Wikipedia talk:File copyright tags/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11


I've created a new tag {{GeoGratis}} and just wanted to let the "copyright tag community" to know, as I am somewhat new to this and the tag may need to be improved. Thanks. (EhJJ)TALK 20:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

How is picture uploaded to Commons linked to here?

OK, so I uploaded a photo with appropriate GFDL copyright info to Wiki Commons. I'd like to link to it in Wikipedia. Would someone say how that is done?Skywriter (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You add it by typing the following: [[File:Example.jpg]]. There are also additional tags you can add, and most images use the following code: [[File:Example.jpg|thumb|right|Caption text]] As long we no identically named picture exists at Wikipedia, the image from Commons will be used. (EhJJ)TALK 14:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
You had the code right but the file name has to be exactly the same (you were missing a space and an "r"). I've fixed it for you. (EhJJ)TALK 14:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks.Skywriter (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Deprecating the GFDL-1.2-only templates on the English Wikipedia

As was recently done on the German Wikipedia, I have proposed deprecating future use of the GFDL-1.2-only templates here as well. Please join the discussion. Kaldari (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Montenegrin law

Why Montenegro's images still use copyright law of Serbia and Montenegro, when Montenegro got it's law on 1st April 2007? I am talking about this:

Rave92 (talk) 09:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Mistagged PD-Old and PD-US images

It appears that the vast majority of {{PD-Old}} and {{PD-US}} photographs are mistagged, due to a lack of information about who created a photograph or when it was first published. I'm not sure whether these should be deleted or not, and I've opened an RFC here. Opinions and ideas would be most welcome -- just go to the RFC and comment there. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

New template: {{AGPL-3}}

I've created a new template for the GNU Affero General Public License, version 3. It's a modified version of {{GPL}} with the wording changed to reflect the Affero license. There's not many AGPL screenshots on Wikipedia right now, but I figured it would be good to err on the safe side by have a correct license on these images. Radiant chains (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

UK Parliamentary copyright

There are a lot of good images on Flickr licensed under Parliamentary copyright, which is broadly identical to CC BY-NC-ND. I think it deserves a template. --Tom Edwards (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, right, we don't like NC. In which case I change my suggestion to a new fair use template based on Template:Non-free Crown copyright. --Tom Edwards (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Did it myself. Things are never as complex as they seem. :-) --Tom Edwards (talk) 10:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Tag for derived images?

Is there a tag for "This image is derived from another image already in Wikipedia or Commons?" There should be some convenient way to express that. For mechanical engineering subjects, it's often useful to take a small section from some existing image and enhance it to make some part clear. That's hard to express in the current system. --John Nagle (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

On Commons, there's Commons:Template:Extracted from. Is that what you're looking for? howcheng {chat} 04:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright abused

A short while ago the Fortnightly Drum published Lord McSnook's (Scottish) coat of arms as shown on wikicommons next to the name of McSnook's younger brother. Wrong helm, etc. Presumably they would say "illustrative purposes only" "fair use" "gfdl" etc. How do we restrict the licence so they can't misappropriate it aqain like this? (talk) 01:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Either it's fair use, in which case no license change can prevent them from using the image, or it's not fair use, and the current license just needs to be enforced by the copyright holder. --Carnildo (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Iranian copyrights in the United States

