# Wikipedia talk:File copyright tags/Archive 6

## Smith chart

Can anyone copyright a smith chart or is it considered under the tag "PD-ineligible"? Example: Image:Smith chart bmd.gif.

Sorry, forgot to sign: Afonso Silva 23:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone say something?? Afonso Silva 18:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm having a hard time telling how much "creativity" goes into the chart -- not only in terms of how it is drawn, but picking what equations to draw, picking that particular way of drawing them, etc. Perhaps if you could give an argument about this aspect of it, it would be easier to figure out for sure. Basically anything that you can point to as a discretionary factor (multiple ways of making the chart, for example), is likely grounds for a copyright to be vested, but I have no idea what the magnitude of that discretionary power is (if it is very minor then it might not give a copyright claim). --Fastfission 04:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a native speaker, so, I have some trouble explaining some kind of things, so, I'm sorry if you don't undersantd the following arguments. Anyway, the smith chart is a mathematical tool, as it says in the chart article, the basis for all Smith charts is the following equation:

${\displaystyle \Gamma ={\frac {z_{L}-z_{O}}{z_{L}+z_{O}}}}$

Of course you can draw it in red, purple or orange, with different fonts for the numbers and text, or make it A0 size, allowing a bigger scale, therefore you would be able to plot huge VSWR's (of course you will need a huge pair of compasses), or you could make it very small. There are several computer programs that simulate the chart, so, I don't think it may be copyrighted, of course there are several modifications you can do, but you can also have a blue ruler with 50 cm or a pink one with only 10 cm. In my classes of electromagnetic waves we just pick a paper copy of that same design I uploaded (black magic, I don't know the origin of the name, but the first time I saw one I though it was some kind of astrology tool) and use it to plot the data.

This concern started when I found that a previous image I uploaded was deleted, even having the PD-inelegible tag. Thanks for the help. Afonso Silva 19:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

If they're that standard, then you can sidestep the whole issue by making one of your own, and uploading under a {{PD-self}} license. --Carnildo 22:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say they're probably copyrightable, since there are plenty of creative decisions to be made in designing one. The lines on the chart themselves might not be eligible for copyright, but the way it is annotated probably is. The rule of thumb is: if you made your own, would it look the same? If it would, it's probably not copyrightable. If it wouldn't, it almost certainly is. If some parts would look the same and some wouldn't, the whole would normally be copyrightable unless the eligible parts are completely insignificant.

As for this particular image, Carnildo's suggestion seems reasonable. Alternatively, you could contact the SSS Magazine and ask if the chart could be released under a free license (or PD): given that they publish it freely on their web site, there's a reasonable chance they might agree. Note, however, that the SSS folks may not own the copyright themselves; they may have licensed the chart from "Black Magic", whoever they are. But they may know who to ask. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

## Copyright Tag for Presidential Photos?

There should be a copyright tag for a presidential photo that is taken outside the USA. Because I have seen that a presidential photo uploaded by me was deleted due to no copyright tags. Take this to a consideration. Thank You.--Syed1994 07:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

For presidents of the United States, we've got {{PD-USGov}} if the images were taken by the US federal government, and generally no reason to use any less-free images. --Carnildo 08:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

## Non free creative commons licenced images - why are they not to be used?

I've just uploaded Image:Insulin_receptor.jpg, which would be a valuable addition to Insulin receptor. It is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License. This particular licence doesn't have a tag andisn't listed on the project page, though it appears that some similar licences are listed under Image_copyright_tags#Non-free_Creative_Commons_licenses. I can't see why Wikipedia's use of these non-free CC licences is a problem (Perhaps the "rationale" section needs improving - I'd do it but I don't understand the problem!)- how does Wikipedia's use contravene the licences? Richard Taylor 17:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's the non-commercial requirement that's problematic? In which case why not just tag them appriopriatly so that anyone wishing to use the wikipedia content commercially can easily remove them, and discourage rather than ban their use - perhaps that's impractical?
Licenses prohibiting commercial use, or restricting to "educational use", are a problem because the restriction goes against Wikipedia's mission to produce a free content encyclopedia. Being a free-content encyclopedia means allowing other people to try to make money off from it, such as Answers.com's integration of Wikipedia content into its knowlege base. Also, "no commercial use" is vague: it probably prohibits the Wikimedia Foundation from selling Wikipedia on a CD to raise money, and it could be interpreted as prohibiting Wikipedia's fundraising drives.
Licenses prohibiting derivative works present a more immediate problem. To some degree, a Wikipedia article containing such an image is a derivative work of the image. Also, the prohibition on derivative works keeps people from modifying the images to make them more suitable for use in an encyclopedia, such as adding a legend to a map, or tinting the image to highlight specific features. --Carnildo 22:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Technically a Wikipedia article is not a derivative use under the terms of the license (if you read the full legal version, it explicitly says you can put it in an encyclopedia) but in any case I think saying that something is non-derivative is certainly "non-free" in the sense we want to use on here. --Fastfission 22:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
When images are kept/allowed because they are considered "fair use" the criteria is based on an assertion that they are fair use for say the English Wikipedia hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, and there is an acceptance that "Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement." To a degree it appears that with fair use the criteria is - can them image legally be used on Wikipedia, for CC licences the criteria is tougher. That's probably because you could argue that if something was "fair use" in the context of Wikipedia it would likley be fair use in (commercial) derivitives of Wikipedia?Richard Taylor 00:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I've brought this up before and generally most people seem to think the answer is that because fair use depends heavily on individual context and situations, it is far less binding in a way that a non-free license would be. In essence, you leave the fair use decisions up to the re-user. --Fastfission 00:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
IANAL, but The Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike (by-nc-sa) license allows use that is "Free as in free speech not free as in free beer". If I post a picture under the by-nc-sa license to Wikipedia and some company wants to use it for free to promote their product, they have to show it in the context of the Wikipedia article which is "free-beer". If they want to show it without the "free-beer" they have to pay me. The copyright system in the US already works this way - see the wikipedia help page on copyrights and using images from baseball cards - the context is critical. An "I have read and understand" disclaimer checkbox on the upload page and a by-nc-sa label under the image could solve this problem nicely. No? --GlenPeterson 02:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

## PD Art

What are the guidelines for declaring a work, previously under British Crown copyright, as public domain? I'm looking at a 1933 non-engraving, non-photograph work of art. I believe that it's now in the public domain, but there doesn't seem to be a good tag other than the generic {{PD}}, because {{PD-BritishGov}} seems to refer to creations by the government. Do we still need to go by U.S. law here, or is there just no suitable tag as of yet? Thanks. — Rebelguys2 talk 20:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Is {{PD-old-70}} appropriate? - cohesiont 04:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

## Ecoport

I have come across a "copyleft" license in the ecoport website, and ecoport images are released under it. Are these usable on wikipedia, and if yes, what tags should accompany such an image?

Ecoport license --ppm 04:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

No -- it is not free enough for Wikipedia standards. It is only free without restrictions if it is "for personal and public educational use or to promote any cause that contributes to, or serves a public good," and otherwise "in commercial databases, websites, printed publications, products such as CD-ROMs or advertising of commercial services, then you must contact the original EcoPort contributor for (a) permission and (b) to negotiate terms of use and revenue-sharing." For all of the "new copyleft" hype they have given themselves it is a very restrictive license if you want to do anything except a very narrowly defined idea of public service. I think it's pretty poorly thought out, personally. --Fastfission 04:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

## Another U.S. state tag

See {{PD-ILGov}}. Two problems: first, this tag indicates a "fair use" claim, despite being named like a PD tag, and second, what may constitute "fair use" for some TV station may not be "fair use" for us, depending on the nature of the use. Now, it seems this tag is used primarily for birth certificates and the like. It may well be that these fall under "public records" and as such be ineligible to copyright. Do we have a tag for those? On a side note, I wonder whether digging up birth certificates and old census reports to write articles that are strong on genealogy but poor on the person's accomplishments (if any!) isn't original research... Lupo 09:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

We don't have anything specifically for public records. There's {{mugshot}} for police mug shots, and {{PD-ineligible}} for general stuff that can't be copyrighted. --Carnildo 17:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

## Military-sourced images without explicit statement

In case it's obvious a picture was created by a public-domain source, like US Federal Government, Navy employees or other, but it was found at a site which doesn't state sources and gives no permissions, which rules do apply?

Specifically I mean some photos of military submarines at sea, which obviously can only be taken by certain sources. CP/M 04:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It is generally a bad idea to make assumptions like that. In the case of the example you give, how do you know the submarine photo didn't come from a lucky fishing trawler? Or even was arranged for the benefit of a Hollywood film crew? What's worse, when it comes to photos of generic military hardware, how do you know it was from the US military? Most countries don't have a PD clause like we do, so military pics taken by foreign governments would not be usable. A better idea is to write to the operators of the website in question and ask about the source of the images rather than making assumptions. Dragons flight 05:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, asking would generally be better, but most of the pictures can be found on different sites, so it's hard to determine which site has published them first. CP/M 23:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Nevertheless, we still need a source. Sometimes it is impossible, but those are images we shouldn't include. - cohesiont 04:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
If you have truly (as in extremely) compelling reasons to think they are works of the federal government, then you can explain them when uploading it and tagging it and it will probably be fine. What I do in such situations is to list an immediate source (the webpage I got the image file from), and then the ultimate source (which determines its copyright status). --Fastfission 12:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Well... I've generally got the idea. So I'll avoid using imaged w/o explicit permission in Featured Articless, but will temporarily use them with appropriate notices in other articles. I hope the images from FAS will be clear to use. CP/M 03:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

## FreeUseProvidedThat

I've noticed a couple of {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} tags where the conditions include "no derivative works without permission". Is it correct to assume these are un-free for our purposes? Shimgray | talk | 11:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Correct. A "provided that" must permit commercial use, non-educational use, use outside of Wikipedia, and derivative works. I'd be suspicious of any "provided that" that requires anything other than attribution. --Carnildo 18:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
There's some wonderful provided-that clauses floating around... where should I list these? Shimgray | talk | 19:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The licenses? Any particularly hilarious ones could go at BJAODN. The images? If the restrictions include "no commercial use" or "by permission", they can be tagged for speedy deletion. Otherwise, list at IFD and hope nobody gets the bright idea of re-tagging as "fair use". --Carnildo 22:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I would even be in favor of removing these tags completely, I think even people that want "provided that:attribution" would be better off with {{cc-by-2.5}} than some weird nonstandard tag. - cohesiont 04:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
If it's a simple "provided that attribution is given", then it should be replaced with a {{Attribution}} tag. There are also some "attribution" provided-thats that require a specific form of attribution, such as a link to a specific website. --Carnildo 08:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
We can encourage people to use CC-BY, but we have absolutely no basis to relicense their images for them even if CC-BY is functionally identical. Shimgray | talk | 13:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Right, I didn't mean to imply I was in favor of relicensing, just encouraging people to use the cc license over nonstandard ones. - cohesiont 19:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

## The Best Tag for copyrighted images being used under 'fair use' for educational purposes

I would really like to know which tag is the best for images that are copyrighted but are being used under 'fair use' for for educational purposes. As well, what is the best copyright tag for images that are copyrighted only in Russia? Mrlopez2681 06:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It really depends on what the image is. Every image we claim fair use on is being used for educational purposes, as Wikipedia is "educational". Just pick the one that best describes the image and the context in which it will be used. The only tage I can find that are Russia specific are Template:PD-USSR and Template:PD-RU-exempt. —User:ACupOfCoffee@ 07:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

## Is Wikipedia wasting a wealth of materials due to paranoid infringement fears?

I have encountered a fair deal of opposition from self-appointed "vigilantes" when I have tried to contribute images or texts based on materials that I've found elsewhere. They invariably insist that I should get permission from "the copyright holder" and go through the mess of 'image tags', 'text tags'. or any other type of 'content tags', in order to comply with a strict, almost paranoid set of intricate rules devised to avoid copyright infringement problems. Trouble is, there's a huge world out there, that has never heard of, and couldn't care less about, U.S. Copyright Law. And trouble also is, there's a universe of materials that have never been copyrighted. The webpage of the United Stated Patent and Trademark Office itself, defines Copyright as:

Copyright is a form of protection provided to the authors of “original works of authorship” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works, both published and unpublished. The 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to reproduce the copyrighted work, to prepare derivative works, to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work, to perform the copyrighted work publicly, or to display the copyrighted work publicly.

The copyright protects the form of expression rather than the subject matter of the writing. For example, a description of a machine could be copyrighted, but this would only prevent others from copying the description; it would not prevent others from writing a description of their own or from making and using the machine. Copyrights are registered by the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress.

[hopefully I've not stepped over anyone's toes by copying the two paragraphs above, you never know, as things are getting in this Enclyclopedia]

If a publishable item needs to be registered in order to have a valid Copyright atached to it, then by force whatever materials that have not undergone such registration process are not protected by any 'copyright law', right? Then why so many Wikipedians stubbornly insist in deleting, or in harassing contributors otherwise, arguing that everything must have some kind of 'copyright', whatever the country or region of origin, when such assumption is often utterly false?

If, for example, I want to write or expand an article on ophidians, and I find a color picture of a South American snake in a fourth-grade, government-printed Biology book in Spanish language having no author name, no indication of a Copyright whatsoever, no photographer names, etc., and then I scan it, enhance it, and upload it to the Wikipedia itself or to the Wikipedia Commons, I can bet a million to one that there will appear many a zealous creatures, seeking some kind of recognition from Wikipedia 'authorities' I presume, that will in due time (that is, less than a couple of days) post a threatening tag or sign or warning in my article or picture saying that I must get "the permission of the Copyright holder", when in reality such entity does not exist at all: the book, much less the pictures in it, were never copyrighted. The worst comes when that same person goes on and actually deletes my article or an image thereof, thus doing Wikipedia harm --instead of a valuable service-- (and irritating me in the process). To destroy is a lot easier than to contribute. Hence, in my humble opinion, no 'awards' should be granted to their kind, they should be reprimanded instead!

