Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2008/August

mms from 0096170811586
❌

i have a password how to open this picture--62.120.26.142 (talk) 03:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, we can not assist with this matter. -- Admrb♉ltz (t • c • [ log]) 03:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

license tag
I don't know what type of license Image:Schifirnet.JPG falls uder. The picture was taken by one of Prof. Schifirnet's students during class. Prof. Schifirnet asked the student if he can put it up on Wikipedia, if he's sure he doesn't claim any copyright. Student's answer was yes to both question. Prof. Schifirnet gave me the picture to upload it, which I did. Now what license tag is that?

And, if I cannot upload it, can Prof. Schifirnet upload it himself, and under what license? Please notify me on my talk page.

Thank you, Elenaschifirnet (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If he doesn't claim any copyright, that's public domain. Use the tag PD-because. It would be ideal to get the release of copyright in writing though (See WP:COPYREQ if needed). --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the tag PD-author would be better - it's more precise. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

copyright rules in GB/USA?
hello! I am from germany and therefore only know the german copyright rule, which allows the free use of any picture in the case that its creator is more than 70 years dead. I just have uploaded the following picture: image:Hedwig Raabe.jpg, whose painter, Hans Peter Hansen, died in 1899. please would you tell me if the german copyright rule is also convenient to the angloamerican law? in that case: what is the option on the british wikimedia commons upload-menu referring to the german 70-years-rule I have to click on? thanks for the informations, --Ammonius82 (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I know that American copyright law is also Life + 70 and makes all media created before 1924 public-domain; I'm unsure about Britain, however. -Jéské (v^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 19:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The basic rule in the U.K. and most Commonwealth countries is life + 50 years. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Life + 70 in the UK (and the rest of the EU) surely? DuncanHill (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, in fact - I was confusing the E.U. with either Uruguay or the U.A.E., which sandwich it on the chart I was consulting and which are both life + 50. Thanks for correcting me. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem - UK used to be life plus 50. DuncanHill (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The UK is broadly similar (there are some differences), but it's the American copyright law which needs to be referred to when uploading pics to Wikipedia. I think PD-art, PD-old, or PD-art-life-70 would all be sufficient. Commons has these options on the main upload form or you can add the tag after uploading. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I simply have added the 70-years-tag for authors to the image now, hoping there won't be problems with it any more. --Ammonius82 (talk) 08:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Photograph of an artistic design
Hi. I have a picture that I would like to use on Wikipedia. Photography, self taken, of an artistic design. It's the decoration of the canvas on the seats of Stockholm's metro, and would be useful for Wikipedia as it demonstrates the use of a number of Stockholm's sights in an abstract, decorative fashion. The design itself might be copyrighted, and it is, to my knowledge, used only by Stockholm's municipal transportation authority. Would it be permissible to publish my photographic reproduction under a copyleft license? Benevolent Spectator (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It would depend on the nature of the design. If it involved only simply geometric shapes and that sort of thing, then it would be ineligible for copyright, so you could license your photograph however you liked.  If it was something more intricate, then it would certainly be under copyright, and your photograph would be a derivative work; in that event you would be unable to license it.  I'm not really an expert on where the line is drawn between eligible and ineligible, but if there somewhere offsite you could host the picture so we could take a look at it? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Afraid not, I don't have any accounts elsewhere where I could upload it, and would not like to create one solely for that purpose.The design itself is highly abstract, rather like simplified contours of buildings and more, much like line drawings. I guess one might ascribe some artistic value to it. If you had any suggestions where to put the picture for scrutiny I'll be happy to do that. Perhaps one could upload it to Wikipedia and at the same time make a note at WP:IFD with a link to this discussion here, to involve a few more eyeballs? Benevolent Spectator (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Have done that now, discussion please at IFD. Thanks. Benevolent Spectator (talk) 07:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

An image from Croatian government
I have an image, which is copyrighted by the Croatian government and the license under the image states it may be used for any cause, reproduced, etc. with a responsibility to name the copyright owner. Which template should I use when I upload this image? Admiral Norton (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe the correct tag is Attribution. Check that it accurately describes the status of the image. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. BTW, can I upload such a picture to Commons? Admiral Norton (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Doesn't look good: the stated license translates as "Copyright © 2007 Government of the Republic of Croatia. All rights reserved. Content from these pages can be used without special permits with reference to the source."


 * This permits reproduction, but does not permit the creation or distribution of derivative works. For Wikipedia's purposes, this is non-free, and the image isn't usable on Wikipedia. --Carnildo (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:WPSuperheroes.svg
Does Image:WPSuperheroes.svg breach copyright or trademark law with regards the Superman shield? Hiding T 18:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not even close to the superman logo. It doesn't even have the same font. BW21.-- B lack W atch 21  18:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I personally think it resembles the Superman logo, but doesn’t copy it enough to be called a breach of copyright. I deliberately used a different font for the S, and the inclusion of the W & P sets it apart in my opinion. But, to be honest, i am not impartial as the creator, so another verdict would be welcome --23230 talk 19:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The only way you'll get a definite verdict is by being sued and having the courts decide, but it looks good to me. It's not a modified copy of the Superman logo, so copyright infringement is out, and it's not being used to impersonate Superman, so it's not trademark infringement either. --Carnildo (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks fine to me too. I don't think you'll have a problem. Vickser (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Including Copyrighted Quotations
I would like to include a copyrighted quotation in an article. This is "non-free content" -- I have the copyright owner's permission to use the quotation in the article, but it is not licensed under the GFDL or any other compatible license. Because the quotation is the entire copyrighted work, its inclusion does not fall under the "fair use" exception. Is it acceptable to use this quotation (with attribution/permission statement)?

24.7.118.63 (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, we don't accept things under a "you can use this for a wikipedia" license, it needs to be full free license. It's likely you'll be able to use some quotations under fair use, but certainly not the whole work.  As a rule, any non-free license won't fly unless you could use the same material under fair use. Vickser (talk) 00:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The following copyrighted quotation is from Non-free_content
 * "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text must be attributed and used verbatim. Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. [brackets] for added text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as '(emphasis added)' or '(emphasis in the original)'. Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited."
 * -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 03:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism
Wikipedia is the source for a good deal of my research. Do you inforce the use of citations with regard to the information my computer provides me that has been acquired from a Wikipedia reference? 72.70.16.178 (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure exactly what you're asking about... If you are talking about reusing text from Wikipedia elsewhere, you must follow the requirements of the GFDL (generally including attribution and inclusion of a copy of the license) -- see Reusing Wikipedia content -- unless what you are doing is fair use (which might include storing a copy on your computer for personal use). Academic honesty is also a good reason to cite your sources. Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Images of "Secret Astronauts"
Are the photographs of USAF astronauts on the PBS Astrospies NOVA web page in the public domain? On the Credits page, they state that all astronaut photos are "Courtesy U.S. National Archives and Records Administration". Although I could not find the images on the National Archives web site, the FAQ states that "the vast majority of the digital images ... are in the public domain". The photos look like standard USAF photos issue and so would be PD. Are these acceptable for upload to Wiki?

Thanks, Skeet Shooter (talk) 02:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

All the profile images would fall under either:

or

And are thus okay to use. Yes, if you had the original source it would be better, but those are their official profile shots, and we know photos of AF/Navy members taken during the course of their official duties are okay. So, yes, they're okay, and use those two templates when uploading. Vickser (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Skeet Shooter (talk) 12:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Timo Glock crash image
Well I'm planning to upload an image of Glock's crash, called glock-hockenheim-z-08_200708.jpg. However, I forgot where I found it and I do not know the license Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, if you don't know where the photo came from, we cannot accept it on Wikipedia. Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * All I can remember was it was in some news website. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If it's from a news website, it's probably not going to be a free image. It would then need a fair use rationale, which may or may not be possible depending on the article text.  Free or fair, you're going to need to know who took it, who owns the copyright, and where it could be found for it to be acceptable for use on Wikipedia.  Unfortunately, if you don't have that, we're going to end up having to delete it. Vickser (talk) 04:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

PLZ CHECK IS EVERYTHING CORRECT OF MY ARTICLE ON KARAM SINGH HISTORIAN???
I AM GREAT GRAND SON OF KARAM SINGH HISTORIAN AND IAHD A PHOTO OF HIM WHICH I GOT SCANNED AND THE UPLOADED IT .HENCE IAHVE USED THE TAG PDF SELF..........ARE THEIR NECESSARY CHANGES —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manjotdhillon (talk • contribs) 12:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have removed the copy of the biography. It belongs in the Karam Singh (historian) article and not in the Image:Karam Singh Historian.jpg image page.
 * What is needed on the image page is information about the picture itself: Who took the photo? When did they take it and where? Is the photo still under the photographer’s copyright? If it is not, why not? If it is, under what terms does the photographer allow Wikipedia to use his photograph? Most particularly it needs a copyright tag, expressing under what terms Wikipedia can use the image.
 * I don't understand the content you added with your last edit.
 * By the way, please don’t use ALL CAPS. It is considered rude—like shouting. —teb728 t c 01:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

war trophy
what is the history behind keeping silver trophies in officers mess? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsgusain (talk • contribs) 13:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this page is read by people who know about copyright questions. You might get an answer to that question at Reference desk. —teb728 t c 20:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

programming fundamental
can u tell me what the different between the following types os programming below:

a) Structured programming

b) modular programming

c) object - oriented programming...

can u tell me about that..

plssss

i need help... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.54.111.175 (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This page is for copyright questions. You might be able to get an answer at Reference desk/Computing if you can convince them that you are not trying to get them to do your homework for you. Or you could try searching for structured programming, modular programming, and object-oriented programming in the search box. —teb728 t c 20:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Bobby Driscoll - Public Domain rationale/tag for audio files
Hello,

I uploaded and embeded an excerpt of a radio show (concerning the 22nd. Academy Award Ceremony - 1950 - within the section/passage: The Window), which is entirely in the Public Domain, since its free availlable on archive.org. I then added an appropriate summary and a "Public Domain" rationale, which is actually used for images, but my file, I added is an audio file. Now I'm not certain, if I used the correct tags/rationales. I'd be grateful to learn about the correct ones to use. Regards:--Bylot (talk) 11:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you link to the actual url for the recording on archive.org and the media file here on wikipedia? Being on archive.org is not at all a guarantee that something is public domain.  If you read their copyright policy on their FAQ, it seems pretty clear to me that they archive copyrighted material, but will take it down upon request.  It seems likely to me that the file isn't going to be in the public domain, although I'd have to check up on audio copyrights and see if it was originally published with a copyright before giving you a definitive answer.
 * Assuming it's non-free and depending on the text that accompanies the audio, you may be able to use up to a 30 second clip. You would do so under the tag:
 * Which looks like