According to Iran and copyright issues works originating from Iran hold no copyright in the United States. Is there a copyright tag that can be used for such situations? – Zntrip 19:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not accurate. That only applies to published works. The U.S. copyright system covers unpublished works regardless of their origin. TJRC (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I've updated Iran and copyright issues in accordance with my comment above. TJRC (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, would an image tag not be in order for images originating from Iran? – Zntrip 22:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Wikipedia policy view, as expressed in WP:Non-U.S. copyrights, seems to be to act as though foreign law applies, even if it does not: The Wikimedia Foundation is based in the United States and accordingly governed by United States copyright law. Regardless, according to Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, Wikipedia contributors should respect the copyright law of other nations, even if these do not have official copyright relations with the United States. I think that's pretty silly myself (my own view is that part of those foreign countries' laws is that they've opted not to sign up for international laws in the form of treaties to have works originating in their country protected; so "respecting their laws" includes not treating uncopyrighted works as copyrighted); but that's just me. Jimbo sent an email once, so Wikipedia denies itself completely legal use of uncopyrighted works from those countries. So I don't know what a tag would buy you here. TJRC (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I would like to thank you for answering all of my questions. Additionally, I found that Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights says, "While Wikipedia prefers content which is free anywhere in the world it accepts content which is free in the United States even if it may be under copyright in some other countries." The issue with Iranian copyrights might be settled, but I think it should be spelled out somewhere, perhaps even with a image tag. My questions stem from this image. Considering its from an Iranian government source, it is probably in the public domain there, regardless it is not copyrighted in the United States, and I think there should be some mention of that in its description. – Zntrip 00:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Truth is, I know a lot more about real copyright law than I do about Wikipedia's policies about and interpretations of it. You found an interesting passage, and on the face of it, it's difficult to reconcile that with the passage I quoted. A recent comment made by User:Quadell on June 22 at WT:Copyrights#Copyright laws by country is probably a pretty good explanation. It ends with,
After much hammering and yammering we decided that for copyright concerns, the English Wikipedia followed U.S. law exclusively, with the exception that countries that did not have a copyright treaty with the U.S. (Iran, Ethiopia, etc.) were treated as if they were signatories to the Berne Convention. And that's pretty much where things stand now.
Wikipedia seems to have a habit of unnecessarily restricting itself by its copyright policies. It disallows uses that are fair uses based on criteria that are not part of copyright law; and, as you've pointed up, it treats certain classes of works that are not covered by copyright as though they were. There's probably a number of reasons for this:
  • A desire for clear policies that can be applied by a typical editor, even if those policies disallow permissible uses.
  • A decision to to err on the side of caution to prevent infringement, i.e., it's better to disallow many permissible uses than to allow a few impermissible uses;
  • A general policy preference to encourage public domain and freely-licensed work; if Wikipedia is overly restrictive on its copyright policy, perhaps it will encourage the creation of PD or freely-licensed work. TJRC (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Also a desire to be as legal as possible in as much of the world as possible, subject to WP:NOTCENSORED. WP has to abide by the laws of certain parts of the world, but it does not wish to frivolously break the laws of other parts, to do so would bring the project into disrepute, encourage overseas lawsuits, and legitimise national internet blocks on the projects. Rich Farmbrough, 06:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC).

Tag for sound file, Creative Commons Sampling Plus 1.0 License

I need the appropriate tag for Creative Commons Sampling Plus 1.0 License for sound files. Is this equivalent to one of the current CC licenses? Or does it need a new tag? Thatcher 02:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Sound files under that license are not usable on Wikipedia: the license doesn't permit commercial use of the original work. --Carnildo (talk) 06:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I guess so. It's an odd license, though, unlimited use of derivatives even for commercial purpose, but no re-use of the original. Oh well. Thatcher 15:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright expired everywhere

As I write, the featured image on the main page is Image:Storming the bastille 4.jpg. According to its description page, the image was created in 1789, and accordingly it is tagged {{PD-old}}. That's fine as far as it goes, but look at what the template expands to:

This image (or other media file) is in the public domain because its copyright has expired.
This applies to the United States, Australia, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years.
Note that a few countries have copyright terms longer than 70 years: Mexico has 100 years, Colombia has 80 years, and Guatemala and Samoa have 75 years. This image may not be in the public domain in these countries, which moreover do not implement the rule of the shorter term. Côte d'Ivoire has a general copyright term of 99 years and Honduras has 75 years, but they do implement the rule of the shorter term.

With an image 220 years old, it appears there is no way that any of the verbiage in the last two paragraphs could apply, so why include all that? Why not have a tag {{PD-very-old}} or {{PD-ancient}} for images like this one, which would simply say "...its copyright has expired. This applies everywhere"?

