some scans of maps available that would be useful in articles. I was under the impression that scans of PD material isn't copyrightable. However there is a big warning on the page of the site that they consider the images as being under copyright. An example image is here, and the warning page is here. If anyone who knows more about these things could help out that would be great! Quantpole (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You should review our guidelines (Wikipedia:Public_domain#Non-creative_works), which are based on Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., and if an image was published in the us before 1923, and someone simply slavishly scanned it, the act of scanning would not qualify for new copyright. I believe this may apply to some of those images. It appears, based on the Genmaps general disclaimer, that some of the images were taken, without permission, from other webpages, so they are just covering their bases. -Andrew c [talk] 17:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Someone ought to tell them that no new copyright is created here. Technically speaking, the guidelines to which Andrew refers are more about the act of taking photographs of artwork (paintings, etc, which cannot be scanned) where (it is claimed) some skill, time and effort is required to get a decent reproduction. You'd have a very, very hard time trying to put the case for sticking something under a scanner as creating a new copyright. - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 17:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
You may upload the maps directly to Wikimedia Commons using the instructions in commons:Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag. The upload is, if the map is PD, covered by US copyright and Wikimedia policy, nevertheless you should avoid using an account with disclosed identity to upload. --Martin H. (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

email address


if the vendor of an image agrees to license it under GFDL and has sent to email to me; can I forward it to you, or do you need direct communication?

Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 18:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Please follow the procedure at WP:CONSENT and get the copyright holder to send an email directly to the email listed which will generate an OTRS ticket and verify their permission for the image. ww2censor (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Essex Earth orbit.jpg and File:Essex CA in Deep Space.jpg for Copyright violation


Both images deleted from my profile for "Copyright Violation" are created and the copyright is owned by me and my production company. So how do I avoid your folks deleting images that I create and own the copyright to that are uploaded to my profile?

Brian Turpin Evil 70th Street People Productions —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evil70th (talkcontribs) 19:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

E-mail your consent to use those images to Wikimedia's OTRS service. Full instructions, boilerplate licence text and e-mail addresses can be found at WP:CONSENT. (By the way, there's sometimes a backlog of permissions to be verified; it may take a couple of days to process.) TheFeds 20:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)