Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2007/June

Flickr.com image
Flickr.com has some really good photos of Erie that could be used on wikipedia. It says public in the corner, so does that mean they are in the PD? If not, what is the policy for flickr photos here? -- T. Wiki  22:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * See Upload and follow the flickr link. You will need to be logged into Wikipedia Commons. --Knulclunk 22:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "Public" on Flickr means that anyone can see it (as opposed to "private" photos which are limited to select individuals). What you need to look for is the Creative Commons symbols. As Knulclunk says, see the Commons page for what's acceptable.  howcheng  {chat} 22:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll look for the symbols on the images I want. Thanks, -- T. Wiki  03:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Additionally not every picture uploaded on flickr was created by the person who uploaded it. Use judgement to be sure that the uploader created the image (i.e. check if it's similar to the rest of their contributions). Megapixie 06:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

image steven .jpg
I have permission from the artist to use any and every works to create this article Steven L. Sles

5/31/08 at 8:19 pm
 * Permission for use on Wikipedia is not sufficient. Since Wikipedia allows others to reuse its content, images must be freely licensed or they will be deleted.  ShadowHalo 03:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Scan of front page of leaflet
Hi, I would like to include scans (made by myself) of the front covers of certain leaflets in articles I am writing about Railcards ("passes" which can be purchased by rail passengers in Britain, giving discounts on certain types of ticket). Network Railcard is one example; some others are currently mentioned at Concessionary fares on the British railway network, but do not yet have separate articles. The leaflets themselves are available to the public, and contain info about the railcard, terms and conditions and an application form. There are no indications of copyright on the text, images or logos shown on the leaflets. The Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) is in charge of administering the railcard schemes on behalf of individual Train Operating Companies, and I believe they are responsible for the leaflets as well.

I have uploaded an example at Image:Family Railcard Leaflet 07A.JPG with the "I do not know the licence" tag. Please could anybody advise me whether this image would be permitted on WP, and if so, which licence tag would be most appropriate. Many thanks! Hassocks5489 18:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I would say that's a fair guess as to the source, since the family railcards are sold by National Rail, which is one of ATOC's brand names. ATOC is not government-owned, so none of the liberties that some government ministries allow with their Crown copyright material can apply here. This is therefore copyrighted by default even without a notice, as is the case in every country that's signatory to the Berne Convention, the UK included. This can therefore be used only under some theory of fair use, the US equivalent of fair dealing. See WP:NONFREE, WP:IDP, and WP:FURG for guidance. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your advice; I think the copyright concerns outweigh the usefulness of this image, and I don't think I can satisfy all 10 conditions at WP:NONFREE, so I'll leave it to be deleted and I won't scan the other three leaflets. Hassocks5489 07:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Angels and Daemons at Play (albumcover).jpg
I got a message saying that the rationale I gave for uploading this image as "fair use" might be invalid. This is an album cover (which I clearly stated in the licensing section when I uploaded it), I don't understand why there is a concern that this might be invalid. --Tokle 11:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * All unfree images being used on Wikipedia must have a fair use rationale. ShadowHalo 12:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Beelzebub's tales.jpg
This is a picture of a cover of the book. Can someone give me an example of an "explanation or rationale" for another book cover so I know what exactly I am supposed to write - i am confused as what exactly is needed here. (PS If I were to take a picture of the book with my camera and uploaded it - would this be allowed?) Aeuio 01:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:NONFREE, WP:IUP, and WP:FURG, then come back here if you're still confused. The easiest way is to use the template suggested at that last link. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Campaigner.jpg
whats the problem with Image:Campaigner.jpg the designer's name is written on the International Creed for Peace page the logo belongs to the International Creed for Peace and it has been used in relation of that (Motegole 08:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC))
 * It has no fair use rationale for use on International Peace Institute, Chika Sylva-Olejeme, Peace Conservation System, Universal Peace Protocol, or ICP Campaign. ShadowHalo 08:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Are we allowed to complete copyright tags for images we did not add?
Sometimes the summary makes clear that an image was added under the 'fair use' tag, but lacks the tag. Are third parties allowed to add a tag based on the assumption this was what the original editor intended? Pendragon39 11:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, so far as I know. ShadowHalo 11:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

image tag
Can you please tag all my image uploaded? This pictures were taken out of my own camera —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkasesela (talk • contribs)
 * I'll have a look. -N 00:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Drachentaube.jpg: copyright issue?
This image, a cut and pasted, colorized version of the image posted at this "dragonlore" webpage, which purports to be "The Journal of the College of Dracology" — a non-existent ludibrium— also appears to violate Wikipedia's policy on copyright images. Though it has no merit in authentic heraldry whatsoever, the image was invented by "Stephen Clackson" for a personal "crest". The issue is an element in a broader comedy apparently intended to undermine Wikipedia's credibility by gaming the system: see Talk:Cockatrice and Talk:Drachentaube. --Wetman 20:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:ECIAD.png
I've the logo for the Emily Carr Institute of Art and Design may be deleted because there is "no fair use rationale given". What is the appropriate fair-use rationale for a post-secondary institution's logo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdalmonte (talk • contribs)


 * To illustrate the school in the article about it. For "replaceability", just say that it's copyrighted and thus impossible to create a free image that shows what the logo looks like, because anything close enough is a derivative work. Daniel Case 06:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

A free license?
Hello, I wonder what are the rulls for the licence for Pictures of the Day like, for example, that one:, where a photographer offers to contact him, if somebody wants to buy images. That picture was promoted for Picture of the Day, but does it really have a free licence and is Wikipedia a place to promote the sell of one images? Thanks. --Mbz1 13:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
 * Yes, the image is under a free license. As the page states, it is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, which requires that any derivative works also be published under the same license.  It's common practice at the Commons to post a notice like that.  Keep in mind that many print publications will not publish works licensed under the GFDL since it requires the entire text of the GFDL with it.  As a result, people wanting to use images that are licensed under the GFDL may want to contact the photographer instad.  ShadowHalo 13:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:CokeII.jpg
This was recently tagged for no rationale. Fine ... if needed, I can write an ironclad one. But this apparently comes out of a slew of such taggings from February that seem to stem from a misunderstanding of US copyright law. The original uploader, User:Cokewww, seems to have left last fall after spamming one too many times, so I'm going to have to take up the slack.

User:Jeffness challenged the image as non-free because, he said, it was a three-dimensional copyrighted artwork and thus no original copyright could be claimed by taking a picture of it. It seems User:Chowbok called him on this and asked him to stop (some sweet justice, I suppose, for those of us who remember how obstinate he's been over doing search and destroy missions on supposedly replaceable images uploaded by other people). The discussion ended without any consensus between the two of them.

I would like to restore the original PD-self tag and thus eliminate the need for a rationale. Cokewww claimed in his original upload that he took the photo himself; I find no reason to dispute that (it does not look like I could find him, but if someone wants me to I'll try). Chowbok didn't know the right words to use to make his point, but he was getting there.

Beverage containers are useful articles and thus ineligible for copyright. Therefore a picture of one is an original work and may be licensed as its creator sees fit. Yes, the image has third-party copyrights (the trademarked logo) but while that would keep it off Commons it can certainly be used here. Jeff seems to have misread the Ets-Hokin decision he cites even though he summarizes the salient point correctly: bottles themselves couldn't be copyrighted (the case was about the derivative use of promotional photos of those bottles, not the bottles themselves).

Does anyone have any objections? If fair use is necessary (I can't see how), I can certainly rationalize as historically irreplaceable since the product is no longer commercially available in the United States. Daniel Case 03:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The current 3D art sculpture tag is definitely wrong for the reason you gave. However, there is still some chance that the swoosh, swirls, and arrangement of the letters pass the threshold of originality for copyright protection, in which case the branded cover of the can is copyrighted. (I know. It sounds ridiculous, but who knows?) So if you say you can write a fair use rationale, why not go with the safer option. nadav (talk) 03:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, here someone asserts that the Coke logo (from which the Coke II logo is derived) is public domain to begin with (which would make sense given that it was in use prior to 1923. But I can't see Coke letting go that easily. However, note that this picture seems to have been kept by the Commons, despite similar use of the company's logo. I believe panorama freedom applies here too. Daniel Case 06:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it does not. Under US law, freedom of panorama only applies to buildings. See Freedom of panorama. Even if it extended to other objects, freedom of panorama by definition applies to public spaces only, not to small objects in someone's private property. In the case of the Microsoft sign, the fact that it's outdoors, publicly visible, and attached to something that is arguably an architectural element is what makes freedom of panorama applicable, and why it's still in the Commons.


 * The script Coca-Cola logo is almost certainly PD, as it's well over 100 years old, and even current law only extends copyright of work made for hire for 95 years after first publication. It remains a trademark of the Coca-Cola Company, and should be identified as such wherever it appears.


 * Googling around brought me to this Straight Dope column, which says: that "trademark protection is the most limited ... It permits unlicensed copying and use of the mark as long as the copying isn't likely to confuse consumers" and "Andy Warhol could paint pictures of Campbell's soup cans without violating Campbell's trademark rights. Campbell's owns rights in its marks with regard to selling soup. They can't stop someone from using his or her creative skills to create an image of a soup can in general, or a Campbell's soup can in particular. Warhol was selling a painting, a creative work, not soup." (and I should note that we have one of those paintings, with fair use applying to the artwork (still copyrighted), not the logo and product dress of the product depicted). In sum, I don't believe we should be worrying ourselves sick over whether, under U.S. copyright law, images of products with trademarked logos visible must be licensed as fair-use derivative images. I don't think a single case exists where that reasoning stood. Sure, that's not the case in a number of other countries, which is why you can't upload those images to the Commons. But the only IP issue here is trademark, and while the Commons has a template they have to slap on pictures for that reason, we don't have to care about respecting Coke's trademark here because it's not like we're using this to sell our own soft drink, anymore than they're about to go into the online encyclopedia business. Under U.S. law, which governs the English WP, photographs of a trademarked logo are new images. Even copyrighted logos can't create derivative works if the photo is anything other than an exact replication of the logo, I don't think. If I remember correctly, BTW, our own logo, while as freely reproducible as most of our images, is a registered trademark all the same. Daniel Case 04:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * With regard to the Coke II logo, it while the can itself is a useful article and cannot be copyrighted, the design on the can might be. However, in my opinion (IANAL) I don't believe it is. That's because under US copyright law, "familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring..." are not protected by copyright, and I believe that's all we have here. I could be wrong, of course -- but can anyone find a copyright symbol on a Coke can? TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And the typeface used when the Coke logo was originally created was one of the most popular in use at the time (didn't Moxie use something similarly flowing?) Also, for comparison's sake I just went downstairs and looked at a can of Pepsi One, figuring that if Coke did it, Pepsi would do it too. No copyright notice anywhere (although that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't copyrighted). Daniel Case 04:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * are we sure the logo hasn't been modified at some point?Geni 09:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, to be fair, the Coke II logo is more of a derivative work of the plainer "Coke" logo adopted in at least the mid-20th century. I don't know if Coke owns the copyright for that. But as I've said before, I don't think it matters. Daniel Case 04:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

License for this image?
This is an image I grabbed off a website showing LinkExchange banners long ago. I don't know what exactly to put to tag it, but I'm pretty sure it should qualify as fair use, especially as LE died ages ago now. Could anyone help? Image:Linkexchange_banner.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jez9999 (talk • contribs)
 * It would be fair use for commentary on the image. I'll add a tag. -N 16:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The text says it needs to have proof of copyright, the lack of which is grounds for deletion though? === Jez === 19:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, for advertising material the copyright is kind of obvious. It's written into the image itself. You will need to write a fair use rationale on the page in addition to the tag. Write when and where you got the image and that the copyright rests with Link Exchange or its corporate successor (Microsoft). -N 19:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Can't remember when and where I got it, any more than 'grabbed it off a website ages ago'. === Jez === 21:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "I got this from a web banner ad" should be sufficient. -N 22:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Rinderpest virus photo
I've uploaded a photo of the rinderpest virus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rinderpest.JPG) and contacted the copyright holder for permission using one of the form letters. However, in the event that he doesn't reply or replies in the negative, would this picture be covered by fair use or not?

Random Nonsense 20:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Probably not. Remember that Wikipedia defines fair use far more strictly than the real world does. If it can be theoretically replaced by a free image, whether or not one is actually known to exist, it's not allowed. In this case, nothing in the article seems to suggest that only one researcher has the virus. I would prepare to contact others known to have it in case you get a no. Daniel Case 04:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, right. Well, I couldn't find a different photo online, but I'll hear around on some WikiProjects... Thanks for your help. Random Nonsense 13:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

How to I mass edit a bunch of images from the same source?
Apparently, the BetaCommandBot is planning to delete all of a group of images I put up.

They're all pictures of high schools around Baltimore City, all of them are listed on my talk page.

They aren't logos, but they were taken to represent the school in question.

I would use this template for all the images:

So how would I mass edit them all and add this template?

Thx2005 15:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This would not be an acceptable solution. http://www.bcps.k12.md.us is not the source of the images since they do not appear at that URL.  Moreover, pictures by BCPS are copyrighted and are not in the public domain.  ShadowHalo 15:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:PHitchener.jpg is it a free image?
Hi I uploaded Image:PHitchener.jpg ut I am unsure wheather this is allowed or not as I copied it from another website. Also is it true that you cannot use a television screenshot of a living person to demonstrate what they look like? Doctor Mario Claw 06:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, this is not free. If you look at the TOS on the source website, it says, "All information, text, material, graphics, software and advertisements on the Network ("Content") are Copyright ©1997-2004 ninemsn, its suppliers and/or licensors unless expressly indicated otherwise on the Network." This is furthermore a living person, and so is replaceable.


 * As for screenshots, they can only be used under some fair use rationale, and fair use images cannot be used only to show what a person looks like. If this is a living person, then it's replaceable anyway. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If you move the screenshot down in the article to where it accompanies a discussion of the person's appearance on that particular program, it's more defensible. Daniel Case 03:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I allready tried putting a screen cap on both the main article about the program and the article on the individual, but were both deleted. Doctor Mario Claw 06:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Deleted as in removed from the system? Or deleted as in removed from the article? TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

are logo's permissible for uploads?
does wikipedia allow users who are not associated with the corporations or companies or any organizations to upload logos of such companies ?