Of course, people wanting to apply that tag should be provided with instructions as to exactly how old the image has to be before it's safe to assume that copyright has indeed expired everywhere.

(Please do not respond to the talk page of this IP address; I rarely use it. If you disagree, please respond here. If the consensus is that the tag should be created, someone else please do it.) -- (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This is actually a file on commons. There is the tag {{PD-old-100}} which does what you suggest. Zeimusu | Talk page 22:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Copy Right information

Hello, i have uploaded this image with wrong copyright information, I don't know how to fix it. Can an experienced Wiki user fix it ? The picture is copyrighted by Cleveland State University.

Thank you. I've marked it for deletion as an unlicenced image. Zeimusu | Talk page 22:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


I'd like opinions on this new template. The images in question are user-created but contain a nonfree element, making them subject to Wikipedia's nonfree image rules. However, I think that it is still important to clearly credit the creator of the 'free' portions of the image. Here's one example where the proposal, I assume, is to leave only the fair use license: File:ZK_Sample_Components.png. It seems to me that the clearest way of crediting all content authors is to leave the multiple image tags. Thoughts? -SCEhardT 18:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

4 Images were already resolved in the direction of 'free' as a result of this template, and it's related user-notification Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't dispute that some images have multiple tags when they only need one. In that case it seems like someone knowledgeable about copyright (such as yourself) could come by and remove the extra tag. The thing is with this template:
  1. The uploader isn't likely to know enough about image copyrights to choose the correct license.
  2. Some images, such as File:ZK_Sample_Components.png seem to genuinely require two licenses.
-SCEhardT 20:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Uploader's not knowing enough hasn't stopped enforcement of other image policy, like NFCC's Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

SCEhardt, if an image has any non-free components, the whole thing has to be treated as non-free. This includes not tagging them with free license tags. Yes, the license of the free aspects of the image are important as well (especially when credit is still required, as in the case of CC or GFDL licensed aspects) but there are other ways of showing and saying this than using our free license tags. Perhaps the easiest way is to discuss the issue in the sourcing/other information sections of the non-free use rationale template. File:Notre dame de la paix yamoussoukro by felix krohn retouched.jpg is one I wrote myself, for example. J Milburn (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That approach on the Basilica will only work where the image has been released elsewhere under a proper free license, as that image was. If the image is being published on Wikipedia, then that is where it is being released under a CC license. If there is no license on Wikipedia, then the image has not been released under a CC license. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
If that was a GFDL license instead of CC, wouldn't removing the template (and thus having no link to the license text) violate the GFDL? Maybe a wrapper template would be more appropriate. It could hold two or more licenses and clearly state which one restricts use on Wikipedia. Could be filled as {{Multiple Licenses|restricting=fair_use|additional=cc-by}} -SCEhardT 17:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
There are other ways to release an image, state a license or link to license text than just those templates. The statements, releases and links in these cases are still important, but belong in the image description. The copyright tags are there to show how the image can be used on Wikipedia and how the image can be used by reusers- primarily the first. (As an aside, until recently there was a link to the GFDL in the footer of every Wikipedia page, but it appears to have been removed.) J Milburn (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This template should not be used in any instance of Template:Non-free 3D art, or any other derivative photograph. I just came across this template incorrectly added to File:Cloud Gate (The Bean) from east'.jpg, which is a derivative photograph of a (presumably) copyrighted sculpture. Clearly in such cases we need licensing information for both the photograph and the subject, and the licensing information will likely differ. Regarding this particular image, the photographer released his photograph under a CC license, while we need a non-free use rationale for the copyrighted sculpture. There's no "conflict" in noting the separate terms of each element in such a derivative image; that's instead mandatory. If we didn't have a license from the photographer, a NFUR for the sculpture alone wouldn't allow us to use the image. So it's necessary to document licensing/NFUR for both.