.
 * To get to the tag on the upload page, select Other, and then under Non-Free/Fair Use pick Music sample.
 * For now, just link to the audio recording you have here as well as the original source so we can evaluate if they're free or not. Thank you. Vickser (talk) 11:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for your prompt reply. I replaced the previous audio file of 1.27 minutes by a shorter one of only 49 seconds, saving the essential part. Then I edited the summary rationale appropriately and added the suggested media file tag plus a non-free use rationale. Within both rationales I linked to the original source (archive.org). To link only to this radio show on archive.org would mean, that one must either listen to this radio show there until those part or copy/download the complete audio file and cut out/extract it. With this contribution to the article on Bobby Driscoll I intended to improve it by allowing/offering to listen to this historical event additionally "live". Since it's a live audio recording of the 1950 Academy Award Ceremony it's definitely not reproducible and thus, (in my opinion) historically significant and not just another, even if rare, version of it.
 * Again, thank you very much for taking time to check it.
 * Regards:--Bylot (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Screenshots of sports stars
Can I take screen shots off the TV and use these pictures on sports stars pages. WOuld this apply as fair usage ? ManfromDelmonte (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Use of non-free content on Wikipedia is much more restricted than US fair use law. In particular, a non-free image is not allowed if a free substitute could be obtained. (See WP:NFCC, particularly WP:NFCC.) This excludes most non-free images of living people. —teb728 t c 21:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Plaque
Springfieldohio (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC) I recently uploaded a plaque dedicated to the subject of my article. It was promptly deleted. The history in the article says I was given 48 hours notice, but I do not see where I got it. I have been interested in the subject of my article for a long time. So, a long time ago I downloaded an image of a plaque to him that is on display in a public park. Unfortunately, I no longer remember where I found that image. I have had it for years. My travels recently took me close to that very far away public park, where I stopped and took a lot of photos (two of which I used in the article as photos of a public place that I had taken myself, which I did). However, I did not take a photo of that plaque, because I already had one. Since this very public plaque is on dispay in a very public place, is there any acceptable justification whereby I can upload it again and insert it into my article? If so, what is it? I do not see how its use infringes on anyone's rights. There are many "fair use" justifications listed on the copyright page, but none of them ever seem to be acceptable when I try to use one. It would make a nice addition to the article, if there is some way I can use it. Thanks.
 * When you take a picture of things outside, they're often considered to be free under freedom of panorama. However, in the US freedom of panorma does not include 2D objects, such as plaques.  Therefore, your picture of the plaque counts as a derivative work and is not going to be a free image.  However, this does depend on how old the plaque is and when its original creator died.  If the creator died over 70 years ago, or the plaque was put up before 1923 in the US, the plaque may be in the PD and thus your picture of it would be okay.
 * If the plaque's not free, you may be able to write a fair use justification for it. You said you'd been writing them: could you provide a copy of the suggested rationale, a link to the image, and a link to the article where you would like to use it?  If you do so, we can take a look and see if fair use can be justified, and if it can, how you'll need to write up the fair use rationale so it won't be deleted.  Let me know if you have any questions. Vickser (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I uploaded it again. It is Brady's plaque.jpg and I reinserted it in the Samuel Brady article in the place I would use it. I may have bumped into the correct rationale this time, because I see no message threatening to delete it. If that message is going to appear, please let me know what rationale, if any, I should use. The plague says it was placed in 1989. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Springfieldohio (talk • contribs) 20:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I took a look at the plaque . It was placed in 1989 and therefore is not in the public domain via age. It's a 2D work, and thus not covered under freedom of panorama.  It doesn't have any utilitarian aspect, so you can't claim that exception, even though it's not particularly artistic.  The plaque is a non-free image, and so the picture of the plaque is also non-free.
 * So, that only leaves fair use. To justify fair use, you would need the addition of the plaque to add significantly to reader understanding of the topic.  Essentially, you'd need critical commentary on the plaque in such a way that showing the plaque added comprehension in a way words could not.  (For more on when non-free images are allowed, see WP:NFCC) That's certainly not true in the current case, where the plaque isn't even mentioned in the accompanying article.  Nor do I think it would be possible with any version, since there's simply nothing particularly enlightening gained from the image of the plaque.
 * In short, there's no rationale under which you can use the image, and it's unfortunately going to have to be deleted. I know it's not the answer you want and that it's always sad to lose a picture you want for the article, but we do have to enforce copyright standards and you'll still have a very well illustrated article. Vickser (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would tag this PD-ineligible. The one sentence describing the site is not creative, nor are the basic declarations of when the plaque was placed. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. I made that change before I say your post. —teb728 t c 21:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you guys think it's PD ineligible I'll bow to that. I considered whether it would be exempt under not crossing the threshold of originality, but after reading the commons bit on derivative works  I thought it wouldn't qualify for an exemption since it doesn't really have a purpose other than decoration and some thought had to go into the placement of the wording, typeface, etc.  But I think you can make a pretty good case that there's just not enough in there to make it a work, and if you guys think that's the case I'll be willing to go along. Vickser (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Springfieldohio (talk) 22:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Just on last ditch question. One of the points of the article is to show that there is a lot of local pride in Kent, Ohio that "Brady's Leap" took place there. I think it would be entirely appropriate to mention that fact, along with pointing out that the citizens of Kent put up that plaque, not once but twice to commerate its happening. So, my question is would it do any good to add a discussion like that to that part of the article and specifically mention that plaque as part of that discussion?
 * Sure. Be WP:BOLD. —teb728 t c 22:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use images of three-dimensional art
I was browsing through Category:User-created public domain images and found images such as Image:'Breaking Column', motorized stainless steel sculpture by --George Rickey--, 1988, --The Contemporary Museum, Honolulu--.jpg and Image:'Sky Gate', 24 foot high painted steel sculpture by Isamu Noguchi, Honolulu Hale (city hall), Honolulu, Hawaii, 1977.JPG tagged as being fair use images due to them being deriavative works. However, they were also tagged with. Is this valid or did the uploader just make a mistake?--balloonguy (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Pretty much, there are two levels of copyright involved in a picture of a 3-dimensional work of art. The original copyright of the work of art, and the copyright of photograph itself, which though a derivative work, gets its own copyright because of the importance of light/shadow/framing involved with photographing 3D objects.  To use a photo of 3D art, you need both to be okay.  The photograph itself is being released to the public domain, that's what that tag means.  The art works themselves (here by George Rickey and Isami Noguchi), are not in the public domain, but because the images significantly add to reader understanding of the articles and meet the rest of NFCC, we're using that copyright under fair use.
 * I'm not sure if I'm explaining it 100% clearly, so let me know if you need me to clarify anything. Vickser (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you explained it perfectly, thanks!--balloonguy (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Enver Hoxha image from a possibly out-of-print book
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Enver_Hoxha.jpg

Description

Enver Hoxha, from a book that is probably out of print Source

Enver Hoxha: His Life and Work (1986) © Central Agency of Artistic Book Trade (also known as Ndermarrja e Perhapjes se Librit) Date

Book was made in 1986, date of photo is probably early 80's. Author

Editorial Board: Prof. Foto Cami - Chairman Prof. Sofokli Lazri, Leka Shkurti, Prof. Agim Popa, Anastas Kondo, Sevo Tarifa, Prof. Raqi Madhi, Prof. Vangjel Moisiu, Spiro Dede, Ajet Simixhiu

Is this image allowed on Wikipedia? --Mrdie (talk) 23:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks like it's not going to be allowed. An image taken in the 1980s and published in 1986 by a private company is not going to be in the public domain.  And it's not going to be for a while: Albanian copyrights are for life + 70 years.  Since Enver Hoxha is dead, you might be able to justify it under fair use.  However since there are pictures of him in the public domain already such as Image:Stalin molotov hoxha.jpg, I don't think you'll be able to make a very good case for it. To read about when non-free content is allowed, check out WP:NFCC Vickser (talk) 23:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Lordprice collection
User:Lordprice has uploaded well over hundred fifty pictures most with a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 licence with uploader stating that all are copyright of the Lordprice Collection and used with permission. The website is a commercial site selling images and no indication that any of the images have been released. Some of the images on the Lordprice collection website have been scanned from other sources such as magazines and leaflets. Some images from this uploader have been deleted before (and some moved to commons!) Anybody have any comment, if they are possible unfree images is there a way of listing over 150 images at once. Left a message on uploader talk page on the 20 July asking if he has an OTRS ticket but he has not been online since. Second opinions welcome and if anybody agrees a suggestion of a way forward. Thank you MilborneOne (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As things stand right now, we have no evidence that "the Lordprice collection" is indeed the copyright holder of these images or that User:Lordprice represents that entity. Furthermore, many (most? all?) of the images carry a notice that they are "reproduced on Wikipedia with their permission", but this is incompatible with our requirement that images be free for others to reproduce as well.
 * There's no easy way of listing these images en masse, other than making a bot request. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course, as "reproduced on Wikipedia with their permission" and uploaded after 19 May 2005, they could all be speedied under CSD:I3. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Image_Copyright_Query
I have returned to my page on Wikipedia after some time away to find all the images I had put up missing. After looking at my messages, some questions about copyright have arisen.

I must state that the images below are copyrighted and are used on cds that are copyrighted by me and my record company. I do not see what the problem is, as I have already declared this to be so.

Please advise me on what I should do in order to have these images put back onto the page. Thankyou,











Youre Sincerely, Richard Nowell Richard Nowell (talk) 12:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is that, other than in certain, specific cases, Wikipedia can only accept images that have been released under a free license or into the public domain. If you have the authority to do this then simply upload the images again under the same file names and choose an appropriate license (see options at this page). However, bear in mind that unless a contract was drawn up with the photographer specifically agreeing that the photos constitute works made for hire, the copyright in these photographs is likely owned by the photographer, in which case you would not have the authority to release them. In either case, if you are unable, or simply prefer not to release them in this way then we can't use them here. Sorry! -- Hux (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify slightly: Wikipedia does not accept permission for use only on Wikipedia. What is required is a free license. This means that you/your record company must allow anyone to use the images for anything, including commercial use and modification. The only restrictions you can make is to require they be credited to you and/or that the use be licensed under an equivalent license. —teb728 t c 19:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

copying pictur and text
can I copy any pictur or copy any text from Wikipedia pages ?-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asorong (talk • contribs) 23:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

--Asorong (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, subject to certain conditions that you can read here. What do you want to do with the pictures and text? --Rlandmann (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Is Zapfino copyrighted?
Hello, THis is an inportant question fo me: Is Zapfino a copyrighted font? Or can I use it freely? Thanks, Kat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.24.9 (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe the Zapfino font file is copyrighted. You can't install a pirated copy on your computer. But if you have a legal copy on your computer, you can use it freely to create documents. —teb728 t c 06:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation of the Wikipedia name
Hello, I would like to report a potential copyright violation. http://myanmarwikipedia.org is currently a redirect domain to http://wikimyanmar.org instead of http://my.wikipedia.org, the Wikipedia for the Myanmar language. Who do I contact? Thanks. --69.234.102.29 (talk) 06:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a trademark of the Wikimedia foundation. They're the ones who would take action if any. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 06:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Would any of these images be eligible for use here?
The McClatchy News Service published close to 100 articles about Guantanamo and Bagram detention facilities in June. They also published over five dozen images.