--Gqegg 18:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC) gqegg


 * Yes! Logos are considered non-free content by default (see Logos for more information), so they may only be used in articles where a fair use rationale can be created to justify their use.  Consider uploading a logo you want to use, then come here if you need help regarding the fair use rationale!  Cheers, Iamunknown 18:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems like a good time to ask, as User:BigDT did: The rationale for using a Microsoft or Virginia Tech logo in their respective articles is obvious and anything you would want to say about them could be stuck on a template. There is nothing whatsoever that you can say about the Virginia Tech logo that you couldn't also say about the logo for Michigan State University or Notre Dame. When you want to repeat text, you put it on a template, so there's no reason that any rationale we would want for a logo couldn't be put on a template and shared for all of them.


 * Except, of course, for Wikipedia policy. Is there a good reason for this?  It seems like this very issue is causing plenty of problems, and I would advise anyone considering uploading a logo or album cover to wait a while, until the current policy settles in to place.   Jenolen    speak it!  19:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to complain about Wikipedia policy. You're probably looking for this page.  ShadowHalo 03:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

copyright expiration question
I have two photocopies of photographs that were originally copyrighted, of Fred T. Perris, a man who has been dead for more than ninety years. I copied them from published documents I found in a public library. May I safely assume they are in the public domain, suitable for inclusion in the Wikipedia article on him?
 * Copyright doesn't follow the subject, it follows the media. When was the work first published? (if you don't know, is there a caption indicating the age of the subject when the photo was taken? Where was the work first published? Who was the photographer? Does your copyrighted page contain any copyright information? See Public_domain for a more complete explanation (which recommends this chart as a useful guide. If you tell us when and where the work was published we can help you out more. Who the author was and when he died would be even more so.
 * In general, if you doubt something is in the public domain, it's best to assume no. --YbborTalk 01:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

'Fair Use' Issue
I received a message stating that 'Image:'Curiosities Volume 1' cover.jpg' may be deleted. It's an album cover, and I believe I did the same thing with this image that I've done with many other album covers. Is there something I can do in the future to avoid this message?--K d f m 11:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You need to explain why you think the image qualifies for fair use.Geni 16:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there any way of automating this? I would imagine the Fair Use rationale for an album cover is a pretty straightforward "boiler-plate" piece of text. I would also have thought letting individual non-lawyer wikipedians make up their own was riskier & more error-prone than having a fixed fair use rationale for album covers. Also, the last thing I want to do is have to troll through umpteen pages putting a virtually identical blurb on all of them...Megamanic 07:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I've just noticed a similar problem. A user Special:Contributions/ASDFGH has removed a large number of images from musicians that are images from album covers. I would argue this is fair use but I'm not going to get into an argument about fair use for each image that get deleted. We need a clear policy about the use of album covers and publicity images. Brettr 07:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:AN/I has the details; Betacommand and the Betacommandbot are primarily responsible. I wrote an article about it for this week's issue of the Signpost which was described variously (and perhaps hyperbolically) as "beyond repair," "an absurd piece of editorializing rhetoric," "heavily pov, in the way you interpret the facts and stitch them together" (the horror!), and "(failing) just about every measure of sourcing, objectivity, neutrality, etc."  Wow!  Judge for yourself, but I think it was a fine and entirely appropriate bit of reporting.   Jenolen    speak it!  08:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, for what it's worth, I agree with you. Brettr 09:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Although I agree with your point of view, Jenolen, & I am definitely no fan of Betacommand, your piece was flawed: you limited it to him, you were quite critical of him, but most importantly you failed to discuss the larger picture. There is an identifiable group of Wikipedians who passionately believe that there ought to be absolutely no non-free-use materials on Wikipedia, & they have been campaigning intermittently against them for years, using whatever grounds they can find to remove them as far as possible. Betacommand's role in this I believe is quite minor: he's just seeking group approval thru his creation & operation of his bots. By focussing our attention on him & his questionable behavior, you miss the larger picture of this campaign based on ideological grounds.


 * Further, because there is no faction organized to oppose this ideology, they've been able to advance their agenda. It is difficult for serious Wikipedians to be opposed to this: I think that the consensus is that whenever possible, preference should be given to unencumbered materials over non-free ones. I, for one, agree with that consensus. However, there are a large number of images & other materials that will never be free of the restrictions -- for example corporate & product logos -- so free use is a necessary evil. In order to create a great encyclopedia, we have to be ideologically impure here. Responsible fair use of these materials must be allowed, & allowed under the same "the letter killeth but the spirit giveth life" terms other policies & guidelines on Wikipedia are allowed. I think it is time that those of us who want to defend our need to fair use materials on Wikipedia to organize & make our case. -- llywrch 17:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I keep getting this message for Image:200px-TheManWhoalbumcover.jpg and I'm not about to deal with bogus internet bureaucracy when there are a billion other album covers on Wikipedia, album covers that are pretty much justifyable (including this one.) If anyone feels like dealing with it, go ahead, but I'm pretty annoyed by it.  Annoyed enough to let it be deleted for no good reason, even though someone else will eventually reupload it. Gamiar 21:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I received a similar message for Image:Identity Crisis.jpg when I was pretty clear when I uploaded it that it was an album cover. From what I understand that falls under wiki's fair use agreement. I don't really see what the issue is here, but I'm in no mood to argue with anyone. kc12286 16:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Logo
Our image is a logo used for a national non-profit organization, as it was created over 10 years ago the originial copyright information has been lost in our updates how can we post our logo onto our wikipedia page without this information? --Nspwiki
 * If you know the source but not the copyright information, I think it's fair to be conservative and assume it is fully copyrighted. You would need to add Non-free logo to the page along with a fair use rationale.  --Strangerer (Talk) 15:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Birdman.jpg
This is concerning the image Birdman.jpg. I believe I received a fair use justification warning in error; not only was I not the original uploader of the file (I only reverted it after it was vandalized), it already has a fair use rationale given in the description. Administrator, please alert User:Goevikes of this and not myself. Thanks. Tony Myers 16:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I sympathize completely. I rescaled (re: reuploaded) a slew of images awhile ago.  Betacommandbot has been all over me now.  I'll let Goevikes know.  (By the way, there is no fair use rationale there; licensing tags are not the same thing.)  ShadowHalo 16:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, whoops. It looks like Betacommandbot notifies all the uploaders in the history, so Goevikes already knows about it.  ShadowHalo 16:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Is a photo I took at a show "Fair use"
I stumbled across Sam_Rivers Wiki and thought it'd be nice to put a photo to the bio. I have some photos of a show I attended at the Covered Dish in Gainesville back in 1998.

Are these "fair use" applicable? Would I use "my material" for the license?

I also have a photo of him and his wife, outside the Covered Dish, posing for my picture, is that one applicable since it wasn't inside a building, but outside?

Thanks much.

I look forward to contributing to Wikipedia, in general. --Rhesusmonkeyboy 20:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Because Sam Rivers is a living person, we do not want to use a copyrighted image of him under U.S. fair use laws. Wikipedia allows others to reuse its content, so we can only use a free image of him.  If you are willing to release one or more of the photos you took under a free license, there is a list at Image copyright tags/Free licenses; you can also release them into the public domain by using the PD-self template.  Note that releasing an image freely means that you allow others to modify the work and share it for commercial and noncommercial use; some of the free licenses require anyone who uses the image to attribute you.  ShadowHalo 20:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Monorail sign.jpg
Received this on my talk page: Thanks for uploading Image:Monorail sign.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The image in question falls in line with the Licensing given which reads "This is a logo of an organization, item, or event, and is protected by copyright and/or trademark."

I feel this IS the proper Licensing template to use. HeadMouse 04:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse
 * I've explained the problem further on the users page. Megapixie 04:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Herbert Greenhough Smith
I have added a photo taken from a 1925 book, which I believe to be out of copyright. What is the appropriate copyright tag for this ?

RGCorris 13:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not out of copyright, nor is the photo (1923 is the cutoff date at the moment). If the photo is demonstrably taken before that year, however, it can be licensed as PD. Otherwise it's fair use (acceptable, I'm sure, since the subject is dead). Daniel Case 16:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * To clarify: It may well be out of copyright if it was never renewed as required before the current set of laws took effect, but we can't assume anything is out of copyright after 1923. After that, and prior to 1964, there would have to be some positive finding that it's PD. Anything published after 1964 is definitely still under copyright.


 * That's just for US authors published in the US. There are different rules covered by treaty for works by non-US authors originally published outside the US. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Googling UK copyright laws comes up with :

"Normal protection provided by the Berne Convention is life of the author plus fifty years from death, with the following exceptions:

Film, cinematographic work: 50 years from the making of the work, or if made available to the public within the 50 years, (i.e. by publication or performance), 50 years from the date the author first makes the work available to the public.

Anonymous works: 50 years from the date made available to the public.

Artistic works, such as photographs and applied art: At least 25 years from creation."

which suggests to me it IS out of copyright as it was included in a book published in the UK whose author died over seventy years ago. So which tag should I use ? RGCorris 18:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

about.com public domain?
Hi, I just saw an article in wikipedia which is almost a one to one copy of an article from about.com. I went back to the first version of it and it says (in the wikipedia): 'This text is adapted from U.S. Library of Congress (public domain): Country Studies On-Line'. Is this true? Does is mean wikipedia can copy all 'about.com' stuff? Or is at a copyvio? Andreask 05:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC) sorry just realized that this page is only about media-copyright questions. I still cannot find any page on wikipedia which is concerned about copyright questions in general. So maybe smbdy could answer this question here or direct me to the right page. thanks Andreask 05:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe About copied it from us. :) In any case, if it is public domain, then anyone can copy it for any purpose. WP 07:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use ratioinale album cover.
Image:NaomiAquarium.jpg - Bot says I need a fair use rationale for an album cover. Are there any examples of a fair use rationale for an album cover? I was unsure what to include in it. Thanks. —Christopher Mann McKayuser talk 06:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Should be fairly easy to write. Use fair use rationale. You want to indicate the obvious things, and note that it's a reduced version which is unlikely to decrease the market value of the artwork, that it's being used to illustrate the article about the album and that (most importantly) it is impossible to create a free version. Daniel Case 08:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bbc-goatse-olympics.jpg
Image in question: Image:Bbc-goatse-olympics.jpg

I've added Fair use Rationale as per guidelines to what I believe is correct. Is it? Is more required? If so, what? Thanks. --Fullforce 10:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it is still missing some information. There's a list of what's required at Fair use rationale guideline; you may want to use the template at Non-free media rationale since it makes it clear if there's something missing.  ShadowHalo 12:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Governor Chris Gregoire
What license should I use for an image of Washington Governor Christine Gregoire from the official Governor's website? There is currently no image anywhere on her Wikipedia article. I need help! --agetoagedc 04:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I went to take a look at Washington state's copyright laws, and they don't look awesome for us. I found some information linked at Template talk:PD-WAGov which seems to say that her image at http://www.governor.wa.gov/ is copyrighted and that we cannot use it.  I do not think it would be appropriate to claim fair use for this image.  I did find some images of her at http://wellington.usembassy.gov/governor_gregoire.html created by the U.S. Department of State.  These are in the public domain, but they aren't very encyclopedic.  Perhaps you should search around some more to find an image of her under a free license or in the public domain.  If you can't find a good one that's free, but found one someone took and posted on their blog or something, you could write to them and ask if they will release it. --Strangerer (Talk) 15:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that "by permission only" or "for Wikipedia" isn't acceptable - it has to be under a free license or in the public domain. --Strangerer (Talk) 15:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone wanna FlickrMail the person who uploaded this? ShadowHalo 16:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * For pictures of government officials, I find http://usa.gov to be very effective. I'm uploading a federal government picture to commons and placing it on the article as we speak. --YbborTalk 00:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * EDIT: Flickr's coming up successfully too. These two images Are acceptably licensed, although they would require some cropping, and the first one isn't that flattering. I don't think they're that necessary, so I'm not going to bother, but is if someone else does, those two are acceptably licensed. --YbborTalk  00:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

license tags list incomplete
I have a problem with your upload system. The license tags as listed do not cover the situation for the image I am uploading. I did not create the image, although I rearranged it, but I have full and complete permission from the copyright holder to use it. Not just in Wikipedia, not just for non-commercial/educational purposes... Free and complete permission. I included a statement to that effect in the fair use rationale box, yet my image was still deleted. The image is SWpalms.png  How cam I upload it, without somebody's bot automatically deleting it, when none of the licenses are applicable to this situation? Cwterp 13:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Copy and paste the permission that the person gave for you to use the image into the image description. Were there any conditions on using the image?  If you and/or the person require attribution, then use the Attribution template; if it can be freely used with no conditions, use No rights reserved.  ShadowHalo 13:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * where do I put the attribution? In the image description, in the caption, in the fair use rationale box?Cwterp 13:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * . Also, if the image is free, it shouldn't need a fair use rationale.  ShadowHalo 13:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think I am getting confused. The attribution would be "no rights reserved", but where does it go, physically, in relation to the picture?  Do I need to put the code in the image caption?  And perhaps I am using the wrong terminology for 'fair use rationale'...  When I upload a picture, I have to choose a license from the drop down menu, and there is a box where I need to give a summary, that is what I am calling the 'fair use rationale box' because according to the label on the box, that is where I need to explain that.  "Summary (author, source, URL, fair use rationale if applicable, extra , etc."  I understand that the 'no rights reserved' should go in the box, does it also need to go in the caption?  Cwterp 13:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The template just needs to go on the image description page, since "no rights reserved" means that people can use the image however they want, without attribution. I've added the No rights reserved template for you.  ShadowHalo 13:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I almost forgot; forward a copy of the permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org along with a link to the image. That way, an administrator with OTRS access can verify and archive the permission.  ShadowHalo 13:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, ShadowHalo, for helping me!Cwterp 14:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:PatrickOBrian TheUknownShore.jpg has been tagged as because it requires a "fair use" rationale. One of the statements on the Image page suggests that as it is a modern novel, a "free" not a "fair use" image be used. What sort of image would the powers that decree feel to be appropriate in this case? A photograph of the cover as opposed to a scan? Please give some guidance here rather than cryptic comments for the unknowing.You may know all the rules but putting insufficient information on a Talk page does not help those who are less well informed. Dabbler 14:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Modern novels are not free at all. For information on what is needed for a rationale, see Fair use rationale guideline, the page linked in the words "explanation or rationale".  ShadowHalo 18:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is strongly ceasing to be fun. Dabbler 20:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC) My mistake, another user had edited the template, Dabbler 20:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you upload images for education only?
Hello, I am interested in uploading several images but I am confused about the legal aspects of doing so. The website from which I will be taking the images (which were taken by myself and another individual) is part of a university medical center. According to the university, all websites and images are protected under intellectual property laws and are to be used solely for educational purposes. My question is if there is a way that I can contribute these images to wikipedia and have a license only for education? We want to make sure that we are protected from having these images downloaded and sold by commercial entities without our permission.

