Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

Media copyright questions
Welcome to the Media Copyright Questions page, a place for help with image copyrights, tagging, non-free content, and related questions. For all other questions please see Wikipedia:Questions. How to add a copyright tag to an existing image On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page. From the page Wikipedia:File copyright tags, choose the appropriate tag: For work you created yourself, use one of the ones listed under the heading "For image creators". For a work downloaded from the internet, please understand that the vast majority of images from the internet are not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. Exceptions include images from flickr that have an acceptable license, images that are in the public domain because of their age or because they were created by the United States federal government, or images used under a claim of fair use. If you do not know what you are doing, please post a link to the image here and ask BEFORE uploading it. For an image created by someone else who has licensed their image under an acceptable Creative Commons or other free license, or has released their image into the public domain, this permission must be documented. Please see Requesting copyright permission for more information. Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{Cc-by-4.0}}), not forgetting {{ before and }} after, in the edit box on the image's description page. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}}) Hit Publish changes. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below. How to ask a question To ask a new question hit the "Click here to start a new discussion" link below. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page. Don't include your email address, for your own privacy. We will respond here and cannot respond by email. Note for those replying to posted questions If a question clearly does not belong on this page, reply to it using the template {{mcq-wrong}} and, if possible, leave a note on the poster's talk page. For copyright issues relevant to Commons where questions arising cannot be answered locally, questions may be directed to Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright.
Click here to start a new discussion

(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

This talk page is automatically archived. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Image:100 1147.jpg

Copyright tag has been added to the above image previous comments by Trueblood786 on 18:17, January 7, 2007

21:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Again

I would like to send a pix of Peter created by Peter or taken by me in his studio. There are hundreds to choose from. Grudz was appalled by the artwork Parallel Worlds did (the jpeg that accompanies original aticle. Again I have offered to send copies of my mastercds; copies of early Peter G. tapes and copies of post Parallrl World Cds that were produced and personally signed and numbered by Peter. I have offered to send my coy of Peter Grudzien and Barbara Zigman "Outsider Music". (Beadie Finzi channel 4 England)

Again I have referred the original author our website;also included in Gay Americana Music.I have givem the tyahoo address of PeterGrudzien@yahoogroups.com which contains audio material not available here. Frankly-I have a grinding abscessed tooth-would rather go to bed and forget the whole thing. Follow the example of Townes Van Zandt's ex wife- sell the masters-flood the market with the tapes given to me by Peter and the world be darned. Somehow-I can't sink that low yet.

Think on tis Peter. Twill improve your disposition to the tune of the Old Man from the Mountain by M Haggard The old Queen from the mountain's coming home, home, home I thought I better warn you so I called you on the phone Watch out-joe the Rounder-cause you better be there alone The old queen from the mountain's homing home

Npw I've been workin' my ass off all forma dollar bill I need some kinda lovin so I'm a coming down the hill

Well it gets progressively more scatalogicaland suggestive. If you read the brilliant Nick Tosches"Country:The Twisted Roots of rock and Roll?" you'll see that early country was down and dirty-not the pablum coming out of Nashville these days.So Peter was frankly very true to his roots and to authentic country. Barbara Jane Barbara Jane Grew up pretty but she went insane Thanks loads grudz. laughing. What a mess you left me to clean up. Sides I'm odd-not insane

"I gotta job sittin on the fence And I haven't done a damned thing since Work all day with the bottle in my hand Come on and give the fiddler a gram. Actualy HMR used the line and some of the melody for the Barbara Jane song originally.I believe Pete Stampfel of HMR is very nuch alive and has been in touch with the Grudz since they were kids. You might also try Don Perliss chum from art college he is still in touch with frequently.(Art and Design) I also sent some pix of Peter taking pix of Dons last show but I guess they were deleted.

Barbara Jane

21:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Headline text

P.S I also want to something about wikimedia dot org.

21:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

free copyright

  sir 
    I would like to get certain exart from your webpage about social movement .Shall i get it through my email id –rajava21@yahoo.co.in

21:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Parliamentary Brief - cover image

Could you please check that I have added the fair use ratioanle correctly for the cover image of Parliamentary Brief. Thank you in anticipation.

Tony

this is a personal image taken by a friend. i added the copyright tag, but am finding it difficult for the page to come up like i wished. help!

21:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Darby Crash Rides Again cover art

I was wondering what copy right it would go under. It's from a re-released demo tape. I don't know exactly who did the art, but since it was originally self released, I'm guessing it was the band itself.

Thanks,

Xtheblademaster

Please could you determine the copyright of this pic? (2)

File:Moroccanmirqage.JPG

I found it here---->[1]

Thanks in advance.

vincent shooter 10:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a better link? That link links directly to the image, and we need to see the HTML page it is used on to determine the copyright. Also, what kind of plane is this? There there an article here at Wikipedia about it? Does the place still exist today? Could someone go take a picture of the image and release it freely (is it possible? even if it's not likely?)? MECU≈talk 12:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the image you uploaded here, and for a source you gave "google". This is most likely not an image we can allow here. Please do not search for images on Google. --MECU≈talk 18:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The image source is here: [2]. We definitely can't use it. Even the guys who upload pictures to that forum don't always appear to know where they came from. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

To elaborate: We can't assume a free license. I also don't believe this falls under fair use because it should be possible to take a photo of a Moroccan AF plane at international air shows and so forth, so this is at least theoretically replaceable. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I would caution fellow Wikipedians to not assume anything is "possible" here! A friend of mine was recently arrested, interrogated and briefly incarcerated after taking photos of Moroccan Air Force fighter jets while exiting his flight to Casablanca from NYC. He was eventually released with a warning that Moroccan military aircraft cannot be photographed under any circumstances. Unfortunately I do not know what (if any) restrictions are in place outside of Morocco. --Jasap 05:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I assumed it was illegal in Morocco, which is why I suggested an air show. I said "international" thinking of the Paris show, but what I really meant was "outside Morocco". TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for clarifying my doubts. I needed a picture of a Moroccan fighter or military aircraft, to complete the article on the Moroccan Air Force I wrote some time ago, that's why I looked for it on Google Images, but unfortunately it seems the copyright status is unknown. I found another link, and this time it seems there is no problem with the copyright, since it is on a professional military website. Please could someone here tell me if it is alright to upload the following pictures:--->

picture1 picture2

scramble

thanks in advance

vincent_shooter 09:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I would again say no. That website appears to take images from donations on the website, or other means, and publish them in a magazine. We would need to use the images then under fair use, for which replaceable would again apply. As to reply to Jasap above, just because you, I, your brother, or another Wikipedian can't take an image, doesn't mean one can't be created or freely found. The US Military might likely have some good information about planes of other countries. I agree that taking images of military planes is bad. When I was in the Marines I had a friend come to our unit from an air wing unit who said it's illegal to take images of planes (etc), so the images he has are of him playing golf, and oh, a plane happens to be in the background. MECU≈talk 14:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

And even if it was a "professional military website" -- which I take to mean an official website of some military force -- the .nl means "Netherlands" so it would probably be theirs. I have no idea whether work of the Dutch government is PD as work of the US government is. The latter is mandated by statute, and it's not true in all countries. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Old Bughouse Square image

I was wondering if I can use Image:Bughouse Square.jpg in Washington Square Park, Chicago. I don't have any date information, but I image an expert might be able to approximate a date. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 00:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you can use it there since it's a public domain image. Why do you need the date to use it there though? MECU≈talk 16:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it wasn't explicitly stated that the image was in the public domain, but TonyTheTiger's guess is that the image was taken before 1923. ShadowHalo 16:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I'm missing here

Image:Krishnakumarmenonsinger.JPG It says it's missing a Copyright. How do I add one on? ImtiazAA 15:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It has a copyright license, rationale and source, so I removed the tags saying otherwise that were added because you put "Some website" in the drop down box. However, this image appears to be replaceable since he is still alive and singing. Please read the fair use criteria, especially #1. MECU≈talk 16:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

UNEP

As a collaboration center we have can use UNEP images. I'm refering Image:unep.gif and want to ask what kind of Tag would be the most appropriate.