I expect those images will expire from the McClatchy site, at some point. I requested http://www.webcitation.org/archive.php to archive the images. And I have a page in my user space where I listed the archived images for later reference.

Are any of these images public domain?
I figure this image, marked "for official use" would be in the public domain, because it was made by a GI.

Although this image is labeled a "pool" image it looks identical to, but of a higher resolution, an image that a US Gov site credits to a GI. If that is the case it too would be public domain?

I assume "press pool" images are not public domain, but merely that (some?) press services have limited reproduction rights -- and no one else does -- correct?

Copyright status of images taken in Afghanistan
I asked about this question over on Village pump -- from my reading it seems that Afghanistan currently has no domestic copyright law, and is not a full signatory to the Berne Convention or any other international copyright agreement.

Some people seem to interpret this situation as if images from Afghanistan are "up for grabs", and the first person to publish them in a country that does have copyright laws can claim all rights to the image, world-wide, even if they didn't take the image themselves, or negotiate the rights with the original photographer.

This sounds like nonsense to me. But IANAL.

In this particular case these images were taken by employees of the publisher. So the publisher would own all the rights anyhow...

fair use?
Some of the remaining images are clearly not eligible for "fair use", because those individuals have been interviewed before, and other non-free images of them are out there.

Just to be clear, in the cases where a lonely McClatchy reporter put their life at risk to go interview a villager who was very difficult to find -- images captured there would not qualify for fair use, because some other brave reporter could put their life at risk, and do all the legwork to track the subject down for another picture. So most of the images of individuals would not qualify for fair use?

These two images, , capture a specific event -- the release of a bunch of captives from Bagram. Would one of the individuals here have to be someone known to be important for these images to qualify for fair use?

If any of these guys die...
If any of these guys die, and no free images are known to exist, then the image would probably become "fair use" -- correct?

So, if they don't qualify for fair use?
So, if these images don't qualify for fair use am I supposed to not have pointers to them? If so I will blank this page.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 15:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not sure about the answers for all the images you asked about, but I will offer what help I can, and hopefully someone more knowledgeable will come along and be able to sort out the rest. The pool image, even if it's similar to an image taken by a GI, says on it that it belongs to Getty Images, a commercial image firm.  That makes it non-free and out of the question for wikipedia use, especially with a free alternative avaliable.
 * For the court martial document, I really don't know. The "For Official Use Only" at the bottom of the page makes me think it might not be, but it probably comes down to what the status of documents obtained by US Court Martials is.  I'd say it also depends on how/where this image got out.  If it's a leaked document, considering it's marked "for official use only", I'd guess it's not okay, but I honestly don't know and hope someone more knowledgeable than me can come along and answer.
 * Depending on the text of the article, you might be able to justify one (but not both) of the images of the prisoners getting released since it would capture a historical event that would be impossible to replicate. However, it really would depend on the text of the article and whether or not the image would lead to a significant increase in reader understanding in a way that mere text could not.
 * And it's fine to have links going to non-free images, you just can't post the images themselves. So no page blanking required. Sorry I can't answer all your questions, but I hope that gets you off to a start. Vickser (talk)


 * Thanks for the reply.


 * Yes, I will agree, if the pool image really was taken by a reporter, it is not PD. But I have come across about a dozen images which seem to have been demonstrably first published by the DoD, where they were attributed to a GI, only to have them later surface in a wire services library, where the wire service library is claiming they own the intellectual property right.  I think some times this is due to plain out human error.  But I am afraid that some photojournalists have less respect for intellectual property rights than we do, and will routinely claim ownership of images they are not entitled to.


 * So, the public domain aspect of all works of US Federal employess is trumped by an "Official Use Only" stamp? But, if that were true, why wasn't Daniel Ellsberg, the guy who leaked The Pentagon Papers charged with copyright violation?  The other interpretation is that the PD counts more, comes first, and once an image or document is leaked, authorities are limited to charging the leaker with violating the official secrets act, or reasonable equivalent?  Geo Swan (talk) 07:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As said above, for the leaked court martial document, I'm really not sure. Hopefully someone who does know more than me can come along and clarify, but in the mean time I'm inclined towards better safe than sorry.  It says it's made by George Chigi III who it identifies as a military polygraph examiner and is from a US court martial file.  Do we know for sure that military polygraphers are members of the US military and not contractors?  Was this drawing done as part of his official duties or is it something he wrote in a diary that the court martial obtained?  Was it even made while he was still in the military and not something he made after the fact at the Court Martial's request?  There are lots of things that could effect it, so while it may be PD, I don't feel clear enough on it that I could say to you "this is fine, upload it."


 * For the Getty thing, if you can find a copy of the image published by the DoD that the DoD claims belongs to it, then it'll be okay. But that version says it's by Getty Images, so we're going to have to assume it is unless we can prove otherwise.  I won't speak to whether or not GI or other wire services are regularly flouting copyright rules, but unless it can be shown in this specific case, we're going to have to assume good faith that they, as a large and respected commercial image firm, own the images they say they do. Vickser (talk) 06:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Free use photo
Hi. After seeing a request posted by Collectonian, I've been working with Kenlamberton in an attempt to get a photo for use in the article Ken Lamberton. He has photos of himself from others and uploaded them. That didn't work well. He is in contact with the person who took the photos and believes that they will allow them to be used in Wikipedia. I read over Copyrights and Example requests for permission, but still am fuzzy on the steps needed to get the approval to the proper places. If you can clarify this, I would be most appreciative. Suntag (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you seen WP:COPYREQ? It tells what permission is is required, how to request it, and how to submit it. —teb728 t c 20:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, that clears things up. Thanks. Suntag (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:IMGP2517.jpg
I uploaded an image of my Mii I took on my Nintendo Wii, but it's saying it's non free media. Please help me. --S.C.Ruffey fan  11:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's okay now. -- Hux (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You think? It seems like it's not going to be a free image to me.  Other Wii images of Miis are non-free: Image:Mii channel.jpg, Image:Wiifitbmi.jpg, and Image:Mii Screenshot.JPG.  I think any screenshot or picture of a Mii is going to be a derivative work of Nintendo, and thus non-free.  In short, what this means is you're not going to be allowed to upload an image of your Mii to wikipedia unless it's under fair use for an article, and since the Mii and Wii articles are both already well-illustrated, you won't be able to justify this. Vickser (talk) 05:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Township Seal
Wouldn't a township seal be considered free content? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobes23 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It depends on the township - some towns (or the areas in which they are located) have rules stating that all government-produced works are in the public domain by default. Generally speaking, though, such seals are copyrighted more often than not. I'd suggest getting in touch with them, or searching for copyright information on the township's website if it has one. -- Hux (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

receipts
how do i get a receipt that i created to be copyright so no one can still my ideal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.13.78 (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this is a place for copyright questions that are related to wikipedia. It is not a general forum for non-related copyright questions.  You may be able to find some answers at copyright.gov, which is maintained by the US government. Vickser (talk) 06:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Promotional material
I seem to remember a time when we could upload pictures that were taken from promo kits. Is this no longer the case? I ask because I have a ton of Motown promotional material, but I didn't want to start uploading it unless it's allowed. LoomisSimmons (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Google Maps Street View
Could I upload to Wikimedia an image of a building (of which no copyright exists on its image) which I derive by using Google Maps Street View? (ie use Street View to look at a house, screen shot the image, cut and crop the picture into a .jpg file, and upload)? Kransky (talk) 02:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Basically - no. Megapixie (talk) 04:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Image permissions
I am publishing a magazine and would like to include the following image in the magazine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2_Columbus_Circle.jpg

The article is part of a guide to New York City and I would like to show how the building at 2 Columbus Circle has been renovated over the past few years. I plan to print over 100 copies and distribute it in Japan. Does GFDL allow me to use this image in my magazine? If it is allowed can I credit the photo as "(GFDL Renate O'Flaherty"?

Please let me know. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbomb1 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:REUSE for guidance on reusing Wikipedia content. As a practical matter, reuse of GFDL images is difficult in a print medium, because one of the license conditions is that the license itself must be reprinted along with such an image. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Even if the license specifies "with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts" I have to print the copy of the license? Jbomb1 (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Metcard (back).jpg
Wouldn't it be Free Use, because the main subject of the image is the ticket? Guy0307 (talk) 08:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think there would be any copyright on that part of the card. All that's visible on the card is functional, rather than creative. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 09:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Odwalla pictures/Fair Use?
Hey, I'm working on the Odwalla page, and I going to go try and get pictures of Odwalla products (drinks and protein bars). So, before I do, does a picture of a bottle or wrapper that I take with my camera need a fair use tag? I'm not sure, so I thought "better safe than sorry". Thanks. Also, what about an Odwalla display, with a lot of different Odwalla products in it? Thanks again. Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A picture of an Odwalla bottle or wrapper would need a fair use tag as they count as works of art and your picture would be a derivative work. An Odwalla display used to demonstrate what Odwalla products look like would also need a fair use tag, since it would still be a derivative work.  Vickser (talk) 02:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Intothewoods29 (talk) 02:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Montwood_SAT.jpg
Hi, can some one clarify the whole copyright thing that appeared? I don't understand it at all. Image:Montwood_SAT.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omiks3 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Basically, images from google maps are not free images, so to be eligible for wikipedia, they'd need to qualify under our fair use criteria, as explained at WP:NFCC. An image used to demonstrate currently standing buildings, such as this one, is not eligible for fair use.  As it's not a free image, and can't be used under our fair use policy, it's not acceptable for use on wikipedia.  Vickser (talk) 07:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Links to copyrighted material at rickross.com
--Francis Schonken (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Applicable policy: Copyrights
 * rickross.com: see Rick Ross (consultant)
 * Earlier today following links to material on the rickross.com website were removed from the Prem Rawat page, citing "coyvio" in the edit summary:
 * http://www.rickross.com/reference/vital/vital1.html – diff
 * http://www.rickross.com/reference/path/divinelight2.pdf – diff1 diff2
 * http://www.rickross.com/reference/vital/vital14.html – diff
 * rickross.com's take on copyrights:"Any publisher, Webmaster or news service (i.e., official and legal holder of copyright) that objects to their material being included in this archive may request that it be removed and/or that future material be excluded. An official written and signed request sent via fax or regular mail made by the copyright holder and/or their legal representative on company or legal letterhead will be honored."
 * Question: are the links above allowable, or should they stay removed?
 * Replies: here or at Talk:Prem Rawat

The most recent discussion of this topic that I am aware of was at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_11.