I would appreciate any help.

Sincerely, --Linzhoo2u 17:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)linzhoo2u


 * I'm afraid the images can not be used on Wikipedia if you are not willing/authorized to allow potential commercial use. The ability to use for any purpose, even commercial is one of the freedoms that must be granted for something to be considered free content. --Sherool (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As with all non-free content, you may add the images to certain articles if you make sure to follow the non-free content guideline. You will also have to provide a fair-use rationale to justify use of the pictures in the articles to which they are added. The fact that owner of the images allows their use for educational purposes will strenghen the fair-use claim. nadav (talk) 04:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of non-free images without time to add fair-use rationale.
Hi,

While I applaud the necessity to remove non-free or inappropriate images, serving notice to delete them (inviting the addition of Fair Use Rationale), but deleting the image only 2 hours later seems incredibly unfair.

I refer to one specific instance, the Rebus (TV series) had a screenshot File:RebusKenStott.jpg of one of the actors, Ken Stott - Rebus has been played by more than one actor. The request for fair use rationale was given here: diff, (and asking for comments on this page, which is what I am doing), but the image was deleted approx. two hours later - in the middle of the night in the UK, where the series is aired). diff.

I am not necessarily questioning the deletion of this image, it is not my picture, and may not have qualified as fair use anyway, but I would have thought if Fair use rationale is being requested, some time should be given to produce that. It seems a violation of WP:FAITH, a) to question the good faith that somebody who uploaded the image thought it was fair use (the guidelines are quite complicated), and also b) the good faith required to allow some hard working editors (who also need to sleep) to carry out the FUR request, in order to attempt to improve the encyclopedia (by using appropriate fair-use images to enhance the quality of articles). As indeed Featured article criteria rule3 suggests that It has images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject, this becomes even more difficult to find in some instances, as maybe there are no images that meet the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. Obviously non-free images should not be used if they don't meet the criterion, but if they can't be found will the article not pass FAC? Catch-22.

As this image-removal drive seems to be working faster than 'human' editors can supply requests, are they expected to check every image used in their watchlist and supply the fair use rationale before an 'automated' bot beats them to it? This can be very time consuming, and also very demoralising, if articles that have had lots of work are ruined because the deletion of the images destroy the page. (c.f. this and that for discussions about another WikiProject I have spent a lot of work in.)

Am I entitled to suggest that a period of 5 days be granted to supply requested fair-use rationale before deletion of an image (in a similar manner to a prod)? This doesn't seem unreasonable...

Thanks, –MDCollins (talk) 09:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the wrong place to bring this issue, as policy decisions are not made here. This is for clarification of specific copyright issues. You might start at WP:VP.


 * However, the best answer is that users simply should not upload fair use material without supplying a rationale in the first place. I don't find that the rules for fair-use media are all that complicated, and it's not as if both the upload page and the fair use templates themselves aren't explicitly telling the uploader what needs to be done. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand your reply and have suggested to MDC that he may need to re-post elsewhere.
 * However, while I agree with the principles, your second paragraph is a bit harsh. The images we are concerned about were uploaded some time ago, by other editors, when this issue was not being enforced. I agree that fair-use images uploaded from now SHOULD have the strict time limits for applying FURs imposed, and this will avoid lots of the problems. But it should be remembered that this is a transition period, and some grace should be allowed for bringing 'legacy' images up-to-scratch.
 * EdJogg 11:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sherool makes the most important point below, but I have to admit I didn't check the file's log, but looked at the question from a different direction. MDC didn't say he was asking about "legacy" images. I see nonfree images lacking fair-use rationale uploaded time and time again: It's a current problem just as much as "legacy", so I chose to answer in terms of the current situation. The particular image he asked about was uploaded in May of last year anyway, and I don't recall that policies were all that different at the time. TCC (talk) (contribs) 11:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to avoid this turning into yet another urban legend about rogue admins I'd just like to point out that the image in question was uploaded and deleted by the same person. That's right the uploader was an admin and he deleted his own image after the bot notification. This was a unusual situation and normaly such images are left for at least a week (usualy more due to backlog) before deleting. Unless the uploader happens to agree it should be deleted naturaly. --Sherool (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Copy vio Image:Marion Sparg publicity.jpg
The template Template:PD-SAGov seems to indicate only South African government works older than 50 years of age are in the public domain, so wouldn't use of Image:Marion Sparg publicity.jpg violate Wikipedia rules? --Deon Steyn 08:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. It will be deleted as early as June 7.  ShadowHalo 08:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I see now it's already been automatically tagged. --Deon Steyn 11:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Old documents
Image:Schoolapplication.jpg What would be the appropriate public domain tag for this image? Would a PD tag even be appropriate? cheers! Vassyana 17:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * PD tags are always appropriate if it's not copyrighted! :) I added one. It should be fine now. nadav (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I recently received
a notification that an image that I had uploaded had been placed on the speedy delete list and that if I wanted it to remain then I should do something. I had up loaded that particular image, the cover of an Acker Bilk EP in 2004, well before the current album cover templates were set up. I also uploaded many more covers, notably for The Shadows and Manfred Mann but lots more. However I am not inclined to go back and change all the copyright information on them as some bot on a seek-and-whatever mission ferrets them out. Anyone looking at the images understands that they are record covers and as such are okay to use. I have had a lot of hard work removed from wikipedia through various different processes and am inclined to now be a deletionist about the material that I have added to the project. Folks want to toss it out, they can do so. Carptrash 14:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have a question? ShadowHalo 14:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a way to program these bots so that they recignize material that pre-dates the nice templates that we have today? Or, should I just let these old postings go the way of all flesh? Carptrash 14:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, there is no way to have the bots avoid tagging images uploaded before the rationales were made mandatory. All images, regardless of when they were uploaded, are required and have required for some time that there be a fair use rationale.  ShadowHalo 14:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Carptrash 14:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello Carptrash, I see that there are many contributers to Wikipedia who are faced with this kind of problems. I ask myself who defined these regualtions and who has the right here to say what is right. Those who are able to programme a "Bot"? I can't accept this. It should be discussed on some music portals before the copyright fan(atic)s delete all the material we have collected and integrated into this site. --Reinhard P. Braun 05:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright tagging
I am really unclear on which tag to use for the image I'm trying to add to my article. Both the article and the image come from my gallery's website, and the image belongs to the estate of the artist. Also, after I thought I'd found the right tag (BSD), I was unable to add it to the image information. I couldn't find the image editing page. Which tag should I use, and how do I correct it so it is not deleted?

Thank you, --Danngala 18:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello. I assume you are talking about Image:15748 Cresheim Mill.jpg and Image:RRT752.jpg. First, you will need to add the images to an article. Non-free images can only be on wikipedia if they are placed in appropriate articles for critical commentary and other such purposes (see WP:NONFREE). Once you do that, you should add the Non-free 2D art copyright tag. You will also need to supply a good fair use rationale. Best, nadav (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Help!
My audio samples [[Media:Travelogue-The_Art_of_Conversation-Shards_of_Glass.ogg]], [[Media:Travelogue-Telegraph-Reflections.ogg]], and [[Media:Travelogue-Imaginary Hospitals-Hospital.ogg]] seem to be candidates for deletion. I did get permission from the artist to put them here on Wikipedia, but I don't know how to get them unmarked for deletion. I emailed the artist for formal permission using the GNU license. Can I put the deletion on hold?

Would you mind using my talk page to respond, so I am sure to see it?

Stshores24 19:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Chalmers University image
I have permission to use an image for www publication related to research work at Chalmers University, the source of the image. I was not asked to pay for the rights to use the image. I am trying to formulate a fair use case for posting the image at Wikipedia. I'm not a copyright lawyer. My basic rationale is that it's not my image, therefore I wouldn't understand deciding to use one of the suggested licenses. The general policy for use of Chalmers images is stated vaguely, but their willingness to provide this image free for www publication suggests the image falls under their free use policy (i.e. it's not for profit and not created by an "external photographer" not working at Chalmers who charges for use).

It all seems quite complicated. BTW: I have used the image elsewhere. It is now on the internet. --Rogerfgay
 * I assume you are talking about Image:PN Chalmers 300.JPG? This image is problematic for use on wikipedia. It's a non-free image of a living person, and these are usually not allowed because they could potentially be replaced with a free image. You will have to get the copyright holder to explicitly release the image using a free license such as the GFDL. Alternatively, you could take a picture of this person yourself and use that. nadav (talk) 09:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:MTR.gif
This page was tag so i think that i made the fair use rationale better, did i? But i do have to ask what is the wrong with it in the first places. It did has some rationale as compared with this page, Image:Union Pacific Logo.svg. Union Pacific is the copyright holder for both. Lazarus-long 04:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The rationale is quite good. Nice job! nadav (talk) 08:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Album covers
Why do you have problems with the reproduction of cover and label scans on pages related with labels, records and other discographical information. They are absolutely necessary to better identify and to show developments. See recent changes on Pink Moon page or at [Island Records discography]]. I invested some (much) time to make sides attractive and informative to users. I can't agree with the actual policy. --Reinhard P. Braun 05:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a very basic example at Fair use rationale examples that could help you form the rationale. Note that covers should not just be used for decoration or just for the sake of adding an image. There should be some more text describing the different versions of the CD or their cover art. nadav (talk) 08:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Added Fair Use Rationale to LT.com Logo
FUR has been added to Image:LT_Logo.jpg that was to be deleted (because it did not originally provide an FUR). Please advise whether it qualifies, so changes can be made if deletion is still a possibility.--Combat Fetus 05:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The rationale should be expanded. Take a look a the very basic example of a rationale for a logo at WP:FURG. Try to add as much detail about why the particular page to which you are adding the logo needs the logo. nadav (talk) 07:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Derivative works
Are pictures of buildings considered derivative works? I know that pics of statues are derivative works and should thus have a copyright tag on them. What about buildings?  Blue Ag09  (Talk) 07:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In a way they are, but US copyright law has a special provision that allows pictures of buildings without any problems. Take a look at Freedom of panorama. nadav (talk) 07:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So in that case, what kind of copyright tag should they have?  Blue Ag09  (Talk) 08:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * According to US law, you hold the copyright and can license it in any way you want. In other countries, that may not be so, but that's not important for this case. Further details are at Public domain. nadav (talk) 08:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Irimescu100.jpg
Hi - The image I uploaded (Irimescu100.jpg), to be used on the page about Ion Irimescu, was deleted. I am not very familiar how to specify things so that it would stay there. This image is available on the official website of the city of Falticeni at http://www.falticeni.ro/images/irimescu100.jpg. The original website is freely available to the public from a state-owned website and the website images are not copyrighted (there is no copyright notice anywhere on the website that I can find). Hence, to my mind there is no copyright infringement according to Romanian copyright law. Please let me know what you think and whether it is alright to have the image on wikipedia. Thank you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rmn1791 (talk • contribs).
 * The status of the copyright is not that easy to determine. We have to assume the image is not free unless you can prove otherwise (by referring to specific statutes of the city or government). My opinion is that the image can still be used in the article though, because Ion Irimescu is no longer living and the event portrayed was somewhat unique. When you upload the image again, make sure to use add a tag such as . It is also crucial to add a good fair-use rationale that explains exactly why the image should be allowed: see WP:FURG for more info on how to do that. nadav (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Album covers
Over a year ago, I uploaded many album covers and am now getting bombarded with 'no fair use rationale' notices for them. The way I understood it when I uploaded them, was that they are album coversand can be used. I even added an 'album covers' template tag to identify them. Do I still need to provide a "fair use rationale", or is someone being pedantic? If I do in fact need to add a "rationale", is that rationale simply "this is an album cover"? I don't edit the Wikipedia much anymore, but think it's a waste of effort if these pictures get deleted because of "red tape". MrHate 00:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You need to provide a fair use rationale to prevent the deletion of the images, and also, someone is being pedantic. I am wondering if we can't just add a general "Fair use rationale" for albums on the Non-free album cover template since it will probably be the same for all album cover images and it is pretty damn obvious why albums are fair use. The first example on the WP:FURG can help you with the rationale for these, MrHate, and I'm willing to help you add a rationale to some of these images if there are a lot of them. --Strangerer (Talk) 00:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You'll find my version of this up there somewhere under I recently received. I have decided to let the time and energy and even love that I put into uploading these images be spread evenly over the entire universe - after they get deleted.  Put another way, I'm just letting them go.  Carptrash 02:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Since I posted the above 5 more covers, all at Manfred Mann are on the chopping block. Oh well, wikipedia well be that much poorer. Carptrash 03:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have also gotten many messages about album covers. The "licensing" drop down menu has a selection called "Album or Single cover" as well as many other types of covers. If these exist, then why are these bots deleting album covers? --StarberryX1337 03:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see Fair use rationale guideline for how to add a fair use rationale to the image page. Over time wikipedia's image use policy has gradually become more restrictive. Now we are enforcing the requirement to have a fair use rationale as part of the image description. Megapixie 05:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * My wonder is, why is the rationale not built into the Album Cover template since it would be the same for all covers? Anyway, I did my part uploading the images years ago, now it is up to someone else to save them, if saved they will be.  Carptrash 13:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)  -  PS however, the bot is doing great work - 5 more covers for The Shadows that I'd uploaded have appeared appeared on the doomed list.  Wave bye bye to the nice people. Carptrash 13:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The rationale is not always the same. A standard one can be applied if the image is used in the article about the album itself.  However, that rationale includes the assertion that the image is low resolution, which is often not true.  In addition, the rationale will be different if the image is used in an article other than the one about the album.  ShadowHalo 14:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's been months since I've contributed to WP. I log in today, and see my talk page hammered with deletion warnings for album covers.  How does this motivate me to contribute now, or ever again?  This pedantic crap is gonna kill WP.  Wave bye bye to the nice people. Alcuin 02:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This is all too complex for me...
I believe the author of this plot has agreed that his image is free-content, but it's none too clear what lawyers would make of the case. Do I need to bug the poor guy with further emails forcing him to agree more explicitly to place it in GFPL or equivalent... and then move it to wikicommons or whatever the place is? This is prohibitively difficult the first time 'round! Thanks for any help... --Jasonphollinger 05:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Image:Par action spectrum.gif
 * This image is problematic because it could potentially be replaced with a free image based on the same data. Non-free graphs are usually not allowed on Wikipedia. Please either create a new graph yourself or request that the image creator license it using the GFDL or an acceptable Creative Commons license. nadav (talk) 08:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The data was unpublished. I asked the author if he would agree to CC:Attribution/ShareAlike license, and he agreed.  I will update the image.  Thanks. Jasonphollinger 20:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

How do I had a tag to an image
I received permission form the web site http://www.mendoparks.org/ to use this picture to build a Wikipedia page. How do I go about creating an appropriate tag for Image:Mackerricher.jpg ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wyorunner (talk • contribs).