ISN'T IT TIME TO THINK THIS OVER, AND TO STOP THIS NONSENSE?

AVM 23:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It is way past time to rethink and stop the nonsense of stealing whatever we can get away with and calling ourselves a collaborative project to create a truly free reusable encyclopedia. In case you're actually puzzled about this, we respect U.S. law because it is the law that governs where we are publishing (where the servers are), not because we have some preference for it. Jkelly 23:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
It is not true that works need to be registered to be protected under U.S. copyright law. Secondly, (I paraphrase Jimbo here) we want to be able to say that we built this encyclopedia ourselves, not on someone else's backs. We want to be able to say that it is entirely our gift to the world... without all sorts of stipulations. If you have an issue with current U.S. copyright law, you should take it up with the Copyright Office, not Wikipedia. ~MDD4696 00:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
You are absolutely and completely wrong about U.S. copyright law, and you are absolutely and completely wrong about why people care about keeping Wikipedia legally in the clear on copyrights. Here is a relatively simple table showing when you can assume things to have entered into the public domain under U.S. law, another good resource is the Stanford Copyright & Fair Use Center. Under the Berne Convention copyrights are assigned automatically to authors without registration being needed or notice being listed.
No awards are ever given to people who try and make sure that Wikipedia is kept legally safe. Instead they get an ocean of criticism from people who are completely ignorant of copyright law and who believe that Wikipedia absolutely cannot survive without their beautiful copy-and-pasted content. You talk up the virtues of "creating" over "destroying" and yet from what I can tell you are just taking other people's creative works and pasting them in without attribution. Doesn't sound like you are "creating" anything (and certainly doesn't make me feel sorry for all the effort you must put out with your Control+C and Control+V), and in the long run a copyright problem will do more "destruction" than anybody deleting a few pictures of various snakes you have scanned out of textbooks. --Fastfission 00:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

## My sincere gratitude (Is Wikipedia wasting a wealth of materials?, etc.)

I sincerely thank users ~MDD4696 and Fastfission for their very helpful answers. My complaint above was deliberately written in an aggressive fashion, in order to provoke a reaction, and I am truly pleased at having gotten intelligent responses, at last!! I apologize if I irritated anyone, but now I have enough study materials to learn, to enable me to correct my mistakes and join this beautiful & gigantic effort with more steady steps. Now I've got a lot of homework to do, after taking due note of your suggestions. Thank you, again!

AVM 22:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

## East Germany?

Sorry if this's been covered elsewhere, but what's the status of pix created by the East German State (Which now no longer exists)? Is there a blanket category, or not? 68.39.174.238 01:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I assume those works are now owned by the Federal Republic of Germany and protected by copyright. The discussion at Template talk:PD-Germany may be of interest. Perhaps you can ask at Wikipedia talk:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. Thuresson 03:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

## Promotional images at http://www.eurovision.tv

I was wondering about the "promotional" status of pictures from certain sites. eg, http://www.eurovision.tv - a lot of images have been downloadedand uploaded by others, but there is nothing to indicate whether the material is copyright or not. It would seem that the website is trying to generate publicity for the Eurovision Song Contest 2006, but does this mean that pictures on the site are automatically "promotional"? Regards, ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 04:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• "Promotional" images have to be exactly that -- intended by the source for distribution to promote their product. Most of time, you will find them in a section on the source's web site marked "Press." The line as to what exactly is promotional or not is kind of blurry, however. One could, for instance, argue that any image on the web site for a product is intended to promote it. My rule of thumb for determining fair use has been, is the image in question the ONLY one you could use to illustrate the text? For example, Demi Moore's appearance on the cover of Vanity Fair is discussed in the article and the image is properly used. But using a magazine cover just to identify the person on the cover is NOT fair use. Hope that helps. 16:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

## "Low resolution" for organization logos

The free use template for corporate, team, and organization logos (for my question, particularlly radio stations) use the language "low resolution." What qualifies as low resolution? The specific image I'm interested in is here: http://wrek.org/images/wreklogo.gif Pokerriot 20:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Since that image is so simple, I'd say low resolution would be at most like 200x200. The point of "low resolution" is so that you can still tell what an image is, but that you lose some detail. ~MDD4696 20:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

## Italian photographs

I've not been able to find any information about what licenses cover Italian images from World War II (such as this one). Most governments seem to have some form of PD license for their images, and as this one is from 1934... what would apply? ericg 02:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, never mind - just found commons:template:PD-Italy! ericg 03:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Duplicated here as {{PD-Italy}}. ericg 20:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely MISLEADING. In the EU (and in Germany) most photographs are protected 70 years pma. Ask Lupo! --Historiograf 14:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

## Help with Boris Feldblyum Collection images

Hi all. I came across a bunch of images uploaded from the Boris Feldblyum Collection and I'm hoping someone can help tag them properly.

Boris Feldblyum has a notice on a number of pages on his site stating:

This image can be copied and used freely by individuals and SIGs (Special Interest Groups) on the condition that a) it shall not be altered and b) Courtesy Boris Feldblyum Collection credit line, including a hyperlink to this site for web users, shall be added in each location where the image appears.

All of the articles that include the images here contain a link as required, but not all of the linked pages have this above usage notice or actually contain the image (The images here were uploaded last year, so things probably changed). Can anyone help tag these images? I'm not sure how to handle the stipulations. Thanks! ~MDD4696 19:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and many of the images may be public domain, but I'm not sure how we'd ascertain that... ~MDD4696 19:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
The images can't be used on Wikipedia. The license does not permit modification or free use, so is not a free license. Anything from there that isn't public domain should be tagged as {{imagevio}}. --Carnildo 23:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

## Government copyrights: Sejm vs EU imae differences?

Why is {{Sejm}} considered "free", but {{EU image}} considered non-free? I understand the point about allowing modification, but I don't see anywhere where the EU copyright specifically forbids it, or the Sejm copyright specifically allows it. What's the difference? -- AnonEMouse 14:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

There is none. I've corrected {{Sejm}}. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I got curious and browsed through Category:Conditional use images, and noticed that a lot of the images would be better served under another tag like {{Attribution}} or something else. Should we switch those images? I'm willing to take this on as a solo project, if need be. the iBook of the Revolution 04:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Go right ahead. You might want to check out WP:AWB to get through it quicker. 06:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

## morgueFile

I'm considering adding a few photos from morgueFile to Wikipedia, and I've created {{morgueFile}} for this purpose. Is it okay? Melchoir 10:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added some information to Template talk:MorgueFile, so if you'd like to check it out, please respond there, where I'll be watching. Thanks, Melchoir 19:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

## PD-Cuba

This is just to let you guys know that User:Polaris999 is requesting at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248#Requesting verification of a new PD tag that someone look at his proposed {{PD-Cuba}}. This seemed to me like a good place to find people who'd know if it's a usable tag. — Laura Scudder 18:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

## egyptology

egyptology I see scientific need to provide detailed information about ancient egypt artefacts.
They are cultural property, and in some cases "public available objects", means anyone can theroretically create a digital image of them.
The rules say that "describing labels" should not included into images. In the case of egypt artefact images, such labels are often already included.
To keep them means to avoid re-work.
However i wrote "the license does not cover commercial egyptian artwork". alex 10:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

If the image is two-dimensional, please use {{PD-art}}. If it's three-dimensional, it must follow the rules of fair use, a reasonable summary of which is in the template (actually the template is stricter than fair use law). So it seems fine to me, although of course free licenses should always be requested if practical. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

## Why no German government PD template

I cannot find any template to cover this:"Public domain: See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#official_works By German law, documents are in the public domain (gemeinfrei) if they have been published as part of a law or offical decree or edict, or if they have been released as an official announcement or for public information. The relevant law is section 5 of the UrhG. The first and most important sentence states: "Gesetze, Verordnungen, amtliche Erlasse und Bekanntmachungen sowie Entscheidungen und amtlich verfaßte Leitsätze zu Entscheidungen genießen keinen urheberrechtlichen Schutz." Someone needs to make a template. The lack of this has caused some problems.--Fahrenheit451 06:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't copies of German legislation go to de: Wikisource? I don't understand why we need a template here. Jkelly 18:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
We don't. See Template talk:PD-Germany. Lupo 18:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

## license for public avatars (documentation purpose)

avatars

Any hints to improve the formulation. Some avatars are designed for website display (externally), and available to the public. Hence i believe the display on wikipedia "for documentation purpose" is possible. It is also interesting to document graphical styles for a future age. But it clearly takes the remark about "commercial avatars/avatar items".

This is something which is not possible under "fair usage". Akidd dublintlctr-l 08:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

This tag is too specific. You should use {{Art}}, {{Software-screenshot}}, or {{Web-screenshot}}. You can upload images like Image:Avt nikemoto---- large.png and claim it as fair use as long as you have proper discussion of the image, even though it's a commercial work. ~MDD4696 15:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not feel well violating the yahoo! disclaimer, which they give on the avatar usage. It does not affect the usage on wikipedia, but they clearly say it is copyrighted data. They are not screenshots, you are misunderstanding something. They are officially downloadable as binary. Wikipedia can use much more sources (copyrighted), if the original disclaimer is mentioned. This way it is 100% waterproof. I welcome any thought...its just my personal opinion (on free speech, freedom of information, fair use). Akidd dublintlctr-l 14:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

## Redundant Images...

If I accidentally uploaded an image twice under two different names, how do I delete one of them? What tag should I put on the image for redundancy?--Eva db 14:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Tag the one you want deleted as {{db|Uploader request, duplicate of [[:Image:MyOtherImage.jpg]]}}. --Carnildo 17:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help.--Eva db 20:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

## Tag for attribution, only non commercial use

So after wasting far too much time on this (for the 3rd or 4th time) I still can't find a suitable tag for material that is explicity usable with attribution, but only for non-commercial use. You really need an attribution, non commercial tag.

There's something somewhat adequate - noncommercial - under the ones that say "Do not upload images for which one of the tags in this section applies. They will be deleted" - for which there is no explanation, and there certainly ought to be a link rather than an edict that begs a lot of questions.

You have attribution - but that comes with an assertion that it's OK for any use, which is inappropriate.

For an example of why this is needed, see the details at Image:Joliet-1674.jpg After threatening deletion (and ignoring the details included with the upload), he/she has slapped a fair use tag on and called it fixed. Sure, until the next bot comes along looking for the fair use rationale.

Time to face reality and create an appropriate tag? Or at least stop bothering careful contributors and recognize the problem is the tags, not the upload. flux.books 01:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

See {{Noncommercial}}. Jkelly 01:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I see it, but then there's that comment that says images that use it will be deleted. flux.books 01:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Exactly. Images with a "no commercial use" restriction are not permitted on Wikipedia. --Carnildo 01:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, I see the footnote links to an explanation. Could be on the tags page, eh? Except, it's just a longer version of the edict. I see it is signed by El Nacho Grande, whoop de doo, but there's no explanation of why it would make sense to pursue this policy in a situation like this one.
But don't waste more time discussing it here ... I won't. Put it on the project page where people can find it. flux.books 01:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The reason NC is not permitted is because the definition of what is "non-commercial" is vague, slippery, and ultimately could even conflict with this project itself (if it ever wanted to ad advertising, for example). But maybe we should write this out on a page somewhere, since it comes up a lot. Anyway, on that particular image I don't see why it isn't {{PD-Art}}. Just because the archive claims copyright does not mean they have the right to do so. Under US law they do not own the copyright on it. Now their "terms of use" for their site is entirely different, has nothing to do with copyright, and nothing to do with Wikipedia, frankly. --Fastfission 01:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I've started a draft page at User:Fastfission/Noncommercial, which would simply try to explain the policy and its motivations in an easy-to-understand language. There isn't a lot there at the moment but I will be adding to it as time goes on; other contributions and thoughts are welcome. It is not intended to be a policy or even a guideline, but more of a FAQ. --Fastfission 16:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

## Yearbook

How would a yearbook photo from a public school be tagged? --Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis 19:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I would say {{Non-free fair use in|person's article}} though you would have to figure out who hold the copyright to the image... --Sherool (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

## tagging these two images

Does this mean I cannot use these two images for the Lawrence Kohlberg article? They are two, of, and i'm serious, like less than a dozen that exist of him. What can I do? JoeSmack Talk 20:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Justin,
I apologize for the delay in response.  Unforunately, we do not retain the rights to the
photography on our Web site or in our publications, so we are unable to grant you permission
of use.  Sadly, there is no record of who took these photos, so I can't provide the
photogrpaher's information to you either.  I'm sorry for any inconvenience this may cause.
Best,
Web editor

"Justin Henderson" <jhender@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi there! I am a student in California at UC Santa Cruz, and I am adding to
the Lawrence Kohlberg article on http://en.wikipedia.org.  I noticed your
images of Kohlberg for the (excellent) article, "Reconstructing Larry:
Assessing the Legacy of Lawrence Kohlberg".  They seem to be part of the
'HGSE archival photo' flavor, and are probably copyrighted as such.  I was
curious as to if I could use them, sourced with a copyright, with your
permission for his article at Wikipedia.  Specifically, the two images
http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/features/images/kohlberg_lecture.gif and
http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/features/images/kohlberg_1969.gif were the
ones I would be using.  Please, contact me either way at
jhender@gmail.com so I can know if I can or cannot use them. If you
would like to see the article in its current form, a direct link is here at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg . If his work interests you,
you might want to look at his stage model article as well at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development .
It's pretty snazzy.
Much Appreciated,
Justin Henderson

Probably one (and only one) would be acceptable under {{Non-free fair use in}}. Ideally, you should track down who owns the copyright to one of the photos; it may be that the copyright wasn't registered, or that it wasn't renewed, either of which would render the image public-domain if it was taken sufficiently long ago. If you take the easy route and go with the fair use rationale, make sure you note that the copyright on the images may well be expired, and that you don't know who the author or owner is. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

## The best tag for images released to the AP

What is the best copyright tag to be used for images released to the associated press and are distributed throughout? I am currently having a dispute with someone on this matter. --JOK3R 00:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Generally they are copyvios, unless the image meets several fair use criteria, see WP:FUC for more details.--Peta 00:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

## What tag for fair use?

I downloaded an image from the Center for Food Security and Public Health at Iowa State University. Before I upload it to Wikipedia, I need to know how to tag it. This site says that use of the image would be considered fair use, assuming certain conditions were met, which Wikipedia does meet. However, the fair use tags do not seem to cover this instance, nor would an image from this site be in the public domain. I have no doubt that there would be no problem in using the image, but I do want to tag it properly. Thanks. --Joelmills 19:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot accept licenses that prohibit commercial reuse. The GFDL requires that anything uploaded to the site be reusable commercially, unless it's being used under fair use. The use of the image you linked to would probably not qualify as fair use, because it would be used in a fundamentally nontransformative fashion (i.e., for the exact same purpose they're using it for). I suggest you check out Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission and ask them to release the image under an appropriate license. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I think you could tag it as "fair use" with a regular tag, and include that information above. When a place says that they will consider certain usage "fair use", all that means is that they are agreeing that a certain bare minimum of use would in their eyes be "fair" (and thus saving anyone who uses it in that way from any threat of a suit, due to estoppel). However it does not mean that other uses would not be fair -- "fair use" does not need consent of the original copyright holder at all. So in effect it legally is the same category as most of our "fair use" images, in terms of re-use. It's actually even clearer, since the copyright holder has already obligated themselves to certain types of "use" being "fair". --Fastfission 01:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

## Images - soccer

Hi,

I want to download some images from soccer-europe.com, I saw quite a few images from this site on various soccer articles.