The most salient points were –


 * rickross.com's copyright disclaimer:


 * rickross.com: "All META tags, page titles, keywords and other content descriptions used throughout this website are only intended to assist search engines for research and locating purposes. This in no way, shape or form is intended to mislead anyone by implying any official representation and/or relationship exists between this website and the owners of any trademarks, service marks and/or copyrights, which may contain the same keywords and/or titles." ... "Any publisher, Webmaster or news service (i.e., official and legal holder of copyright) that objects to their material being included in this archive may request that it be removed and/or that future material be excluded. An official written and signed request sent via fax or regular mail made by the copyright holder and/or their legal representative on company or legal letterhead will be honored."


 * Some of the material hosted on rickross.com is for sale online by the legitimate owners. Example:


 * rickross.com also functions as a commercial site, offering expert witness and intervention/deprogramming services complete with hourly rates:    as well as selling DVDs  and soliciting donations


 * See WP:EL and Copyrights, neither of which rickross.com seems to comply with. Jayen 466 13:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The links are not allowed by our copyright policies. Clear and obvious copyright violations are not allowed, and the little weird disclaimers on that site in no way is a proper legal justification. DreamGuy (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Phoebe Legere
Hi, I am having trouble adding the following image to the WIKI on me. http://www.roulette.org/images/records/blue.jpg from the article http://www.roulette.org/noisy/cds/ein015.html

I get the following message:

Non-free use media rationale – non-free album cover –- WARNING: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebe_Legere does not appear to exist! Check capitalization. Enter only the exact title of a single article with no link brackets or other formatting. It is also possible the indicated article was deleted.

What am I doing wrong?

Thanks so much, Phoebe Legere user name Protectorofthemind (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Protectorofthemind

I own the copyright on this image.


 * I fixed the link for you. The problem was that you put the full URL where the template expected just the article title, Phoebe Legere. —teb728 t c 17:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your non-free use rationale has another problem, which I can’t fix. Wikipedia generally accepts use of images of album covers for articles on the album but not to show what the performer looks like in a biography. So this image could be used in an article on Blue Curtain but not on Phoebe Legere.
 * Are you sure that you personally own the copyright on the album cover? I suspect that it is owned by your producer or your record label. If you personally own the copyright, you could replace the non-free album cover with a free license tag from WP:ICTIC. Then the image could be used anywhere. —teb728 t c 17:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

a question of the bible
I have a sister who is also my best friend and I love her dearly. I am a born again,spirit filled christian.I believe that the only way to heaven is through JESUS CHRIST and that the bible is the word of GOD. She on the other hand does believe in GOD just not in JESUS, is that possible to believe in one and not the other? Also she doesn't believe in the bible.Only that it is a book written by some people that had extra time on there hands. She does believe that JESUS was a person and thats just it that he was a person just like you and I can y

ou give me some advice while I seek the holy spirits wisdom? !!!!


 * Apologies, but this page is for wikipedia-related media copyright questions, not spiritual questions. You'll have to search else where for your answers. Vickser (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

About suppossed copyrighted photos
Can anyone tell me if I can use a photo of a person that was publissed on a local press web in a biography here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acidia (talk • contribs) 17:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Generally not, no. There is no supposed at all that enters into play, they are copyrighted photos. DreamGuy (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Odwalla pics
I'm looking for pictures for Odwalla, and I was wondering if either of the images on are allowable, particularly the second one. Thanks. Intothewoods29 (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably not. They're using the first courtesy of a local news station, and the second is CNN's own photo, both held under copyright. You'll have to request permission in order to use them. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 01:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Dang. That's what I figured, but I thought I might get lucky. Thanks Intothewoods29 (talk) 02:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lamenting the dead.jpg
This image was public domain until January 1, 2008. Due to a change in Russian copyright law, it may have returned to copyrighted status. It is in use at several articles including World War II casualties where I recently replaced it with a public domain image. After the edit got reverted I explained the change on talk and provided a citation for the change (the concern is also on the image licensing template). Talk:World_War_II_casualties The editor who wants to keep it has not been cooperative.

I don't wish to have an edit war, so seeking independent opinion. It seems to me that the change in law is sufficiently documented, and the burden of proof shifts to those who want to regard this as public domain. So for the time being, it's safer to replace with an image that's definitely public domain in an article where it can be replaced with a free image. Is that a fair approach? Durova Charge! 11:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd say that we can keep it as long as it's on commons. The people there are usually the experts on these things and will remove it if it turns out to not be a free image after all. If and when they do, we can replace it here. Shanes (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see you're an admin on commons. Then you probably know more about this than me. I usually tend to just trust images that have been on commons for a long time. Anyway, I still think the image should be removed from commons first, if it doesn't belong there. Shanes (talk) 13:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well yes, generally that would be the appropriate choice. It isn't often that a copyright law changes in this way.  This does affect large numbers of images and the new law has been in force for over eight months.  Surely this isn't the first time this question has come up?  Durova Charge! 18:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

On top of that, changes to copyright laws in other countries, especially ones that try to retroactively put items back under copyright, are usually not legally recognizable in other countries. In this case Wikimedia Commons can make the call, and if they make the call that it is a violation, we can further make the call that it isn't a violation for the English language Wikipedia. (That's not to say we necessarily would, though I think the logic is sound.) So we seem to be fine two different ways. DreamGuy (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Commons policy is to respect local policy as well as hosting country policy. Durova Charge! 17:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

NASA image 57911main_Earth_Energy_Budget.jpg
I would like to add this image:

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/57911main_Earth_Energy_Budget.jpg

To Earth's energy budget to replace the image:



What must I do now?

Veteran0101 (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be helpful if you had a link to a page on the NASA website where that image appears in context, so we can check it really comes from NASA themselves. If it does, it ought to be free (public domain) because NASA is a US federal government agency. You can then upload it and tag it with PD-USGov-NASA. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

How does copywrite apply to user created SVG versions of images?
When a user/author creates a new SVG graphic based on an existing image, because of a request for an SVG version, yet who is not the creator or rights holder of the original non-SVG image, how should the new author apply copywrite?

Also, what should the author do if the original image has special license information? An Example: Image:50InfantryBCTSSI.jpg

Wgabrie (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The SVG is a drivative work. In this case the original is PD so the author of the SVG can use whatever license they like.Geni 01:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

non-free use
The image I uploaded for an article on The Day Joyce Sheet was deleted as it was copyright of the Imperial War Museum. I would like to submit a non-free use rationale. How do I do this? Johnhk31 (talk) 10:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See the Non-free use rationale guideline. You would put the non-free use rationale on the image page Image:Day joyce sheet.jpg. That image page, however, has been deleted; so you have no place to put it. One of the things you which the rationale needs would be a link to the article where the image is to be used, like Day Joyce Sheet. That article, however, has also been deleted; so you have no article to use it on at this time. Without being use in an article, the image will be deleted.
 * I see that you are drafting an article at User:Johnhk31/Day Joyce Sheet. You should work on that draft—in particular providing references, which the draft sorely lacks. When the article is ready, you can move it to article space. Then you could upload the image again, including a use rationale. And then you could add the image to the article. —teb728 t c 20:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have revised this article and now want to move it to article space, but can't see how to do it.91.125.85.38 (talk) 10:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. Click on the “move” tab at the top of the page. Change the “To new title” field to Day Joyce sheet. (I recommend a lower case ‘s’ on sheet: By the Manual of Style only the first letter of titles and proper nouns are capitalized.) And put a comment like “moving to article space” in the “Reason” field. —teb728 t c 08:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Re the title - the IWM always refers to it as "The Day Joyce Sheet" and Day Joyce's memoir is title "The Sheet". "The Day Joyce sheet" suggests there's a matching pillow case. With all respect to the Style Manual I'd rather stick with The Day Joyce Sheet. But thanks for your help.Johnhk31 (talk) 09:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Old Ordnance Survey maps
I'd like to use a small section from an 1890 OS map (to illustrate the position of a structure then standing but long since demolished), which I understand to be public domain because it's over 50 years old, as per license OldOS. Does that PD only apply to a copy taken from an actual paper map? or could I take it from British History Online. Their copyright statement at the bottom of that page which reads "Copyright (c) and database right Crown Copyright and Landmark Information Group Ltd (all rights reserved 2007)" makes me think I couldn't, but a more informed opinion than mine would be helpful. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * They, like a lot of places, stamp everything with copyright notices just to try to protect everything even if copyright law doesn't support it. An 1890 OS map is clearly in public domain, and so would any copy of it that doesn't add some sort of artistic addition to it (coloration, added info, montaging with photos, whatever) That site just has straight copies and they cannot prevent you from using those copies. DreamGuy (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's actually different in the UK and straight digitizations can be copyrighted separately. Fine for wikipedia, but don't upload it to Wikimedia Commons. --Random832 (contribs) 15:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've never seen any indication whatsoever that that is the case. Copyright has always only covered new works of art, with art in its broadest legal sense still requiring at least some creativity. Mere digitizing doesn't give a new copyright where none previously existed. DreamGuy (talk) 18:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well there is the graves case then there is Hyperion Records v Sawkins. Depening on how you read it UK law is either outright such images can be protected by copyright or rather confused.Geni 19:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hyperion Records v Sawkins, which I've looked up, doesn't seem to have anything to do with this issue at all and "graves case" (presumably the 1869 one) is outdated (based largely on copyright laws long superceded by new ones) and involved a rather complicated copying process with archaic methods that would have required a lot of skill. Digitization requires no skill at all. DreamGuy (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, Hyperion v. Sawkins is very relevant. It was decided in 2005 and basically reconfirmed the House of Lords' 1900 ruling that something can enjoy copyright protection purely on the basis of the "sweat of the brow" of the creator, even if the work is an exact copy of something in the public domain. The key factor is the extent of effort and skill involved in creating the copy. If it's a trivial amount (e.g. using an automated application to convert music on a CD to MP3 files) then it would likely not be considered sufficient. However, if the copying involved extensive, professional manipulation (e.g. complex retouching of a faded/damaged image) then the courts might well rule that it is protected by copyright. As far as old OS maps go, it would depend on the quality of the reproduction. A straight copy that involved nothing more complicated than scanning it in and saving it as a JPG (or whatever) would likely not be considered enough. Finally, there are an awful lot of talented people out there who employ their skills on a full-time basis at a decent rate of pay who would take issue with your assertion that digitization "requires no skill at all". Professional digitization is a job that requires considered time and skill. It's not just "scan, save as...", you know! -- Hux (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See this.Geni 01:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course this is all highly dependent on the quality of the original maps. If they were working from images like Image:Isles of Scillymap1946 sub12,5 million pixels.png and cleaned them up they might have a case but striaght scans like Image:Dunblane1945.png rather less so. Further complexity kicks in that in this case the company redid the grid to align with moderm maps and I think did some work to sort out where the edges overlaped.Geni 02:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Getting Permission from Author.
Hi! I wanted to upload a few images from an external site that were not mine. I sent an email asking for permission to use the images, and they said it was ok. I checked the copyright policy but I am still unsure as to whether them saying ok is enough. Do I need them to sign a waiver or likewise? Help appreciated. \ / (talk) 10:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * They need to give verifiable permission. Stating that the images are copyright free on the website in question will do it. Jack1956 (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Does a copy of the email I recieved from them count as verifyable permission? \ / (talk) 11:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You need to register the email into the system the process is at Requesting copyright permission. MilborneOne (talk) 11:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