Thanks for your help!!

unep.gif discussion by --Energybase 15:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

{{logo}} would seem appropriate. Though you should then also write a fair use rationale guideline and use the logo on an article so it is not orphaned. MECU≈talk 16:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Legal action

Can you please give me your mailing address where I can send you a cease and desist letter from our lawyer for your violation of our copyright on the file name Conrad_black_cp_harris that appears on your site. There is no fair use in this case and our images is stored on your servers and being distributed. The policy of The Canadian Press, like AP, is to prosecute. The picture must be removed from your site immediately.

Sincerely,

Ron Poling Executive Director, Picture Services The Canadian Press 36 King Street, East, Toronto, Ontario. M5C 2L9

416-507-2166 ron.poling@cp.org

On the following link you can find the contact information for the Wikimedia foundation. [3]. However, the image is already deleted. Garion96 (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Garion, it might also be wise to notify the uploader of this issue to prevent him/her from taking images from this source in the future. You may already be in the process of doing this, but I just wanted to suggest it.↔NMajdan•talk 19:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yumi Kakazu image

I found a pic of Yumi Kakazu on the Indonesian language article for her[[4]]. I figured permission was granted for use on wikipedia Image:Yumi Kakazu.jpg[[5]] The Indonesian pic seems to credit this website Genki-Pro.com

Not being able to read anything in the non English links I have provided I am unaware of what other information is necessary. Irate velociraptor 07:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, copyrighted images cannot be used on the English Wikipedia to illustrate living people, even with permission for use on Wikipedia. Our material needs to be reusable by others. ShadowHalo 08:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyrighted artwork?

User:Wizzywiz has uploaded Image:Ganga Devi.jpg where he has stated that he redrew the image. Considering that images Hindu deities may be the creative artwork of an artist, would a redraw constitute to be an imagevio? =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Redrawing is somewhat vague, it could range anywhere from using the original as inspiration (which is fine) to tracing or photocopying the image (which is not ok). Given that he says it's original I would lean to the side of ok, but as is the question is difficult to answer. - cohesion 16:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I know, answering this is hard. I guess we'd have to WP:AGF on behalf of the uploader for now. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess. It's not being used on any articles though, I wonder if there are plans to. If they never do you might think about WP:IFD since it's somewhat questionable. - cohesion 20:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Help

I have just uploaded a picture of General Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet to be added to the article I have written on this army officer. I did not see the instructions to link the picture to the article so would appreciate help with this please. The image has been provided to me by the National Army Museum in London, to whom I paid £45 in order to have the picture added to my article on General Asgill (together with the picture which is already there). I also want to use this opportunity to try to locate the original oil on canvass portrait so added a note to this effect when I uploaded the picture. There are warning notices which have come up to say that I cannot upload this picture onto Wikipedia. I hope this is not the case since, having paid £45 for the privilege of doing so, and permission from NAM has been granted, I hope it will be possible for somebody to link it to my entry for me? The picture I am referring to is labelled Image:AI - From NAM-2.jpg Thanks to anybody who is able to assist me. --Arbil44 09:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added the {{holdon}} template for now to keep the image from being deleted. Since Asgill died in the 1800s, this image is likely in the public domain. Do you know who made the work (and most importantly, when he/she made it or when he/she died)? ShadowHalo 11:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for putting the holdon tag to the image. I know nothing about the timescale of the picture, other than that it is a mezzotint by Charles Turner, done as a reproduction of an oil on canvass by Sir Thomas Phillips - that oil was exhibited at the Royal Academy in London in 1822. The National Army Museum have granted me a license to use the scan of the mezzotint picture on Wikipedia, for which privilege I have already paid them £45. They have told me to get back to them if there are problems with uploading the image, but really, given that I have had to pay good money to put this picture on this site, then surely it can be uploaded to my Asgill, 2nd Baronet, page? NAM did say that there should be buried computer info. within the uploaded image which would be "recognised". God knows, I know I don't!--212.120.227.249 16:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe SH is mistaken about the image being public domain because of its age. The original painting certainly would be if it was done from life, but that simple reproductions of public domain -- such as this one -- are also public domain is a matter of U.S. Federal case law, not statutory law. In other words, it's based on a court's interpretation of existing law; it's not something the law says directly. It may not apply in the UK. Consult your local authorities.

However, the basic problem is that we cannot use images "by permission" here. Wikipedia is made available under the GFDL and all content must be either public domain, or available under some license compatible with the GFDL. An image that's licensed "for Wikipedia only" doesn't meet this criterion. When you tagged it "by permission" it was therefore automatically identified for deletion. I'm very sorry it cost you so much money. Perhaps on consideration they'd find the GFDL or one of the compatible Creative Commons licenses acceptable? TCC (talk) (contribs) 17:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I wrote the above without noting your reply. I hadn't realized this was a mezzotint copy. Normally a "slavish copy" isn't eligible for copyright, but I'm not sure if this qualifies since its in a different medium and I don't know how much creative work was required to make the plate by way of interpretation of the original. There's a good chance this is copyrighted, which explains the need to a license. Unfortunately, that doesn't change our situation with regard to what makes an acceptable license on Wikipedia. TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Before deleting the image please allow me time to get back to NAM. A Mr Jones at the Image Library (to whom I spoke on Friday) said they were dealing with Wikipedia all the time and that many of their images are on this site. He said that there were components buried within the image which would be "recognised" and accepted. I do not live in England but I shall have to make another overseas telephone call to NAM to see what can be done about this. After all, NAM has given permission and I have paid them. Personally, all I can say is, what's the problem? Please give me time to sort this out.--212.120.227.249 09:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC) Since NAM have absolutely no problem with me using this picture of Asgill on this site I have reloaded the picture (since it was deleted in spite of being on hold). I would be most grateful if someone would kindly add it to the appropriate site (link created at top of this message). I would like to have both pictures on Asgill's page please - one is already there of him as a young man. Thanks for your help.--Arbil44 12:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I ask for help to do this because I do not know how to do it myself. I am sorry not to be able to do it myself, but I just don't know how to.--212.120.227.249 23:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The data the museum is most likely talking about is the file metadata. The software that wikipedia uses lets you see this data. If you go to the image description page under the heading "Metadata", click show extended details. This will show that the copyright holder is "The National Army Museum Chelsea". The problem is that wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, which means we only include things that are licensed under free content licensed like GFDL and some Creative Commons licenses. Even if the museum did say that you had permission to use this image in wikipedia, we need them to actually license the image under some free content license. So, even though you may get specific permission to use an image in wikipedia, that doesn't mean we can use it. I know it seems weird, but we are trying to build a truly Free (as in speech, not just zero cost) encyclopedia which allows anyone to re-use the work as they need. Permission given this way impedes on that goal. If the museum does actually freely license things though that's great, and it is possible since they say they have dealt with wikipedia before.

On the description page you said you submit it under the creative commons license. Is that what the museum said? You cannot re-license images that you don't own the copyright for. You have also tagged the image as public domain. Please do not mis-tag images. I'll wait on this image and see what the response is. - cohesion 00:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

After talking to some people I think the image probably is public domain, so I'll fix it all as that. Sorry for all the confusion. Thanks for paying for the image and getting it, probably you weren't paying for the permission as much as the actual image. :) - cohesion 00:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If the image is public domain, then how did the museum sell the permission to use it on Wikipedia? Arbil44 should get the money back. –Pomte 01:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It's clearly PD in the US. But even then someone might sell such an image as copyrighted material since the principle involved isn't from statutory law but case law, with a precedent set no higher than the Federal District court level. (But if the reasoning is sound, it may well be acceptable to other courts.) However, the institution in question is in the UK, where the law may be different.