The template's language needs to be changed to clearly state this. Does anyone have a good suggestion as to how this should be phrased? postdlf (talk) 02:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

A 'Non-free' element in the image (apart from 'de-minmis' use) over-rides 'free' licensing tags, If an image has a non-free element in it has to have a non-free license. This is applicable EVEN if it's a derived image as you point out.

Rather than having more than one licensing tag on an image, the appropriate place to note the additonal copyright in the derived image is in the 'fair-use' rationale for the image, as has been done for many of the image tagged with this so far.

( The other reason for this template, and why it states there should only be a single licensing tag is for technical reasons. (It's planned to use the intersection of Catgeory:All Non-free media and Category:All free media to find stuff for which this template should be applicable. That approach cannot work if images have multiple tags.) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I just posted a lengthy comment on your talk page before seeing this here...can you show me a derivative image that you think best represents what you're talking about, so I can get a better idea, and/or any prior discussions establishing this as the norm over dual tagging? But I think ultimately the best solution might be to have a special-purpose license tag for derivatives that can clarify all necessary information as to both the derivative contribution and the underlying work. postdlf (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Postdlf, you keep implying that the norm is multiple tagging... I don't think that's the case. I don't think we should be doing multiple tags unless the situation is exceptional. Gigs (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

JPL Image Copyright templates

Is the information at WP:Using JPL images correct? The page explains that NASA/Caltech Jet Propulsion Lab are copyrighted but free to use as long as the source is credited, per the JPL Image Use Policy. However, this isn't the same stance taken by editors on Wikipedia Commons. On Commons, JPL images are treated the same as other NASA images (as public domain). Several images tagged with {{Template:JPL Image Copyright}} are Commons images, which makes the copyright statements conflict with each other. For example, see File:Opportunity_Lander_Petals_PIA04848.jpg. Which site is correct: here or Commons? Radiant chains (talk) 13:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

JPL claims that their images are works of caltech subject to the BSD style license and not public domain works of the government. You might argue with them about that, but since the BSD style license is a free license anyway, we might as well consider them that. Gigs (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Nganuwaay Koolyn

Nganuwaay Koolyn Australian Aboriginal artist.

Nganuwaay Koolyn name means (Her Father’s Daughter — The Black Swan), her totem is the Rainbow Serpent, creator of the mountains, rivers, valleys and billabongs.

Nganuwaay Koolyn is a descendant of the Gamilaroi people of the Brewarrina (Ngunnhu) area and the ancient dry-stone fish traps. Nganuwaay has exhibited in Europe, USA, UK and nationally.

Nganuwaay sold her first painting at the ripe age of 17 to a Belgium official and has won several art competitions since. With her brother she curated her first exhibition for her dad at the age of 10 and has since provided artwork for many Indigenous communities for their NAIDOC Celebrations. At the age of 18 Nganuwaay Koolyn was an assistant Director of the National Illicit Drug Campaign in Queensland and held classes for local community members in art, crafts and cooking.

Nganuwaay Koolyn’s artwork is inspired by the Dreaming, traditions and stories of her ancestry. Her natural and devoted connection with the spiritual vibrations of her culture, flow into her artwork creating a balance of harmonies and spiritual visualisations.

Currently Nganuwaay has completed her Bachelor’s Degree in Adult Education and is currently studying for her Masters of Education

For many years she has worked with Aboriginal communities and women and men in correctional facilities in literacy, numeracy, Aboriginal Culture and protocol.

She has also appeared as an actor in several Australian Drama series and is well known for her pastille dot work on wedding dresses and satin outfits and accessories. Koolyn’s paintings of bush tucker and the Mimmi’s are awe inspiring.

Nganuwaay is the daughter of Mundara Koorang, renowned International and National Aboriginal Art and Elder of the Eora (Sydney) people.

Nganuwaay’s great grandmother and great-great grandmother were born in Ngunnhu area. Nganuwaay’s great grandmother was seperated from her family after the death of her mother, when she was only 13 and was sent to the Cootamundra Home for Girls under the banner of assimilation. At Cootamundra, Aboriginal girls were instructed to 'think white, look white, and act white'.