30 seconds of video and music use
I am working on my thesis and want to use documentary and music. If I only use 30 seconds of the footage do I have to worry about copyrights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.148.35 (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for a screenshot from abandoned software
I have created the article SpartaDOS X and included some images to it. The bot questioned one, and:

1) I don't understand why it questioned just this one *.PNG file, whereas there are total of three in the article.

2) I don't understand why it questioned its new version uploaded today, but not the original uploaded yesterday.

3) I don't understand what it wants.

The image questioned is. It has the copyright tag as "non-free", because it is a screenshot from a proprietary software.

For reference, I looked at, which has identical purpose in CP/M, but I can't see a difference in the legal stuff. The CP/M-86 screenshot is "taken from" and "used with permission", which is not applicable here, because my screenshot is not copied from anywhere (I have done it myself), and, since the software is abandonware and the copyright holder is unreachable, there is noone to give the permission.

So how the "fair use rationale" should look like to satisfy the bot? Thanks Mamurra (talk) 08:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * See Image:PC-DOS 1.10 screenshot.png. You should use because the screenshot only shows utilitarian text that does not merit a copyright. The content and arrangement of the program output was common practice for computers of that time. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 05:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the Force Recon logos
I uploaded quite a few logos on the Force Recon. I had permission from the Force Recon Association, the Comm Chief of that organization. We've been in contact quite some time. He is the one that created them and allowed me to use them on wiki. But everyone of them were deleted! I am not sure what type of license this follows under. Will you please submit suggestions to me?

RekonDog (talk) 12:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a specific process for requesting that someone release their work under terms suitable for Wikipedia (see WP:COPYREQ for more info). I'm guessing that the permission you received was considered insufficient by whoever deleted the images. -- Hux (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:LOGOS rewrite
After seeing attempts to use WP:LOGOS to bypass the non-free content criteria, I have proposed a rewrite of the guideline. Comments are welcome on the guideline talk page. J Milburn (talk) 14:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Featured picture - copyright violation
Featured image Image:F35test edit.jpg is from a us mil website and the image is marked "Courtesy of Lockheed Martin" on Thumbnail view page. Per terms notice: ''Other images on this website are obtained from companies that include the Boeing Company, the Lockheed Martin Corporation, United Technologies Corporation's Pratt & Whitney Division ("Pratt & Whitney"), and the General Electric Company. Further information regarding image usage is available from each company's respective web sites. Thus this image is not PD or US GOV. The Lockheed Martin disclaimer says No content from www.lockheedmartin.com, or any other Web site owned, operated, licensed or controlled by us may be copied, reproduced, republished, modified, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way.'' has been tagged twice as a copyright violation with the comment that being a featured image it should go to WP:IFD. I cant find any exception for featured image and IFD doesnt not normally handle copyright violations as they are normally just speedied or possibly sent to WP:PUI for a second-opinion. Any thoughts please. MilborneOne (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing the byline - can you provide a link to the page you're looking at? Hers fold  (t/a/c) 18:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Source page http://www.jsf.mil/gallery/gal_photo_sdd_f35atest.htm you need to use IE not Firefox to see the "Courtesy of Lockheed Martin" as you hover over the image. MilborneOne (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I see it. It's in the img alt text, which can be seen by hovering over the thumbnail in the gallery with IE or opening the HTML source with Firefox.  Dragons flight (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record, I'm preparing a deletion request to kill several dozen JSF images from Commons. Someone else should deal with the ones hosted locally.  Dragons flight (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I just deleted it. Others may want to find a good replacement image for the now-broken links. There aren't any exceptions for featured pictures. A copyright violation is a copyright violation. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks all for your help.MilborneOne (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Henry Kravis
The following image from Flickr was deleted and I am not sure if I used the wrong tag or I am just not understanding the copyright rules with respect to images from Flickr. I understand not everything on Flickr is a free image but this one appeared to be ok to me.

www.flickr.com/photos/edyson/2402780067/

If it turns out this is not a 100% free image is there a fair usage that works for images from Flickr

|► ϋrban яenewaℓ • TALK  <font color="#3950A5" size="1">◄| 22:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The license on the page does not allow for comercial use and we generaly do not allow fair use images of living people.Geni 23:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In case you don’t understand that: Wikipedia does not accept a license unless it allows use by anyone for anything, including commercial use and derivative works. Your license did not allow commercial use. With regard to fair use: Wikipedia does not allow fair use unless it fulfils the Non-free content criteria. One of the criteria is that a non-free image may not be used if it could be replaced by a free image. For a living person, a free image is almost always possible. —teb728 t c 00:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyright permission
Can I copy anyone work asking they permission by e-mail? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noblessing (talk • contribs) 00:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Only if they're willing to grant it with a license we can use and follow through the verification process, either by noting their release at the external source or by providing verification for the Communications Committee. Please see WP:Permission for more information, including a boilerplate release form that you might use for that purpose. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Scan from a 1958 high school yearbook
I have a scan from a 1958 high-school yearbook (of the late composer Frank Zappa). I have contacted the high school (Antelope Valley High School in California), but they do not respond. How can I find out if they ever had copyrights to the picture, or ever renewed it? Thanks for any info!--HJensen, talk 13:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For something as recent as 1958, either the school or the photographer owned the copyright at the point the photo was taken. If you can't get a reply from either of them stating that it has been released under a free license, or into the public domain, you have to assume that it's still copyrighted. -- Hux (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have a copy of the yearbook, you should take a look in it to see if it was originally published with a copyright. If it wasn't (which is possible, considering it's a high school yearbook), it would be public domain.  If it was, but the copyright wasn't renewed, it would also be PD. It may be helpful to check out what Commons has to say on the matter. Vickser (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

uploading images
I uploaded an image of the official lotto 6/49 logo but was told I did something wrong. I have no idea what I was supposed to do other than upload the image. There were no forms for me to fill out, and now I don't know what I'm supposed to do now.

The image that is currently up for lotto 6/49 is wrong. As a graphic designer for the British Columbia Lottery Corporation, I can confirm this and can confirm that the logo I uploaded is correct.

Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Creamaster (talk • contribs) 22:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Add a fair use rationale such as Logo_fur to the image page. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyright status of Image:Bell logo.svg
I believe the Bell logo contains creative elements that make it eligible for copyright, and so I do not believe that Image:Bell logo.svg should be tagged as being in the public domain. (On a side note, since, based on Template talk:PD-font, SVG files of font renderings are being treated as potentially eligible for copyright, it's a bit inconsistent to place a public domain notice on this SVG file.) Can someone help clarify what the most appropriate tag should be? Isaac Lin (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, file type excepted it's public domain because US copyright law does not recognize a typeface as being eligible for copyright protection. However, the law does recognize software as being so eligible. With a JPG, PNG, or whatever this is not relevant, but an SVG file blurs the eligibility line somewhat, given that there's an element of functionality - scaling - that moves it closer to the domain of "software" rather than just "image file format". Imo, however, I think that it's highly unlikely that any court would regard an SVG file such as this as being eligible for copyright protection, so I think it is safe for us to tag it as PD-ineligible. -- Hux (talk) 05:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this image ok to use on wiki
Image:Dominica coa.png, the flag of Dominica is labeled PD, but I have not been able to find its PD status on its source website. Also, the copyright tag seems to be out-of-date. What copyright should it have? Snowman (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As a former crown colony of the United Kingdom, chances are high that Dominica's copyright law is similar to that of the UK and that, therefore, government created images such as this are copyrighted. As such, I don't think this should be on the Commons. -- Hux (talk) 05:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Map of a New York State Route
I have created a map of New York State Route 342, in northern New York State. I am not sure how to license my image, because I have used US Census Shapefiles. However, I see many maps that claim they are self-made (, for example). Smb6009 (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Anything that's produced by the Census Bureau is public domain, but you have the right to license the map if you've made your own edits to it, because you've put some creativity into it. Here's an image that I've created from Census Bureau data: Image:OHMap-doton-Rose Farm.png; this is a valid way to license your edits, although of course you can use any other free license (for example, Creative Commons or GFDL) that you want to, instead of the PD-self that I use.  Nyttend (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Photographs of art work
I have several photographs of works of art from various art museums around the world that I have taken with my own camera. Are these acceptable images to upload to wikipedia? If so, how do I licence them?Nrswanson (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Are the works 2D or 3D and how old are they?Geni 19:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Both. Some paintings, statues, murals, wall hangings, and tons of other stuff. They include works from 1200 B.C.- 2004 A.D. I have several hundred photos.Nrswanson (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Okey if the artwork is old enough to be in the public domain then you are free to upload (life of the author+70 is a good starting point for working that out). The others are more complex and the question is too generalised to give a useful answer.Geni 21:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay. Well that is still a significant amount of my photos. So what would I do in the upload process for those works that fit life of the author+70 years? Also, does date of the work play a factor at all if I know the year created? Perhaps you could show me an example of a current photo using that kind of licencing. Thanks for the help. Nrswanson (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * license for photos of art more than life+70 years old might as well be CC-BY-SA. When a work was created can factor in by you are getting into needing to read Public domain territory.Geni 22:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could view the guidelines at Commons. Images uploaded to Commons are usable on any Wikimedia project, and admins at Commons are usually knowledgeable about copyright. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Did I do this right? Image:Braying Camel.JPGNrswanson (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Remember that you create a new copyright when you take the picture; you need some tag to indicate how you are dealing with your copyright. For instance PD-self or other tag in WP:ICTIC --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * For stuff that old see Image:Nabu-apla-iddina confirming a grant of land.jpg for how it can be done.Geni 23:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys. That was super helpful.Nrswanson (talk) 06:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no photographic copyright on the actual photo of a 2D artwork: see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. There is only copyright on the 2D artwork depicted, if it is still in copyright, that is. With 3D artwork, there is copyright on the photo and the artwork depicted: that is because there is an element of creativity in taking the photo of a 3D work with lighting, angles etc, whereas a photo of a 2D work does not have that creative input, because it is just reproducing exactly (if it's a good photo!) what already exists. There are some useful PD templates at Image copyright tags/Public domain, and some more useful links at User:Tyrenius. Where you have a copyright to release (i.e. on 3D works) you can also use as an alternative to CC.  Ty  08:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Dee Dee Bridgewater 2005.jpg
I would appriciate some comments about the fair use of this image. There is currently a discussion going on at Possibly unfree images/2008 August 11. Thank you.Nrswanson (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I threw in my two cents. Hopefully it will make the situation more clear. :) -- Hux (talk) 06:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