 * Image:Mackerricher.jpg is a scenery picture from North California, so Wikipedia's criteria for including non-free images (item 1 specifically) would probably not allow using the image if it is not free content, which is much stronger then just having permission to use the picture. Therefore, you will have to ask the copyright owner of the image to release the image using a free license such as the GFDL. Helpful instructions for how to do this are available at Requesting copyright permission. Best, nadav (talk) 02:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Blisstv and B4tv logos
Hi there. I uploaded two images. One of the Bliss TV logo and the other of the B4 TV logo. I am unsure of which copyright tag to choose I took the logos from the Bliss and B4 MySpace pages, so could someone help me choose the correct copyright tag.

Many thanks Senna. --Senna123 15:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * non-free logo would seem to work. You also need to write a fair use rationale for each use as well. MECU ≈ talk 02:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * (e/c) You will probably want to use the non-free logo tag, and you will also need to provide reasons for why the logos are important for the pages and why our use of them won't hurt the companies. You can read how to do that at the Fair use rationale guideline. Also, note that logos shouldn't be added just to make the page look nicer; they should be familiar to the reader and help recognize the subject of the article, or else there should be discussion in the article about the logo itself. Other general guidelines are at WP:LOGOS, but don't worry too much about all that. I'll follow the pages to help just in case you have any trouble. Best, nadav (talk) 02:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

ASMS.jpg image deleted, why?
I have received the copyright notice on this image (image:ASMS.jpg) and have updated the fair use criteria, indicating this is a logo that is displayed on the organization's website. However the image was still deleted on 2007-06-05T20:57:43 by User:Naconkantari. Why? I would like to have clarifications on this issue. By looking at Naconkantari's talk page, there are a lot of things going on with him/her right now. I am not sure if the deletion of this image has been well thought of. Lobster 21:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You need to talk to the admin. Leave a message on their talk page. If you don't get an answer or are unsatisfied with the results, you can then look into deletion review. MECU ≈ talk 02:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. I did leave a message at Naconkantari's talk page.  Looks like he deleted a ton of images on that day without checking the criteria: there was confusion about removing the tag.  The admin thought the user was supposed to remove the tag, but the tag specifically said that users should not.  Anyway, I expect this to be resolved soon.  Lobster 05:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

How can i make the Pic legal?
 * I think the logo is basically OK now. The article on the ASMS should be expanded now. nadav (talk) 23:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Florida Memory Project tag OK'd
I'm still getting notices from User:BetacommandBot about rationale even though the below tag is placed on the image and discussion pages. Example: Image:Goodwood Plantation rc04488.jpg. As you probably know, the Florida Memory Project template was discarded leaving many images either deleted or with notices. I now have it from one administator that it looks good.

Comments? Noles1984 16:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You'll have to notify the bot's operator of this, so that the bot will recognize the info as legitimate. --Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 13:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Image published in a French textbook
I uploaded an image Image:Eccentric & rod 003.jpg taken from a questionnaire published in 1916 for a long-defunct French railway company. I cannot imagine how there could possibly be a copyright problem, however none of the licensing criteria given by WP seem to apply. Help!--John of Paris 16:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If it was not published in the US at the time [and is in compliance with "US formalities"], then the work is public domain in the US. In that case, the PD-US tag is appropriate. If the work was authored anonymously or attributed to the railroad company, then it is also in the public domain in France, where collective works are released into PD 70 years after their publication. This would probably make it PD in all countries signed to the Berne Convention. Thus if you want a more general tag, you can use the tag and replace Reason with this explanation. nadav (talk) 23:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * no for works published outside the US the cutoff date is 1 July 1909.Geni 00:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do say this? That's not what the page I cited says. I admit that it is complicated though. There are a number of conditions that should be met for it to be automatically free in the US without regard to status in France. nadav (talk) 03:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * see the "Works Published Abroad Before 1978 Without Compliance with US Formalities" section.Geni 08:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I did see that section. I don't know if textbooks of the time were published in or not in compliance with US formalities. I guess it's safer to assume the latter without further info. nadav (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * there would be non reason to publish in the US so the 1909 copyright cutoff likely kicks in.Geni 17:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Peter Nehr Image
ShadowHalo, I have attempted many times to get the Copyright correct on this image. We have permission to use it. It was taken by the State of Florida's photographer and is part of their archives released for general use to their representatives as needed. Please, can you tell me which copyright this can be? I have used the same copyright information as provided by the prior State Rep that held this seat and you are still questioning it so obviously I am confused since he had no diffulties. --Anitanehr 17:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)Anita Clark Nehr
 * I doubt very much that this image is in the public domain. You will need to show strong evidence that the photographer or Florida Archive has given up all copyright claims to the photo. Wikipedia as a general rule does not accept non-free images of living people, so this image cannot be used. You can get around this problem of course by just taking a picture of your husband yourself and uploading that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadav1 (talk • contribs) 23:10, June 10, 2007 (UTC)


 * That you have permission to use the photograph is unfortunately insufficient for Wikipedia. We are here to create free content, and you must realize that any work considered "free content" may be used for unrestricted commercial reuse and derivative works.  "Permission to use the photograph on Wikipedia" is not the same as "free content".  If you are connected with Mr. Nehr, please add an official e-mail address to his government profile, fill out this template with an appropriate free license, and then send this e-mail to   with a link to the image and article in question and a link to his government profile.
 * Note, however, that a "free license" only refers to the irrevocable copyright license of an image; given that this is a photograph of a person, there are personality rights, moral rights and other statuses that affect how someone may legally use the image. I am not a lawyer and I cannot comment on how you should view releasing the image under a free license, but I hope that you do consider releasing it as such.
 * Finally, if you are unwilling to release it freely for everyone to use, reuse and modify, then, though you can upload it, I can say with confidence that it will be deleted. For better or worse, non-free images of living public persons are regularly deleted on Wikipedia.  If you decide not to freely license it, then hopefully we will get an un-official portrait or photograph at some point in the future.
 * Hope that this helps! Feel free to ask any further questions here.  Cheers, Iamunknown 23:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the copyright, I believe, is not owned by Peter Nehr, but by the state of Florida. Mr. Nehr has permission to use it, but that's all. If you want to ask the copyright owner to release the image under a free license, then instructions are available at Requesting copyright permission. nadav (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point. I forget that!  Copyright can be so confusing... :S  We could try contacting the website maintainers at this link to see if they have any useful information regarding copyright.  (I'm not inclined to right now, tho, sorry :\)  --Iamunknown 23:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:DSCF2285.JPG
What do you guys think about Image:DSCF2285.JPG? Currently (IMO) it is tagged in a manner based on the assumption that the object itself is copyrighted and so derivative works cannot be freely licensed. I kind of think that assumption is correct and the image is non-free (for some of my reasoning, see commons:COM:L, the list under "Specifically, the following are generally not allowed:"). What do others think? --Iamunknown 23:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's somewhat tricky, but I'm pretty confident that you're right in saying that it's a derivative work. The robot, I assume, was visually portrayed in the Dr. Who television series, and the model is supposed to be faithful to that representation. There is case law that considers statues based on images to be derivative. Therefore, the picture of the statue is also a derivative of the original. Note that the image is being used on the userpage of User:The-Doctor. I'll inform him of the problem. nadav (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

General question
how do i add copyright tags. i am also have alot of problems with my thins being deleted —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PyreXions (talk • contribs) 02:10, June 11, 2007 (UTC)


 * You can examine your contributions by going to your user talk page—Special:Mytalk—and click "User contributions". From there you can examine what images you have uploaded—Image:Glassvibe-1.jpg, Image:Spin web.sized.jpg 1.jpg and Image:Cartv2.jpg.  None of them have been deleted, so I am unsure what you mean by that.
 * To add copyright tags, you must first know the copyright status of an image. In general, to know the copyright status of the image you must first know the source of the image.  In particular, what is the source of Image:Glassvibe-1.jpg and Image:Cartv2.jpg?  Also, are you the photographer of this photograph?  Then it might be a little easier answering your question.  --Iamunknown 03:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:02746ju.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:02746ju.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Jesse Viviano 16:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I uploaded the following image from the Library of Congress Image:02746ju.jpg, the source is clearly listed on the image's wiki page, along with the link to the Library of Congress website with all the relavent information relating to the image: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsc.02746 I further researched and found this page that references Rights and Restrictions "Which states: As a publicly supported institution the Library generally does not own rights to material in its collections. Therefore, it does not charge permission fees for use of such material and cannot give or deny permission to publish or otherwise distribute material in its collections. For further information, see the Prints and Photographs Division's online brochure, Copyright and Other Restrictions Which Apply to Publication and Other Forms of Distribution of Images: Sources for Information." I clicked on the link pertaining to the Copyright and Other Restrictions website and found this: Copyright and Other Restrictions That Apply to Publication/Distribution of Images http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/195_copr.html It seems clear to me that this image does not violate any restrictions that Wikipedia copyright violations; not only is part of the Library of Congress and can be used for public use (which is stated on the LOC website), it may also be used under the Fair Use Clause which is stated on the Copyright and Other Restrictions website. -Signaleer 04:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That means that the Library of Congress may not grant nor deny permission for most of the work it contains. Since this image was published after January 1, 1923 in the United States, that means that Time magazine still owns the copyright on this image, and therefore is the entity that may grant or deny redistribution rights, fair use excepted, so this is at best a fair use image. Since this image is being used to illustrate the American mood during World War II about this person, it needs a fair use tag and a fair use rationale. Jesse Viviano 05:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If you would have elaborated on this fact with your initial statement referencing the fair-use, it would have saved me a lot of time of culling through the LOC website. -Signaleer 05:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not know that you had that misconception at first. I therefore started with a boilerplate challenge. Your response revealed your misconception, which is the misconception that led to the creation of the now-deprecated tag. Jesse Viviano 05:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I corrected the copyright tag, therefore this discussion is moot but thank you for bringing up this valid point to my attention. -Signaleer 05:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Re deleted image UndaraTubes©Gari.JPG
UndaraTubes©Gari.JPG

Why was this deleted? I took the picture myself when I was there and the title stated " ©Gari.JPG " and that is me. Methinks your BOT can't think and it needs to be programmed to read the ©

Do you still have the pic to re-instate? Gari (Garigolf)
 * You can ask the administrators or request a deletion review. Otherwise, if the picture is yours, and you release it to the public domain or use creative commons licenses, then the picture can be uploaded. Otherwise, the picture cannot be accepted as a nonderivative picture.  The image can be uploaded as a fair use picture, but can not be used in userspace. Miranda 17:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify, you indicated that the image could not be used commercially. Wikipedia allows use of its content for any purpose, so we do not allow restrictions on commercial use.  If you'd like to reupload the picture and release it into the public domain or under a free license such as the GFDL or a free Creative Commons license, then it can be used.  Otherwise, the image appears to be a of a place open to the public where it would be possible to create a free picture, and it does not meet the first of our criteria for using unfree media.  ShadowHalo 18:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

can I upload lyrics and/or chords to music I like? what would be required to make that legal?
 * No, including all of the lyrics of a song or its tablature would be copyright infringement. ShadowHalo 18:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyrighted images
Hello. I just happened to notice that two images were deleted in Jeannette Piccard with no warning. I did post a note to the talk page of the person who deleted them but this person is on wikibreak. May I or may I not reupload these photographs? Is this a new Wikipedia policy to delete images without telling anyone? Thank you. -Susanlesch 22:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Image88-13377.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Image75-15326.jpg