This was part of the process to make the girls suitable wives for white men, in the hope that through interracial marriages, Aboriginal blood would be 'bred out'. They were taught to look down on their own people and to fear Aboriginal men.

Nganuwaay Koolyn a beautiful artist and respected Ambassador for Australian Aboriginal people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mundara (talkcontribs) 23:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

US law tag

According to my memory, there is expert writing to the effect that US laws are not copyrightable. I would assume that being a common-law country this would extend to court cases, and cover both state and federal laws. In this case we can replace PD-US-GovCourt or whatever it is with a more generic template covering laws and hearings. Whether the same or similar applies to other countries I do not know, I have a feeling UK laws are Crown Copyright. Rich Farmbrough, 06:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC).

Related discussion at here, which led to {{PD-laws}}, which you can use. I don't see anything like PD-US-GovCourt right now, but there is --Elvey (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I propose that {{PD-laws}} be renamed {{PD-EdictGov}}. Thoughts? --Elvey (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


I think that adding the {{WTFPL}} License as a free license would be appropriate, especially i.e. in countries where it is not possible to release something in the public domain, but User:RP88 says its use shouldn't be encouraged. Why? And claiming the license is "rarely used" shouldn't be an argument not to use it and not even to mention it on a page showing which licenses are applicable for own works. (I bet i.e. even the CC license was rarely used once upon a time…)

I think there's no reason not to include the license, but as I have already added it and got it removed, I don't want to start any edit war. — SuNotísimaTalk 20:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no objections to to listing the {{WTFPL}} license at Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Free_licenses (perhaps under an Others subcategory). However, out of the many many licenses listed only a handful have been given a place of prominence as one that Wikipedia specifically encourages creators to consider when choosing a license for an image that they'd like to donate to Wikipedia. The licenses listed at WP:ICTIC share several advantages, including having seen wide use, been vetted by lawyers, and some (or maybe most) have actually been tested in court. For that matter, if someone is absolutely insistent on releasing their image to the public domain instead of licensing it under with of the more conventional licenses, and they reside in a country where it is not possible to release something in the public domain, I'd be much more comfortable suggesting the use of {{cc-zero}} instead of the use of {{WTFPL}}. The CC0 license serves the same purpose, and more importantly, the language of CC0 is more careful with regard to the fact that moral rights can not be waived in some countries and that licenses that attempt to do so may, in fact, be invalid in some of these countries. —RP88 20:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
All right, I'll include the {{WTFPL}} at Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Free_licenses under an Others subcategory. Not on the general WP:ICTIC. Would that be fine with you? :-) — SuNotísimaTalk 14:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Matthew Shepard

I want to upload an image of him, obviously no new ones can be taken as he is dead, can I upload one, and under what license? CTJF83 chat 09:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

A non-free would work just fine. The tag to use would depend on where you found the image. -FASTILYsock(TALK) 03:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Will this work? CTJF83 chat 03:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
That should be fine. Use this this license tag and be sure to provide an exact link to the webpage where you found the image when you upload. -FASTILY (TALK) 05:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. CTJF83 chat 18:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Rename possibility

Has anyone ever brought up renaming this page to "File copyright tags"? The namespace has been "File" for awhile now. IfD was changed to FfD as well.--Rockfang (talk) 01:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Examples Please

There should be at least an example of each kind of copyright. It can be shown that in almost all cases, examples will save time for any user wishing to use a copyright tag. When you multiply that by thousands or even millions of users, the amount of time saved would be significant. (talk) 09:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move done. Fences&Windows 22:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Image copyright tagsWikipedia:File copyright tags — This page covers more than just images. It covers other types of files as well. I made a suggestion for this change two sections up, but noone commented. Relisted. Fences&Windows 17:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Rockfang (talk) 10:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Agree Makes sense to me. The "image" namespace is now "file". —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 15:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
  • light oppose if this page is moved in isolation of other pages and a broader discussion. No specific concern about the idea behind the move itself. billinghurst sDrewth 13:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - I see no problems here. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Suppport Seeing how files are not just images anymore, this makes sense to me as well. warrior4321 21:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