I was in error above. I tried looking up the artist of the mezzotint and came up with someone who died around 1970. On redoing the search I almost certainly had a different artist of the same name. So yes, it's {{PD-art}}. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the help given, but find the legal mumbo jumbo hard to follow! Please don't worry about this mezzotint - NAM are completely relaxed about it. They charged me for the use of it simply because the museum is a charity and has to raise money somehow.

Separately, whoever was kind enough to put the mezzotint at the top of the page has referred to it as the much earlier engraving (which is now located towards the end of the article). This is wrong and I don't know how to get into that section to correct it. The label under the new portrait should read "Mezzotint, after Phillips missing portrait - details below". Thanks again.--212.120.227.249 10:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being such a numbskull! I've done the correction myself now and I appreciate the help given, Thanks.--212.120.227.249 15:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

System Analysis and Design

Question: S & M Consult is an establishment with a workforce of 200 employees. you have been contracted to prepare a pay roll based on the following information. 1. Employees are ranked as CEO, Executives, Senior and Junior. 2. The basic salary is computed on the CEO's salary of $10,000 for all categories of employees. 3. Famale executive and senior employees have their basis salaries computed as 75% of the CEO"s basic. 4. Male executive employees are paid 80%, Male senior employees get 76% and the rest are paid 50% of the CEO's basic salary. 5. With the exception senior and junior male employees who receive a fix amount of $500 and 5% of basic and Female senior and junior employees who receive $500 and 20% of basic as the allowances, the rest receive 40.5% of basic as the allowance. 6. Deductions are calculated on basic salary except welfare which is a fix amount adjusted at the end of every year. 7. Gross is the accumulation of basic and allowances. 8. Net is gross less deductions.

Draw a flowchart to represent this.

We don't do homework. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Question about fair use images

Question: I replaced an old headshot of Broadway actor Stephanie J. Block with a newer one that is clearly identified on her official website as an official headshot. It is available in several resolutions for both electronic and print use. The fair use of this image was disputed, and the image replaced (I didn't realize I might have messages on wikipedia and did not sign on for a long time). The dispute claimed that the photo was of a subject for whom there were other fair use images available.

Why was the photo (SJB Color 300dpi.jpg, probably deleted by now) removed? It, like the original photo, is intended by Ms. Block and her agents to promote her. Surely it is better for the users of this site that the entries--and the graphics that illustrate them--are kept up-to-date.

bardolator 3/31/2007

Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, this means that all our content should be licensed under a free content license. For more information about what that means follow the link above. Some examples of free licenses are GFDL and some Creative Commons licenses. There are some exceptions to this, which are under our fair use guidelines. Our policy only allows such images when "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." Since this person is still alive this does not apply to the subject. If you would like to ask for a freely licensed image feel free to use Wikipedia:Example requests for permission or make up your own. If you have any other questions, or any suggestions to help make this more clear for uploaders let us know. :) - cohesion 04:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Footballers wives tagging

ive just uploaded a few promotional images for characters on footballers wives but i dont know how to tag them. please help...much appreciated. maybe a list of appropriate tags?? thanks alot. -Bree113

These images probably fail our fair use criteria. Please read that policy before uploading any more images. Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, so images that you find online probably aren't usable here. If you have any other questions or suggestions about how this can be more clearly communicated let us know. - cohesion 20:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Air Maldives4.jpg what copyright?

This is my own image. I took it myself from a sticker with my own camera. I edited it myself. What copyright? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mohonu (talk • contribs) 14:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

Even though the image was taken by you, since it's a close up image of a copyrighted logo, it would probably fall under our fair use policy. I have tagged it as a logo, but it still needs a fair use rationale. - cohesion 20:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

question concerning proper copyright tags

I recently placed a picture Image:StaticShockGrounded.jpg in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Static_Shock_episodes because it was decidedly lacking in an informative image. It is a television screen shot and I believed I had included the proper licensing tag under fair use, yet it was flagged lacking such information. In the interest of respecting copyrighted material, I would greatly appreciate someone telling me what is wrong and/or missing so I may be able to correct this problem and know this knowledge for the future. Thank-you for listening to my request. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikian789 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

Originally there was no tag, for technical reasons we need to have an actual tag even if there is text information explaining the status. For example, since this is a fair use image we need that particular tag. How it is tagged now is a good example of how it should be, with both a source and license. Ideally it would also have a Wikipedia:Fair use rationale. - cohesion 20:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Advice Please

This Image,thumb. Is over 50years old. I do not think copyright is an issue in Ireland (Eire). The number of choices offered in the selection, did not cover my needs. Advice/Information would be greatly appreciated, Regards--Domer48 20:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

In order for this to be out of copyright in Ireland, the illustrator would have had to die ten years before he or she created this image. You need to make a Wikipedia:Fair use claim if you need to discuss this image in an article. Jkelly 20:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

To explain further, the relevant Irish law here can be found in section 24 of the 2000 Copyright and Related Rights Act. Works enter the public domain seventy years after the death of the author. Jkelly 18:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

MNOLG II

How can you tell Turaga Nokama to call the Ga-Koro Kohlii Match with the onu-koro team?--Davidcrim 21:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This page is for asking questions about image licensing. I'm not sure what your question is in regards to. - cohesion 00:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Help me I cannot delete even though i try and try

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:15678_london-demo-7-2-2006.jpg

I uploaded this picture but then I get a threatening I must take it down but I cannoT! Help me please to delete, it will not follow my commands.Aleksi Peltola 22:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• I tagged the image with {{db-authora}}, suggesting that it be deleted via speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G7. In the future, you may tag images that you would like to delete with {{db-author}}; that is, type { { d b - a u t h o r } } (without the spaces) on the image description page. Regards, Iamunknown 23:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Y Done - cohesion 23:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Game Show Copyright

I have a new idea for a game show that is based on a movie. The movie of course was based on a book and the same individual holds the copyright to both the book and the movie. But what about the game show? Would the game show be considered to be a dirivative work that would require licensing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.29.164.28 (talk) 00:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

This page is for questions related to media that resides or may soon be uploaded to Wikipedia's servers, not for copyright questions in general. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for legal advice. Please see a lawyer for professional legal help. Seeking help from the internet could end up bad for your idea. MECU≈talk 15:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

By permission

Hello, I'm currently writing an article about Arthur Price, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_price.

I have permission from the company to use inmage from the website in the article, but each time I upload an image i get a 'this imagw may/will be deleted' message/warning.

the image is image:Jeanchristophenovellicutlery.jpg the url of the image is - http://www.arthurprice.com/arthurprice/media/pages/ZNRC2401-2.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dstymon (talk • contribs).

from what i read after uploading, it appears that i cannot use this (or any) image. But surely I can as I have permission from the Arthur Price company. So I'm not sure what to do.

The text of the tag explains the problem pretty clearly. The problem is not one of legality, but of the goal of this project, which is to provide a free content encyclopedia. Images uploaded "by permission for Wikipedia only" are contrary to that goal. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Help please! Batu Lintang camp