US state-created works
I know that US government works are public domain, and US state works aren't, unless specifically stated. User:Detroitnews9 has multiple times uploaded a scan of a document produced by the Texas government, calling it PD because it's produced with tax dollars, which I've deleted as having incorrect licenses and not being valid fair uses. I've said that s/he is wrong, but as s/he in this edit says "You're wrong!" I don't know what to say. Could someone please give him/her a better answer? Nyttend (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct that works produced by employees of US states are not automatically subject to the same "public domain by default" rule that applies to works produced by employees of the federal government. However, it's not a case of, "US state works aren't, unless specifically stated". It's simply that some states do have this kind of blanket, public domain rule and others don't. Texas, however, is one of the states that does not: works produced by state (and also county and municipality) employees are copyrighted by default, unless specifically noted otherwise. This applies to things like the state seal, the text of state laws, court reports, etc. etc. It does not matter that a work is available on a university website, or that there's no copyright notice on it, or that a person can pay for a copy. It's still copyrighted according to Texas law. -- Hux (talk) 06:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the attempts to explain. I say it this way due to the open debate and overwhelming number of ways to interpret the subject. I will defer to this sites overview []. My uploads are, in my opinion, a fair use issue. The reasons: they are for 1. educational purposes 2. deal directly with the subject 3. have no loss or potential loss of revenue to an assumed copyright holder 4. was only the part of the report that was needed to support a claim 5. the insertion was thumbnailed and 6. the copyright laws do not mention Wikipedia's policy of having "commercial value". As mentioned to Nyttend, Wikipedia is a non-profit org., to deny the benefit of information that adds to Wikipedia's claims of being "the Sum of All Human Knowledge", is repugnant to Wikipedia's own claims. This being said, there is no way to satisfy everyone, so I consider all these issues moot, and will not challenge the issue anymore.Detroitnews9 (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hux, I'm pretty sure that no state has anything close to the U.S. federal government's rule about works of government employees. I would love to proven wrong on this, and to learn what states do have such a rule.  --Rob (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not as extensive as the federal rule, but according to Commons:Template:PD-FLGov works of the Florida government are PD except in categories where the legislature provides otherwise. —teb728 t c 18:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hux, you make one mistake. In the US, the text of all current laws and many forms of court records are in the public domain at all levels, irrespective of the other copyright policies of the state or municipal jurisdiction.  This arrises out of federal law and a number of court cases establishing that the public's compelling interest in having free and unrestricted access to the laws under which they are to be governed trumps any interest the state might have in the copyright to those laws.  Hence, while a state or local government may own copyright to their imagery, reports, presentations, and various other things they create, they are generally prohibited from holding copyright over the text of their laws or the records of court proceedings to the extent that those court records establish binding precedents related to the future enforcement of laws.  Dragons flight (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is the text of the opinions in Wheaton v. Peters, which held that laws themselves aren't subject to copyright. Nyttend (talk) 03:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Einatharan.jpg
Is the explanation given at Image:Einatharan.jpg really valid, stating that since there was no license it would free use? My understanding is that it would be a copyvio unless there is a clear free license, but should it go directly to speedy delete as copyvio or is it necessary to open a PUI case? --Soman (talk) 13:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think "provided freely" is explicit enough to consider it a freely-licensed image. However, since no new freely-licensed image could be made, one could make a good case for use under WP:NFCC. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

removing an image
How do I get an image removed that is violating copyright that I uploaded myself? <font face="" color="maroon">tabor -<font face="" color="000000">drop me a line 19:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Tag it Db-imgcopyvio and someone will delete it. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, db-author would be better. db-imgcopyvio should include the source URL. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

this image copyright right?
I uploaded an image i made. I copied the layout from a diagram i found is ok to do? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Emotionenginelayout.png thats the image link

I copied the layout from this PDF http://www.ieee.org.uk/docs/sony.pdf --Thunderpenguin (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a violation of Sony's copyright and it has been deleted. Stifle (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Photo of old leaflet
I have taken a photo of an old leaflet I want to upload and use in an the article on EOKA. I took the photo at a museum that had on display the first leaflet released by EOKA announcing its existence to the world, what it stands for etc etc. I have since cropped the relevant bit. The organisation is now defunct (dissolved in 1959) however, I am not sure if, or under what licence I should submit this. Georgeg (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There's two possibilities that may apply, PD-Pre1978 and/or PD-Pre1964. I don't think the copyright goes away when the organization is dissolved, but it may go back to the individual who made it. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The individual who made it is dead. But I am not sure if the above applies as it was not published in the US. It is in the EU. Georgeg (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry didn't notice the bit about it being in the EU. The chances of it being public domain are slim. If the author is dead, the heirs probably own the copyright then and they would have to be the ones to release it to the public domain or under a free license. Otherwise the only remaining possibility is see it it meets WP:NFCC --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Reading about I think it should meet criteria for Category:Non-free historic images Georgeg (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

French space agency? PD? FUR?
There is an image listed at the copyright problems board for August 10th for which I could use advice/assistance. The image, Image:Andromeda patch.gif, is a patch created by the French Space Agency to represent Claudie Haigneré's participation in the Soyuz 3 Taxi Flight. It is inappropriately tagged PD-USGov-NASA and PD-USGov, since, though apparently displayed at NASA, it was not created by NASA. The uploader asserts at the CP listing that "there is no template for the foreign space agencies, just like the NASA template is used for the Soyuz (Russian) mission patches for TMA flights, and some of the JAXA, and ESA images. CNES (French Space Agency) works in conjunction with NASA, and the image was found on NASA's site. If it is not technically Public Domain even though it is displayed on NASA, it could certainly be listed with a FUR, as it is the only image of the patch for that particular flight, (Soyuz TM-33) in recognition of Claudie Haigneré being the first European woman to visit the International Space Station. The image is certainly beneficial to the articles it appears in."

Does anybody know if the French Space Agency releases images to public domain? Or if there's a FUR that would work here? Alternatively, any suggestions for a more appropriate venue to seek further opinion would be welcome. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Works created by French government agencies such as the French Space Agency are not public domain, so it's not a free image. To use it, you need a fair use rationale for each article it's used in.  You can easily write a proper fair use rationale for Soyuz TM-33, and I think a decent case can be made for List of human spaceflights to the ISS.  I can't imagine a reasonable fair use rationale for it usage in either Claudie Haigneré or Viktor Mikhaylovich Afanasyev as the articles and current usage of the image stand now.
 * Anyway, you're going to want to tag the image with and write a fair use rationale for each article using the template at Template:Non-free use rationale.  When filling it out, make sure it addresses all the criteria at WP:NFCC.  Let me know if you have any other questions. Vickser (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll give it a shot. Having only uploaded album covers or book covers, which have their own handy FUR, this is new ground for me. :) I don't want to delete the image, though, if it can be validly used under fair use. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I took a stab at writing one for the mission only, since I was worried that the list might correlate to say, discographies, in lacking critical commentary. If you have an opportunity to look at Image:Andromeda patch.gif and provide feedback, I'd be grateful. :) Again, this is unfamiliar ground to me, but I'd like to help the uploader out. She is a long-standing, good Wikipedian who evidently has limited connectivity at the moment. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That looks perfect. Great job! Vickser (talk) 06:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. :) I greatly appreciate your help. I'll get the hang of this eventually! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Free?
Are the images from this brochure free? . They are used at this page also Thanks —  Navy  Blue  23:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * They are for this page: Cira Centre South — Navy  Blue  23:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No they are not free licensed, if you look at http://www.costar.com/ itself you can see that it says "Copyright © 1997-2008 CoStar Realty Information, Inc. All rights reserved.", but even if that was not the case the default state of all copyrighted works is "non-free". As a rule of thumb you can fairly safely assume that anything not explicitly labeled as free licensed by the rights holder is in fact not free licensed, and must comply with all parts of WP:NONFREE if they are to be used on Wikipedia. Exceptions include very old material that have lapsed into the public domain due to age or works created by most US federal (not state) government agencies (but watch out, not all material on US federal government websites where nessesarily creaged by a government agencey, they may be press photos, material from a civilian contractor and so on). --Sherool (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