-Susanlesch 22:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking at the Answers.com mirror of the article and the image, it appears that the two images in question were from the Smithsonian Institute website. Normally uploaders of images are notified of pending deletion, but this was a special case that I guess no one notified uploaders.  The template in question — Template:Smithsonian — was subject to a deletion discussion archived at Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 2.  The consensus was to delete the template and then tag any remaining images with deletion tags.  You should consider reading the discussion to understand why this was determined, but basically it is because the Smithsonian Institute does not own the copyright to very many works, and so it is only useful as a source of images, not as a copyrights status (which, if you look at those Answers.com pages, the template presented the Smithsonian institute as a copyright holder).
 * That said, you can re-upload the image, but please only do so if you are familiar with who the copyright holder is and with the copyright status. The images may be in the public domain, but I don't know, and you should make sure to check out Hirtle's chart regarding the public domain.  If you intend to upload the photographs and find more information, but still have questions, feel free to come back!  Cheers, Iamunknown 22:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Iamunknown, thank you so much for your help (no way would I have guessed what happened). How does this one look? OK to link it to Wikipedia? -Susanlesch 00:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that one should be fine. It lacks exact information, but seeing as how it was created (and, I assume, published in a newspaper) in 1933, it should be PD-US.  Just link it like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia:  .  I'm glad I could help!  --Iamunknown 01:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Woops. I changed it to PD-USGov-Military-Navy. Do you think PD-US is better? Also I uploaded another one from the same publication. Are these two both ok? (Neither one says who took the picture, only that they came from the Settle collection -- the guy flying Ms. Piccard's balloon). If so I think that the Piccard article is better off now without the fair use images. Thanks in advance. -Susanlesch 01:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that it is safer to assume the images are PD-US because they were created and (probably) published in 1933. (I say probably with some confidence simply because it was the World Fair and I assume photographs of that fair would have been published far and wide.)  The other image may be okay for that same reason.  --Iamunknown 01:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason to assume the photos were taken by the government? Just because they appeared in a government publication doesn't mean they were taken by government workers. I agree with Iamunknown that the PD-US tag is safer. nadav (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In retrospect, my assumption that these two images are in the public domain is not without doubt. Research would be required to determine with confidence the copyright status of the images.  They were published in 1933, which does not automatically qualify the photographs for public domain status (those images published before 1923 in the United States are automatically in the public domain).  I will try to contact the Smithsonian Institute regarding the first one (at Answers.com); it may end up that the copies uploaded to Commons must be deleted too.  --Iamunknown 01:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Mysteriously (or I am looking at an old copy), someone restored the deleted images in Jeannette Piccard. But now I have replaced them with the commons images. If it isn't too much trouble, would the resident expert tell me on my talk page what to do if something needs to be done? Thanks for your help. -Susanlesch 01:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I called the Smithsonian who said they would help by email which I sent, including their negative numbers and links to the two images source pages. They replied they couldn't figure out what images they are and need a form filled out and mailed or faxed. Makes very little sense. Meanwhile the deletion requests have been removed by the original admin. I am tempted to ask for the commons images to be deleted and go back to the two images above (non-free and low res but better quality). -Susanlesch 18:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

image of a living person licence
What licence should I add to Image:Benmoody.jpg ??????? Ivanescence 20:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * We do not accept copyrighted images of living people. Please read our policy on using unfree media.  ShadowHalo 20:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Armageddon score.jpg
Hi, this image had no description given (my own fault apparently) as I uploaded this while still fairly new to Wiki. I have added a description and a purpose of use here

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

Would this now be ok? Douglasnicol 19:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's iffy at best. See WP:FURAT for a guide to what a good fair-use rationale should look like. Your best bet is to use the template. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You can't bloody win, I put up the template and an explanation, but its obviously not good enough for an overzealous bot. Douglasnicol 17:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete the above statement, it did disappear for a short while and then reappeared. I've put in a fair use rationale, does it seem satisfactory now? Douglasnicol 13:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What is considered "Low resolution"?
Will someone define what 'low resolution' is in relation to album covers? Sa cooke 06:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia Image use policy addresses both the size and resolution of images on Wikipedia. According to that page, they should be less than 20 megabytes in size, and a maximum of 550 pixels wide.   Jenolen    speak it!  07:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Make the resolution of the image the smallest size that doesn't detract too greatly from the article. Lowering the resolution is a very important criterion when including fair use images such as album covers. There is no one-size-fits-all, since it depends on the level of detail in the picture.  nadav (talk) 07:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Lowering the resolution is a very important criterion when including fair use images such as album covers. -- Well, I suppose, although since no properly-tagged, properly-sourced Wikipedia image has ever been found NOT to be fair use, I'm not sure why you believe that. That's more of the "Wikipolicies are way more strict than the law requires" prophylactic approach to to "non-free content."  WP:NONFREE is, by unaminous consent and design, much stricter than any legal requirement.  And, of course, there is an image use policy on Wikipedia - the aforementioned WP:IUP.  So I don't see how anyone following both WP:NONFREE and WP:IUP should have anything to worry about?  Jenolen    speak it!  07:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The official policy (which is transcluded into WP:NONFREE) is at WP:FUC. Item 3(b) specifically calls for images to be low resolution. I have been informed that there is case law that indicates low resolution is equivalent to using only a part of a work, which is very useful for proving fair use. In any case, we are governed by our policies (including the non-free content guideline), not just the law. nadav (talk) 07:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 550 pixels is the maximum width at which an image should be used in an article; that's irrelevant here. In most cases, 300x300 would be a good resolution at which to upload album covers; that's the highest default width for thumbnails available in a user's preferences.  Any cover that's a decent amount larger than 400x400 is likely to be tagged with fairusereduce.  ShadowHalo 13:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thankyou. I'll ensure any further images I upload are within these limits. They sound disturbingly arbitary to me, but if that's Wikipdia policy then that's what I'll follow. Sa cooke 07:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Logo of my site
Image:S2R.jpg I have not included any thing yet as i am not sure what to put. It is the logo of m site and i am goin to put it on my userpage soon. I did not create the image but requested it from http://cgarts.myfreeforum.org/ by a user called Gem. How should i put the copyright notice?
 * The Sims 2 logo is copyrighted by EA Games and cannot be used in the user namespace. For information on how unfree media can be used, please see WP:NONFREE.  ShadowHalo 22:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes but the logo has been recoloured and changed, another idea is maybe just to chop off ea's logo and just leave the S2R part, this would then be, eas logo, edited by 'Gem' with the ea logo removed by me, by the way what copyright notice would i use on that?Ω§Blacksmith2 23:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I intend to upload the new image within 6 hours of the instuction to do so, it the instruction is in the next 4 hours, other wise done within 48 hours Ω§Blacksmith2 23:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You will need to eliminate the part of the image that is similar to the actual EA Sims2 logo. Just changing its color is not enough. nadav (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

done, now what copyright should i put on that? Ω§Blacksmith2 23:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My guess is that it probably cannot be copyrighted in the US, since it is just three letters in a certain font and color. In that case PD-font may be a good option. If you want people in other countries to be able to use the image also, you should ask Gem to release the image into the public domain or under a free license such as the GFDL. Best, nadav (talk) 23:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok now its got that 'who what where' question there,, have typed in what i think is the relevant info, just have a look, is it alright?--Ω§Blacksmith2 00:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In my opinion at least, It's fine now. You can use it on your user page. nadav (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's a modified version of a copyrighted image. It clearly cannot be used on Wikipedia, more or less on a userpage. Miranda 08:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * See this...
 * "The Sims™ © 2000 Electronic Arts Inc. The Sims, Maxis and the Maxis logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts Inc. in the U.S. and/or other countries. All rights reserved. Maxis™ is an Electronic Arts™ brand.
 * In simple terms, this means that the image is copyrighted by EA, and cannot be modified w/o the company's permission. Miranda 08:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you are misunderstanding the law. Consider this analogy: I take a copyrighted book and excerpt a three word phrase from it. The result is a work that is ineligible for copyright, and I may do anything I want with it. That's what's happened here. Moreover, no part of the actual Sims logo has been used. nadav (talk) 08:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Then you translate the words into another language and add another sentence, then remove the bit you took from the book.Ω§|Blacksmith2 08:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Navdav, you are confusing plagiarism with copyright, which are technically the same thing. Second, the image is probably under a non-commercial license which means that the image cannot be modified without explicit permission of the author. Miranda 08:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean. Here's an idea though: we keep the speedy deletion tag on the image, and if an admin deletes then so be it. Then we open up this up for discussion at the Can I use...? page, where we will be able to discuss the matter leisurely.nadav (talk) 08:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Image has been blanked.i personally perfer this to deletion.and does a Uder called Real 96 know about this at all Miranda??Ω§|Blacksmith2 09:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sure she, or he knows about the situation. Miranda 20:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

wait you are real96Ω§|Blacksmith2 06:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Procedure for responding to bot that complained I put no copyright tag on uploaded image
Could you please place instructions for newcomers on whether it is required to reply to a bot that is unhappy about a missing image copyright tag?

The warning notice suggests that I Please notify the uploader with xxsubst:Image copyright|Image:Burdetterie.jpg}}xxxx

Neither the warning message on my talk page nor the image's talk page gave sufficient instructions on if or how to notify the uploader. Where, pray tell, do I place this message to notify the uploader? I've spent nearly half an hour trying to figure out if I need do anything more. Please think about your Wiki instructions from the perspective of someone who has just received puzzling instructions.Pat 05:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Um... you are the uploader, the instructions are for people (well bot in this case) adding the no license tag to also add Image:Burdetterie.jpg to your talk page where it will expand into the warning message you are refeering to. What you need to do add a proper copyright tag, wich I see you have already done so your work is done. --Sherool (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Is appearing without copyright on a US Govt. server good enough?
I'm going over the images uploaded by a user who didn't care much where an image was from so long as it was on a United States Government (USG) server. In deed, some were clearly copyrighted (and licensed by the USG under a license Wikipedia does not accept), some were public domain and clearly labeled. I don't know what to do about those which are not credited but appear on a USG website without copyright notice. i.e. Image:Rhmi2.jpg, Image:Becky_Branch_Falls.jpg, and Image:ANST-Triangle-Logo_1.jpg. Pdbailey 13:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, it's not good enough. Government publications can include copyrighted photos under fair use just like regular publications can (I think). It would be much be better to send an email to the website administrator specifically asking about where the photos came from (the Fort Bragg site has a useful question page, btw ). Note also that pictures taken by private government contractors are often copyrighted. Best, nadav (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. There are about 100 photos that I'm looking at, as such I intend to mark them all as possibly unfree and let others cleanup if they like the images. Pdbailey 01:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoa. Well if it's that many, then I guess that's the best approach. Good job on tackling this! nadav (talk) 02:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

book covers and title pages
Can someone please address my question above? Thanks. —Dfass 15:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Book covers have to acquire permission from either the author or the publishers. After 70 years of the author's death, the book is in PD. Miranda</b> 22:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How come for the past year the information on the template has said that low-res images of book covers are considered "fair use"?  When did this change?  That's a lot of effort gone to waste for me.  I'm not going to start writing to publishers.  That's simply too annoying.  Wikipedia is going to lose a lot of color if we can't even have book covers.

Fraudulant image tags
What do we do with fraudulant copyright image tags, such images that are claimed to be the work of an editor but are clearly not so? --Beaker342 16:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You can add PUIdisputed and list it on Possibly unfree images. Though if it's very obvious I tend to just strike out the incorect tag and add {{subst:nld}} (no license) and drop a note on the uploaders talk page. If you think the image can be justified under fair use just change the tag to a fair use one and add an apropriate rationale. --Sherool (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If the image is definitely taken from a non-free website, then you can nominate it for speedy deletion (criterion G12) with . If it doesn't meet the speedy deletion criterion but you are still confident the image is a violation, then I tend to prefer using the procedures at Copyright problems. My preference is to use WP:PUI for images I'm somewhat less confident are violations, or where I only dispute parts of the sourcing info. Maybe someone else can refer me to a discussion somewhere on how the two are different? Best, nadav (talk) 00:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

R-Expo Images
Dear Sir I inserted 4 images in R-Expo Article which i guess r appropriate Image copyright tags. Following are the image names: rexpo.jpg rexpooldstore.jpg rexposupport.jpg rexpoeuropa.jpg

I would request u to explain me the reason why its been repeatedly deleted and what shall i do to put it up.. thanking you Sanchitm 19:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Lack of copyright tag. Who took the photos?Geni 00:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

working within the National Library of Australia
I am working as a volunteer on a project to link images in the Pictures Branch Collection of the National Library of Australia to relevant pages in Wikipedia. I have access to all the copyright documents for the collection and staff with copyright knowledge. My problems are:- 1. uploaded images from the online catalogue are immediately tagged for deletion due to   copyright issues 2. there is no option in the copyright tags for "out of copyright"

I am an absolute beginner as far as editing in Wikipedia is concerned so would be very grateful for any advice/help regarding these issues.

The curator is happy to support me with any corroboration you may require

Please notify me on my talk page

NLA PIC 04:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

book covers and title pages
I don't understand the copyright rules with regard to book covers and also promotional portraits. For example, on the Alexander Altmann page I made a while ago, what were clearly promotional portraits were deleted, and now the image of the book title-page is also targeted for deletion. I don't know if this is someone being overzealous or not, but it really makes me not want to bother with this anymore. I spent a lot of time trying to get book covers and title pages through Interlibrary Loan and other means to make these biographical pages appealing, and now they are all being deleted. Really, what's the point? —Dfass 18:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The issues I see with Image:Alexander altmann smile.png are only that it has no fair use rationale and that it doesn't specify where the image came from (See Fair use rationale guideline on how to add a well-written rationale). Once you add those two things, I believe current policy will allow you to use the image. Best, nadav (talk) 23:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Concerning the book title page Image:Altmann title mendelssohn.png, the issue is more complicated. The painting of Mendelssohn is in the public domain because it is very old. The US copyright office holds that short text with typographic ornamentation is not copyrightable, so it perhaps may be the case that the image as a whole contains no copyrightable material. However, I'm not a lawyer so I am hesitant about making such determinations. In any case, if the image is not free, then it shouldn't be used because it doesn't contribute much to the article besides making it look more aesthetic. Best, nadav (talk) 23:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a lot to be said for aesthetics. One of the strongest criticisms of the new Encyclopedia Judaica is that they took out many of the pictures.  Pictures make an article inviting to readers.  If there's going to be all these problems, I think Wikipedia administrators should make it much easier for uploaders to specify the proper copyright info.  There should be a dynamic form that shows exactly the fields you need to fill in for a given media type.  None of this "it is believed that this is fair use" crap that invites people to spend time uploading, only to have their labors negated by some unthinking Bot that deletes all the pictures.  Thanks for nothing, Wikipedia.  —Dfass 13:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:ProfileSanne.jpg and Image:ProfileSylvia.jpg copyvio?
Both pictures seem to be copyrighted and come straight from the MaxModels website (they're promotional pictures for the Dutch Next Top Model contest). As I am only familiar with the deletion policy on Dutch Wikipedia, I would like to know what to do about these two pictures here...