I have uploaded an image of two postcards written during WWII from Batu Lintang POW and civilian internee camp, in Kuching, Sarawak, but the page is marked as possibly for speedy deletion. I am unsure of the copyright situation. The authors were my grandparents (both now dead) and I am now the holder of the postcards. They were written on 5 May 1943. I am quite happy for these to be under some sort of public domain/free/fair use licence but none of the categories I looked at seemed to fit as I am not the creator of the works even though I suppose I hold the copyright. That's why I chose the tag I did - it seemed to be one of the few relevant ones that didn't imply authorship. Can anyone help on what an appropriate tag would be? I'm in the UK - don't know if that's relevant or not. The image is Image:Batu_lintang_postcards.jpg. Thanks Jasper33 10:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want to release the license of this image, which it appears that you clearly hold the license to, you need to license it freely for us. When you selected the license during upload, you selected "non-commercial use" or "Wikipedia use only" for which isn't free enough for us. We want to allow others to use our (and yours) work freely too! If you wish to allow this, including commercial use and derivatives, please see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses or Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Public domain and select the license you wish. Most likely, you will choose from PD-self, attribution, or one of the "Creative Commons" licenses (I use CC-BY-SA-2.5 on my images). When you select the license, go back to the image and click "edit this page" and put that license in there. You can then remove the speedy notice and other unrelated items (I put a tag to stop deletion until you select a better license). If you need help, please ask here. Thank you for your contribution. MECU≈talk 15:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that Mecu, but oh, I'm still just a bit confused. Why does Wikipedia give you the option of choosing 'non-commercial' if they don't want you to use it? It seems a bit odd to me! Anyhow - I want to have the image in the public domain and free for all, commercial or otherwise, to use, but none of the tags seemed to 'fit' the criteria of my image: I chose non-commercial as all the other licences seemed to imply authorship of the image. I didn't author or create the postcards. I made the jpeg but not the original postcards, so I was unsure about the copyright (as surely that refers to the author of a work?) - so is it with the Imperial Japanese Govt, who printed the postcards, with my grandparents, who wrote the text on the postcards, or with me as I now hold the postcards? I'm not at all bothered about attribution. Template:Attribution is no good as it says the copyright holder has authorship, which I don't; Template:PD-self says I'm the creator of the work, which I'm not. Help!! Jasper33 16:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I updated the license on Image:Batu lintang postcards.jpg. Please look at it and make sure that is acceptable to you. The questions about why we include things in the dropdown that we don't want people to use is a little weird. Before answering I should say, this case where you have the copyright to something you didn't create isn't that common in terms of our total uploads, and we have a lot of tags that aren't in the dropdown menu. That menu only represents the most common choices. It also represents common choices that are not acceptable. This is because we have found historically that if we don't include the drop down items people are looking for they will pick other things at random. We decided it's better to have things labeled accurately even if they are labeled as problems than have people label things randomly because they can't find the right tag. Thanks for uploading that amazing image by the way! - cohesion 03:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Unsure about which copyright to use? Jamie 17:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC) Jamie Ferrugiaro

Image:Sam2.JPG‎

This is the image I've uploaded recently. It is an completely original drawing done by me. However, I have no idea what copyright to assign to it. To be completly honest, I don't know anything about copyrights.

I know I don't want anyone editing the image at all. Period. I don't particulary want anyone *using* it at all, either, although I'm not sure if that is a possibility.

I have received an message saying I needed to provide what sort of copyright the image has, and seeing as I don't want it deleted, I'd appreciate any help someone could give with choosing this!

Going by what you just said, that you don't want anybody using it or editing it, I would suggest you have the image removed from Wikipedia (place {{db-author}} on the image page). Nearly all images on Wikipedia are licensed so they can be used for commercial and non-commercial purposes and they allow derivative works to be based on them.↔NMajdan•talk 18:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Wikipedia user contributions are required to be licensed in such a way that anyone may modify, use and distribute them for free or for profit. If those conditions are not acceptable to you we have to delete the image. The purpose of Wikipedia is to create and spread free content not host "private" artworks and photos. Use services like deviantART, Flickr or MySpace for things like that instead. --Sherool (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Gmail and Image:DSCN2734small.jpg

I have drawn this image myself. Can I tag it {{GFDL-self}} and use it to describe Gmail logo?--Vaya 19:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

We can use the actual gmail logo under fair use for any discussion of the logo itself. Please see the fair use criteria. The description page mentions that this image should be deleted, and is being used "to resolve some matters concerning copyright". If you have a specific question go ahead and ask. Wikipedia does not give legal advice. - cohesion 03:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Image Help

How do I tag this image? I have to confirm it's copywrite or something, and I have no idea how. I have listed the two websites where it came from, but have no idea how to tag it. It is the official school logo, but I'm pretty sure it is not copywrited as it was made just for Forest Hills Northern. Please help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:FHNHuskyPic.gif - Kmann108 05:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I should use the K12-logo Template, but this image is not copywrited. Is there any other template that has the same effect, but for un-copywrited images? - Kmann108 06:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll go with that for now so as to avoid deletion, but if there is another template that should be used, feel free to suggest it. - Kmann108 06:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:NWO_vs_Vandals.JPG using Wikipedia logo

Is this OK or should it be tagged as a copyright violation?

I know this comes up for discussion a lot, but I'm not clear on what the "official" stance is on it. Thanks. -- Siobhan Hansa 06:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Right now it's a copyright violation. The Wikipedia logo is not licensed under the GFDL, so unless the creator of this image got explicit permission from the foundation neither can this image derived from it. --Sherool (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

And I see someone has already tagged it. Thanks for the help. -- Siobhan Hansa 14:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

And untagged, I left a comment on the talk page of the image. - cohesion 02:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Usability question

I have been uploading quite a few photos and tag them as my own work. Occasionally something in the system seems to go astray and I end up with a "no copyright " message. On returning to the photo to change the copyright properties, it proves impossible to get in and change it. I have to delete what is there, re-upload the file under a different name, etc.

Very very very frustrating and not user friendly. I have an IT degree and feel sorry for genuine contributors who end up in a "geek jungle" trying to make sense of it all, and probably walk away from Wikipedia in total frustration. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MichaelGG (talk • contribs).

All you need to do is click the "edit this page" button at the top and insert the code for the correct template (there's a list of the templates at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags). ShadowHalo 13:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

picture tag

read the pages as best as I could understand. Am working with the person to detirmine that he is good with publication 'free ware'. He sent it to me under solicitation of a E-mail as we both work in the fire service, but upon review, I am contacting him to insure he understands exactly what I am doing with it. The pic is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Chimney_Fire%2CMarlboro_Vt.jpg and my signature is --Surryroger 20:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Good work! Just make sure that he's willing for it to be used for any purpose, including non-educational and commercial. That's the important point. We can decide exactly how it should be tagged based on the details of what he tells you. Once he emails you permission, forward copies of it to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org" (substituting the appropriate symbols, of course) so that Wikipedia has an official record of it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

do i need a tag line?

My name is James Boyles. I just added three photos to Wikipedia. I'm not sure exactly what an image tag is, but i can assure you that I took all of the photos i uploaded to the site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by James bme (talk • contribs) 01:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Are you ok with people re-using the images under a free content license? Do you require attribution when/if people re-use them? Is it important that the re-users also allow for re-use of the derivative work? Let us know, and we can help decide on a license for you. :) - cohesion 02:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Image: Image:IH5WR.5g HR.jpg

Why is it that my image keeps getting deleted? An email was sent to me by the iHome company to give me permission to use that exact picture.

The image is Image:IH5WR.5g HR.jpgRockinfreakapotomi 02:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, which means that our content can be re-used by other people. Since the image in question is something only wikipedia is allowed to use it's not within the goals of the project. A note was left on your talk page User_talk:Rockinfreakapotomi explaining this also, we would very much like any feedback you have regarding that message's clarity. If you have any ideas for improvement let us know :) - cohesion 02:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Photots submitted by James Boyles

It wouldn't bother me at all if people wish to use the photos. The only thing that I require is that I be given credit for the photos i've taken. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by James bme (talk • contribs) 15:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Consider tagging the pictures you took with {{Attribution|User:James bme|James Boyles}} then. ShadowHalo 18:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I did attribute them. I mentioned that I took the pictures. If you feel I should reword it then i will, but i think this is unnecessary.

                                                                                               James

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by James bme (talk • contribs) 19:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

You need to also use one of the templates listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags so that people know the conditions under which they can use your work. ShadowHalo 19:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm attributing them as you asked, however, i do not understand the (shadowhalo) part of your reply.

You need to use one of the templates listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Putting a note such as "Attribution: James Boyles" makes sure that Wikipedia is attributing you correctly, but keep in mind that many other sites reuse Wikipedia's content and need to know the conditions under which they can use your work. By copying {{Attribution|User:James bme|James Boyles}} or one of the other licenses at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags, other sites will know what conditions there are and out bots will be able to recognize the license. ShadowHalo 19:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I am asking for assistance on creating the the templates needed for the images i am trying to upload to your site. I thought all i had to do was just type that the attribution is from me. I have sent some of the pics twice, needless to say, i'm getting agravated having to keep going back & making corrections.