LimeWIre
I know this is not the right place to talk about this. This image says that is not used in any pages but it is used used in LimeWire And since the image is fair use it will get deleted. Is it a bug? Thanks — Navy  Blue  14:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe someone decided it was funny to blank the page and a bot noticed the image was orphaned before someone restored the page. <font face="Calibri">TIM KLOSKE 16:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I purged the cache on the article, and that brought the list of uses on the image page into sync. —teb728 t c 20:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair Use photo of Chinua Achebe
I originally uploaded this image of Chinua Achebe to Commons with a misunderstanding about which CC licenses were acceptable; it's currently being deleted. Since no free images are available, I'd like to upload one from this Cornell University page. Assuming I add the appropriate templates, is this acceptable? Thanks in advance. Scartol •  Tok  12:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe so: it's entirely possible that someone could take a picture of Achebe and license it freely, so fair use for the purpose of identification (as I believe the point of your uploading these pictures is) isn't an option. Nyttend (talk) 12:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Grr. So until we get someone to get access to him and snap a photo, we have to use this image at the top of the page? Scartol  •  Tok  12:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The Lagos image looks problematic too - what exactly is the basis for the "copyrighted free use" claim?
 * FWIW, Achebe will be here in Buffalo next month. I had checked the lead image while looking for potential tasks to give my Wikimedia class this fall; I'll see what I can do to get someone to photograph him.  --dave pape (talk) 02:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Forwarding an image question
Leoboudv left the following question on my Talk page. Since I don't know the answer, I'm copying it here for those more knowledgeable in this matter to answer. (And I will let him know to look here for the answer.) -- llywrch (talk) 05:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the deletion code for removing duplicates? ie: –   This image was uploaded to Commons from wikipedia with the same image title but it still remains on Wikipedia: Image:Stela of Tuthmosis I.jpg Please 1. delete this image on Commons and 2. let me know what is the tagging code for deleting duplicates.  BTW, is there a deletion code for copy violations? In the latter case, I assume I must provide the source where an image was copied from. Wonder how I would type that? Leoboudv (talk) 00:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry I thought that you as an Administrator would know the answer. (I'm really a novice at these things...there are just so many codes to type). Well, hopefully someone will respond to my question. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * For image moved to Commons, use — there are instructions at the top of CAT:NC (not that one could really be expected to find them there).  As for copyright violations, use  or, for blatant cases,  (yes, they both require an URL).  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Photograph of portrait > 100 years old
What is the appropriate licence / tag? Kittybrewster <font color="0000FF">&#9742;  11:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Assuming the year the author of the portrait died is unknown, presumably . —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Snippets of Music
Is it ok to make a short snippet (about 20 seconds) of a song released on an album and use it on wikipedia as a sample? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Via-Direct (talk • contribs) 13:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) It depends on the length of the song. Non-free_content notes that samples should be 30 seconds or 10% of the length, whichever is shorter. Music samples goes on to note that if the song is shorter than 5:00, 10% is shorter. (To justify 20 seconds, the song would need to be 200 seconds long--which comes out to 3:20.) You can find more details by following those two links. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Band photo?

 * This is probably a really stupid question, but is it okay to use a band photo from the band's official MySpace? And do you need the band's permission? --HardRAWKR (talk) 01:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Permission would be best. We could theoretically do a free-use rationale, but permission would be better. NuclearWarfare  <sup style="color:green;">contact me <sub style="color:purple;">My work  01:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So I'm assuming I'd need to have proof that I have permission when I upload it? --HardRAWKR (talk) 01:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You would need proof that it had been released under a free license such as the GFDL yes.Geni 01:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And what is the case for the cover art on an album? --HardRAWKR (talk) 01:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Depends if you can provide a rational consistent with wikipedia policy.Geni 01:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay thank you. --HardRAWKR (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry I thought I was done asking, but what if the band photo was hosted on Photobucket? Would that change anything? --HardRAWKR (talk) 02:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Release under a free license is the critical issue.Geni 02:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Google Maps
Sigh... I was wondering if images of Odwalla's buildings from Google Maps are acceptable. On the Google Maps Terms of Use it says "For individual users, Google Maps, including local search results, maps, and photographic imagery, is made available for your personal, non-commercial use only." So, is that allowable? Thanks. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 02:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, Google Maps are not acceptable. NASA Worldwind offers a free license alternative (though Worldwind is less convenient to use).  Dragons flight (talk) 03:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That what I thought. For Worldwind, do I use the pd tag on Image:Worldwind.png ? Intothewoods29 (talk) 03:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Museum photographs
I have a number of photographs to upload that were taken at a museum (specifically the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology). They are entirely my own work, and were taken both as a visitor and as a student there. Does anyone know - Is there some kind of licensing that applies to museum exhibits and/or possessions that would prohibit me from uploading these images as my own work? Thank you very much. - Jeyradan (talk) 02:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * we never run across any that were actualy enforceable.Geni 04:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A museum normally has no say in terms of licensing, unless they're the copyright holder of the work. The copyright holder of the objects photographed, though, may have rights to any images made from their work.  For example, I would assume that Image:The story of life.jpg should be considered a derivative work, and the artist (or their heirs) would have a claim to it.  I'm assuming "freedom of panorama" doesn't apply inside a museum.  But, am not sure.   This brings a question I would have, is whether a reconstruction of a dinosaur is treated like a statue (and copyrighted) or treated the same as a living animal. --Rob (talk) 06:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Though I am open to the possibility there might be exceptions, I would generally expect that assembling skeletons from bones is a technical act and not a creative one. As such, I would generally argue that such skeletons are not eligible for copyright.  By contrast, a diorama or painting showing an artist's conception of what a dinosaur's world looked like probably is eligible for copyright.  Dragons flight (talk) 06:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Edited Screenshot of TV Program
Hello

I wish to upload an edited screenshot of a TV program to Wikipedia. Its composed of about FIVE or SIX separate screenshots which I stitched together as one image and made edits and modifications to make the image look more natural.

Which option do I choose in the upload page to upload the image? Need help with that.

Thanks

Krishvanth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishvanth (talk • contribs) 10:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Non-free television screenshot would do for the screenshots themselves. It's worth noting how you made the images on the image description page, and probably would help if you disclaimed any copyright in your modifications. Stifle (talk) 14:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks for your help! Krishvanth (talk) 10:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I need one more thing over here. Could anyone let me know how to fill up this stuff?
 * Non-free use rationale
 * Article=
 * Description=
 * Source=
 * Portion=
 * Low_resolution=
 * Purpose=
 * Replaceability=
 * other_information=
 * And under which heading do I fill in the fair use rationale detail?


 * Thanks


 * --Krishvanth (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just an example is enough. I'm not asking for the exact same thing etc. --Krishvanth (talk) 13:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok figured it out myself. Thanks anyway   --Krishvanth (talk) 13:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Uploading Images
I want to upload an image from an artist that has given me permission to upload them. What copyright should i use?

Thanks RumiRain —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumirain (talk • contribs) 01:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * permission to upload isn't enough you need a release under a free license such as the GFDL.Geni 04:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:COPYREQ for instructions on obtaining and forwarding license releases. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Irina Slutskaya Scunthorpe Problem.jpg
Cluestick required on the talk page. User:Ianmacm seems to believe that "replaceable" doesn't apply to their images. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Replied on the talk page. NFCC 1 may or may not be an issue, but I also see a problem with NFCC 8.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

copyright date
what is the copyrght date for wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.70.119 (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Varies from page to page. If you are asking in order to cite wikipedia see Special:Cite.Geni 16:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

How do I upload an image to my article?
I just got done submitting my first article!! I tried to be so careful to do everything right, however, I can't figure out how to add jpegs to my article. please help...thanks!Aussiedoglover (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You can just click the "upload file" button in the left bar to upload an image. Uploading images has additional help if you need it. Please note that because of Wikipedia's non-free content policy all images you upload will probably need to be created by you or be released under a free license by the copyright holder (see WP:COPYREQ if you hope to get permission).  Once you have uploaded an image, it can be included in your article by adding the code [[Image:IMAGENAME.jpg|CAPTION|thumb|right]] . Obviously you will need to replace "IMAGENAME" and "CAPTION" with the appropriate text.) You can see WP:IMAGE if you need more help with this, or ask back here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Use of an image
Hi all

I have just read the stub article about the British writer and historian Gerald Suster and note the request for an image. I have several hardcopy photographs in my possession, given to me by his widow (now also deceased), shortly after his death in 2001.

I believe that the images were created by her, but obviously cannot prove this. I am not aware that any of them have been used in any other context and do not believe that they have ever been published previously.