Thanks! Kind regards, Erik1980 15:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:CSD.Geni 16:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, so how do I make sur it gets deleted? I now listed it at Copyright problems/2007 June 13/Images, but is there anything else I need to do? Too bad I'm not a sysop here, too, these pictures would have been long gone if I were! ;) Erik1980 16:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Geni 18:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

logos for deletion
when the logos bear the name of the owner why must it be deleted especially a logo for peace or for a free campaign ICP logo for example and the ICP symbol also (Motegole 19:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC))
 * All images without free content licenses must conform to the Wikipedia non-free content guideline, regardless of what they depict. nadav (talk) 04:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tech-achieve-award.jpg
Image:Tech-achieve-award.jpg was uploaded with a tag. I was unable to find such a release at the source website, though I may have missed it somewhere. I asked the uploader about it (diff), and the the uploader replied saying they couldn't remember the circumstances (diff). Could someone please check on the image and take appropriate action? Thanks. -- Jonel | Speak 19:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I truly doubt that the image is public domain. In fact, no one can release it to the public domain except the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, who own the copyright to the Oscar statuette. I'm listing this for speedy deletion, since I don't think the stub it's on gives enough context for using this image anyway. 04:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable image?
I posted this on Fair use review, but further comments would be really useful. nadav (talk) 10:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC) I am concerned about whether this image is in compliance with our policy on non-free images of living persons. The uploader says the image is not reproduceable because it shows the subject at a unique phase in his research with three of his robot creations surrounding him. I have trouble understanding what this means. In any case, I sent a letter a few days ago to the copyright holder asking for the image to be released under a free license, but have yet to receive a reply have since learned that he will allow use of the image by permission only, so I am putting this image up for review now. nadav (talk) 11:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Image:PN Chalmers 300.JPG

Help
Can someone help me determine the copyright of this photo: Thanks.Hajji Piruz 14:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Copyright somebody and not free.Geni 15:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale on Image:Bel07a.jpg
Uploader is also the copyright holder - aren't all contributions to Wikipedia under GFDL? How can this image then be "fair use"? --Branislav Jovanovic 09:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It may be against the spirit...but the photo does seem to be of historic significance, which is permissible by the guideline WP:NONFREE. However, it needs to have a fair use rationale. nadav (talk) 05:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Cincinnati "The Banks" Image Question
I am currently working on "The Banks" page discussing Cincinnati's plan for the riverfront. I wanted to upload an image (which can be found here: http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/transeng/images/transeng_img7095 ) but I have no idea what to tag it with. Thanks.User:Lanskeith17 10:50, 14 June 2007

It is an image from Cincinnati's government website, so maybe that changes things?


 * The image does not appear to be under a free licsese so it would be hard to justify uploading it.
 * This image may be considered replaceable by a free alternative (see WP:NONFREE), so it's not allowed. Works created by local governments are usually copyrighted. nadav (talk) 05:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Dartmouth Medical School
Hi,

I'm attempting to upload the logo of Dartmouth Medical School of Dartmouth College in Hanover, NH, USA. The file I'm using shows up as grainy and I suspect this is because it's a .gif and not a .png. Where can I find the .png equivalent of this logo? Thanks.


 * Uh...ask the webmaster of the DMS website? hbdragon88 01:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The resolution of the logo is appropriate for a fair use image. I don't know the age of the logo, but I assume it's still copyright. To avoid the pixellation, set a smaller size when placing it. I'll go do that right now. Most infoboxes that use images have a parameter for this. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, you want to be sure you tag the image correctly or it will soon be deleted. non-free logo is appropriate. Be sure to also add a detailed fair use rationale. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Amishapatel.jpg
I had this image on my computer long time ago...I found it through Google Image search but I don't know where exactly I got it from, how do i write the copyright?

Its a magazine scan so shall I write the name of the magazine?
 * The image is almost surely non-free and copyrighted (and hence not allowed on Wikipedia). If you think there's a chance the owner of the copyright (ask the magazine who that is) will release the photo under a free license, then you can ask them to do so by following the instructions in Requesting copyright permission. Best, nadav (talk) 12:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Aloe krapohliana00.jpg
Which licence tag should I apply to Image:Aloe krapohliana00.jpg? The image is from a book discussed under G.W. Reynolds. The photo was taken by G.W. Reynolds who is deceased. I regard this as fair use of the image. Paul venter 11:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think there are any applicable copyright tags for this picture. To me, it looks like the photo doesn't meet the requirements in WP:NONFREE. In particular, it looks like this image of the aloe plant could essentially be replaced by a free alternative. The fact that the photo was taken by G.W. Reynolds doesn't mean the photo adds significantly to the reader's understanding of the man and his work, since the image has a generic appearance that would be just the same if it was taken by somebody else. The case would be different if Reynolds were an artist and an image were needed to accompany critical commentary about his artistic technique. nadav (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It shows his work. It could show his photographic technique. -N 18:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no critical commentary on his photographic technique. From what I understand, he was not known as photographer, just as an expert on aloe. nadav (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

general question
I work for a professor who wants pictures from his website added to his article, and who has delegated this particular job to me. As I'm not the copyright holder of the pictures, how would I license them? Meandering 16:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ask him if it's ok to use his pictures for any purpose including re-selling them or making posters that ridicule him. If that's ok, go ahead and slap gfdl-self on them and read WP:COI. -N 21:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

partially a much-fair-used image, partially my own creation
the fair-use part is found many places, it is from a publicity poster, however the to-upload image uses this in a larger collage, the remainder of which is public-domain; the collage itself is donated into the public domain by its author (me) and carries no mark.

i can't put the url of the original source in there for the fair-use piece because it's not stand-alone.

thanks in advance for your advice!

Daddydooga 17:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Derivative works of copyrighted images are usually not allowed. Unaltered copyrighted images with technical modifications (making a collage might count) are possibly fair use. I'll let someone else answer this one. -N 17:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The use part of fair use would come into play here - how are you intending to use the image ? Megapixie 06:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

entry for old board game
Dear Wikipedia,

I have an old board game called Ergo for which I would like to add a new entry in wikipedia. As far as I can see the game is no longer produced but appears to be copyright 'Invicta' 1977. How would I go about producing an entry in Wikipedia ? Shall I just publish it and wait for feedback ?

Thanks

Ben (cbucket2)
 * Please see the WP:HELPDESK for an answer to this question. <font color="CEBE70">MECU ≈ talk 01:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

How to tag a photo of a promotional gadget?
Image:Red_box_train_thomas.jpg

Hello! Someone has photographed it and put an image on a sales website (just like every user of ebay does). Any suggestions how should I tag such pictures? Thanks in advance! Manxz 23:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello. You might be able to tag it as fair use since it is apparently one of a kind. Please see WP:NFCC and Image tags for assistance. -N 12:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:URC07 UNR EngrTask 01.jpg
I'm not familiar with copyright, is using Image:URC07 UNR EngrTask 01.jpg from the University Rover Challenge's Webpage kosher? If so, how should I tag the image so it's not deleted? Thanks--Pennstatephil 15:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "All rights reserved" slams the door quite loudly. i think it could be justified under the non-free content criteria standard, though.  Start by tagging it with non-free fair use in and write out a fair use rationle for why it should be used. hbdragon88 18:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks!--Pennstatephil 13:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Can't find the right license category
I have spent quite a lot of time now trying to find the right copyright category for an image, but I simply can't seem to find it.

I would like to upload an image, which is a computer 3D model of a small satellite which was launched four years ago. The satellite went silent a few days later. The satellite, as well as the image of it, was produced by students from a state-owned university as part of educational activity. The high-resolution image has been publicly available on the satellite's website for the past four years. The website states nothing about rights, but I am 99 % sure that there are no rights associated with the image. Isn't it for images like these, that the "fair use" license can be used? However, I can't put it into a suitable category.

On the upload page, it says that images found on the web cannot be used on wikipedia. Never? Ever? Does that mean that I have to take a photograph myself or scan some printed material? Could I take a picture of my monitor showing the image, then?

--Oz1sej 11:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Some decades ago copyright changed from requiring a positive assertion of rights (requiring works to be registered) to what we have today, everything is copyrighted unless specifically disclaimed. Not saying anything about copyright means we should automatically assume there is a copyright. It is true that an undefended copyright might be treated as abandoned in the law, but without a court ruling to that effect for a specific work it is impossible to know for sure if this thas happened.

Random materials found on the web may not be used, however properly sourced images from the web may be used. In your example, you take a picture of yourself and upload it to the web. We have a proper source for the image, you. We can use the image. The other example is a picture off somebody's geocities or myspace page of a celebrity. We have no idea where the picture came from or who owns the copyright. We cannot use the image.

"Fair use" isn't a license but rather an exception in the law for using works for commentary purposes. In addition to the restrictions in the law, Wikipedia has additional precautions against infringing the rights of copyright holders. You may view our rules here: WP:NFCC. If you think you can meet those criteria and can write a justification for the use of a copyrighted image, go ahead and upload it, if the sourcing and copyright info is adequate. Don't worry about categorization, everything you submit to Wikipedia goes through a fine tooth comb from other editors, somebody will point it out to you if you're wrong. -N 12:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

What tag for this image?
Image:Eric_van_Lustbader_The_Testament.jpg


 * book cover. Don't forget to write a fair use rationale.  howcheng  {chat} 18:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

How to tagged modifed PD image
I edited the image released into the public domain at Image:Eyelash_transplant_bauman_500.jpg to remove the watermarked self-advertisement that Wikipedia forbids from user-created images, to create Image:Eyelashsurgnocred.jpg. How should I tag this new image? It's not my own creation, but it's sourced from a PD work. How can I properly tag it to avoid deletion? --Alvis 07:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * hmmm...my instinct tells me that you didn't change the image enough for the copyright status to have changed, meaning PD-release would be the best tag. But, if the changes are sufficient so that you now have rights to the photo, then any free copyright tag will do. Personally, I would prefer releasing into the PD with PD-retouched-user. nadav (talk) 07:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, retaining image attribution in the image isn't such a bad thing. -N 18:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Images (Samiddon)
Can you please check my Image entries and ensure that I have followed the correct procedures?

Regards,

--Samiddon 00:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please provide relevant links. -N 01:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks like everything you uploaded is released as GFDL by the Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service. So long as you're authorized to release them under GFDL or they were already released that way, then everything is fine. Thanks for all the great pics! nadav (talk) 04:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't find the GFDL notice on the Devon and Somerset fire service website. Could you link me to it? -N 12:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you saying the images were taken from the website?? That changes things. My comment was merely about the fact that user:Samiddon says he is an employee of the fire services and uploaded their photos under GFDL, and if he is authorized to do that then all is fine. If he wasn't authorized, or if the photos are taken from the website (which says "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.") then there's a problem. nadav (talk) 04:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry I misspoke. The images do not appear to originate from the web. -N 05:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyright questions
Hello...

I am a software developer and I have found a few images on Wikipedia that would be useful in my application. The software I am creating is a pet owner education program and I have discovered some dog/cat images that I would like to use. Some of the images that I have found are public domain while others are GNU copyleft files. The end software is going to be sold (not free), but we would make any GNU images used free and of course redistributable/copyable per the GNU license. Is this ok or does the entire software have to be free to simply use a few of the GNU images? Proper credit would of course be given as well.

Thanks, Mattandjami 18:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not a GFDL expert by any means, but I believe you can use the images as-is and as long as you make it clear that the images are freely available under the GFDL, you don't have to make your software GPL or anything.  howcheng  {chat} 18:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this alright???
Umm, sorry if i'm being a bit dumb but is this image O.K. Image:Stan_Marple.jpg I thought it might be but am not sure it is on the guildford flames website, which has a gallery of pictures which are freely avalible to the public, and there does not appear to be a copyright for the images. It can be found at: http://www.guildfordflames.com/inc/iview/1326?idx=16&p=1535 thats vey much, will hold it back just in case its unsuitable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guildford Flames Fan (talk • contribs).
 * I would say not. What does a website with "pictures which are freely available to the public" mean. Not finding a notice of copyright is not enough. The website would have to say that the pictures are in the public domain or are available under a licence which allows them to be freely reused, redistributed, and modified. I can't be sure that it doesn't, because the link you've supplied doesn't work! Are you sure you typed it correctly? And it seems to be a photo of a living person, which means that it's one which could be reasonably replaced by a free image (a Wikipedian could presumably take a picture of Stan Marple and release it under a free licence). So that means that it's not acceptable under Wikipedia policy. Sorry. ElinorD (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Exchange Alley - London.jpg
Here is a detail from a famous, excellent map of London, dated 1746. The copyright seems to have expired in the United States, as it is a two-dimensional work whose authors (Rocque and Parr) expired more than 100 years ago. My concern is that the scan was made by Motco, who claim a copyright on their web page. Motco sells a CD with Rocque's multi-page map of London, not to the original scale. Please scrutinize this.Fconaway 05:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The image is tagged correctly. A mere reproduction of a work so old cannot be copyrighted in the U.S. -N 05:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Image: UNinterpretersgroupphotoOctober1995.jpg
Uploaded image was given to User: Rodsan18 freely as a memento by a former chief of the United Nations Interpetation Service, Tuan-Li Diana Liao. And I am freely sharing this image with Wikipedia. A duplicate is in the office of the United Nations Interpretation Service Office, New York City, dated 24-25 October 1995. No other image available from other sources, including internet. Will be useful for article United Nations Interpretation Service. Image file name is Image: UNinterpretersgroupphotoOctober1995.jpg.Dragonbite 23:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Have the responsible party email permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. See Permissions for info on correct types of licensing for this image. The party preferably should send the email from an official email address rather than a generic ISP one. -N 23:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * United Nations Interpreters photograph, October 1995, attributed to United Nations Interpretation Service, UN New York headquarters. Photo to use for improving quality of article: United Nations Interpretation Service.Dragonbite 07:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Dragonbite is claiming that the image is irreplaceable because it shows all the interpreters together in one photo. Regardless, it's really much better to get permission from the copyright owner to use the image, as N suggested. nadav (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Duplicate image is now part of my private collection. Will retain "attribution" to photograph.Dragonbite 03:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

How to add copyright to image ...help!
I am the owner of the image (original) as the son and heir of the person in the article and hence like to release it for public viewing How do I set about doing this.