Can you please tell me whether Wiki has an understanding with Soccer-Europe.com for using images from this website for all the articles?

There are lots of soccer articles which requires various images, which can be downloaded and used on Wiki.

Gurudatt 10:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't upload images from that site. Only images uploaded by the site's owner are released for use on Wikipedia. --Carnildo 18:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
The only way you'd be allowed to use those is under Wikipedia:Fair use, which it's very unlikely a significant number would qualify for. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You say, if a file requires attribution, please state who should be attributed. Wow. thanks. How 'bout some info on attribution? Where? what license? I'm tired of dead-end streets here in "images". How about a link in the statement? --RogerK 03:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your complaint is.

If you tag an image as requiring attribution, please specify who needs to be attributed!

That means, if you're using a tag that says something to the effect of "this has to be attributed", you need to attribute it to the appropriate people. No? Is there something confusing about that? Hopefully you've read the tag you've added to the image, right? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

## Generic photo tag

What would I use to tag an image that is just a photo of the location in question, like Image:RJ Reynolds High School Front.JPG. It's not an artistic photo and I didn't take it, but it's not like anyone couldn't have taken it. None of the tags seem to fit, including the one on there now. Any help? -Platypus Man | Talk 06:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

{{imagevio}}. You're correct that anyone could have taken the photo, but not anyone did. Despite not being artistic, it is still subject to copyright (you don't think stock-photo agencies would pay people to go around taking pictures of things if they didn't have rights to them?). Fair use appears unlikely to me, at least without further info on the photo, because you're using it for the same purpose as the author was using it, i.e., it's non-transformative. So it would probably be most convenient all around if you would just use {{db-author}}, and (since you appear to go there, or at least kinda) take your own image of the school, upload it to Wikimedia Commons, and use that. Thanks. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

## NRD template

I notice a lot of users upload images from websites and simply tag them with a fair use template. I understand the new {{nrd}} template can now be used to tag images such as this.

Just to clarify, can I use this to tag all images without a rationale uploaded after May 4 2006, or does it only apply to images tagged as {{Non-free fair use in}}, not {{logo}} etc?

I'd like to know this so I can help with the amount of uploads simply tagged as "fair use" because the uploader is too lazy to add a rationale or simply doesn't care :) Thanks --Tim 10:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You can only use this in conjunction with {{fairuse}} or or {{Non-free fair use in}}. If it's something like {{logo}}, you'll still have to {{fairusedisputed}} it, unfortunately. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
If the selected fair use tag is clearly incorrect (such as {{logo}} on something that isn't a logo, tag it as {{db-badfairuse}} to get it speedy-deleted. If you think the fair-use claim is invalid, but the tag is not clearly incorrect (say, a magazine cover used to illustrate the article on the person who appears on the cover), tag it as {{fair use disputed}}, and state why you think it isn't fair use on the image description page or image talk page. --Carnildo 00:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

## Defunct Leagues tag

I propose a tag for logos of sports leagues which no longer exist, such as the World Football League, the United States Football League, the American Basketball Association, the American Football League, etc.; and for logos of teams that no longer exist, from leagues that no longer exist, such as the Arizona Wranglers, the Kentucky Colonels, etc..

It could say something like:

This is a logo of a corporation, sports team, or other organization that is no longer in existence, and there is no legal entity extant to claim protection by copyright and/or trademark. It is believed that the use of images of logos to illustrate the corporation, sports team, or organization in question on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Since there is no "owner" of the logo, any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may not be copyright infringement. Certain other commercial use of this image may also not be trademark infringement. See Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Logos.

Use of the logo here does not imply endorsement of the organization by Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation, nor does it imply endorsement of Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation by the organization, which, since it no longer exists, cannot endorse or prohibit any use.

When an organization is dissolved they will usually sell their assets in order to recoup costs. This often includes intellectual property, trademarks, logos, etc. Or in the alternative, such intellectual property may be deeded to one of the principal stakeholders. Hence it is still plausible that a legal owner exists even if it may be difficult to identify who that is. In most cases defunct leagues/organizations/etc. should be treated the same as extant organizations unless you have specific information showing that the item was ceded to the public domain, etc. Dragons flight 00:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I think {{Sports-logo}} is sufficient. As Dragons flight wrote, the intellectual property might still be owned by someone. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

## Defunct Publications tag

I propose a tag for images from newspapers, magazines and other periodicals which no longer exist, such as SPORT Magazine, the Buffalo Courier-Express, etc.

It could say something like:

This is an image (or text) from a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical that is no longer in existence, and there is no legal entity extant to claim protection by copyright and/or trademark. It is believed that the use of images from the periodical in question on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Since there is no "owner" of the image, any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may not be copyright infringement. Certain other commercial use of this image may also not be trademark infringement. See Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Logos.

Use of the logo here does not imply endorsement of the organization by Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation, nor does it imply endorsement of Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation by the organization, which, since it no longer exists, cannot endorse or prohibit any use.

See directly above. Dragons flight 00:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
{{Newspapercover}} is sufficient. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
And as Dragons flight implies, just because something is defunct does not mean its copyright claims have disappeared into thin air. Usually they are sold as assets to someone else, or become property of new owners when the place is bought out, etc. Without sure-fire proof of someting actually being in the public domain, one can't assume it, in a situation like this. --Fastfission 01:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

## PD-art and digitization

In August 2004, User:Gdr added the sentence "But if the person or organization who digitized it has released it under another license, list that other license as well as this one." to the {{PD-art}} description. Why is that still there? If {{PD-art}} is applicable, other licenses are completely irrelevant and indeed nonsensical. I've removed it; any objections? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

## Hungarian PD

According to discussion at WP:PUI#15 May (the bottom of the section), it seems that someone has produced a specific law of Hungary that, translated, means "Not protected by the [copyright] law are the legislations, other instruments of state control, court and authority decrees, authority or other official notices and files, as well as legislationally mandatory standards and other related resolutions." If no one has any objections, I'll be creating {{PD-Hungary}} in a day or two and adding it to the list. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

All legislation, rules, regulations, court records and other "edicts of government" of every recognized domestic and foreign government are considered to be ineligible for copyright in the US. Simply put the public has an essentially interest in the laws under which he might be governed, whereas the government is regarded as having no substantial interest in protecting the creative value of legislation. (I've never quite gotten why the US applies this to all foreign legislation as well, but they do.) See WP:PD for reference. Dragons flight 04:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Not really. Peter Veeck v. SBCCI concluded that in certain cases, government regulations might be eligible for copyright protection insofar as the copyright holder could prevent their widespread distribution over the Internet, provided they were still available at appropriate government offices for free inspection. Thus, while court cases and actual laws of the United states government are generally in the public domain, that only applies unconditionally if they're drafted by government employees (although it does apply even to state employees); if they aren't, it's possible for them to be subject to copyright. Furthermore, I don't see anything justifying the claim that things such as Image:Motorway Hungary.jpg would be automatically public-domain under US law, but the specific Hungarian rule explicitly states that "legislationally-mandatory standards" are PD. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Bah, I just saw your post here. I'm still not sure if it's equally broad; do you think it would apply to legally-mandated images? Should we make a {{PD-laws}} or something? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems pretty useless to me. It sounds like everything on that list is textual, so there's no need for an image copyright tag. --Carnildo 06:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, most laws are written records, so I wouldn't think that there are usually much in the way of images for it to apply to. The exception is probably images that become part of an official court record, but those would be pretty rare. Do you have something specific in mind? You are right though, I can't guarantee that the coverage is identical. Dragons flight 05:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The specific idea was for Image:Motorway Hungary.jpg. User:KIDB suggested that under the quoted law, it constituted a "legislationally mandatory standard". Since presumably it is required to be put up by law, that seems like a good point. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

## Need help

I'm pretty new to policing image copyright on Wikipedia, so please help explain this confusing situation to me. Please see my comments here. I believe this image is violating copyright because under its license a copy of the original must be made available in order to allow modification. It appears it has been modified without leaving a copy of the original, except in the edit history. Is this a copyvio or not? Kasreyn 23:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It is now in compliance with even the strictest reading of the license. --Carnildo 06:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Kasreyn 08:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

## Is it OK to change a copyright tag?

I'm pretty sure that when I started uploading images a few months ago there was not a dual licences (self-made) option, which includes Creative Commons and GFDL (previously I tagged them all GFDL (self-made)). I would like to have the tag that allows for free use of the image in the easiest way. So is it OK to change the copyright tags on the other images I have uploaded? And if it is, should I use the copyleft option or the attribution required? --Joelmills 04:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

If you've released an image under the GFDL, you can't take back that release. You can, however, release it under additional licenses to the GFDL, in which case it could be reused under any one of the licenses. Additional licenses can be as permissive as you want; you could even release it into the public domain if you like. (I personally am not a fan of BSD-style licenses, and much prefer genuine copyleft, but it's up to you.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

So I just add the own work, copyleft template to the image page, instead of removing the original GFDL-self template and adding the new template? Just want to be clear. --Joelmills 03:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, just add whichever ones apply. Like if you want to release it under CC-by as well, just add {{CC-by-2.5}} in addition to {{GFDL-self}}. The image will then have two tags. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 06:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

## Map released to the press by an Air Force

I would like to know if its ok to upload and use a map released by the Indian Air Force after the Atlantique Incident shown to the press and if so what licence tag? It was telecast and published in some newspapers and websites so is it PD? Please help --Idleguy 07:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The image in question is unfree. Works of the Indian government retain copyright. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought "free" licences are supposed to allow everybody to copy, modify or distribute the licenced content commercially or non-commercially. But there seem to be some licences under WP:ICT#"Any-purpose" copyright which might not allow images to be freely modified:

1. {{ABr}} does not say anything about modifying the images, only reproduction of the images is covered. By default, one should assume all rights are reserved except those explicitly granted in the licence so probably modification is not free.
2. {{FinnishDefenceForces}} also does not say anything about modifying the images. Only reproduction is allowed freely.
3. With respect to {{Flphoto}}, I can only hope that in the term "any use" of the images, "Florida state law" also includes modification of images, but I can't be sure about it.
4. The ext. link in {{money-EU}} says "As long as reproductions in advertising or illustrations cannot be mistaken for genuine banknotes they can be used" which probably means "reproductions can be used..." which might not include modified images.

I am not saying these images should be banned, but being "unfree to modification" shouldn't we tag these using a fair use tag + a fair use rationale instead of using a tag that is listed under WP:ICT#Free licenses? Thanks! -- Paddu 20:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

While going through the tags I came across few other tags that seem to have some issues:

1. The ext. link in {{AMI}} doesn't seem to say anything about copyrights and licences, though I might have missed that in my quick glance through the page.
2. {{PhilipGreenspun}} doesn't seem to be free at all since the copyright ext. link says "You do not need to pay for usage, either, though I reserve the right to deny usage on sites that I find to be truly poisonous.", which depends on his POV.

Any enlightenment about how "free" these licences are would also be helpful. Thanks! -- Paddu 20:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

1. You're correct, it's uncertain. I've made this clear on the template.
2. You're correct, it's uncertain. I've made this clear on the template.
3. Unfortunately, my head spins why I attempt to read that law. I'll give it another shot later, maybe.
4. That strikes me as just saying forgery is illegal. Entirely separate from copyright considerations. If it's modified, then of course it can't be mistaken for a banknote, can it?
5. I've left a message on the talk page of the user who created the template.
6. You're correct, it's unfree. I've tagged it as such.

Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

1. If it is modified it can't be mistaken of course. But there is nothing that grants the permission to modify the image, right?
BTW I didn't have the time/patience to go through each of the licences listed as "any-purpose". The above was from a random selection. I'd appreciate if someone goes through the other "any-purpose" licences to make sure they are "any-purpose". Thanks! -- Paddu 19:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
1. I suppose not explicitly, no. Hmm. Probably unfree, then. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

### AMI

See Template_talk:AMI. Here's my exchange with Vésteinn, head of the Árni Magnússon Institute, verbatim:

[see history]

One could wish for a more explicit legalistically worded reply but he basically says that he's fine with what we're doing and it ought to be clear to him what that is since I gave him a link to an image description page. His last letter says: "Dear Haukur, Thank you for this. I can see from this that we should put information onto the page that we allow such usage, but of course we request that the source is mentioned, preferably the manuscript registration number and that it is preserved here. Regards, Vésteinn."

He didn't seem very interested in the niceties of copyright legislation and I did not make another attempt to get a more explicit answer from him, hoping that he would indeed put some licencing information on the website. It's too bad if they haven't.