You know that i created the images, just please assist me. I would like everyone to be able to see (& if applicable, use) these pics.

James —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.167.228.203 (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

I've copied in the code for you. If you would like to license any future pictures similarly, please make sure to use that same code so that you do not get more {{Image copyright}} notifications. ShadowHalo 00:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I am glad that you copied the code for me, but when should i expect to see the pics (four in all) on the site?

Also, i am not trying to occupy so much of your time, but this is the first time i've tried to put images on any site. What is this code you're refering to? 

Wikipedia is a wiki, so the images won't appear on any articles until you add them to an article. If you need help adding an image to an article, there is a picture tutorial. ShadowHalo 04:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Question about a work of art that is a photograph of an outdoor sculpture in the U.S.

100px|thumb|Image #1 100px|thumb|Image #2 Hello. I have read the rules on photographs of outdoor sculptures on the United States, and agreed with a Commons admin who decided to delete a violation at Image #1. I would like to be sure that I understand this correctly both for now and for the future. Is it true that A) The only case in which a photo of a U.S. sculpture still in copyright can be uploaded under a free license (or can be put into the public domain by the photographer) is when the photograph itself is a work of art and itself copyrightable? Also B) I believe there are conditions under which a photograph of a U.S. artwork (including sculptures) can be uploaded to Wikipedia and not to the Commons? As Tom Lehrer would have said, I have a modest example for you. Image #2 is among the rarest of rare things in the art world. Both Image #1 and Image #2 are sculptures located in the same outdoor publicly accessible sculpture garden in the U.S. The important difference between the two images is that Image #1 is a snapshot or photograph intended to show what the sculpture looks like, and Image #2 brings an entirely new idea to life. Can you confirm for me please that the photographer held copyright on #2, and when she chose to license her work under Creative Commons "cc-by-2.0" the image of the sculpture became uploadable? Pardon, Image #1 will turn into a red link shortly. Thank you for your help. -Susanlesch 19:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

A picture of a copyrighted U.S. sculpture is also under copyright by the artist who made the sculpture, so it cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. However, if there is an article about the sculpture, a low resolution picture of the sculpture can be used on the English Wikipedia if it meets our fair use criteria. ShadowHalo 20:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you, ShadowHalo. I have 1) replaced Image #2 with a slightly smaller (lower resolution) image, 2) added a copyright notice including date and the sculptor's name on the image description page, 3) added fairusein5 for the existing articles in which the image belongs, and 4) removed a link to the photo from a page that some might deem "decoration" and because there is no "fairusein6". Does Wikipedia require a separate article named Two-Way Mirror Punched Steel Hedge Labyrinth (one article apiece for every work of art by every artist whose work is in copyright)? Can you or someone here confirm that the correct steps have been taken? Thank you in advance and best wishes. -Susanlesch 21:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It looks like Image:Family-in-a-box-Minneapolis.jpg is being used in Dan Graham and Arts in Minneapolis, Minnesota. It looks like it does meet the fair use criteria in Arts in Minneapolis, Minnesota since there is discussion of the Minneapolis Sculpture Garden. Ironically enough, I don't think it meets the criteria for use in Dan Graham though. The article doesn't have any discussion of his work, so it really doesn't illustrate any discussion in the article. If you know enough about him, would you be able to add some discussion of his work to the article? ShadowHalo 21:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. It probably won't pass an art history test but I will try to add something this week. The solution in this thread makes sense. Thank you again for your help. -Susanlesch 22:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Creative Commons Specification Question

The Hamilton, Ontario request at WP:IFU has requested I upload an image which is headed with the following words "I would like this picture uploaded to wikipedia, released by me under a Creative Commons licence." on the original image page found here. Do you think I should upload the image even thought the website didn't specify under what Creative Commons license the image was released?--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 23:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hm, is there any way to display the image on Photobucket with comments from the Photobucket uploader (a la Flickr or Youtube)? That way we could verify that the image was indeed taken by the requester. ShadowHalo 00:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you got it wrong. The requester has already verified the image is his here because he put "I would like this picture uploaded to wikipedia, released by me under a Creative Commons licence." above the picture. The question is "Do you think I should upload the image even thought the website (he) didn't specify under what Creative Commons license the image was released?".--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 00:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Only two of the CC licences are usable here, and there is no indication that one of those was meant on the geocities page. We can’t use the image without a clarification from the photographer, unfortunately. —xyzzy_n 00:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyright acceptable to Wikipedia?

I would like to use images from [6] which encourages fair use (see bottom of page). The actual license is "Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike Creative Commons License" at [7]. Can you please give me guidance as to whether these images (& this licence) can be uploaded to Commons? GrahamBould 11:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia cannot make use of non-commercial images, and the images do not appear to meet our fair use criteria. ShadowHalo 11:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleting an uploaded image

This may seem elementary, but how do I delete an image after I uploaded it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bstrutz (talk • contribs) 19:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Deleting an uploaded image

This may seem elementary, but how do I delete an image after I uploaded it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bstrutz (talk • contribs) 19:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Just place the following tag on the image: {{db-self}}. An administrator will come along and delete it shortly thereafter.↔NMajdan•talk 19:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

How I attach an image tag after I've already uploaded the image?

I uploaded an image and then I got the message saying I needed to attach a tag to it, but I can't figure out how to attach a tag afterwards?

Here's the image: Image:Paramore2.JPG —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omg starburst (talk • contribs) 01:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

First you need to find how the image is licensed. Did you find this image on the web? If so, it is probably copyrighted, and not usable in wikipedia. The upload page itself explains this reasoning. If the image is licensed in some other way please update this question and we will help decide on the correct tag. - cohesion 00:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the page after Edit This Page

That you're supposed to click on to attach a tag?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omg starburst (talk • contribs) 01:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Answer in previous section. - cohesion 00:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

How to use GNU free document copyright on a document

So i got to the GNU website and got to the free document copyright link. I clicked on the plaintext format but all it gave was a big article about rules and violations and how to use it. I'm not quite sure i'm doing the right thing here, I got the signature signed but i cant see the file from another computer after i save it. Also, where are you supposed to put the little copyright paragraph from GNU when it says to put it after the titlepage? Eisenhower 02:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This page is for questions regarding media licensing issues for media stored on the wikipedia servers. If your question is related to that please restate it with more context so that we may better help you. - cohesion 01:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

When I have images from our copyright books

When I have images from our copyright books, what to select in the copyright menu. The copyright of the book is with us, and the images are taken from there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vagyoga (talk • contribs) 04:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

If you own the copyright for images that you would like to add to wikipedia you must license the images under a free content license. GFDL and some of the Creative Commons licenses are the most commonly used. These licenses do allow for other people to reproduce the images for commercial use. If that is acceptable, please look at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses. If you need any help selecting one, simply update this question with your requirements and someone will let you know which one is appropriate. - cohesion 01:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

photos in articles

the whole point of putting photos on the site is so that they are in the articles. I'll try to make sense of the info that helps you with this,however, if i have trouble with it, would someone please assist me with putting the pics i uploaded in the appropriate articles?

james_bme —The preceding unsigned comment was added by James bme (talk • contribs) 05:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Yes, someone will be glad to help. In the meantime Wikipedia:Images is fairly helpful with the image syntax. You may find that people will include your images without you even knowing. At the bottom of the image description page there is a section called "File links" which will show on what pages the image is used. :) - cohesion 01:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Which tag to use?

