User:Ww2censor/IfD

{| style="border:4px solid #666688; width:97%;" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" align="center"

If you're reading this, it's probably because you got a notice from me on your talk page, that means I'm the one who tagged one of your images for deletion, or that I linked you here, and since you came here looking for answers I'll see if I can help you out.

I probably tagged an image you uploaded for deletion while patrolling, it may have subsequently been deleted, and you came by my user page or talk page to leave me a message and ask why I nominated your image for deletion. First let me assure you that I was not, in fact, the one who sent your image to the digital dustbin--that honor belongs to the administrator who deleted it, and so if you're looking to have it restored you should talk to them (their name will be listed on the deletion log for the page, which should appear if you try to edit it).

For questions about image copyright not explained below, please visit the helpful folks at Media copyright questions.

There are several major reasons I would tag an image for deletion: it is a copyright violation, it is missing licensing information, it is missing a source, it is missing permission, or it has an issue with, or is missing, a fair-use rationale, or fails any one of the 10 non-free content criteria. More details are found at the Guide to image deletion.

Copyright violations
Sadly, all the notability in the world can't save a copyright violation. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, and as such we must use free content (with a couple of fair-use exceptions). If you copied the image from another website, chances are it's going to be deleted. After all, with a handful of exceptions that image you uploaded is copyrighted by the website you took it from, and its unauthorized use can land Wikipedia in a heap of trouble--and pure copying is a big no-no.


 * Freedom of panorama is a concept many editors don't understand or even know about. In countries with FOP restrictions the images of publicly displayed buildings or sculptures are copyright to the artist and not to a person who photographs it. For instance the United States has restrictions on freedom of panorama for artworks including sculptures but not for buildings. It is necessary to check if there are any restrictions in the country where the structure is located by consulting the Commons FOP page.

Unlicenced images
Every image used on Wikipedia must have an appropriate licence. If you failed to add one when you uploaded the image you will likely receive a notice on your talk page to tell you the licence is missing and the image may be deleted within seven days if you don't fix it. Please add a suitable licence to the image, so that it can be kept in use. I you have any doubts please post a question on the media copyright questions page. Do not falsely add a free copyright tag that does not belong with the image.


 * If it is a photograph you took yourself and want to release it to the world as a public domain image you can add the template PD-self, self or attribution, to the image or choose another free licence here.
 * If you received a photo from someone else, not from a website, that person may own the copyright and be prepared to release it under a similarly free licence but we need to verify their permission by getting communication to this effect directly from them. You can do this by using the WP:CONSENT information or by following the information in WP:COPYREQ.
 * If the image was copied from a website it is most likely copyright unless specifically noted to be freely licenced and unless you can convince them to release the image we cannot use it. Some internet website images are not copyright, such as US federal government images for which we use the copyright tag PD-USGov.

Source is missing
You uploaded an image and did not tell us where you got it from, or gave us so little information we are unable to check the copyright status of the image. So don't let the image get deleted for the sake of providing the source infomation.


 * If the image came from a webpage, if at all possible, please provide the full internet address (URL) of the page you found the image on and also the URL of the image itself. Providing a generic domain URL for the main page of a website when you found an image buried several layers down is essentially pretty useless, so a correct and full unique URL link really helps. It also saves the volunteer reviewers time searching fruitlessly.
 * If you created the image yourself, please say so and, if your username is different from you own name, make it clear that you, the uploader, took the photo. Perhaps you previously published this image elsewhere, such as flickr, photobucket, picasa, etc., you will still need to verify the license. Check out Donating copyrighted materials.
 * If you scanned an image, please let us know where it came from; provide full details of the book, or other source.

No evidence of permission
If there is anything to indicate the image belongs to, or is copyright of, a third party, either by the source data or any copyright notice it will be deleted after seven days. You can ask the copyright holder to provide permission to use the image under a free licence, which means anyone can use it for anything including commercial use, by using the WP:CONSENT data or following the information in copyright request guide so they can verify the permission. If you claim to represent the organisation we still need an email sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org which will generate an OTRS ticket that will be added to the image as evidence.

This occurs quite often with photos of paintings, where the work is still in copyright, and statues and some other architectural works, where no freedom of panorama exception exists, such as US statues post-1978 or France for sculptures or buildings that pass the threshold of originality. In these case you may well be prepared to licence your photo freely but because the author's copyright is still in effect the image is referred to as a derivative work and requires the additional permission of the author of the work as well as yours for the photo.

Fair-use issues
Fair-use can be a somewhat daunting for some editors due to all the criteria that must be met. Did you make a fair-use claim for the images? If so, did you complete the fair use rationale properly for each use? If you did not add a rationale for each article use, please make sure there is one for each use of the image. If any part of the rationale is missing, especially the source and purpose, the image will be tagged for deletion. Orphaned non-free images, not being used in any article, will be deleted as will similar images used on any user pages, or in templates, to name a few instances. Make sure to use a Template:Non-free use rationale template in your fair-use images and complete all the sections fully to assert your claim under the fair-use criteria. The template is preferable to using plain text because it provides all the required fields and is easily recognised by any patrolling Wikipedia bots.

If the image is not public domain--or if you are not the original author--it still may be usable. The non-free content guidelines can help you, as it explains when you can sometimes use images that do not have a GFDL-compatible license. There are a number of non-free image copyright tags that can be used in conjunction with the properly filled-out Template:Non-free use rationale to assert when an image is so usable.

Please keep in mind through all of this that you cannot claim authorship of a derivative work. For example, you can't photograph a copyrighted painting and release the photograph into public domain. You can't take a screen capture of a television show and release the screencap into public domain. You can't crop a copyrighted image and release the crop into public domain. Only the copyright holder has the legal right to make and release derivative works.

Your concerns about the use of non-free images can be brought up at Non-free content review or Possibly unfree files.

If you want your image not to be deleted, you need to add the appropriate missing details and all the information you require is above. If you image was already deleted and it is a valid image that you want back, you need to ask the deleting admin very nicely. They may or may not comply with your request, depending on the reason of image was deleted (i.e. an image you created yourself is much more likely to be restored than a blatant copyright violation). If the administrator does not comply and you believe your image was deleted against procedure, you can list it for review at Wikipedia deletion review, although your time and energy would more likely be better spent uploading a new image with all the details filled in.

I hope this helped answer some of your questions. If you're still confused or want to leave a comment, try asking a question at the media copyright questions page, or, if all else fails, feel free to leave me a message by clicking here. Be sure to link to the image in question by adding double brackets around the file name and a colon in front of the word file (so it links to the file and does not display it) otherwise I will not go searching for it, and sign your post with four tildes ( ~ ) so I know who you are!

So, here are some ideas for you. Cameras are so cheap and easy to use so it is not hard to go out and take a photograph yourself. There are also many sources for images. More than 30 million images have been uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons that are freely licenced and available for use on all language wikis. Search through some of the many websites at Public domain image resources.


 * Quadell's US copyright page
 * Guide to image deletion - how images get deleted
 * Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions - helpful essay