Image in question is "A.W.H.jpg"

Dr. S. Abeyesundere
 * Place any one of the tags at Image copyright tags/Free licenses on the image description page Image:A.W.H.jpg. The more popular tags are GFDL-self and the Creative Commons tags. nadav (talk) 00:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

museum collection images and info
I'm wanting to use images from a museum collection website. I have received permission from the organisation to do so, how is the best way to proceed?
 * Can you provide a link to the museum website and images? Without knowing anything else about them, there's no way to know if they can be used on Wikipedia or not. nadav (talk) 00:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Here this the link to the collections records - http://www.powerhousemuseum.com/collection/database/?irn=10755&search=kylie+showgirl&images=&c=&s= http://www.powerhousemuseum.com/collection/database/?irn=342880&search=korban+flaubert&images=&c=&s= http://www.powerhousemuseum.com/collection/database/?irn=342881&search=korban+flaubert&images=&c=&s=


 * This is a very tricky situation. The question is whether the original objects are copyrighted. If they are, then no image of them could be free, so I suppose WP:NONFREE would allow use of the photos for the purposes of illustrating critical commentary on the works of the artists. However, I feel that at least in the case of the lamp, we run into the problem that functional objects are not protected by copyright (other protections such as design patents may apply to them though). This means that instead of the non-free image, a new photograph of the object could be made and released under a free license. In such cases, non-free images can't be used. I'll wait and see what others have to say... nadav (talk) 07:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to upload the Kylie showgirl image, however there doesn't seem to be an appropriate category for a museum object under the non-free image. Any suggestions?

Images from freeware computer software
Hi,

I wanted to know if freeware is restricted by the generally-accepted "one in-game screenshot" rule used by the Computer and Video Games wikiproject? Indeed, if it is freeware, does that restrict anything?

What I want to do is make screenshots from Stunts of the Jaguar XJR-9 in the game and add it to that car's article for pictoral reference. Stunts is freeware, but I'm not sure if that means I can make more screenshots of the game, nor use those screenshots elsewhere than the game article.

Please let me know. Guroadrunner 04:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This topic can also be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Freeware_and_the_.22one_screenshot.22_rule
 * The game is still copyrighted, so that won't be possible. However, I see there is also a Ultimate Stunts game that is licensed under the GPL. I believe you can use screenshots from that game instead. nadav (talk) 07:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:TrichogastermicrolepisMoonlightgourami.jpg and Image:SnakesskingouramiTrichogasterpectoralis.jpg
Can the above images be used? And if we do, what should be the appropriate tag for the above? Recommendations please. Perhaps just delete the images? Thanks.Dragonbite 16:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please notify me on my talk page. Thanks.Dragonbite 18:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Gotransit-newloco-01.jpg
This was a press release image by the company. What copyright tag should be used for this? --Gisuck 16:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This image should not be used on Wikipedia since it is not free but could potentially be replaced by a free picture instead. nadav (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Even though the company released the photos for free use in media? --13:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * please review and update just don't want this to be missed --01:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a very nice picture but we can't use it. The terms of use allow only non-commercial use without derivatives. And it's not usable under fair use either because somebody could take a picture of this train. We can't use copyrighted pictures that someone could take a free picture of. -N 01:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

license for altered existing wikipedia images
I have altered the image shown at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Snakebite_morbidity_map.png because i could not distinguish the colors used. I would like to upload this image and replace the above image in the article on snakebite, because I believe it is more useful than the existing version.

Since it is neither entirely my own work, nor entirely that of another person (though the version I started from does have the GFDL license) what category should I pick on the file upload wizard?

--Aleister93 19:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't use the upload wizard. Instead click "Upload a new version of this file" towards the bottom of the image page and then in the summary box write a short summary of the change ("adjusted existing colors" or similar). GFDL images can be changed and then re-released under the GFDL. In the box that says "licensing" just leave it blank, since the image already has GFDL and you don't want to change it. -N 20:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Question Image:Moms photo.jpg
I'm a member of IlliDell fraternity and am trying to add information about my fraternity to the IlliDell page and the Alpha Gamma Sigma page. I'm very new at this, and I want to make sure I'm doing all this stuff right. I'm not quite sure what I did wrong on my picture, if someone could please help me make sure I'm doing all of this kosher I'd appreciate it. Please let me know on my talk page. Like I said, I'm new, and I'm not trying to intentionally do anything incorrectly. I also need help tagging/citing/whatever I need to do, to all of my pictures. --Kirbach 04:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC) Kirbach
 * Did you take the picture yourself? If so go to Image tags and add a free license. If not, I don't think fair use would apply. Be sure to write on the image page where you got the picture from. -N 04:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Need help determining copyright status of this picture of Vincent Chin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vincentchin.jpg

I found this picture on www.angryasianman.com. However, this picture can be found on many websites and is the most commonly used picture of this deceased individual. I would like to use this picture for the wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Chin. I would like some help establishing the copyright so that we can use this picture of Vincent Chin for the article. Thanks. OneViewHere 19:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe it qualifies under fair use because Chin is deceased. I've updated the info on the photo you uploaded.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Hong. Is that sufficient to keep the image from being automatically deleted after 7 days? OneViewHere 21:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope so. Though I am no expert in these things and I'm not an admin.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I added a sentence to the jpg discussion pointing out that Vincent Chin's mother is also dead and that there are no known living relatives. I think a Wiki admin needs to sign off on the image so that it doesn't get auto-deleted.  OneViewHere 21:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but a valid fair-use photo of a deceased person is safe. Admins don't have any direct power to "sign off" on these things anyway.

If you want to make doubly sure that a bot doesn't tag the image as having no fair-use rationale, use Non-free media rationale instead of plain text. It's sure to be correctly detected then, and it's a good way to ensure you've included all the necessary elements. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

LolCat
I have got the image from my main page from the internet using google search. Would this image be deleted unless I referenced where I got it from and what copyright tag should I put on it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakimakirolls (talk • contribs) 21:24, 22 June 2007
 * It will be deleted regardless since it's a copyrighted image. The source appears to be Flickr, and that user has not indicated that he licenses his images in a way acceptable to Wikipedia. He uses a non-commercial Creative Commons license, and Wikipedia can't use images that are restricted from commercial use. Falsely tagging it GFDL won't help. The only way you can validly use this is if you contact the user and get him to change the license to Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike or GFDL. Fair use isn't an option, since fair use isn't applicable in user space. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Red Cliffs
I've been trying to get the article Battle of Red Cliffs to FA status, but the article is seriously lacking in images. It is one of the most famous battle in ancient Chinese history that happened in 208 AD, but for some reason, I cannot find any free use image that depicts the battle (ancient Chinese artists were more interested in drawing gay men and fauna instead, I guess?). I have, however, found a modern interpretation of the battle, drawn by a Zheng Hongliu (郑洪流) on an unspecified year, but he's still alive and kicking. Here's my question: would this image (minus the watermark) qualify for fair use? Thanks. _dk 07:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Item 4 of WP:NONFREE is: "A work of art, not sufficiently well known to be recognized by a large percentage of casual readers, whose theme happens to be the Spanish Civil War, to illustrate an article on the war. (However, because of its iconic status, it is presumably "fair use" where there is a small image of Picasso's Guernica in the article Bombing of Guernica.)" The only way I see to use the picture is if you devote a significant amount of text to analyzing the painting and/or style of the artist, or if the image itself is very well-known to laypeople. nadav (talk) 08:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

image copyright
I just got a notice about not having an image copyright on a song, (Rock and Roll Rowdies.ogg) that I wrote, uploaded. I had written that the song was copyright my music ompany. What else should I have done?

--Crosstrax 15:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I see you now added a copyright tag, which is good. But I notice that you are claiming "all rights reserved" even though you released the song under the GFDL license. Are you familiar with the terms of the license? nadav (talk) 04:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Issue
I am having trouble with Image:Erie bay.jpg. The uploader, who is absent, says he took the picture. Another user has tagged the image with GFDL presumed. At Featured article candidates/Erie, Pennsylvania image problems are the only thing holding it back. I dont know what tag to use on that photo. Thanks -- trey  16:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The image is legacy. As far as I know, the policy on legacy images is we keep them as GFDL-presumed, they are exempt from speedy deletion, but they are deletable at any time (if nominated). I'm afraid the licensing issue can't be resolved unless the uploader re-appears or the image can be sourced. -N 16:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Does that mean it is fine to use in the article? -- trey  16:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well if we look at the wording of the upload page at that time we should be fairly safe.Geni 17:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm the one who raised the issue with the image. I wouldn't object to the use of the image in the article, but I won't support making an article featured if it uses a replaceable image with unclear copyright status.  Pagra shtak  20:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

How to finish the fair use rationele?
What else do I have to fill in? Image:Eric_van_Lustbader_The_Testament.jpg --Wesley1305 19:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Finished it for you. If you click the underlined words in the template it links to an explanation of what is required in every field. Thanks. -N 01:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --Wesley1305 10:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Cover art?
Can someone comment on the application of fair use cover art as it may be applied to the images that were removed in this edit? Some of those images are cover art. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As the link states, cover art can be used "for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item". A cover could, for example, be used in an article about the work.  However, simply mentioning a name or work does not warrant a copyrighted image.  ShadowHalo 21:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but does "critical commentary" exclusively mean an article about the item in question? What if the "critical commentary" of the item is in a section of another article?  For example, the article I mentioned - Cinema of Hong Kong - makes mention of certain influential figures in the industry and what impact they had.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * None of them have more than a passing mention in the article. ShadowHalo 00:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So if the article can be expanded to make more mention of the items relating to the cover art, those images can stay? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

if the picture is from a public website
if it is a newspaper website, does it still fall under public use ? considering that the newspaper may or may not have published the picture in the printed hard copy of the newspaper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pagliaccimontague (talk • contribs)
 * Please see Gratis versus Libre. Something may not cost you any money to get, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have any copyright. The owner has probably given you a scaled down version of the image in his newspaper for you to look at. He retains the rights to the high resolution version, he retains the rights to publish it again in another newspaper, he reserves the rights to sell the image, etc. "Public use" is most likely a "gratis" thing, where you can look at something but that's it. Wikipedia requires "libre" free content. -N 22:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Copright/Placement Question
I originally uploaded the image Image:ZacEfron.jpg, to be put on Zac Efron's page, but I went to post it and it said i cant post a promo pic or anything of that sort. So what do I do?
 * You can tag the image with db-author so that it can be speedy deleted, or you can wait a week for it to be deleted. ShadowHalo 03:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

- 	 	 -

Image probably should be speedy-deleted
- 		 - 	 doesn't seem to have the right fair use, nor really contributes to either article it's linked to I don't think. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guroadrunner (talk • contribs) 08:13, May 29, 2007 (UTC) - 		 -

copyright tag
- 		 - 	I sent to wikipedia my image of Argaeus Mountain on the Moon. What can I do now? I do not understand what I have to do with the copyright taq. Can you help me? - 	I would like my image to be placed in the article Argaeus Mons. - 		 -

Image:Model.jpg
- 		 - 	This picture of Walter Model on the Commons has been marked for deletion, because it's a German photo used in a US Dept of Defense report (the publication is public domain, but the photo is not). The pic dates back to WW2, but is otherwise of unknown origin; the DoD report available online here indicates only that it's a captured German photo. - 		 - 	I'm working on expanding the Walter Model article, and I need a picture of the man for it. There don't seem to be any free pics available. Can I upload it to the English wiki and claim fair use? If so, which license would I use? Any other tips would also be much appreciated; I haven't done any image stuff before this. Thanks! -- Hongooi 04:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC) -
 * The best tag would probably be . To use this tag, you'd first have to make a good effort to find a free alternative. If you can't find any free images, you'll have to write a fair use rationale explaining why it is necessary and justified to use these images in the article. One good reason is that he is dead, so no free images can be taken anymore.

- 		 -
 * The copyright status of captured Nazi photos is complex. The US government claims that it seized the copyrights for certain images, including many Holocaust-related images, and released them into the public domain. I'm not sure if this is one of those images, or if the DoD report is a reliable source for determining that. Calliopejen1 12:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

- 		 -

License tagging for Image:Murray Van Wagoner.jpg
- 		 - 	Apparently I used the wrong tag for Image:Murray Van Wagoner.jpg and several other Michigan Governors. I would like to find our the correct license for these so they don't get deleted. - 	- 	- 	- 	- 	- 	Thanks, Jjmillerhistorian 13:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC) - 		 -
 * Image:Alex Groesbeck.jpg
 * Image:Wilber Brucker.jpg
 * Image:William Comstock.jpg
 * Image:Frank D Fitzgerald.jpg
 * Image:Luren Dickinson.jpg
 * Since the source of these is unknown (findagrave wasn't the original photographer), unless the governors are so old that the photographer has certainly been dead for 100 years (doubtful), you'll need to use fair use tags instead of a free license. The best tag would probably be . To use this tag, you'd first have to make a good effort to find a free alternative. Since these men were political figures, it's possible--for instance--that they were photographed by US Govt employees, which would produce free images. If you can't find any free images, you'll have to write a fair use rationale explaining why it is necessary and justified to use these images in the article. (One good reason is if they are dead there is no possibility of taking a new free image of them.) Calliopejen1 12:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

- 		 -

How to add a tag
- 		 - 	Can someone tell me how to add a tag? -
 * Look through the list at Image copyright tags/All to pick the correct tag (if you need help, ask here). Then click the edit button at the top of an image page, paste the correct tag in, and press save. Calliopejen1 12:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

- 		 -

All images taken on U.S. military reservations are government property?
- 		 - 	I was looking at yesterday's featured article, and I saw Image:FairchildB52Crash.jpg. On its image description page, it says: -
 * This photo was taken on a U.S. military reservation which makes the photo property of the U.S. government and thereby public domain, even if the photo was taken by a private citizen.