I don't know what tag to use. Can somebody else tag it for me? Image:MathShorthandChars.GIF —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Roc 1217 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

If it's your own creation just tag it with {{PD-self}} or something. That said I would suggest just getting the image deleted and create a "wikitable" instead like so:

→	Alt 26
↔	Alt 29

That way it can be edited and tweaked along with the article. --Sherool (talk) 11:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree a table is better than the image. MECU≈talk 18:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Image Tag

Im very bad with computers...How can I add a tag to my tallk page picture? --Gilisa 13:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia allows reuse of its content, you'll need to release it into the public domain (no rights reserved) or under a free license. To do this, click "edit this page" at the top of the image page and add the free license of your choice from Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. ShadowHalo 13:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Family photo

Hi,

I have family photos of my great aunt, image:Gracesepia.jpg. She is Grace Marguerite Hay Drummond-Hay. These photos have been inherited by me. What is the appropriate licensing tag?

Thanks MrMarmite 20:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

When was the photo taken and in what country?Geni 22:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

About 1912 in the UK MrMarmite 04:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

then the copyright would rest with whoever took the photo (or their desendants) unless they died before 1937. Do you know who that is?Geni 10:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes..it was taken by my great grand father who died 15 Oct 1935 MrMarmite 17:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

So what tag should I use? MrMarmite 13:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd go with {{PD-old-70}}. ShadowHalo 13:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Done, thanks for your help MrMarmite 07:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Photo in Newspaper

I've used this picture Image:StJBasilica.jpg from a newspaper (also available online). Is it subject to copyright or is it in the public domain? I can't seem to find any information regarding pictures from newspapers. In addition, it is not the original picture, but has been edited by myself. Does this make it an "original" creation then? Please respond on my talk page and thank you in advance for your help. --Matthew Cadrin 21:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

response on talk page. - cohesion 01:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

unreasonably strict image policy.

I obtained permission from image owner and uploaded it. Way too much overhead with this tag nonsense. What tag will get you to leave these types of images alone? --Gnatdroid 03:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a drop-down menu when one uploads an image, that allows one to select the proper copyright and license statement. Wikipedia:Copyrights discusses copyright and licensing on the project; if you didn't see the option you were looking for in the menu, we may not be able to use the image. "Permission from the copyright holder", for instance, is not an acceptable statement of licensing for us. Jkelly 04:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but of course it should be...--76.187.182.72 15:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

not really since it does not allow for reuse.Geni 17:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyrighting photos for Misumi, Shimane page

I tried to go in and tag the photos but it wouldn't let me. My name is Kenneth Griggs and I took all the pictures. Let me know what I have to do. krgriggs@gmail.com

Do you know how to get to your photos? Or did you sign in?, and include your signature next time you ask. Eisenhower 17:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible problem with Image:Nice treaty.jpg

{{EU image}} says

This image must have an accompanying "fair use" tag and criteria, or it may be deleted.

Above mentioned image has the EU image tag, but does not have nether the fair use rationale nor the tag. Is it still acceptable? --Branislav Jovanovic 16:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

no.Geni 17:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Question about PD-old and Smithsonian

Hello. This photo of an individual who lived from 1820?-1863 taken by A. Zeno Shindler is credited to the Smithsonian via a U.S. National Parks Service history page. May I upload it to the commons as PD-old (life of the author plus 70 years), or does the Smithsonian {{Smithsonian}} claim some other copyright? Thank you. -Susanlesch 17:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

They may claim it but Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. indicates such claims lack validity.Geni 17:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Correction, Shindler is the collector. McClees or Vannerson is the photographer. I found a negative in the National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Museum Support Center # BAE GN 03505B 06587500. http://siris-archives.si.edu/ does have a copyright claim so I guess I will refrain. -Susanlesch 18:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're sure about the age of the author and it is PD based on that it's fine. A lot of museums/websites have blanket copyright claims that aren't actually tenable. It's alright to use an image, even if some website incorrectly claims copyright, if you have researched it, like it appears you have. The supreme court decision Geni links is very important also. People claim copyright a lot for 2d copies of PD works, but that is invalidated by the decision. - cohesion 18:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Not supream court. So far no museam or gallery has been stupid enough to take it to the supream court since that would remove any posible grey area for them to try and sit in (they were not exactly happy the case got as far as it did). The cloest supream court ruleing is Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service which isn't very close but does support the principle that some level of creativty is required in order for something to qualify for copyright under US law.Geni 23:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I always thought it was. Learn something new everyday :) - cohesion 01:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Something down the line will sway me one way or the other. Thanks again for your help. -Susanlesch 01:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

A clear example of copyfraud. Clearly PD-old. Kjetil r 00:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

CONFUSED

If I upload an image that is a custom-made computer generated image, wha tag does it get? please help! Thanx FrogTape 22:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are the creator and copyright holder of the image you are free to choose any of the acceptable free content licenses you want, depending on how you choose to license your work to wikipedia. This section of the copyright tag page explains the choices. If you have any questions about the specific licenses let us know. The image you have uploaded Image:FrogTapeindustries logo.png is being used under a fair use claim. There are a number of policies regarding user created fair use, fair use images in userspace etc. The short version is that you really need to license it under one of the above licenses to keep it in the way you're using it now. If you want to claim fair use the image has to follow these additional criteria. - cohesion 23:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank You!FrogTape 23:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Question about image Image:Letterpaper1.jpg

Please allow me an explanation about this image. I did not acquire a new image from elsewhere. All I did was take the previous image, (Letterpaper.jpg) and make changes to it on my own. I did this to correct a glaring error in the labelled dimensions.

The previous image (i.e., Letterpaper.jpg) was submitted by user Cpicon92. I decided that all I needed to do was to make some simple changes to the image which Cpicon92 submitted. The same image tags which applied to Cpicon92's image would also apply to my image (Letterpaper1.jpg), which is essentially his/her image with my alterations.

The dimensions were transposed. In the previous image, the length was indicated as 8.5 inches, and the width as 11 inches, an obvious error. I fixed this. Hope this makes sense. Pacific1982 02:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This isn't fair use. The original image is licensed under the GFDL, so this one is as well as long as you abide by the terms of the license. Part of doing that is that you must credit the original author. This could have been done automatically via the image history if you had simply uploaded your corrected version to the same name as the original. You wouldn't have to worry about tagging it then either. I suggest you do that, and then mark this new image {{db-author}}. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: IMAGE

What if I made it? Also, I asked permission from the site. www.michaelrosenbaum.com What do I do? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hastingsitech (talk • contribs) 07:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

I'm assuming the images you're talking about are Image:Kristin k.jpg and Image:MichaelRosenbaumCustom.jpg. Making the image yourself and getting permission to use them are two very different things. We're trying to accurately label the images, not just appease some rule set. Please update this question with the actual information and someone will be glad to help. - cohesion 20:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Image prob.

I took this photo by my self Image:Taher_on_the_road.jpg. I received a license problem regarding it. And failed to understand what I should do...

What would be my next step?--T010t 12:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you...

No problem, since you are the copyright holder you can choose which free content license you would like to use for wikipedia. This page includes the acceptable free content licenses that we can use on wikipedia. They are not all the same in terms of what they require re-users to do, so if you have any questions about particular ones don't hesitate to come back and ask :) - cohesion 20:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Use of text-only logos: fair use?

In cases where a logo is used that has no graphical elements except for the name of the organization (i.e. it's just black text on a white background), and is not commented on by the article, is it considered fair use of the image? I would think that in such circumstances the logo would be replaceable by text. As an example (although it would impact many other articles), consider the image Image:Newsboyslogo.png and its use in the article Newsboys. Is this fair use, or should it be replaced by text? --Ybbor^TalkSurvey! 13:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that a logo's font, letter spacing, and other layout can be trademarked, and so is treated as an item of specific information, in and of itself. So a fair use image of a logo conveys information that could not be conveyed with plaintext (that information being the layout of the logo). Treat text-only logos the way you would treat any other logo. — coelacan — 02:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use image of a living person tag

Hi I have uploaded a number of images which I want to tag as Fair use images of living persons, like in the upload drop down selection box. I cant find the correct tag - can someone advise? Thanks. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 23:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

{{rfu}} is the correct tag. Jkelly 23:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Peaches-PETAPlakat.jpg

Is current usage of this event poster as a replacement for image in contrast with fair use rationale on the {{eventposter}} tag? --Branislav Jovanovic 06:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No it is not. First, the poster doesn't look like it's advertising an event, but rather that the person is endorsing the position it advocates. Second, even if it did advertise an event, it needs to be placed in an article about the event itself and not merely to provide an image of the person depicted on it. (For the same reason, we cannot use a baseball card for an illustration in an article about a baseball player unless there's something remarkable about the card that's mentioned.) Third, the tag itself is insufficient rationale anyway, which must be supplied in the text of the image description. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, it appears that PETA releases their images as PD - see the various images in the article, complete with OTRS tickets (e.g. Image:TurlingtonPETA.jpg). --Davepape 01:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Two Images From A Company Website

I have two images that I got from the Orvis website. One is their logo right from their oficial siteand the other is an image of their flagship store right from here. How do I know if these images are able to be used? I want to include them in the article I am writing about The Orvis Company (the current one is deprecated and uninformative).