But the thing is that all the images I've uploaded under this licence fall under the Bridgeman ruling anyhow so we did not really need any specific licence. Or at least Wikipedia didn't need it - I might personally need to ensure that I'm not violating the copyright legislation of my own country which was one of my motivations for writing to them. I was also a bit interested in what they would say and whether they had actually given any thought to this.

If you want more details I suggest you write to Vésteinn. That way you can get something in English straight from the horse's mouth.

If it's all the same to you I'd like to blank this exchange once it is over (with a note that the content is in the history). I'm slightly uncomfortable publicly publishing my exchange with Vésteinn and I don't want this page to become a Google hit for his name. Haukur 14:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead and blank it. I really don't think that copyright permission is sufficient, but given that it's all PD-art anyway, I've updated the wording to make that clear. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 08:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

## Serbia PD

This tag {{PD-SCGGov}} is from the Commons, although it should probably be double checked. 20:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

## US-GOV-PD and Washington, D.C.

Msclguru asks: "how do I tag things that were created by the government of the District of Columbia?".

I looked at Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags for possible tags. It is known that US States hold copyrights to the material they produce (no PD), as the work of the Federal Government goes generally to Public Domain. But Washington D.C. is a federal district and "Congress has the sole authority over this federal district and thus the municipal government" (from District_of_Columbia), so tagging the work created by the government of the District of Columbia as {{PD-USGov}} is correct? FYI I did multiple searches thorough google and it seems nowhere in Wikipedia has this been discussed. If applicable, please add something to the PD-USGov talk page about this also. feydey 19:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Oi, this doesn't look like a simple question at all. I went over the relevant code a few times and it has nothing which would indicate unequivocally what the copyright status of DC-produced works are. I think the odds of running into infringement problems are, for all practical purposes, nil. --Fastfission 14:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Happily, by sheer coincidence I came across this, which answers the question. Unhappily, the answer (206.02(c)) is "Works of the government of the District of Columbia, as now constituted, are not considered U.S. Government works." —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 16:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the answer. feydey 21:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

## PD-Croatia?

User:Maayaa has asserted that all Croatian media enters the public domain twenty-five years after publication. If this is true, and I have no particular reason to doubt that it is other than that being a remarkably short span of time, why do we not have a PD-Croatia template here or at Commons? Jkelly 18:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thuresson has cited an English translation that appears to contradict that, so I wouldn't worry too much about it. Next time, you can always ask a few people who know Croatian. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The relevant paragraph is quoted on the talk page where Thuresson posted, and it clearly says, for IMAGES (and not for all media, as JKelly wrongly attributs it), the copyright expires in 25 years. The paragraphs 99 and 101 quoted by Theresson do not contradict the other paragraph (83 or what it is) at all, the other paragraph treats IMAGES specifically (and some other cases), while 99 and 101 give the upper limit that applies always. Please mind that the copyright law in question is available online, and that the provisions for photograps were quoted, they are verifiable and clearly state that expiration for photographs (and some other media) is 25 years. The template should be made. Maayaa 21:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

## {{PD-Florida}}

I just came across this case in the Second District Court of Appeal of Florida. The basic point: "Florida's Constitution and its statutes do not permit public records to be copyrighted unless the legislature specifically states they can be." Some exceptions have been passed: "See, e.g., § 24.105(10), Fla. Stat. (2003) (authorizing the Department of the Lottery to hold copyrights); § 601.101, Fla. Stat. (2003) (permitting the Department of Citrus to hold legal title to copyrights); § 1004.23, Fla. Stat. (2002) (authorizing universities to secure copyrights in certain works). . . . Section 119.084 permits agencies to acquire and hold copyrights for data processing software the agencies have created." But most works of the Florida government are nonetheless in the public domain, given the definition of "public records":

all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, tapes, photographs, films, sound recordings, data processing software, or other material, regardless of the physical form, characteristics, or means of transmission, made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business by any [state, county, district, authority, or municipal officer, department, division, board, bureau, commission, or other separate unit of government created or established by law].

Should this have its own tag? It could come in handy. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There have been other tags like {{PD-NCGov}} and {{PD-CAGov}} for North Carolina and California govnernments, but these have recently been deleted. Try it and see if admins will accept your citations. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Does {{PD-FLGov}} look good? If so, I'll add it to the page. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Added. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

There should be a crown copyright tag for Crown Copyright in Canada (See Crown copyright). Which should state "Non-commercial use under the conditions that 1) due diligence is taken to ensure accuracy, 2) the source is identified, and 3) the material is not represented as an official version." Cavenba 01:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

How would this be helpful? It is just {{noncommercial}} with more restrictions. Jkelly 01:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
There are a few images in WP that say the image is PD. I think it would help people ID how the image should be used. Cavenba 01:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
A template along such lines should be nominated for deletion, no matieral that is non-commerical use only should be uploaded to Wikipedia. Did you read the page - images under non-free governemnt copyrights hsould not be uploaded to Wikipedia. Such images should be dealt via regular fair use mecahnisms.--Peta 02:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Please tag as {{noncommercial}} the images tagged as PD which you find to be under Canadian Crown copyright. If you feel some of them can be used under the fair use doctrine, you could tag them using the appropriate fair use tag and write a fair use rationale for those images. Thanks! -- Paddu 23:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

## RPG artwork

I'm looking into cleaning up some of the d20_System articles, and i wanted to upload relevant images. However, i couldn't find a template which seemed appropriate for tagging the images, and created Template:RPG-artwork before i noticed the advisory at Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags to check here first. My apologies, i'm open to any discussion, and if it's decided that this is not needed or should be deleted for any other logical reason, i won't object.Lucky number 49 19:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with it, in light of what we have. Add it to the list below {{art}} if you like. I'm not sure I see the use of all these subrationales anyway, however; if anything, surely they make things more confusing for people looking for the right tag to use? Why do we care about the difference between an album cover and a book cover? Obviously it's useful to categorize rationales, but the rationale for those would be completely identical. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

## Help - confused as to which tag to use

I have never uploaded an image to Wikipedia before and am very confused as to which tag to use and how to do it. I am working on the British Horse Society page and the society has given me permission to put their logo on the page. Obviously this does not automatically mean it may be freely distributed by anyone. Any ideas? Many thanks Ashfan83 13:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If you go through the WP:ICT page, you can see a section titled fair use. The tags under the section can be used for images that are not freely distributable, but are used in Wikipedia:
• in a limited number of pages,
• at low resolutions,
• for the purpose of illustration,
• without affecting any copyright interest the authors may have in the images.
As you can see from that page, the best fit for your case is {{logo}}. Check if your use complies with Wikipedia:Logos, and if it does, upload the image with the tag {{logo}} and a fair-use rationale. -- Paddu 16:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
If you have permission, you may in addition add the tag {{WithPermission}}. -- Paddu 16:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

## Confused by sentence in promotional tag

"It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of promotional material"

Does this mean that promotional images must be reduced before they're uploaded? What if the original image wasn't very large? Ladlergo 19:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the only restriction is that the image should be low-resolution, whether reduced by you before uploading, or already available at a reduced resolution at a "promoting webpage". I think the latter would be better since that would be an "official version" and hence there can be no issues with the "quality" of the image, etc. -- Paddu 16:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Are there any guidelines as to what's high-res vs. low-res? I work at 1024x768 and I only consider something high-res if it covers more than a third of my screen, but other people undoubtedly have different measures. Ladlergo 19:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I have always taken the guidelines to be the difference between print and web media. If you can successfully reproduce the object at its normal size by printing it, it is too high a resolution. (i.e. if an image of a CD cover could be used to create a CD cover by printing it out, the resolution is too high) This is semi-arbitrary but is intended to make sure that it is only large enough for Wikipedia's purposes. --Fastfission 21:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

## Clarification

The US Copyright web site says that all images and documents are automatically copyrighted when they are created without having to be registered and that it is only prior to an infringment suit that the creator must register his copyright. Therefore in the article where the word "copyrighted" is used does this mean pre-registered copyright or post-registered copyright? (I'm posting this question elsewhere as well.) ...IMHO (Talk) 20:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If an article says "copyrighted by so-and-so", it doesn't automatically mean the author has registered the copyright. Even if the copyright is not yet registered, it helps to indicate who holds the copyright. Besides, the author may not be American and might not be interested in registering it in the U.S.
BTW with respect to adding content to Wikipedia, one shouldn't care about whether the copyright was registered. Any content not in the public domain, not released under a free licence and not usable under fair use should not be added to Wikipedia. -- Paddu 16:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
In the USA there is no difference between a registered and unregistered copyright except in an infringement suit, and even then it is just a formality, as I understand it. --Fastfission 21:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

## Special Wikimedia image tag

Which one is the image tag that says roughly "permission was granted to use this image under the GFDL in an email (ticket #) to the wikimedia fundation"? It is needed for Image:CentralAvenueCornell2.jpg and possibly others Circeus 17:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like {{confirmation}} would fit the bill. --Sherool (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I found it: {{ConfirmationImageOTRS}}. Why isn't it on the page already? Circeus 01:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

## European Parliament images

Can images taken from the European Parliament website [1] be used with the following tag: {{EU image}}

Afonso Silva 22:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Only under fair use. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but that's not my question, the point is if I can use it considering that the link in the template is to the website of the European Union instead of the website of the Parliamnt. Afonso Silva 22:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

A simple change to the template should suffice. The licencing conditions are the same. If we can just get someone to alter the template to a "switch" i.e. it will display the "europa.eu" address if you put in {{EU image}}, but if you put in {{EU image|parliament}} (or something like that) it displays the parliament address. I sent an e-mail to ask if it's OK to just acknowledge "europa.eu" even if it came from the Parliament (they are the same group of sites). Also, I changed the template to ".eu" instead of ".eu.int" since that's what they're advertising on the site (even if you put in .eu.int) - Рэдхот 11:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Just received a reply to the e-mail. We better modify the template. - Рэдхот 13:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

## Image:Greenland coat of arms.svg

Can someone tell me what tag this image falls under? Is it {{PD-ineligible}}? By any means, permission has definitly been given by Greenland's Department of Information, as that's what was stated on the image I made it from (Image:Greenland coat of arms.png) - Рэдхот 13:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The original page didn't say anything about permission being granted, it just said "by courtesy of . . .". {{permission}} is invalid as a copyright claim anyway. It's fair-use until demonstrated otherwise; rationales should be added for each use. (Note that incidentally, you have exclusive—but not inclusive—rights to your vectorization; that is, you can prohibit others from using it, but not permit them to use it without Greenland's permission. You've released it under the GFDL by uploading it here, although we will typically honor requests to delete material that a contributor has authored.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

## Crazy Head Of Some Animal

Is the "Crazy Animal Head" in the GNU licences meant to be there? The Only Non-Brainless Person Around Here It Seems 26:32, 22 June 2006 (Non-UTC)

Yes. Did you try clicking it? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

## tag for image allowed for educational or non-profit purposes

I'm trying to locate the right tag for an image which has been explicitly allowed free use on condition that it be employed in a non-profit or educational capacity. Which one should I use?Serendipodous 22:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

{{db-i3}}. Images which don't allow completely free use, and which don't meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use criteria, can't be used on Wikipedia. --Carnildo 23:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Along with the pre-1923-in-the-U.S. rule, why don't we add "or was published outside of the United States before July 1909."[2] This would resolve most of the ambiguities which come up with people regarding things which are old enough to be PD-US but are not necessarily published in the US, but are not old enough to fall under one of the PD-Old tags. Thoughts? --Fastfission 23:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Images created before 1923 outside the US are also probably in the public domain outside the Ninth Circuit, which does not include the state where Wikimedia servers are hosted (namely Florida), according to that chart. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

## Proof of permission?

I have permission from the copyright holders to display some certain sports logos. I am sure it qualifies under fair use, but I have permission as well, certainly can't be a bad thing. I know I can't use "copyrighted", and that I should use "Withpermission" with a fair use tag. How do I prove that I have permission? Do I provide a copy of the e-mail? Where should I put it? --Kevin 01:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

If you put it on the discussion page for the image, that should be fine. You might de-spam their e-mail address (i.e. sam at blank dot com rather than sam@blank.com). --Fastfission 02:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Use {{ConfirmationImageOTRS}}, by having them send the permission soit can be logged. Circeus 02:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks fastfission. Circeus, if I use that tag, how would I recieve the OTRS code?
Someone with OTRS access can provide it. See m:OTRS. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

## A new fair use tag: Official Sportsplayer images

I'd like to use images from NZ Rugby Football Union website, as their copyright makes them available for not-for-profit use (http://www.allblacks.com/index.cfm?layout=termsAndConditions). The copyright status seems to meet the criteria for "Fair Use", so I would like to propose a new tag to be categorised under "Fair Use":Publicity Photos, or perhaps "Other specific tags" - "Official sportsplayer images" User:A.J.Chesswas 11:03, 26 June 2006 (NZT)

{{promophoto}} sounds right here. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 23:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

## Pictures of FORGED artwork

Okay so here is my conundrum. I have been working on art forgery, and would like to add some pictures of forged artwork (photos of paintings 2D, not photos of statues, I understand that that copyright belongs to whomever took the picture).

So here are my questions:

Now it just strikes me as logical that forged artwork cannot be copyrighted no matter when it was produced, (i.e. it is PD-ineligible)?

Second, given I am correct in thinking that forgeries are public domain, which tag is the most appropriate? PD art, PD ineligible, or something all together different? Please help--DO11.10 22:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that, since the purpose of a forgery is to produce a "slavishly accurate" copy of the original, Bridgeman v. Corel probably applies, and the forgery is ineligible for copyright in its own right. There still may be issues if the original work is copyrighted. Additionally, forgeries that are new works falsely attributed to an artist are eligible for copyright, and if created after 1989, are automatically copyrighted. --Carnildo 23:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
In general, forgeries are copyrighted. That the forger isn't going to sue us for it is irrelevant. However, if the work was made in the US before 1978, it's not copyrighted if it wasn't registered with the Copyright Office, which presumably it wouldn't be. This last bit doesn't apply to foreign works, however, unless the forgery was in the public domain in its home country as of 1 January 1996. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

## Library of Congress tag?

I got an image from this page: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/i?pp/ils:@field(NUMBER+@band(ppmsca+09869)):displayType=1:m856sd=ppmsca:m856sf=09869 and gave it a tag of PD-USGov-Congress but I don't know if that's right?