- 	I've never heard that before. Is it true? Anyone have a reliable source that says that? TomTheHand 14:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC) -
 * That one is unambiguously false. --BigDT 14:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

-
 * The imagined sequence of logic events cannot happen. Even if the government were to confiscate all rights to a photo taken illegally on military property (believable), a) they'd actually have to do that (and the fact this image is available publicly on the web shows they haven't) and b) only makes original "work of the United States Government" ineligible for copyright. Copyright gained by assignment, such as forfeiture to the government, is still held. -N 20:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

- 		 -

Choosing the correct image tag
- 		 - 	I am always baffled when it comes to choosing the correct image tag for copyright status. If I was to scan an image from a book depicting an old subject (for instance an image of an engraving, etching, artwork etc) could I use the /  tags (needless to say, ensuring that the image scanned is over 100 years old)? If not, what do you suggest I use? Chris Buttigieg<sup style="color:#008080;">talk 14:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC) -
 * I would prefer the tag because it is more specific, but I think either would work. Note that these two tags are for images whose author has died more than 100 years ago, not for images that are themselves more than 100 years old. A similar tag that deals with the age of the image is  if the author did not die that long ago. Calliopejen1 03:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

- 		 -

Company Logo
- 		 - 	what would you chose for a company's logo? is that in the public domain so no copyright is needed? Jaysun42 20:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC) -
 * is the correct tag. A company's logo is normally both copyrighted and trademarked, so it is almost certainly NOT in the public domain. Calliopejen1 03:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

-
 * Image:RealogyTree.jpg needs a fair use rationale, by the way. nadav (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

- 		 -

Guji Lorenzana Image
- 		 -
 * ''from User talk:Bluemask regarding Image:MG_9484web.JPG

- 	LMPhilippines is the company that manages the career of Guji Lorenzana. The photo is property of Lukas Music Philippines (LMP) and is used in all our promo packages. How do we copyright that photo as our own on our Wikipedia site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.128.54.78 (talk • contribs) 2007-06-26T12:44:10 -
 * I nominated the image for speedy deletion and requested that the company release the image under a free license on the IP's talk page. Calliopejen1 15:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

- 		 -

Fair use just to illustrate living persons
- 		 - 	It seems most articles in Category:Japanese porn stars are using fair use images just to illustrate what living persons look like. Can anybody comment on this? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC) - 		 -
 * Not much to say rely, tag them with {{subst:refu}} unless they have a fair use rationale that convincingly explain why no free licensed replacement can be created. --Sherool (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

- 		 -

Public-domain picture?
- 		 - 	I noticed that there's no picture for Quentin N. Burdick, a former United States Senator from North Dakota. There's a picture of him at the Biographical Dictionary of the United States Congress, but there's no note on that page saying that it's an official US Government picture. Can this safely be uploaded as public domain because of being a US government work? Nyttend 22:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC) - 	-
 * The image appears to be cited to the Government Printing Office which is an arm of the US Congress. The image might be public domain. Please be sure to include the source URL and the caption when you upload the picture. -N 22:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do you say the image is cited to it? To me it just looks like the government printing office entry is just one of the items on the bibliography. The copyright info page says "Not all images are in the public domain...Do not duplicate without permission from copyright holder." nadav (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

-
 * For some reason I took that as a caption :p Nadav1 is right, the image source is unknown. Your best bet is to email and ask. If the answer is yes, have them email this to the address listed in Permissions. -N 23:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

-
 * See PD-USGov-Congress-Bio. I believe that images from the guide are public domain unless otherwise noted.  howcheng  {chat} 23:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

- 		 -

Image for Rod Stewart
- 		 - 	Hi, please could you check if http://www.flickr.com/photos/alexindigo/213186500/ is suitable for loading on wiki, I think it is because it doesn't say it can't be used for commercial use but it still says 2.0??? Would be much appreciated. Cheers. Sue Wallace 22:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC) - 	- 		 - 		 -
 * The creative commons license on it is appropriate, but the person who took the picture did not get permission from the person who drew that mural to take the picture. There's nothing I can think of that would justify that image's inclusion in Wikipedia, not even fair use, since the image itself is not notable enough. -N 22:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use disputed
- 		 - 	What kind of explanation is desired for why a free version is not avaliable?-- Sef rin gle Talk 23:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC) -
 * Could you link to the relevant image? It depends. In some cases the image may depict a singular historic moment. In others, the subject is dead or unavailable. nadav (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

-
 * This image is linked on his talk page Image:Zakirbooks2.jpg. In which case the answer becomes another question. Why can't someone take a free picture of this individual? -N 00:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

- 		 -

Adding image tags
- 		 - 	How do I add image tags to an already uploaded image? I've been to the page with a full sized picture, but I don't see where to add the tags? - 		 - 	Tanks - 		 - 	Zephyr99 03:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC) - 	Zephyr - 		 -
 * You just click "edit this page" at the top of the image page and then paste it in next to the image description. I was looking at Image:May-umsketch.jpg though (if that's what you're referring to) and it is already has an appropriate tag. You do need to add a fair use rationale to the image description though, since it's copyrighted. Calliopejen1 06:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

- 		 -

Use of a Signature
- 		 - 	Please, can I upload a signature of a person? I want to use the signature in this site http://www.jimnaugle.com/, and I am not sure if I can upload. Signature Says I can, but I am not sure if it can be considered a work of art.--Legionarius 04:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC) -
 * Yes, you can upload the image. Be sure to include the source of the image and the PD-ineligible template. ShadowHalo 04:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

- 	Thanks!--Legionarius 04:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC) - 		 -

delete this page
- 		 - 	Hi, - 	How can I delete all the 3 entries for Image:Spigitlogo.JPG - 		 -
 * Done. --Yamla 13:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

- 		 -

Image tagging for Image:Ithappenedonenight.jpg
- 		 - 	It made a mistake as Wikimedia Commons. Please delete it - Image:Ithappenedonenight.jpg. Thirdship 16:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC) -
 * Done.  howcheng  {chat} 23:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

- 		 -

My Image
- 		 - 	I was told that there was something wrong with the image Image:HighlandMS.jpg. I know that I need a tag, but I don't know how. How? - 	Libertyville 16:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC) -
 * The image is copyrighted and is not acceptable for use on Wikipedia. ShadowHalo 05:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

- 		 -

Is it okay now
- 		 - 	I got a message saying that I need to add a fair rationale for. I added one, so is it okay now? --Bentendo24 18:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC) - 		 -

Image Copyright Question - Throstle Nest
- 		 - 	Hello, I have added an image to an article I added to Throstle Nest, however I am not sure on what the copyright is. I have read and re-read the copyright pages but I am still struggling. - 		 - 	I found the picture from a Photobucket gallery found here. - 		 - 	Also, I have a number of pictures (not yet uploaded) relating to articles which have been taken by myself and my friends, what will the copyright be on these? - 		 - 	Thanks Jimbo online 20:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC) -
 * Copyright "livenowpaylater" not under a free license and thus cannot be used on wikipedia.Geni 21:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

- 		 -

Image:Rvb_ep100_key.png
- 		 - 	Image:Rvb_ep100_key.png - 		 - 	I am not sure whether this image is allowed. I made it by taking a screen-shot of the Rooster Teeth forum thread and then using an imaging program to add a key. - 	Can someone advise me what copyright to list it as? - 		 -

Trying To Give MeganMason.png The Right Copyright
- 		 - 	I am not a lawyer, just a photographer - 	my photograph of Megan Mason I shot should be shared - 		 - 	http://www.maddogprod.com/MeganMason.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maddogzs (talk • contribs) - 	- 		 -
 * Please see Image tags and put a free license on it. It would be preferable if you had a version that was not watermarked and cropped. GFDL-self-no-disclaimers is a good tag. Please note that a "free license" gives licensees the ability to resell the work and create derivative works. You would still retain right of authorship (attribution). In practice free licenses actually make commercial re-use difficult by requiring that the re-used portions retain the same free license. -N 19:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Interior panels of comic books in artist's article
- 		 - 	I've noticed that interior shots from comic books have a habit of working themselves into the articles of the artists. This seems to be a clear violation of the guidelines provided on the template. Has any conclusive judgment been made in this case? Typically, the panels are offered as an exemplar of the artist's work, not so much for critical analysis of the contents.Burzmali 23:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC) -
 * I thought I'd use John Byrne as an example. This article does contain an "art style" section, which might reasonably be thought of as critical analysis. Use of his work in the context of that section is justified under the normal fair use criteria, although not according to the text on Non-free comic. It might be worth adding Non-free fair use in to clarify that conditions other than those given at Non-free comic prevail. If his art style evolved over time, you could even justify multiple images to illustrate each period described.

- 		 -
 * However, I agree that most images in that article, included simply to show the title the artist happened to have worked on, are not valid fair use and should be removed from it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

- 		 -
 * However, please notice that the Non-free fair use in template contains the requirement that "(the image) does not fall into one of the blanket fair use categories listed at Wikipedia:Fair use#Images or Wikipedia:Fair use#Audio_clips." Since Non-free comic clearly applies, Non-free fair use in is out-of-play. Burzmali 11:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

- 		 -
 * For the purpose contemplated here, the image doesn't fall into one of the blanket fair use categories. None of those given in Non-free comic apply -- as I already said. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

- 		 -
 * Yes, I did already say, so I see I'm going to have to be explicit. The two purposes for an image stated in Non-free comic are to illustrate:

-
 * the scene or storyline depicted, or

-
 * the copyrighted character(s) or group(s) depicted on the excerpted panel in question;

-
 * Neither of these things are being done here. The images are being included by way of critical commentary on the artist's style, not to illustrate either the storylines or the characters. Both the storyline and the character depicted per se are utterly irrelevant to the commentary. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

-
 * I would argue that "...other works of visual art" in Fair use applies and negates Non-free fair use in, but the guideline isn't overly clear as to what the critical commentary should be on. That really looks like a loop-hole in Fair use. By the logic in that section, comic book covers are more restricted than interior shots, and that seems backwards. But, I'll concede the point. Though I have referred my concern to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Burzmali 19:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

- 		 -

What Tag Do I Add To A Picture of An Action Figure?
- 		 - 	I took a picture of three action figures, and I would like to know what tags I need to add to the images. - 	The images have been uploaded already, and I can redirect you to them if need be. :) - 		 - 	Thanks!Kylemcauliffe15 03:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Kylemcauliffe15 - 		 -
 * Action figures typicaly fall into the Non-free 3D art category, they are derivatives of copyrighted characters (and also presumably copyrighted "creative works" in theyr own right too). --Sherool (talk) 10:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

- 		 -

Adding source info
- 		 - 	How do you add source information on a file already uploaded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zephyr99 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC) -
 * Click the "edit this page" tab at the top of the image page, and add whatever source information is appropriate by typing it in. Calliopejen1 05:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

- 		 -

Tags School Badges Registered Crests
- 		 - 	Which copyright tag should I use for an image of a school's registered crest (School Badge) obtained from the school's website? -
 * Without knowing more about the particular school badge, I can't comment in depth. The school badge is probably copyrighted and maybe trademarked too. I would use --be sure to add a fair use rationale as well. Calliopejen1 05:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

-
 * Non-free symbol or Non-free logo might be appropriate too. nadav (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

- 		 -

Sourcing
- 		 - 	How do I source both? - 	Image:Manchester_aerial_view.jpg - 	Image:Arndale_Panorama.jpg - 	Help please! - 	MancMancManc 16:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC) - 	- 		 -
 * The word "source" is found in the dictionary. It means where something came from. So um, yeah, what's your source? -N 19:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Help with this image
- 		 - 	A user on Flikr granted permission to use this image in the Chris Benoit article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Benoitring.jpg - 		 - 	However I am not exactly sure how to put the correct copyright information on the image page. Can someone help me out with this? Thanks. Bbsrock 00:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC) - 		 -
 * Unfortunately, this is insufficient. Wikipedia does not accept images that have permission for Wikipedia only. The user must release it under a noncommercial Creative Commons license, the GFDL, or with no restrictions; in other words a free license. He has not done so, since he still has the image marked "© All rights reserved" at Flickr. If you get him to license it freely instead, use the appropriate tag from here. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

-
 * A noncommercial Creative Commons license would not be acceptable. commercial use must be allowed.Geni 01:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Fondant Image
Hello! I found an image of fondant on Google Images for use in the fondant article. The image is located at Image:fondant.jpg. I was wondering if someone could help me pick a better license for it? Thanks.

Okay, Nevermind. I see a warning that images found on search engines will be deleted. Loof1 03:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Images created using Google Earth
I have an image of a driven route that I used Google Earth to map out. This image illustrates the difference in the route with and without ferry service for the Gee's Bend, Alabama article. Is it legal and correct to use Google Earth based imagery in a Wikipedia page? Jasgrider 05:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you cannot. Google earth images are copyrighted.  Since anyone could draw a free map that shows the same thing, there is not a good claim for fair use.  I would suggest that you draw an image (perhaps based on Google maps, because Google maps can't copyright the underlying geography that it's mapping) and upload that under a free license if you want a similar illustration.  Calliopejen1 05:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jasgrider 06:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

MySpace
If I am uploading a picture of an actor from their MySpace page, are pictures on MySpace considered fair use. - Fernandobouregard 03:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, WP:NONFREE does not allow copyrighted images of living people. ShadowHalo 03:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not asking whether or not they allow copyrighted images, I am asking if images on MySpace are considered fair use. - Fernandobouregard 08:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Myspace images are copyrighted. I think you need to read fair use.Geni 13:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)