Any additional comments:

I would think that if you are going to have the discussion, then you should be looking at similar pages, and having a more holistic discussion. This page does not sit in isolation.

billinghurst sDrewth 13:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I've moved the first 3. The 4th one was already a redirect to the proper name. The 5th one is is inactive and historical, so I left it alone.--Rockfang (talk) 19:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I reverted the move of IUP, that page is only about images. There's general info about files at Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files. Fences&Windows 16:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
My apologies, I should have read it more thoroughly.--Rockfang (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Copyright Tag for File:775jblock.jpg.

I created the photo File:775jblock.jpg. , namely, I took the picture, and then uploaded it to wikipedia... it is my understanding this needs a copyright tag in order to not be deleted, but I do not know how to do this. I would appreciate any help and/or information please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garr1984 (talkcontribs) 03:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Image of a US HIGH SCHOOL Coat-of-Arms or Crest

I'm trying to find out which copyright must be used with a School Crest or Coat-of-Arms. Help please?-- Avazina, an Unreconstructed Southerner 18:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

In general, {{Non-free logo}}. Some logos may be old enough to not have been copyrighted, or are simple enough to be uncopyrightable, but those need to be determined on a case-by-case basis. --Carnildo (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

IPCC tag?

I would like to set up a tag for images from the IPCC. I think I could do the bare template, but don't know how the documentation works (/doc??), nor even what else I should know. Could someone provide some assistance? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


{{PD-screenshot}} was deleted at a point in time when it was only used once, but its contents have continued to get added to images to the point that Category:Public domain screenshots now contains 133 files. Should this tag be revived for these images? --Pascal666 18:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


Could I get a copyright tag (this has been proposed) for the photo posted on the "Susanna Roxman" page? I hope it isn't terribly complicated to get a copyright tag. It took me hours to find out how to post the picture at all. This is the only picture I have posted on the Wikipedia. The photographer, who is known to me, has waived his copyright, not only for this purpose, but for ever. The photo of Susanna Roxman can be used anywhere, commercially or not.


Smilesofasummernight (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Bank of Bigheart

Hi. Does someone know how the Article Bank of Bigheart should get tagged please ? I guess there was something going wrong. Thanks. -- Gary Dee (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Way Too Complicated

The whole page is far too complicated. How do I find out if a picture on the Internet is fair use or free? I have no idea after reading through these pages. This should be right out front and easy to find, but it isn't. (talk) 08:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of this page is to discuss Wikipedia's many copyright tag templates. Please direct questions related to tagging of specific images to the Media Copyright Questions page. If you do not know what you are doing, you can post a a link to the image there, and receive help before uploading it. —Senator2029 | talk 07:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

"Anonymous (Street Meat)"

I agree with the person above. It's way too complicated. The images posted on the "anonymous (street meat)" page are mine -- they are from my film. I will have the copyright as soon as Washington issues it and it's been months. These images are in my film -- a film which I directed, wrote, produced and edited. Please let me know how to add the copyright logo onto my images.

Thank you so much!

Mig (talk) 03:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Euro coins

Euro symbol
The above image depicts the common face of a euro coin.

According to the Communication from the Commission on copyright protection of the common face design of the euro coins (OJ C 318, 13.11.2001, p. 3):

  • The copyright on the design of the common face of euro coins belongs to the European Community (now the European Union) represented by the European Commission. The Commission assigns to each eurozone state all of the EU's copyrights as regards euro coins in that state's territory.
  • Reproduction in photographic form of the common face of euro coins is permitted by the Commission and by each eurozone state, provided that such reproductions are "faithful likeness and are used in ways which do not damage or detract from the image of the euro."