Image:Rapier.jpg

-plange 03:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No. It's probably {{PD-old}} or {{PD-US}}. The LoC website should have a full entry on the picture somewhere that gives the copyright status. --Carnildo 06:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

## Soundtracks?

Hi, is it okay to add a soundtrack from a film into wikipedia? Thank you! Häsk 13:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but only short extracts, as littleaspossible to demonstrate the point. See fair use criteria #3. Circeus 15:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
To clarify, you can only add such snippets if they're useful for understanding a subject of an article, and they must be as short and low-quality as possible while still allowing the listener to understand the relevant point. They may never be used outside of articles. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

ok, thank you! Häsk 08:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

## Passport photos of people

I'm looking at Image:Alhawsawi.jpg in which Quadell (who I consider knowledgeable about this stuff in general) asserts that passport photos are not copyrightable, which doesn't strike me as correct. Anyone know about the legal status of images like this? Thanks. 18:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Depends on the country. In the US, I believe passport photos are considered "noncreative works", and are not eligible for copyright. In Germany, they are in a special category, and are protected for a much shorter time period than creative works. Other countries have their own rules. --Carnildo 19:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Passports are not considered uncreative. The angle and background may be fixed, but the photographer will still typically make sure that the subject is centered, for instance. Remember, the bar for creativity is very low; even modest amounts will suffice. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, so they're treated as other photographs would be, subject to the copyright laws of the country where they were taken. Makes sense to me. 06:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

## Pictures of sculptures, statues etc

There has been some discussion at WP:PUI on pictures of statues that are still under copyright. Pictures would be derivative works but using them for critical comment would easily fall under fair use. Would it make sense to create a new tag [[see User:Dr Zak/Statue, something like this]], or should we rather fix the wording on {{art}} to include three-dimensional imagery? Dr Zak 18:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

We need to make it clear that there is a copyright both on the statue and potentially a separate one on the photograph of it. So even after the statue is old, a recent photo of it may still be copyrighted by the photographer. Rmhermen 00:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The template text [3] says "Also indicate the license that the derivative work is released under." Dr Zak 03:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Or how a parameter to make it look like this:

This is a two-dimensional representation of a copyrighted sculpture, statue or any other three-dimensional work of art. As such it is a derivative work of art, and per US Copyright Act of 1976, § 106(2) the copyright owner has the exclusive right to authorize derivative works.

Per § 107 is it believed that reproduction for criticism, comment, teaching and scholarship constitutes fair use and does not infringe copyright.

It is believed that the use of a picture

• to illustrate the three-dimensional work of art in question,
• to discuss the artistic genre or technique of the work of art
• or to discuss the artist or the school to which the artist belongs

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement.

To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as copyright information on the original artwork.

The derivative work is released under the following license: {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}}

Dr Zak 03:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

## RIA Novosti Images

I made this Template:RIANimage (obviously, it doesnt exist there yet, for want of approval here) tag using bits of other tags elsewhere on Wikipedia, specifically Trilobyte's EU Pariament tag. I want to use it for the images from RIA Novosti's website, as they have released the images granted that a reference is made to the image source. I suppose FreeUseProvidedThat would probably work, but I like this new tag more since it saves me from having to go back and reference the copyright data source every time; all that would need to be done is paste the link source, rather than explaining every time what the situation is. (Here it is written out, if you want to look for yourself.)

//EDIT: Code moved due to update. See history for old code.//


There are already three or four images I've added to Wikipedia that could benefit from this tag, especially since I think they're still using the obselete {fairuse} mark. I'd rather replace that depreciated tag with this new one, rather than puzzling over which of the others ought to take it's place.

--Oceanhahn 17:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Bugger. Put in an old version of the template I wanted to use. Fixed it now, so yeah. //Edit. --Oceanhahn 17:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I went ahead and made the tag anyway. It's at Template:RIAN-image if you want to have a look. I figured it was okay since it's been three days and there's been no comment on the subject. --Oceanhahn 12:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest that you quote the exact passage in Russian that permits reuse, modification, and sale provided attribution is given, along with a translation. Linking to the copyrighted page isn't so helpful for those of us who don't know Russian; a translation would be appreciated. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Wh-- did you click the link? It's in English. //EDIT: The second link is in english, excuse me. --Oceanhahn 05:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that entire previous statement of mine was made in error. The new tag, to which I've applied to a few images, is as follows:
//EDIT: Code removed to minimize confusion. Old code exists in the history... I know I shouldn't edit old comments, but this is just code. Complain to me and I'll put it back, but it really does make a mess of things... Oceanhahn//

The previous code (which I've removed since it's a little misleading...) was outdated and different from the tag I implemented last night. Thanks for pointing that out, and I've made some changes according to your input. -- Oceanhahn 05:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The permission granted is insufficient. It only permits reproduction; to be a free content license, it must also permit modification. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I do not believe that the tag indicates that modification is allowed or that any has taken place, only that the images were taken from that website. I'll change it again to reflect that, though, so there's no confusion. (Keep in mind that "free access" is something completely aside from "free content". Free access only indicates that the material was obtained from the public access (no membership required; no payment neccessary -- any schlub with a computer and an internet connection can get at it) segment of the website. Maybe that isnt the problem, but just to hazard a guess.) --Oceanhahn 11:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

{{RIAN-image}}

 This is a copyrighted image from the RIA Novosti web site (in English) Copyright details (in English) Reproduction of public-access materials is permitted, provided that RIA Novosti is acknowledged as the material's source and a hyperlink is posted. The original image is located [EXAMPLE URL here].

//EDIT : I also included this usage guide for clarification.

Usage: Apply the tag using {{subst:RIAN-image|«IMAGE SOURCE URL»}}, or simply {{subst:RIAN-image}} if the source URL is not available. The source URL *ought* to be available, though, since it can simply be copied out of a brower URL history or address bar. (Tag created June 29th '006.) For use with any of RIA Novosti's images or material that '''not''' from the limited-access (password protected) portion of the website.

This proposed tag might make sense only as a gaudy source attribution in combination with a fair use tag. Lupo 08:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
One among many, many others, perhaps. Witness Template:Kassiesa, for one example. --Oceanhahn 11:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
//EDIT : Template:LearningandSkillsCouncilCopyright is another custom template that only applies to one source. For the sake of maybe ten kilobytes, I don't think a little gaudiness is too big an issue. Also, it's different from fair use because it's been released for these purposes. --Oceanhahn 11:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Template:Kassiesa is a {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} derivate, and thus allows modification and also re-uses for commercial purposes (although I must admit I haven't checked whether the claims of that template are indeed true). This is not the case with the RIA Novosti images. The Template:LearningandSkillsCouncilCopyright looks like a non-free license to me, as it explicitly rules out derivative works and makes some other restrictions incompatible with a free license. Lupo 11:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I didnt say that the uses of the tags were identical; I only said that they were very specific derivations of other, more general tags. I'm quite aware of the differences in the circumstances and nature of the copyright status of the material itself. Also, I did not say that Novosti's material was free content. Only that it came from the free access portion of the site (a mistake which I have taken steps to rectify). If I have inadvertantly insinuated that the material is under a free licence and not conditional use somewhere (somewhere other than the template itself), please point it out so that I may correct myself. --Oceanhahn 11:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, for one, the change to the green © icon, which I believe should be used only for free licenses (yes, I know, some other templates need to be cleaned up, too...) seemed to imply so. Please note that I have nothing at all against a gaudy template, as long as it makes it adamantly clear that the material so tagged is not under a free license and that for any image using this tag a fair use case must be made, as Wikipedia does not consider "no derivatives" licenses to be free. Lupo 11:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Ahh, I see. Very well, then. I'll change the red logo back. I was using it on the basis that other, similar templates did the same, so I went with their precident. I'll fix it now, as well as the template I was emulating. Thanks for the help! Would you say the the template is clear enough now, or should I go back and add more to it regarding the... err... immaleability of the material? --Oceanhahn 11:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
It still wasn't very clear. I've added a notice that it needs a fair-use rationale, and replaced Category:Image copyright tags with Category:Attribution templates. Now it's clear enough for me. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I made a mistake initially. The copyright release information on Novosti's website does NOT say that it is for noncommercial use only, only that the images need to be referenced. With that in mind, I've changed the template as such. --Oceanhahn 07:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I got rid of the logo, fair use images are not allowed in templates. --Sherool (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Where does it say that? I'm not sure where it's written that a fair-use logo can't be used in a template that describes material produced by the organization which the fair-use logo represents. --Oceanhahn 07:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
WP:FUC point #9. --Carnildo 03:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am an active user at commons, and an admin at ar.wiki.

The info line states:

for works first published in Iraq before Iraq signed a copyright treaty with the United States.

And according to the template:

Works first published in a foreign country are subject to protection under United States copyright law if, "on the date of first publication", that country is "a country or intergovernmental organization other than the United States that is a party to" "(1) the Universal Copyright Convention; (2) the Geneva Phonograms Convention; (3) the Berne Convention; (4) the WTO Agreement; (5) the WIPO Copyright Treaty; (6) the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty; [or] (7) any other copyright treaty to which the United States is a party."

and

Iraq does not have a reciprocal copyright agreement with the United States

But:

No special agreement has ever been signed with the states,

• In September 2004, Iraq submitted a formal request for accession to WTO. Iraqi parliament never discussed the issue.
• The ministry of Culture implements the modified copyright law, but with no legal coverage.

Finally the 1971 Iraqi law states that a photo of an object is protected for 5 years after production(http://www.arabpip.org/arablaws_irq_authr.htm), while the template states 25 after death of author.

This template should be modified or deleted. --Tarawneh 05:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The US Copyright Office does not consider Iraq to have any copyright relations with the United States (Circular 38a). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course they don't, I am not saying they do. As I said from the beginning the template is based on some misleading resources. Simply because US Copyright Office decides to drop both WIPO and Paris Convention from its tables, does not mean that Iraq is not a member of two copyright treaties to which the United States is a party. And even if someone within the US Copyright Office insists on such information, this would not be enough to make the photos PD outside of the states ( I am not even sure that this is enough to make Iraqi work PD within the states). The template should state something like: "Although Iraq and US are both members of two IP treaties; WIPO and Paris Convention, the US Copyright Office seems to ignore such a fact and assumes Iraqi work to be PD inside the states. This does not mean that this work is PD any where else". We are not supposed to take sides on this, we just have to state facts. --Tarawneh 01:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Ahem... the "WIPO Convention" is the treaty esablishing the WIPO, but that's not the treaty to look at. For copyright, the WIPO Copyright Treaty is the relevant one. And, of course, also the Berne Convention and the Universal Copyright Convention. The Paris Convention you mentioned is a trademarks treaty and irrelevant for copyright issues. Iraq has never been a member of the Berne Convention (contracting parties), the UCC (contracting parties for the 1952 text, contracting parties for the 1971 text), or the WIPO copyright treaty (contracting parties). The U.S. Copyright Office has got it right. Lupo 08:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, Iraq is a member of UN and hence his intellectual property is protected by WIPO. And even if I might agree to some degree with your point, U.S. Copyright Office has no power no to declare a world wide PD. It can't even declared Iraqi works as PD in the states, it is simply not protecting Iraqi works inside the states. This might mean that there is no legal grounds for a court case inside the states, but a legal case can be established out side the states for any copyright violation reported in the states. --Tarawneh 10:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
The U.S. Copyright Office does not say Iraqi works were not protected by copyright worldwide; they just say so for the U.S. However, I think that since Iraq is not a member of any of the aforementioned copyright treaties, Iraqi works are not copyrighted anywhere else except in countries with which Iraq had concluded bilateral copyright treaties on its own. Whether Iraq is a member of the UN is irrelevant for international copyright protection. Lupo 11:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
A completely different question is what our policy should be. And here, I think Wikipedia should act as if Iraq were a member of all these treaties and label only Iraqi works where the Iraqi copyright has expired as PD. Otherwise, we will have to re-evaluate all Iraqi images once Iraq does join the Berne Convention, because that convention applies to all works still copyrighted in their country of origin on the date the country joins. Also see Jimbo's message on a similar issue concerning Iranian copyrights. Lupo 11:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
WIPO is one of the 16 specialized agencies of the United Nations, Iraq is a member. For countries other than the states, some documentation must be provided on a country by country basis. keep in mind that in September 2004 Iraq did submit a formal request to WTO. The only thing stopping this is the situation on ground. The Coalition Provisional Authority modifications to the Iraqi law was forced just to protect the work of united states enterprises inside Iraq. I really believe that Jimbo's message is best that can be said in such a case. --Tarawneh 13:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I think we agree on that last bit. But just to clear up any possible confusions: Iraq isn't a member of the WTO yet (WTO members and observers). And if you want to claim that UN membership automatically granted international copyright protection, please back up that claim with reputable external references. Lupo 13:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Not totally true, Iraq is an observer, check your list again. Iraq applied for observer status in January 2004. On February 11, 2004, Iraq was granted observer status at the WTO by all 176 members and observers of the WTO at a meeting of the WTO General Council in Geneva. [4] [5] , On 30 September 2004 Iraq requested accession. [6]. on 13 December 2004 WTO established a Working Party to examine Iraq’s membership application. Iraq finished step three of the accession process by the submission of a memorandum on the Foreign Trade Regime on 16 September 2005.[7] [8].
I phoned WTO on +41 22 739 51 11, they promised to call me back within a day or two, lets hope with something new. I also contacted Abu-Ghazaleh Intellectual Property, they are the firm to be asked about such an issue. I am waiting for their response. --Tarawneh 16:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I know, thank you. A WTO observer country is not a WTO member. An observer country is obliged to start accession negotiations within five years of becoming an observer. See [9]. And that Working Party on the accession of Iraq (status) that was formed in December 2004 hasn't even met yet. Iraq is in the process of becoming a WTO member, but it isn't one yet. (And I daresay the process will take a couple of years.) Lupo 19:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree, by the way, that Iraqi copyrights should be respected even if they don't have to be in many countries (I expect the US probably isn't exceptional in this regard, although I could be wrong), and never meant to imply otherwise. Does anyone here think Jimbo's statement isn't good enough reason to institute this right now? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Done so at WP:PD#Countries_without_copyright_treaties_with_the_U.S. Lupo 09:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

## Help. Not sure what to do

I have never added a photo before so I don't know what to do. I want to add a photograph to a page, but I there is no copyright info anywhere that I found it. I've seen the same picture used on many sites but there is never any copyright info. Can someone please tell me what tag or whatever that I should use if there is no info about the photo? It's not a publicity photo, it's not a screencap, I can't find any category that it fits under. Thanks for any help!