--Mwflyfisher 18:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that there is a note at the bottom of http://www.orvis.com/ that the website content is copyrighted. Thus, unless you have a note that the images are licensed under a free license, they are unlicensed and "fair use". Image:Orvis-logo.jpg is a logo so just tag the image with {{logo}}. Image:Orvis flagship store.jpg, however, is replaceable by a freely-licensed photograph, no? That is, you or I could go to Orvis's flagship store and take a photograph of it. If that is the case, though it is unlicensed, it does not qualify for fair use under Wikipedia's fair use policy. If you need some help tagging an image, just look down the page a few sections under the section titled "Change Copyright Tag" (link). Best, Iamunknown 01:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have received permission from Orvis to use photos on their website on their Wikipedia article that I am compiling. What copyright tag should I be using for that scenario? I tried uploading a new version of their logo that they sent to me and it keeps coming up as a red x. Image:Orvis-co-logo.jpg --Mwflyfisher 18:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Permission to use on Wikipedia isn't good enough. We want permission for anyone to use for any reason, including commercial. Unless you follow the directions at WP:COPYREQ and they state a specific free license, such as the GFDL or a CC license, then we can't use it. The logo of course we can use. The problem may be that they sent you a gif or png but you uploaded it under jpg? MECU≈talk 14:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok they agreed that anyone can use the images from their website on Wikipedia provided that the links point to and give credit to them. How do I "submit" their agreement so that Wikipedia knows I am using the free licensed images? I received the file as a jpg and I even tried opening the file and saving it as a new one and it still didn't work. ??? I'll keep trying.--Mwflyfisher 17:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I still don't think they've agreed to license the image freely enough. When you say "anyone can use ... on Wikipedia"... that doesn't mean anyone can use off Wikipedia, which is something we want as well. And what do they mean "links point to" them? In the article that is expressly forbidden. Credit and a link to their website on the image description page is perfectly acceptable however. You should just save the image as they sent it to you and upload it from there. I marked the image you had uploaded stating it was a "damaged image". Please don't freak out if it gets deleted, you can just reupload the image and hopefully get it to work this time. MECU≈talk 18:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

adding a copyright tag to an image

Im not sure which copyright tag to choose as the tag on the images ive uploaded. The people who copyrighted/took the photos have given me their permission to use them but im not sure what tag to add.

This is my first attempt at a Wikipedia page and I dont want the photos to be deleted --Purplepickledonions 20:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Answered at user's talk page. --Iamunknown 01:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"Public domain" on Image:Beovoz2.jpg

Image description page says Public domain rationale on description page is incorrect - nowhere is it said that railway table is public domain. And it doesn't list it's source, so you couldn't even be sure its correct. How should it be tagged? --Branislav Jovanovic 20:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

From the looks of it, it should be tagged with {{nsd}}. ShadowHalo 20:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Jean DeFlorette and Manon of the Springs copyright information

I am interested in creating a new adaptation of Jean DeFlorette and Manon of the Spring. I can't seem to find current owners (if indeed there are any65.1.104.47 20:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)) of copyrights to this work. I believe that the book, written by Pagnol, is within the public domain. And I know that the screenwriters for the motion picture, of course, own rights to that adaptation. But if I wanted to "start from scratch" from the book itself, where would I begin? Also.... My understanding of the storyline of the novel originated in a folk tale - am I correct?

Can someone PLEASE point me in the right direction?

Thank you,

probably owned by the estate of Marcel Pagnol.Geni 21:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Change Copyright Tag

How do I change a copyright tag?FrogTape 23:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a quick run-down:

1. Go to the "image description page" of the image you whose tag you want to change which should be at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ImageNameHere.ext (where ImageNameHere is the name of your image and ext is jpg, gif, etc.)
2. Click "edit this page" at the top of your internet browser
3. Type {{TagName}} where TagName is the name of the appropriate copyright tag (you can find a list of those at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags)
4. Click "Save page"

And you are done! --Iamunknown 01:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

FairUse claimed on images

Hello, I've noticed a user who has uploaded a great deal of copyright material. Mostly the subjects are living people and contemporary places/events/items which still existance. The images are being used as portraits although no case is made for why the copyrighted images cannot be replaced with free ones. In most cases the copyright is not credited, despite the images being taken from various websites.

Is this actually possible when the people in question are still alive and active in public life, the places still exist, the events still take place, and the items still commonly appear in public? Is there an easy way to have them all reported as copyvios and encourage their replacement with free images?

People: Image:Ringland Ulster photo.jpg Image:DavidHolmes.jpg Image:Hinds.jpg Image:Susan Lynch.jpg Image:Willard Grant Conspiracy.jpg Image:James Lavelle.jpg Image:Wainwrights and Thompson.jpg Image:Gerald Dawe.jpg Image:Nuala McKeever.jpg Image:Norman Whiteside.jpg Image:Oscar Pistorius2.jpg Image:Stifflittlefingers.jpg (article contains free image of band) Image:Heaney.jpg Image:Dave McAuley.jpg

Events/Places/Items: Image:Lammas Fair.jpg Image:Moat Park, Dundonald.jpg Image:Lambeg Drum.jpg Image:QFT, Belfast.jpg Image:Rath.jpg Image:Dunluce Castle2.jpg Image:Antrim Coast Road2.jpg Image:Full Moon Party March 2003.jpg

Thank you. YCV2007 14:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Pictures of living people or buildings that still exist nearly never meet the fair use criteria. These images should be tagged with {{subst:rfu}}. ShadowHalo 14:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming my suspicions. YCV2007 14:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Unlikely public domain claim on Image:Ismet Mujezinovic Ustanak.jpg

The public domain reason given (This image is freely available on the internet from various sources in the public domain. The same image was taken in the former (socialist) Yugoslavia and as such does not enjoy any copyright protection) is plain wrong - just because country was socialist, that does not mean it didn't recognize copyright; and btw, it did. What is the proper procedure for clearing up the copyright status of this image? --Branislav Jovanovic 20:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd tag it with {{nsd}} since there's no source provided to back up any of these claims. ShadowHalo 20:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Image Lisencing

I Added A couple of new pictures of products such as cds, drink packs, etc.. I bought these things and there are articles on wiki about them. I put them under public domain because I took these pictures myself and cut them down to appraprite sizes. Is this the right thing to do? I mean, I created these pictures of copyright things but the fact still remains, I created them. A quick response will very much appreciated. Can the response go to my talk page please. Here are the pics I was talking about: Quench Aid B'day Double Disc Purified CD Digicel Top-Up--Mikey 22:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I have replied at the user's talk page. MECU≈talk 18:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Images of Wikipedians, Copyright?