It is believed that the use of a photograph of a euro coin which retains an exact depiction of that coin, for the purpose of illustrating what the coin looks like is consistent which the licence detailed in the above Communication.


I propose to use the above as a copyright tag for euro coins. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 14:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll take that as a yes. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 16:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

New tag for Design Science License

I just created the {{DSL}} tag for the copyleft Design Science License (text of license). This license appears to be accepted on the Commons; see commons:Template:DSL and commons:Category:DSL. Along with the tag I also created Category:DSL images, which currently contains just one image, File:Farmers Manual 2002.jpg. Previously this image had been tagged with {{Non-free fair use in}} because of the lack of a proper copyright tag; see also Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2007/December#Design Science License has no Image copyright tag. —Bkell (talk) 11:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


I have decided to be bold and restore template:PD-FLGov. AFAICT, it was removed/redirected due to misuse. I believe that the template text is specific enough to prevent misuse. Also, it adds images to Category:Florida government images which can easily be occasionally monitored for infractions. Any comments? -Seidenstud (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice template. I've been working to address the issue as well. --Elvey (talk) 04:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
For reasons discussed at WT:Public domain#Works of the Florida gov't, this template should be deleted. TJRC (talk) 05:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Note: JTRC's reasoning there was no match for the quotes from the Florida Constitution and final case law that countered JTRC's arguments in that discussion. "Florida's Constitution and its statutes do not permit public records to be copyrighted..." The template is on firm legal ground...and thus has stuck around for years now.--Elvey (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyright mistake

I have just uploaded this file with wrong copyright information. The Metrotranvia logo is quite similar as the San Diego trolley so I would like to know what copyright tag does this logo needs in order not to be deleted? --Fercho85 (talk) 04:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Templates PD-music and PD-audio

When I went to implement the closure of this CFD, I found that the category structure did not have any category for PD audio files. So I created Category:Public domain audio files, and also created the template {{PD-audio}} to populate it.

The existing {{PD-music}} was misleadingly named: it was actually only for images of music rather than for audio files of music, so I moved it to {{PD-music-image}}. I did not leave a redirect, because that would still allow {{PD-music}} to be used as if it still existed.

I hope that I have done this correctly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

License Plate

I uploaded a sample plate image of a 2001 New York State license plate. However I would like some help as to whether this image needs to fair use tag and rationale as it was deleted from Commons. If it does need a tag please replace it with the proper one, thanks. –BuickCenturyDriver 21:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I also uploaded NYLogoPlateCurved.JPG and am wondering if this okay as it is. –BuickCenturyDriver 21:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I've added a copyright tag to NYLogoPlateCurved.JPG as the template design is from the DMV and should not be copied to Commons.. –BuickCenturyDriver 01:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

How to cite copyright status: a special case

Please note that I heve an e-mail permission from a creator of a work of art to upload it in Wikipedia. Having read your procedures, I did not understand into which category this particular case fits. I will appreciate your help. --Echopapa echoromeo (talk) 07:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Unifying {{out_of_copyright_in}} and {{Do not move to Commons}}

The templates {{out_of_copyright_in}} and {{Do not move to Commons}} are used for the same thing: tagging images where the copyright is about to expire in a few years. Their wording is slightly different though. I suggest deleting {{out_of_copyright_in}} (which is basically only used by {{pd-1923-abroad}} and can be substituted with {{Do not move to Commons}} there) and changing {{Do not move to Commons}} so that it displays when the image will be eligible to be moved to Commons. What do you think? Regards, -- ChrisiPK (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

My account copy write

Can you please help me? Kumarappanghelliah (talk) 08:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

YouTube Video Question

Hello. I was wondering what copyright tag an online YouTube video would fit under. It has a standard YouTube license with no additional information. Thanks, George M Smart (talk) 00:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@George M Smart: Standard YouTube license is 'all rights reserved' by the uploader with a permission to YouTube to store/broadcast the content.  sami  talk 00:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Can you please help me? Kumarappanghelliah (talk) 08:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)