If you can't find out its copyright status, we probably can't use it. In some very rare situations such images could qualify for fair use, but our policies in that regard are fairly strict. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

## 'Promotional' in Licensing drop down list

When you upload a file the page gives you a list of licenses to choose from. {{Promotional}} isn't one of the choices. I upload a lot of promotional pictures for tv shows. It would be very helpful if {{Promotional}} were added to the list of options. SnappingTurtle 18:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It was removed due to massive abuse. People were using it for images that did not come from press kits. It had become a dumping grounds for "image I found on the web somewhere". Jkelly 18:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I came here to ask about the {{Promotional}}. It needs more clarification, on this page and on the tag itself, that it's not for images people take from websites. I think people genuinely mistake photos on certain websites, especially official sites, team websites, event websites, etc to be promotional. The tag needs clarification that:

• The license only covers images that are clearly and specifically marked for distribution
• The lincense does not cover images found on websites, i.e. images that are part of the site's content and not part of a press kit.

I think people are honestly confused about the purpose of the tag rather than abusing it. Ytny 01:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

## Why no PD-UK?

Perhaps somebody has already asked this but I can't find it. I want to upload some old photographs but there doesn't seem to be an appropriate licensing tag. The photos were taken in the UK before 1945, and as such are public domain (see http://www.intellectual-property.gov.uk/faq/copyright/oldphotos_1945.htm). I don't think they're quite old enough for PD-old, though. Tim giddings 21:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The United States does not observe the rule that copyright on foreign works expires whenever that nation's laws says they do. Therefore, the image will not fall into the public domain in the US for some decades yet, and has to be used under fair use if it's used at all. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, please observe that the extlink you gave explains the effect of the EU Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection: such pohotographs may indeed be under copyright again in the UK. :-( Lupo 06:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
It depends. If the works in question were published between 1923 and 1977 inclusive AND they were in the public domain in their home countries as of January 1, 1996, then they are in the public domain in the US as well. 22:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I always forget that bit.  :( —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
But this is irrelevant in this context because this EU directive became effective on July 1, 1995 (see [10]), also in the UK (see Copyright_law_of_the_United_Kingdom#Extension_of_copyright_term). Hence copyright restoration in the UK occurred before the URAA date of January 1, 1996, and thus any such EU-restored copyrights also became restored in the U.S. Lupo 08:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

## Images used in It's a Wonderful Life

I am trying to figure out the copyright status of the many images that fill up this article. According to the text, the copyright on the film lapsed in 1974 but it's still under copyright as a derivative work (copyrights on the screenplay, score, etc. were all renewed). Does this mean that still images from the film are no longer covered under copyright (because it expired), but the respective copyrights of the film's components prevent it from being aired without royalties? I first marked Image:The bailey house.jpg as PD-US but then thought twice about it and figured I should ask for advice. Thanks. --BrownCow • (how now?) 22:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Assuming that the copyright for It's a Wonderful Life really did expire without renewal, I would be surprised if that screenshot was found to be a derivative work of the screenplay. That said, if you're at all uncomfortable taking responsibility for it, an alternate would be to find images used in the movie's trailer -- the screenplays for those almost never had their copyrights renewed. Jkelly 22:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

## Images from a book

OK, this page has officially confused me. I'm not sure whether I would still be considered a Newbie, as I'm mostly lurking, but I'd like to write the Porth-Yr-Ogof page and I have a book by Martyn Farr to help me do it. There's some photos in the book I think would help a lot, especially the map of the cave, but I'm not sure how to go about this - at all. I'm not doing it just yet, 'cause I have no access to a scanner, so I won't do anything prematurely. Lady BlahDeBlah 19:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll asume you mean to ask what copyright tag to use since you asked the question here. I would say {{Non-free fair use in|Article name}} + a fair use rationale. Images inside books does not fall into any "blanket" category, you should also be carefull when giving the source of such images because you can not automaticaly asume the copyright for photos printed in a book to automaticaly belong to the author or publisher of the book. They might simply have bought (or otherwise obtained) a non-exclusive license to print the photo (see if there are any "acknowledgements" or simmilar wich name the photographer(s)). Illustrations made espesialy for a book are somewhat "safer" though as they can reasonably be asumed to be "work for hire" and thus copyrighed by the publisher. --Sherool (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Only works by employees are works for hire, not works by contractors. Many books' illustrators are undoubtedly contractors. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I want to make sure I do this right... I'm interested in uploading an image of Elaine Tanner from the Library & Archive website of the government of Canada for use to illustrate the article. To be precise, the picture found on this page. So I fired off an email asking about that specific image and the reply I got back was this: The material you wish to obtain is protected under Crown copyright.

So which tag would I use to illustrate that this is how the image is licensed? Or can I even use it?? Tabercil 01:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Here is the full image description. As it is not freely reusable (it is basically {{noncommercial}} with an "advertising" clause), you would have to argue that it fits Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. I think that might wind up being a bit of a waste of time; I cannot imagine a strong argument that this image could meet that criteria, and the image might wind up deleted as part of image cleanup. It's hard to find freely licensed images from the late 60s; I don't even know where to suggest you try next. Jkelly 01:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that description is of the image in question. The image states that it's of "Elaine Tanner displaying the medals she won at swimming events", yet the image is of her in the water, and there's no sign of any medals whatsoever. Tabercil 02:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Right, sorry about linking to the wrong page. Jkelly 17:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
No problem as no foul intended, but it still leaves me with my original problem: can I make use of the image, and if so, how? It sounds like I might need to put a few more questions to the contact at the webpage about what they mean by "Crown Copyright" - any suggestions on what those questions should be? Tabercil 21:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
It may still have been the right page. The French description doesn't say anything about her "displaying" the medals; it just mentions that the image shows Elaine Tanner, who won two gold medals. At least the reproduction number seems right; and searching for "Elaine Tanner" at the LAC yields only that PA-207885. See also here, where they got that English description right. Lupo 06:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Read this: [11] Crown copyright means that the government holds the copyright, in this case presumably Library and Archives Canada. If there is a copyright, you have to ask for permission, and you probably have to take measures to make sure that your use doesn't lead to future commercial use. In any case, I think you have to ask for permission, explaining exactly what you are doing with it. There are form letters available here somewhere. Canadiana 01:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering if someone can tell me whether or not photographs of Pictish symbol stones and cross-slabs count as public domain in the USA. Here is an example. Wikipedia would be so much for the better with use of these pictures, but will I have to take them myself, or get permission from the person who took them, in order to upload and use them on wikipedia? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The ruling of "public-domain art is still public-domain in reproduction" only applies to photographs of two-dimensional art (ie, not of carvings, sculpture, engravings), since a two-dimensional reproduction is a modification of the original. So we can't use them without the owner licensing them... Shimgray | talk | 16:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
The main problem with engravings is that the lighting can impart creativity to the photograph. An additional issue is that the angle would probably constitute creativity by itself if it's not simply perpendicular, as it isn't in the image you linked to. Therefore, it's unlikely that such a work would be automatically in the public domain. Try getting the authors to release them under a free license, or take some yourself, yes. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The {{Canada-politician-photo}} tag states that it is be used for a "photograph of a Canadian politician or other public official that is owned by the Canadian government, and is under Crown copyright". I have noticed that people are using this tag for images retrieve from Canadian provincial sources. For example, Image:JAngusMacLean.jpg. This image is from the Government of Prince Edward Island site whose copyright statement states: "Unless otherwise specifically stated herein, all text, graphics, maps, photographs and other material are the property of the Government of Prince Edward Island. All rights reserved." I just wanted to be sure that this tag is to be used only from images from federal sites. I also think the tag should be changed to say "...photograph of a federal Canadian politician or other federal public official..." Any comments? --YUL89YYZ 17:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The Government of PEI is not the Government of Canada, despite the fact that the Crown copyright happens to be under the same crown. I notice there is also a {{Nova Scotia-politician-photo}} template. Other comments:
Canadiana 01:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

## Phylogenetic Tree image: Ineligible for copyright?

Before slapping on such a tag, I'm asking here. The image (with copyright discussion, also in its talk page): Image:MyosinUnrootedTree.jpg. Despite lacking "What links here", the image is used in the article Phylogenetic tree. The author herself gave special permission to use it on Wikipedia with attribution, along with redistribution. Its copyright status currently seem to be disputed because it seems to be wholly based on common research, a bit like a periodic table of elements. I wonder where to draw the line here -- would the work be copyrighted (in that case I feel it's a case of {{copyrighted}}), or ineligible for copyright (in that case {{pd-ineligible}}). That's what I feel are the two closest tags anyway, and I'd like to see that image tagged, as its status is quite confusing right now. It seems the image has already been listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems, but without a clear resolution, at least to me. Thanks! -- Northgrove 03:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The real question, I suppose, is whether the image is directly produced from the data by a generally available computer program, or whether making it required creative editing to make it look good. If the former, then there is no creative elemnt involved, and the image is not eligible for copyright; if the latter, the editing may be sufficient creative input to make the image copyrightable.
Of course, if the image is ineligible for copyright, you should probably also be able to recreate an equivalent image by running the same program on the same data. If fact, thjis might be advisable in any case, just to dispel any doubt about its copyrightability. Just make sure you don't, consciously or subconsciously, imitate any creative aspects of its layout.
Or you could just ask the author to release it under a free license; the only right they haven't already granted is the right to create and distribute derivative works; and I'm sure they'd agree to allow it once you explain the requirements the GFDL places on anyone doing so. In fact, for all I know, they might agree to a less restrictive license, such as CC-BY-SA or even just CC-BY. Won't hurt to ask. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 03:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
This sounds like a good idea. While one could "reduce" the image to try make it PD ineligible, that wouldn't really benefit Wikipedia other than giving it a compatible license. The work would be reduced in quality though. I may see if the author can still be contacted about this image, because I'm not really a fan of reducing the work to something more PD'ish unless I have to. -- Northgrove 04:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
My rule of thumb for {{PD-ineligible}} is that if two random people were asked to create an image of something, and they created substantially identical images, then the image is probably ineligible for copyright. --Carnildo 03:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
A better rule of thumb, I think, is that if the creative elements are so minor that they can be removed or changed easily without actually affecting the image's usefulness or attractiveness, it's probably ineligible for copyright. A rather lengthier criterion I wrote up for Wikipedia:Can I use this work? is
The work is a simple two-dimensional collection of geometric shapes, or is a reflection of ideas or facts in a simple and standard way (such as a crude line graph). While there may be some creativity in placement or coloring, any such decisions could be easily changed by dint of simply cutting and pasting the relevant figures or flooding the colors in an image editor. There are no more complex effects such as shadowing or three-dimensional arrangement, and there are no shapes other than those of common typefaces and basic geometric figures such as lines, circles, and polygons.
Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I would say that if the little pictures (of whatever those things are) are removed, and the selection of things to include in the tree isn't creative (for instance, if the author chose "all X in Y"), it's {{pd-ineligible}}. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

## Screenshots

Is it legitimate to take screenshots of movies or TV shows for the purpose of depicting a single person on Wikipedia, such a sports player, or a place such as a sports stadium? If they are, is it required that the station logo be kept intact on the screenshot or must it be removed? Cheers, --mdmanser 04:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

In general, no, such screenshots aren't permissible. Try bringing a camera with a good zoom lens to a game instead, and take a bunch of pictures yourself. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

## Transit system farecards

Under what category do transit system farecards fall? I currently have scans of the back and front of a BART ticket, but before uploading, I want to figure out what license to put on them. Thanks for the help! lensovet 18:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that one would have to contact the agency in question. Jkelly 21:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Probably {{Non-free fair use in|BART}}, with a rationale like
• The usage is transformative because it portrays the card to show what it looks like, not to distinguish a product visually. The first factor weighs in our favor.
• The underlying work is somewhat creative. The second factor weighs slightly against us, if at all.
• The image is as low-quality as it can be while still showing all salient features. The third factor is neutral.
• The underlying work is only sold as decoration on a product with unassociated utility, and it's unlikely that there's a large market for the designs per se. The fourth factor weighs in our favor.
• No free image is possible, because the only purpose of the image is to illustrate what a copyrighted work looks like.
Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

## India photography published?

Is an Indian photo taken before 1946, but published much later in PD?--ppm 19:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

According to our Template:PD-India, copyright begins from the time of first publication. This is the case with most, but not all, countries. Jkelly 19:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

## Untagged images

I've just been through "Category:Uploader unsure of copyright status" (wikilink isn't displaying) in its entirety and found approximately 200 unused untagged images that have been here for months. Most of them have been speedily deleted. However, there might be a few images which I have missed accidently or ignored because I want a second opinion. Could someone(s) please go through the images again to make sure there are no untagged images that have been here for more than a week. Thanks in advance, MER-C 05:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Prefix a ":" to get the link to the category without including this page in that category. Like this: Category:Uploader unsure of copyright status. Lupo 07:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

## Which tag for potentially copyrighted materials?

I'm having problems classifying image:Jian.jpg. This is a photograph I made myself of a sword I didn't make myself. There is a brand name in Chinese on its blade, with an (R) above it, so it might be a copyrighted sword, if there's any such thing. Can anyone help me find out which tag I should give it? Fyrius 10:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If you took the photograph yourself, then the majority of the work is yours, and you can select which free license you want; good choices are {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} (the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license) and {{cc-by-2.5}} (the Creative Commons Attribution license). Except for artistic sculptures, three-dimensional objects can't be copyrighted: the (R) indicates that the brand name on the blade is a registered trademark, and since the brand name isn't the focus of the picture, it's irrelevant to the copyright status of the picture.
When you add the copyright tag to the image description page, be sure to also add some details on what the subject of the picture is, and where and when you took the picture. --Carnildo 18:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for your help. :D Fyrius 18:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I wrote this as an attribution, though I don't remember when I made the photo. Would this do, or does anything need to be added? Fyrius 19:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
If you know it, you should give the year the picture was taken. --Carnildo 19:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

## Unified public domain tag

See Template:PD-status, a work in progress. Some test cases are at Template talk:PD-status. Hopefully we can institute something like they have at Commons or at de, so people can correctly fill out the template (dropping the arcana about registration and renewal that 99.8% of uploaders won't have any idea about), or better yet, get some integration into the software in place of the current drop-down menu.