I have a general question... are non-commercial/derivative copyrights OK for images of Wikipedians for use on their userpage? I ask because I am considering doing so (putting a face with a name allows people to remember there is a human on the other end of the internet), but I have reservations about doing an open or free license on an image of myself. Clarification on this would be great, reply on talk page. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 02:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is first and foremost a free encyclopedia and does not devote its resources to hosting media strictly for use in userspace, which is ancillary to the project's goals. If anything, policy for userspace is more restrictive than in main space -- fair use images are not allowed there. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, which has been reverted throught wikipedia that "We're not a social networking site"... and this should be painfully clear to everyone. However, the encyclopeida is advanced by users, who have to collaborate on projects. Knowing something about whom your working with makes things much easier, which is why we have userpages and usertalk pages. I might also add that please don't give a response that makes people feel belittled and stupid, although not clearly your intent, but that is how it has come across. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 00:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. To clarify a little more: We do tend to permit users an image to put on their userspace to show what they look like, but it must be freely licensed. If you don't want to license the image freely, you could put it on a site like http://www.flickr.com and link to it from Wikipedia with something like: "Click here to see a picture of me" and set the license at flickr to your desires. They'll have to click to see it, but that's the best option I think you'll have. MECU≈talk 17:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If I was going to do that I would simply use one of my servers. Thanks for the advice though. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 00:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Various Simpsons' character illustrations

Various images of characters from The Simpsons (such as Image:Santa's Little Helper.gif or Image:Jackie.gif; probably most of the images from Category:The Simpsons Character Drawings) are tagged as {{Character-artwork}} or {{promophoto}} (some even as {{tv-screenshot}}, like Image:Rainier.jpg, which doesn't look like it is a screenshot), but no source for the images is provided (on a glance, only on three images). Is the source of images here unnecessary or is maybe the ©2000 TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. line enough? --Branislav Jovanovic 08:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think stating the copyright holder, in this case, is acceptable. It doesn't matter if we got it from "Joe's Super cool Simpsons Fansite" when it really belongs to Fox. But, really, a source should always be given because it's nice to know we at least got it from Joe's... Also, if the license doesn't seem to fit, like you say (and I agree) on the Rainier image, be BOLD! and correct it to a more appropriate license. As long as you're sure what you're doing is the right thing, nothing else matters. MECU≈talk 17:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Branislav Jovanovic, I think that a source is absolutely necessary but have been thwarted in attempts to suggest so. If the images are from http://www.thesimpsons.com/, which is, I strongly suspect due to an MD5 hash intersection, the origin of at least one image. According to the Fox.com Terms of Use, which covers thesimpsons.com:

• All materials contained in this Site are protected by international trademark and copyright laws and must only be used for personal, non-commercial purposes....
• The reproduction, duplication, distribution (including by way of email, facsimile or other electronic means), publication, modification, copying or transmission of material from this Site is strictly prohibited unless you have obtained the prior written consent of FOX or unless it is expressly permitted by this Site.
• The material covered by this prohibition includes, without limitation, any text, graphics, logos, photographs, audio or video material or stills from audiovisual material available on this Site.
• Requests for permission to reproduce or distribute materials found on this Site can be made by contacting FOX in writing at terms AT fox DOT com.

Fox.com makes profit by licensing promotaional material through their website and they expressly forbid any content on any of their sites, including thesimpsons.com, from being used for such promotional purposes. If the material meets the Wikipedia:Fair use criteria then we may, without regard to the Terms of Use, use the material, but we must realize that what we are doing is expressly forbidden by Fox.com and we must make note in the fair use rationale. In doing so, we insure that we are providing downstream users the necessary information to judge whether their use of any particular unlicensed image is a fair use or not. Unfortunately we are shortchanging downstream users and remaining ignorant regarding the source of and usage intent of the copyright owner for these images. Regards, Iamunknown 19:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Image upload

I have tried to upload the image under the "owner gave me the copyright for wikipedia" and so on. I upload the image under that and it saysto do it in fair use and contact the owner for free lisence (alredy did this). What do I do with the fair use part? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aotten (talk • contribs) 16:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

If you've contacted the owner for a free license, please wait until you hear back from them before going the fair use route. If, after several weeks or months you don't hear anything, you can then go through the fair use route. I hope you followed the directions at WP:COPYREQ as well. If not, please look it over and make sure when they reply they state explicitly what license they want and then forward that to the email address on that page. Then upload the image and state permission obtained and forwarded to Wikipedia and awaiting OTRS ticket/approval. If you need help with the fair use route, please ask at that time. Good luck! MECU≈talk 17:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"warning from Wiki" re: copyright

If Wikipedia weren't so literalized in it's ability to communicate, I would not be having to take my time for this. I have a copyright release from the owner of the image of Ingemar Johansson. It is released into the gpl with only a "request" that attribution go with it. As there are no images of Mr. Johansson in the wiki article about him, what gives? If there were a place at Wiki to have forwarded the copyright release, I would have sent it in the FIRST PLACE.

Humpphhh? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mark Preston (talk • contribs) 17:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

There is a place. See WP:COPYREQ for the email address to send the email to. Once they receive and process it, they will place a note on the image page saying permission confirmed per email with an OTRS ticket number. You might want to put on the image page until then that email permission was obtained and sent in and is awaiting OTRS ticket number. MECU≈talk 17:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Found it on a website

it would be helpfull if this pages were also avaiable in other languages...like portuguese (my native language).

My question is this: I uploaded a picture of an actor to wikipedia and I quoted the source of the image; however, i dont know who has the rights over that same picture (and honestly I have no idea if the site from where i took it is the one who owns it), so I am unable to say anything about the copyright of the item in debate.

Can you help me? Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Angelus boy (talk • contribs).

This must be the image: Image:HeathLedger.jpg. We must assume a copyright and that all rights are reserved unless we have a positive statement from the source that the image is available under a free license. And for living people, we can't make a very good case for fair use. I'm sorry, but the image is going to have to be deleted. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, for answers in Portuguese try the Portuguese helpdesk at the Commons. It's not specific to this subject, but it looks as if they do address this subject there. You also might want to poke around at the Portuguese Wikipedia and see if a similar page can be accessed from there. If not, try contacting the admins there and float the idea to them. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Picture Copyright

I'm trying to conclude that I found an image I uploaded on imageshack but wikipedia still says I have a bad confirmed copyright. What do I need to do to confirm it's copyright?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ilirik666 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

You need to identify the copyright holder and tag with an appropriate license, or as fair use with accompanying rationale. Images downloaded from a website are almost always copyrighted to someone else, and this one plainly is. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"Such and such" people images

What is the license for compound images like Image:Srbs_croatia.JPG? Specifically, are fair use images valid for this usage or not? --Branislav Jovanovic 12:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images should not be composited. We do not have any license to use these images, so we cannot make derivative images based on them. It has been nominated for deletion. - cohesion 03:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete these please

I loaded two Microsoft XP images - didn't understand the rules - new to this.

• Image:Darkblue hills.jpg
• Image:Sunset orange.jpg

Can someone please delete them? (Mark4679 18:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC))

Done. Jkelly 18:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:winters.jpg - thanks...this one too! (Mark's Dad)

Why does Sherool keep deleting my uploaded photos? I took them myself & I gave myself permission to use them.

Same for Image:AlexSolis.jpg, Image:AJCroce.jpg, Image:ActorLeslieJordan.jpg, Image:AlisonWaite.jpg, Image:DaveWinfield.jpg, Image:DonalLogue.jpg, Image:DonnyOsmond.jpg, Image:GESmith.jpg, Image:GetBackLoretta.jpg, Image:FrankieJ.jpg, Image:JoanCollins.jpg, Image:JudgeJoeBrown.jpg, Image:JoeTheismannRings.jpg, Image:JoeyPearson.jpg, Image:JohnButler.jpg, Image:JubileeDancers.jpg, Image:JulieKrone.jpg, Image:KendraTodd.jpg, Image:LeslieJordan.jpg, Image:LornaLuft.jpg --Sherool (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philkon (talk • contribs)

You gave yourself permission, but you didn't state how others have permission. They must be free for everyone to use. Please selected an appropriate free license at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses. I recommend CC-BY-SA-2.5. Also, you should upload these free image to Commons so that many more can use them. MECU≈talk 23:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)