Eventually, if this sounds like a good idea to people, I'll try working on a similar template for fair use. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

## {{PD-ABGov-DOT}}

This template claims that works of the government of Alberta (and all works of the Canadian government) are public domain. I have nominated it on TFD, believing this to be an incorrect claim. Can someone familiar with Canadian copyrights take a look and confirm that I am correct? BigDT 03:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

## Paintings and other works of visual art: Art, Statue... Architecture?

Hello,

I'm having a problem with the image to the right, my own work. The company running the Eiffel tower has placed a copyright on the tower's lighting. I am in negociations with the SNTE (the company in question), but am wondering if this is really necessary - the image is in a relatively low resolution, and is used only to illustrate an article on Paris. In browsing through alternative license possiblilities I came across the "Fare Use" copyright tag - and found the {{Template:Statue}} quite fitting in its terms and description - but couldn't the same apply also to copyrighted works of architecture? Also, in reading Fair use criteria, there is no other "free" image alternative available as any shots of the tower alight fall under the same copyright - and I would think it a shame to not show the tower at its most spectacular - at night.

Can architecture also fall into the "Statue" rationale? In fact, shouldn't there already be a "Fair use" tag for architecture? Thanks in advance for any advice.

THEPROMENADER 10:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that a US court would recognize a copyright on a lighting scheme (at least not to the extent that a photograph of it wouldn't count as duly transformative enough to be considered non-derivative). I don't know the French laws regulating such a thing but there is no legal liability for Wikipedia. I doubt there would be any legal liability for others, either — I would be very surprised if any court would allow a company which added lighting to a national monument to claim copyright over every photograph of the monument in the evening.
The statue template is for when the photograph itself was not under a free license. In this case, the only copyrighted element is the lighting on the statue—it is a very different copyright question. In my non-lawyerly opinion, the only way a company like this could enforce copyright would be if you tried to re-create your own Eiffel tower at home with the same lighting, for example; not a photograph of the final product. --Fastfission 21:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
According to Copyright Office Circular 41, architectural works can be copyrighted insofar as they embody non-utilitarian concerns, provided they were first constructed or their plans were first published after 1990. It would seem to follow that derivatives of architectural works are copyrighted as well.

The lighting scheme I'm less sure about. The lighting is part of the building, pretty much, and certainly exhibits the low level of creativity needed for copyright. I would say that it should be fair use, not free, to be on the safe side. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments. I would like all the same to be certain of this because the image in question is being opposed on copyright principles in WP:FPC - Your conclusive comments there would much be appreciated as the "what if" of this question has already made the page long : ) If the above does indeed apply, what tag would you think most suitable for this image then? Also, should similar architectural/display copyrights not apply under US law, would it not be helpful to create an {{Architecture}} tag for other similar cases? --THEPROMENADER 11:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

## Copyright tag at a specific image

Hello, I am wondering if Image:Narniabooks all.jpg is correctly tagged. Can anyone give it a glance? Thanks! -- ReyBrujo 20:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not. The work is intended to exhibit the copyrighted cover art, and is a clear derivative thereof. I've retagged it appropriately, and reuploaded it as Image:Narnia books.jpg under fair use. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

## Template:Mugshot and Template:HistoricPhoto proposed for deletion

Template:Mugshot and Template:HistoricPhoto have been listed for deletion here and here, respectively. You're invited to comment. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

## Template:Italian Air Force website copyright

Similar to the above, I have placed Template:Italian Air Force website copyright on WP:TFD. Would those familiar with image copyright tags take a look at the discussion and help build a consensus? BigDT 23:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

## What to do when PD status is suspect?

I've run into a couple images uploaded by a user as "PD-self". When asked, user replied he did not take the original photos but has them in private possession as non-copyrighted photos. One of the images is from 2002 and doesn't look to me like a private photo. I couldn't decipher what to do from this page. In general, what should be done when an image is tagged "public domain" but this status is suspect for some reason? Gimmetrow 15:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

List it at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. --Fastfission 16:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

## What would this image be?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Oldwestwoodstudio.jpg

I have no earthly idea what would be used here. It's a personal photograph released on a company website which is now defunct. If there is a problem, I can probably get Frank Klepacki to release a photo of his office specifically for the article. --Zeality 19:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

{{GFDL-presumed}} as you have it now is incorrect. That's for when you are not the uploader and you think the uploader is OK with GFDL. In your situation, you will need to get clearance from Mr Klepacki, but it shouldn't be just for Wikipedia. He needs to be OK with image being redistributed for any purpose, including commercial. He can, however, select from a number of free licenses (see WP:ICT#Free_licenses). 19:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. E-mail worked. --Zeality 03:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Is an image able to be used if it is on a website with a copyright at the bottom of the page but nothing next to the image? I want to get a photo from here. There is a copyright thing at the bottom but nothing next to any of the pictures. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thank you :) 208.111.197.115 05:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• No. Copyright protection extends to a work even if there is no copyright notice. In order to use an image which the creator does not explicitly release under a free license, the image must qualify for fair use. These images might qualify for fair use if you were using them to illustrate an article on the book. Otherwise, it would require that the copyright holder release them under a free license. BigDT 19:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

What should we do with this tag? It's not only NC/ND, but also forbids the "distributing" of the image and using for any public purpose. bogdan 15:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I have added "For the purposes of Wikipedia, this is a non-free license and must have an accompanying "fair use" tag and criteria." to it and placed it in the appropriate category. I'd say IFD anything that isn't fair use. BigDT 19:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

For US image copyright, what is special about the year 1923 which makes it a cutoff point for free use? Does this year change over time? Is it arbitrary? thanks for any clarification Bwithh 16:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It appears to be a fixed cutoff date, based on the Copyright Term Extension Act (according to the article's intro paragraph). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. That sucks. I have an magazine cover from 1924 that I'd like to use for an article which is not about the magazine. I guess I can't use it? What if I mention the magazine in the image description when I place it in the article? Bwithh 16:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
If we assume that the magazine cover is a corporate work whose copyright was registered and renewed, it's covered by copyright for a term of 95 years after publication, meaning its copyright expires in 2019. Most works' copyrights were not renewed, but we can't necessarily assume that. Stuff about renewal and registration only applies to the US anyway; what magazine was it, and where was it published? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

## Unpublished artwork

I've uploaded Image:Stoney Middleton well dressing.JPG, but I'm uncertain which tag to use. It's a photograph of a well dressing; a temporary work of art created using natural materials. I've used the {{art}} tag, but I'm unsure whether this is accurate, as it can not be said to have been published - and certainly not in the U.S. (and it could be questioned whether it is strictly a two-dimensional work of art, although it's no more three-dimensional than some paintings). As it is unpublished, would it be correct to say it is in the public domain, or that the photograph is mine to license as I choose? If not, what tag would be appropriate? thanks, Warofdreams talk 00:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not published per the definition, no. Works do not have to be published to be copyrightable, however, they only have to be fixed in a tangible form. The work is subject to copyright and must be used under fair use if it's used at all. Note that unpublished works are traditionally given a stronger presumption against fair use than other works, because it's felt it intrinsically infringes upon the owner's decision of when, how, and whether to publish, and consequently unpublished works are typically not permitted as fair use on Wikipedia. However, the rationale might not apply so strongly to works that were intended only for free public display, with the author indifferent to publication.

I would strongly urge you to locate someone who makes these and ask them to release one under a free license. Fair-use images are discouraged here (theoretically prohibited, in fact) when a free equivalent is readily obtainable, and surely many of these authors would be happy to share their work. If you can take a photo, can't you find out who made the dressing to begin with? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I would guess that the dressing was made by the Stoney Middleton Well Dressing Committee, who were given an award for a similar design two years ago, but I can't find any contact details for them. I will try the parish council, who may be able to help. Warofdreams talk 23:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

## PD-Italy

I'm afraid this tag is used for non-PD photography.

 This image was created in Italy and is now in the public domain because its term of copyright has expired. According to Law of 22 April 1941 n. 633, revised by the law of 22 May 2004, n. 128 article 87 and article 92, all non artistic photographs enter the public domain after 20 years counted from the beginning of the following calendar year (ie. as of 2006, prior to the 1st of January, 1986) after they were first published. Artistic photographs enter in the public domain after 70 years.

What is exactly an non-artistic photography ? Are all these photos : Category:PD_Italy non-artistic according to the Italian law ? Ericd 21:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

None of the images I saw in a brief scan of the category are obviously non-artistic under German definitions, but I don't know anything at all about how Italy defines it. Any image in that cat whose author has not been dead for seventy years probably needs to go to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. Jkelly 21:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Probably they mean that simple passport-photo-like portraits of people are not artistic. However, pictures like this one: Image:Funerali-w2.jpg are certainly artistic, despite being tagged with this template... bogdan 22:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The United States does not obey the "rule of the shorter term", except that anything in the public domain in its country of creation as of January 1, 1996 is in the public domain in the US. This means that if the law cited above is accurate, "non-artistic" images originating in Italy are in the public domain in the US only if first published before 1976. Later images will be accorded full protection under US copyright law. The tag is misleading regardless of what constitutes "non-artistic". —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
My god, a repeat of the {{PD-Germany}} fiasco! This tempate should be deleted immediately and its creators sent to the WikiDungeon, crushed by elephant, forced to attend the GNAA convention and subjected to any other such WikiPunishements as may be appropriate. See EU Copyright Directive for a better statement of Italian copyright law. Physchim62 (talk) 15:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
IMHO they should attend the GNAA convention before being crushed by elephant. Ericd 23:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Has the EUCD been implemented in Italy yet? Either way, presumably it will be soon, so not much point in this template. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Looks like it has been. I'll comment on the template talk page. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

## State government templates

There are several templates created for U.S. state government documents. Can someone audit these? {{CAGov}} {{ILGov}} {{NJGov}} {{NYGov}} .. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Two things: They seem to be done by the slightly notorious Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), and none of them seem to make any comments about their licence status, rather they just say "This is from the State of X"... 68.39.174.238 10:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

## Copyright issue on X-Ray picture

(Copied from Help desk)

I have a radiograph on my teeth, and would like to put it on Wisdom teeth. But I am doubt about copyright issue. Does my dentist owns the copyright of the X-Ray picture, or I own the copyright, or ineligible for copyright? (The X-Ray picture is my teeth, so there is no privacy issue, since I agree to put my X-ray picture online.) --Leeyc0 (Talk) 10:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Technically, your dentist owns the copyright insofar as a copyright exists (which it would in most jurisdictions). I doubt he/she would mind much if you published it though. Physchim62 (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd say "no creative effort, so no copyright". It's a routine medical image, made by standard procedures. Any competent dentist would produce one exactly like it. --Carnildo 18:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it's probably safe, especially in the case of dental x-rays which are highly routine. Do dentists have any "creative" input in this? Every dental x-ray I've had has always been "sit here and lie still while I hide behind this barrier and push a button" which looks pretty automatic (dare I say "slavish"?). --Fastfission 18:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
In the case of Image:Impacted wisdom teeth.jpg, even less creative input than most dental x-rays. The procedure for a full-face x-ray is so standardized, even a trained monkey would produce that image. In a normal x-ray, the dentist has the choice of which teeth to image. --Carnildo 06:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

## {{Confirmation}} and {{ConfirmationImageOTRS}}

There are a handful of images, for example, Image:Andrew Dickson White statue and Goldwin Smith Hall.jpg, that have an old version of {{Confirmation}} or {{ConfirmationImageOTRS}} substed into the description page. The "so what" of this is that this causes these images to be added to Special:Uncategorizedimages and, for that matter, could presumably cause Orphanbot to tag them as not having copyright information. Is there any reason that I should not replace these substitutions with the transcluded {{ConfirmationImageOTRS}}? Also, there are a bunch of images in Category:Articles with permission confirmed. Is there any reason that their {{Confirmation}} template shouldn't be replaced with {{ConfirmationImageOTRS}}? I just wanted to check before acting ... images like Image:Andrew Dickson White statue and Goldwin Smith Hall.jpg really ought to have the transcluded template so that their categories will work ... unless there is some really good reason not to. BigDT 23:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

## help needed for identifying correct tag

hello all, i recently uploaded Image:MuhammadSeal.jpg, for which i first used the stamp tag but changed it to the seal tag after some thought. i wanted to ask... does it merit restricted use on WP under fair use policy or is this image a free license one as this seal comes from 1400 years ago? thank you! ITAQALLAH 02:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I notice we have {{PD-USGov-Military}} for the Defence Department, but what about things that came from the War Department? 68.39.174.238 10:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The Department of Defense is just the politically-correct name for the War Department. The same template applies to both. --Carnildo 20:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, the more correct explanation is that the War Department is a predecessor agency of the DOD. In any case, both are works of the US federal government, so there is no copyright issue (if one was in doubt, just use PD-USGov). I added "and predecessor agencies" to the {{PD-USGov-DOE}} template just for this reason (a lot of the photos are Manhattan Project/Atomic Energy Commission but the copyright status is the same). --Fastfission 23:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

## Template:Free-game-screenshot and Template:Free screenshot

Would anyone else really like to see these templates go away? Looking at the categories, a lot of people don't know the difference between "freeware" (software that the author doesn't charge for) and actual free licenses (GPL, etc). Also, there are a bunch of images like Image:Chakra07.gif. For the life of me, I don't see how that's a screenshot of free software. Do these templates really serve any purpose? BigDT 21:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

## Template standardization

There are four basic styles that currently exist, and they tend to be mostly followed without explicit rules, but there is some variance and it would be best to standardize them for clarity and visual consistency. The existing styles are roughly: Proposed styles:

 Public domain or freely-licensed (e.g., {{PD-old}}, {{GFDL}})
 Fair use (e.g., {{Non-free fair use in}}, {{logo}})
 Obsolete, disputed, or otherwise not-good copyright (e.g., {{PD}}, {{PD-USSR}})
 Unacceptable copyright; will be deleted soon if issue is not corrected (e.g., {{permission}}, {{no license}})
 Source, or other thing not affecting copyright status (e.g., {{PD-Italy}})

(Most of the variation occurs within the second category; I've tweaked the general idea behind {{no license}}, {{PD}}, and so on. I've also tweaked some aspects of all the styles, such as increasing width to 85% to match talk-page templates, and matching up their paddings and alignments.)

As at Wikipedia:Template standardisation, I would recommend that they always be tables, not divs; the CSS website itself recommends using tables for vertical centering, because it's simply impossible otherwise in CSS. And it just looks ugly when the image isn't vertically centered, but the text stretches the div to be taller than the image.

If agreement is reached here, I'll ask for appropriate CSS classes to be added to MediaWiki:Common.css. Are there any objections? Suggestions? It would be good to separate fair-use and free images, if someone more artistic than I could come up with a good color scheme for fair use. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I've split off fair-use from free-licensed, making it look somewhat more unpleasant. Any opinions? The code to add these classes to CSS follows. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
.img-free, .img-fair, .img-bad, .img-speedy, .img-info {
margin: 0.5em auto;
width: 85%;
clear: both;
vertical-align: center;
}
.img-free {
background-color: #f7f8ff;
border: 2px solid #88a;
}
.img-fair {
background-color: #fefef2;
border: 2px solid #e90;
}
background-color: #fefefe;
border: 2px solid red;
}
.img-speedy {
background-color: #f1dede;
border: 2px solid red;
}
.img-info {
background-color: #f1f1de;
border: 1px solid #cc9;
}

I would favour splitting PD and free licence, partly because of the obvious legal distinction and partly because of the checking problem associated with claims of PD. The GNU symbol should only really be used for GNU licences. Otherwise, I think this is a great idea. Physchim62 (talk) 09:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

## US Non-Profit Logo

This is a question about the use of the logos. Dead Runners Society, a Texas non-profit organization, owns the copyright and trademark to its "carpe viam" logo and its flag. Both are currently being displayed in its article under GFDL. The organization is concerned that the GFDL license could result in T-shirts or other items being manufactured without its consent. Is this concern justified? If so, should the images be removed? Or is there some other license or fair use doctrine that might be used to address the oragnization's concerns? Does the low resolution aspect have any signifcance? What about the DRS Italia logo -- which was created in Italy with teh opermission of the U.S. copyright holder? Thanks.

First of all who released it under the GFDL? If the GFDL tag was added by somebody unauthorized by the DRS then the GFDL template is invalid and should be removed immediately and replaced with the { {Logo} } template. If it was somebody authorized by the DRS then I don't think they can rescind that license, although Wikipedia can certainly be courteous and remove the image or change it's license tag if they wish.
The GFDL says nothing about trademark law, and I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know how releasing the logo under the GFDL would affect trademark claims. Trademark is generally to protect a brand name from confusingly similar (or exactly similar) products, and it's use on Wikipedia would be fair use of a trademark, whereas making t-shirts with the probably isn't. In fact, Wikipedia has the { {Logo} } tag for fair use logo/trademarked images, such as the Drexel University Logo. If they are concerned they should change the image template to that, so that the image can be included in Wikipedia while still clearly being covered under trademark law.
include <disclaimer.h>, IANAL, etc. etc...--TexasDex 23:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

## What should i do

I have found an image in the commons that is linked here with an incorrect tag, putting {{wrong-license}} is useless becouse the commons does not have that template, What should be done? Feedyourfeet 12:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see commons:Commons:Deletion requests. On the image description page on commons (tagging the WP description page wouldn't be very helpful), if it's an obvious copyvio, use {{copyvio}}. If it is not an obvious copyrighted image, tag it with {{delete}} and add it to commons:Commons:Deletion requests, which is their version of IFD. BigDT 00:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

## Statues

I know the statue question has come up a few times before but nothing exactly what I need to ask. Is a statue always under copyright even if the sculptor is deceased? I have two photos of statues on the Drexel University campus and the sculptors both died before 1920 (One statue being the founder of the university and one being totally unrelated to the university at all). I ask this because the Statue tag states 'for images of three-dimensional works of art that are still under copyright.' Additionally I have another photograph that I uploaded (without even thinking to look into detail about statue copyrights) to the Drexel page whose scultor is still living (in which case the copyright is still valid) since it is a derivative work of the sculpture and at the same time the campus mascot is that fair use rational or should I just delete the photo? Anyway thanks for any and all help. It's surprising what you can still learn about wikipedia even after being on here for nearly a year.. --ImmortalGoddezz 16:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The two former statues are in the public domain as published before 1923, but there is still copyright held by the photographer (as these are not "two-dimensional works of art"). The third statue has copyright held by the sculpter, and any image would be a derivative work. Physchim62 (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

## Free license fair use tag?

Would there be any particular tags to indicated that, while the content of an image is fair use, the image itself is free? -- Zanimum 14:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Not really. Just tag them fair-use (assuming the puppets are in fact copyrightable; very simple ones might not be, see that Skyy Spirits case) and note in the text that you release your derivation under an appropriate license. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

## {{PD-GI}}

I found this tag while looking through the uncategorized images. The user who created it and uploaded the images - User:Draper gives his email address on his webpage as being from the same domain where these images were downloaded ... so there is at least a decent chance that he does have the authority to release them. Any thoughts? BigDT 15:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

E-mail the site. See if they'd be willing to release them under something more formal like {{cc-by-2.5}}. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I was cleaning out the {{nosource}} category and noticed that many of its images are tagged with the abovementioned. I suspect that there may be actually a much wider abuse of the tag out there, is this potential problem being mass-worked on? - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 17:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• As well as those under {{NoRightsReserved}}. - Mailer Diablo 17:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• The harvest is plenty, but the laborers are few. There are LOTS of images that are tagged with patently false tags. BigDT 21:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

## Manga or Takubon Book Cover=

Japanesse, Chinese and Korean (MANHWA) book covers and manga scans Included here are Manga creators special Illustrated artbooks and guide books

## Iraq TV screenshots

I wonder if the screenshots of the Saddam-era Iraqi TV are copyrighted and what's their status, as the tv is now defunct. See example: [12] Thanks, --TheFEARgod 12:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

For Wikipedia purposes, I think we should assume that they're under copyright. The relevant tag is {{iraqcopyright}}, and they should only be used on WP if they fall under fair use guidelines. Physchim62 (talk) 14:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

## Images that aren't, but are, my own.

For an article about Ravnica, I'm planning on uploading images of each of the Guild's logos. While the Guild symbols aren't my own intellectual property - those obviously belong to Wizards of the Coast - the images themselves were hand-drawn myself awhile ago. Which tag thing would I use? The originals are property of WoTC, but the images themselves were drawn by me (because Wizards never saw fit to give players high-quality art of the logos). Scumbag 06:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

They are the intellectual property of Wizards. There really is no way to justify them as fair use for Wikipedia since you can understand the topic of the article without the image. --Peta 05:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

## Author photo's , book sleeves

What are the rules for author photos found on book sleeves like on the back jacket or inside cover of a book? I looked at the promotional tag and it didn't seem to apply and could not find any other relevant tag. Thanks. -- Stbalbach 04:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't upload them. Ask the publisher if they can provide you with a copyright free and/or press kit image of the author.--Peta 05:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Several comic-related templates such as comicpanel and comiccover refer to characters in copyrighted works as being "copyrighted" themselves. I believe the word "copyrighted" should be removed from these templates for these reasons:

1) redundancy - the big circled C already informs the reader that copyrighted material is being presented
2) irrelevance - the template needs only justify the use of the image, not the depiction of the image's subject
3) imprecision - characters are parts of copyrighted works, not necessarily copyrighted themselves, and

4) controversy - characters lie in the gray area between ideas (not copyrightable) and expressions (possibly copyrightable)

See Marvel v NCSoft complaint in the City of Heroes article; I followed this case closely. Marvel alleged infringement of their copyrights in specific issues of comic books, not characters. Further, it is whole comic book issues that are registered with the Copyright Office by submission to the Library of Congress. There are shelves in the Library of Congress for issues of The Incredible Hulk, but there are no shelves of appropriate size for the Hulk himself.

I'd also suggest small edits to these templates to clarify that copyrights apply not to the parts depicted, but to the whole works containing those parts. For example, in comiccover, "This image is of the cover of a single issue of a comic book, and the copyright for it is..." could be rephrased more precisely: "... and the copyright for the issue is..." (emphasis added) Matt Fitzpatrick 18:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

## Template:MosNews

Shouldn't Template:MosNews include a warning that third-party images republished on their websites are copyrighted? See [13]. Lupo 08:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

## W3C Logos

Hi everyone, I've always had a habit of including a W3C logo on every personal webpage I've ever created. Thankfully, my userpage is indeed Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional! Now the tricky question is, which image copyright tag do I apply to Image:Valid-xhtml10.png taking into account [14] and [15]? -- 20:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going with {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} -- 21:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The correct tag is {{logo}}, and you can't use the image on your userpage. The terms of use are actually very restrictive: the only use they permit is that of displaying the logo, only on pages that are valid XHTML, and only if the logo is a link to the validator. In order to qualify for free use, they would have to also permit free distribution of the image, the creation of derivative works, and the free distribution of derivative works.
There are other problems with displaying the logo on your userpage. You can't be sure that your userpage is valid under all the Wikipedia display skins, since the validator can only check the default (monobook) skin. And you can't make the image link to the validator page, since all images on Wikipedia automatically link to their image description pages. --Carnildo 21:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

frame|right|

[http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Netsnipe&useskin=monobook Validate]

Placing the validation link in the image's caption would serve the same function and a user could force the validator to work with whatever skin they wanted by replacing "uri=referer" with the URL to their userpage along with "&useskin=<skin>" on the end per the example shown here. Furthermore, I don't think this is a standard fair-use case which prohibits users from using this on their user pages because the W3C is essentially inviting us to this logo where ever applicable. -- 22:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It might satisfy their requirement for a link, but it doesn't solve any of the other problems, the biggest of which is that it simply isn't a free image. Wikipedia policy doesn't permit non-free images to be used anywhere except in articles. --Carnildo 00:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you think its possible to a get an exemption for fair use on user pages on this logo considering its purpose? -- 11:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Since it's not particularly useful for building an encyclopedia, no. --Carnildo 18:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not useful per se in building an encyclopedia content wise, but it could be useful in encouraging people to improve the accessibility of Wikipedia as a website standards-compliant wise. I've already fixed one template to comply with the XHTML standards. Come to think of it, I'm thinking of starting up a WikiProject now to validate all the most popular templates. -- 20:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

nothing stopping you creating your own logo.Geni 10:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that making stuff validate per web standards is a good thing, but you rely don't need to use the official W3C logos for that purpose. Like Geni says, just make your own set of "this page is valid (X)HTML X.X" tags for this purpose. You don't even need to use images, just create a general purpose template that produce a nice little CSS formated box to be used along the liens of {{valid|XHTML|1.1|STRICT}} or whatever. --Sherool (talk) 09:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

## Coat of arms, crests and shields - policy conflict ??

In particular:

It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of such symbols... * to illustrate the symbol in question ... qualifies as fair use

seems to oppose:

A coat of arms can be depicted in multiple ways, and may only be used on Wikipedia if the design is available under a free licence. Otherwise, the depiction is not usable on Wikipedia, as a free equivalent should be producible, and it thus does not qualify as fair use.

Is it just me that has difficulty understanding (wouldn't be the first time)? Are there any circumstances when a non-free representation of a coat of arms can have fair use on Wikipedia? In particular, does policy permit the use of [[Image:University of Ulster.png]] in UU articles? More generally, should one or other template be re-worded to decide the conflict one way or the other? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The generally acceptedly policy line is that free versions are available, and so they fall short of point one of Wikipedia:Fair use#policy. Personally I don't agree with this, but I have to give you the admins' response! Physchim62 (talk) 14:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Most (maybe all) coats of arms in the European tradition are defined by a blazon in words. Fair use of an image requires that no free alternative is available. In the case of logos, the exact typeface, colours, spacing, etc. must be followed, so reproduction of an logo image is allowed because there is no possible free altternative.
In the case of arms defined by a blazon (as is the case in Ireland), any depiction that follows the blazon is valid, so it should always be possible to draw a free alternative. For example, UU's blazon (which I haven't seen) probably specifies "a dexter hand gules couped and erect". There has to be a hand, it must be a right ("dexter") hand, it must be red ("gules"), cut off from the arm and with the fingers pointing up. The specific shade of red is not specified and may vary somewhat. It doesn't even say that the palm must face forward (though it would be more than strange if it didn't).
In any case, any drawing that follows the blazon is valid. There could be coats of arms which are not defined in this way, and they would be exceptions. Almost every country in the world has something like a coat of arms, but they don't necessarily follow the European blazoning tradition. I agree that the conflict is confusing, but I'm not sure how to fix it. Canadiana 14:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that the University of Ulster (and countless other public bodies in Europe) use their coats of arms as logos. To be accurate in our description of the coat of arms as used by the rightful holder, shouldn't we really be using a version which is as near as possible to theirs? Physchim62 (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)