Quite simply, can I upload these photo's into the article or cant I ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjminogue (talk • contribs) 22:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As Mr. Suster is deceased, it's possible to use non-free photos of him in his article. However, they must have been previously published (see WP:NFCC item 4. Therefore, those photographs can't be used. Stifle (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the issue is whether the widow intended to transfer the copyright along with the physical images. I am not familiar with law on this topic, so I can't say. Can anyone else assist? Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Gyah. Most people don't know copyright law well enough to spell this out clearly for legal purposes. Odds are if she took them she had the copyright and intended you to be able to use them, whether she understood the copyrights behind it or not. The only potential pitfall I can see is if someone else took them, has a copyright on them, and she only had prints... in which case she wouldn't have had the copyrights in order to transfer them to you in the first place.
 * I think you could probably just presume she had the copyright and transferred it to you (assuming they look like normal photos and not super professional studio ones), and write it up as such, as that's your good faith belief. She anyone ever dispute it later they can alert us and we can take further actions then. DreamGuy (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Expired copyrights question
I have a book (published in the USA) that I'm not sure if it's copyrighted or not. It has no copyright notice; the only date in the book is that at the end of the foreword, 10 April 1964. There's no evidence (as far as I can see) that the copyright was renewed or that it was filed with the Library of Congress in the first place (it's not in the online catalogue of the Library of Congress). Another question: there's a similar situation with a similar type of book (different author) published in 1930: no copyright notice is claimed anywhere in the book, and it's not in the LOC's online catalogue. Is there a clear verdict? Nyttend (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * According to, both works would be in the public domain if they were published in the USA between 1923 to 1977 without a copyright notice, but wait for other opinions. Guy0307 (talk) 07:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The older one would definitely be in the public domain for being that old with no copyright notice. The newer one should be too, but I've seen court decisions do some odd things with more recent works... which for our purposes wouldn't matter since we make good faith decisions based upon the facts in front of us, and all indications are that it's public domain. If someone were to dispute it later we can reassess at that time. DreamGuy (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Smith Papyrus
I have some scanned images of the Joseph Smith Papyrus. They were scanned from a book 'by his own hand upon papyrus', written by Charles M Larson. I have searched the book thoroughly and there doesn't appear to be any copyright indicated for the pictures or credit for the photographer for that matter - probably taken by the author. I doubt the papyrus is copyright protected since they are a couple thousand years old. Can I upload these for free use? I have found similar pictures in wikimedia so I assume it is safe. Just want to check as mine are higher resolution and sharper focus. ThanksJspice9000 (talk) 23:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * what country are you in?Geni 13:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Couple thousands of years old? Err, not likely. If this is Joseph Smith, Jr.'s papyrus, it would have been in his hand, which would date to less than 200 years ago. It's the golden disc that it allegedly thousands of years old. The age of the papyrus would fall under public domain anyway, regardless of when it was photographed or who did it. Mere photographs of two dimensional objects like paper (assuming the thing is flat and not rolled up artistically like a scroll or something) do not get a new copyright, as that's mere technical copying and not artwork. DreamGuy (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use question, Image:JAKlang.jpg
Image:JAKlang.jpg was listed on August 8th at WP:CP as infringing this source. It had been tagged public domain. Although it is not in an article specifically about the subject, John Klang, he is a major point of discussion in the article which features it, Weston High School shooting. Klang is deceased, and he was awarded a medal for his actions during that incident. Thinking it appropriate, I've taken a stab at writing a fair use rationale for it, and I would appreciate feedback on whether or not this is appropriate and also on whether or not the image needs to be resized. I know album covers usually go 200 px. I don't know if there's a ballpark for other types of images. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just an opinion but if it is a non-free image should it only be used on an article named after the subject? (To illustrate the subject in question), I dont think you can just use a non-free image just for identification or decoration and the image is not discussed or directly related to the actual shooting, but you should get other opinions. MilborneOne (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. :) If it's inappropriate, of course, it should be gone. Given that the article isn't about him, I did have some doubts. This is so not my area. :) I guess I'll wait other feedback, and if others concur, I'll go ahead and delete it as the copyright violation it was. No reason to go through the invalid fair use process. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The title of an article should follow Naming_conventions and is not an issue for NFCC. A quick look shows that Mr. Klang is at the center of the Weston shooting article. A non free image can be used in multiple articles. To meet Non-free content criteria a non-free image "must be used in at least one article" but each use must be justified. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the image has now been nominated for deletion, here. I don't know that I'll participate in that conversation, as I don't have a strong idea here (or would not have brought it up here in the first place). But since basically there are now two conversations about its appropriateness, it seemed worth pointing out. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not seeing any reason to keep the thing. Fair Use has pretty high standards to qualify, and the only explanation here seems to be "Yeah, I know it's copyrighted, but I want to use it anyway." which of course doesn't cut it. DreamGuy (talk) 13:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What does cut it, in terms of fair use for dead people? There's another image at WP:CP (improperly tagged as an article), Image:Fuat-deniz.jpg. It seems to have been uploaded as pdself, but the tagger has labeled it as owned by a university. Link provided seems to bear that out. What should be done with images such as these? Are there specific things to look for in terms of fair use allowances for images of dead people? (Images have been taken away from CP, thank goodness, but I have to do something with it—either move it to WP:PUI or tag it for speedy or give it a fair use.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Bristol Temple Meads Engraving
I've found an image of Bristol Temple Meads railway station online at ingenious.org.uk. The image is on an engraving by John Cooke Bourne made in about 1843. Can we re-use it on this site to illustrate the BTM article? Are we allowed to remove the NMSI watermark before uploading? David Bailey (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * under UK law probably not.Geni 22:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have an alternative version of the same engraving now, but just wanted to ask... does UK law apply to Wikipedia? Isn't it hosted in and run from the US?  Surely US fair-use rules would apply, or even public domain... as the artist has been dead for over 100 years.  David Bailey (talk) 09:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * however you are not in the US so UK law appplies to you. You are running into the issue that UK law allows copyright on copies of public domain works.Geni 15:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Chemist William Hoskins and family ca. 1885.png
Why was this deleted, and how do I get it restored? I'm actively working on the article to which it will pertain: User:SMcCandlish/William Hoskins (inventor). Something that old clearly has no copyright issues. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 10:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Doesnt appear to have been deleted it is still at wikimedia commons as Image:Chemist William Hoskins and family ca 1885.png but note that it has the fullstop/period missing after ca (dont think you can have fullstop/periods in file names). MilborneOne (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Calander Pictures
If there are screenshots of a film in a promotional calander, can these images be uploaded and used under fair use? ~ Bella   Swan ? 15:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Potential yes if you can write a fair use jutification.Geni 16:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thanks. ~ Bella   Swan ? 16:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Judith - R Whitaker shot 68.jpg
I'm not sure what you're asking of me. I displayed (or thought I did), with the images, the permission I had received from Judith Durham's agent Graham Simpson to use the images on Wikipedia (please see string below, emphasis mine). If you will, I welcome you to let me know specifically what I am supposed to provide beyond what I have provided. Please excuse my ignorance, but help me get done what needs to get done.

Date Sent: 7/7/2008 1:26 AM From: <gsimpson@musicoast.com> To: "David Ramsey" <Dave.Ramsey@selu.edu> Subject: Re: Web site enquiry Attachments: Judith - R Whitaker shot 68.jpg, Judith 2001 Solo.jpg,

Dear David,

Thank you for your email, which was forwarded to Musicoast by the Webmaster at www.judithdurham.com.

'''I am attaching two JPG photographs of Judith Durham, one from 1968, the year '''The Seekers broke up, and a more recent 2000s photo of Judith performing '''solo - and this email confirms that I am giving Wikipedia to reproduce them without infringing any copyrights.

I have passed your comments on to Judith and she has asked me to send you her love and best wishes,

Yours truly,

Graham Simpson General Manager Musicoast Pty Ltd Record Production & Music Publishing P O Box 555 South Yarra Vic 3141  Australia Email:  gsimpson@musicoast.com Website: www.judithdurham.com

- Original Message - From: "David Ramsey" <Dave.Ramsey@selu.edu> To: <mail@judithdurham.com> Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 2:36 PM Subject: Web site enquiry

> > Dear Judith, > > Do you have a photo suitable for publication with the article about you in Wikipedia? > > I would be pleased to have it (electronic file, preferably JPG) together with a note from you that it can legally be posted on the Wikipedia article. > > You may also be interested to read the recent comment I posted recently on http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kuj1IC9kXt8. Additionally, although many artists have recorded \"A Perfect Day,\" I chose your interpretation to link to in the Wikipedia article on Carrie Jacobs-Bond (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrie_Jacobs-Bond). > > You are cool. > > David Ramsey, Ph.D. > \"Experienced Editor\" of Wikipedia > 11 White Drive > Hammond, Louisiana 70401-1025 > USA > (985) 542.6845 > Dave.Ramsey@selu.edu


 * The problem is that you did not obtain a release to use the image under a free license. Permission to use an image on Wikipedia alone is not sufficient - there must be a license release that allows reuse of the image (even for profit) and derivative works. Please follow the instructions at WP:COPYREQ to obtain a sufficient permission email. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

الحاضر البسيط
ما هي صيغة الحاضر البسيط؟ 2-ما هي استخدامات هذا الزمن؟ 3-ما هي دلائل هذا الزمن؟ 4-كيف نشكل سؤال أوننفي جملة؟ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.137.200.7 (talk) 07:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See the Arabic Wikipedia, or, thanks to Google translate:
 * اذهب الى ويكيبيديا العربية - CL — 07:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

NICKLE CHECKING STANDARD
WHAT IS JIS NICKLE STANDARD & HOW I CHECK NICKLE STANDARD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.58.178 (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ❌ - has been posted to Help desk as well. -- Admrb♉ltz (t • c • [ log]) 18:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Google Knol Autor just copy Wikipedia articles and put them under his own Copyright
Hello,

I dont knwo if this is the right site to report license abuse. A few Google Knol Autors just copy Wikipedia articles (per Example USA ) the Google Knol Autor Nguyen Thuy Hoang per Example. Google has integrated a button "Flag inappropriate content" i put them an my friends do so, but waiting a week, nothing has been changed... Google writes in their Knol Terms of Service "...Owner’s Licensing Options...Please also be aware that the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) is not currently deemed compatible with Creative Commons licenses, and that content licensed under GFDL terms therefore may not be available for reuse under a Creative Commons or other non-GFDL license..." -- Stefan 21:12, 20. August 2008 (CEST)


 * That's pretty funny. He's tweaked it just enough so that it doesn't match the wikipedia article 100%. I don't imagine it will last very long. You could raise the issue at Wikipedia_talk:Mirrors_and_forks. Megapixie (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

photograph of an artwork that I own
I have a carving that I have photographed myself. The carving is substantially 3-D and my choice of artistic composition in the photograph is significant. The purpose of the photograph is to illustrate the "Argillite" article, possibly for new "Argillite (Haida)" article. The original carving is new -- approx 2002 -- and the artist is known.

What say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbuchana (talk • contribs) 22:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Your photograph would be a derivative work - and not suitable for use on Wikipedia. Thought experiment - take a video camera into a movie theatre - what happens to the resulting video ? Megapixie (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * {edit conflict) If you have made a significant artistic contribution, then it would be classed as a derivative work. Unless the artist agrees, you will not be able to release the image with a free license. Fair use in Argillite may be possible if you argue that a carving is necessary to illustrate the article, and that a free image of a carving is impossible to obtain for the same reason your image is not freely licensed. Kevin (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

PD:Italy images
There is a continuing drive on Commons to delete images that used the PD:Italy tag, as it was considered unusable for Commons Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Italy with photos being moved to it.wiki. As the English language wikipedia also allows PD:Italy tags would it be acceptable to upload a picture like  (which uses Commons as a source) on en:Wiki using Italian Wikipedia as a source?Nigel Ish (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

how do i get a tag?
I published a picture to a page on wikipedia about my grandfather, and it was deleted by a moderator, due to missing tag. how do I get the tag from a photo thats published on antoher website? just write them and they can send it to me? what exactly is a tag? is it a little jpeg? thanks in advance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notsodutch (talk • contribs) 17:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The "tag" is just a piece of template wiki code that you can use to document the copyright status of the image. The important thing is really not so much the tag itself, but the information in it. You can also just write it in your own words on the image page. You need to document why the image is free for everybody to use. If the photo belongs to another website, you need to document that they have given free permission to use it. That means not just for us on Wikipedia, but everywhere else too. They can do that by either writing such a licensing declaration on their website, or by sending an e-mail, preferably to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia.org". It should say something like "We release image xyz for free use under the license cc-by-sa" (or "... GFDL"). Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, there's not much use restoring that image. Your grandfather does not satisfy wikipedia's notability policies, so Wikipedia cannot have an article on him You can instead add his article to Wikiobits if you'd like. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Valid copyright interpretation?
Is the copyright notice here valid? I thought copyright was for a much longer time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.140.20 (talk) 12:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It depends on the where the content was originally published and where it is reused. In the case of this image, it was originally published in the US, and Wikipedia is hosted in the US; so US law is applicable. PD-US-no-renewal reflects a peculiarity of US law. As it tag says, the image is not PD in some other places. —teb728 t c 06:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Postal stamps, copyrighted?
I find the images of the following postal stamps in some articles.
 * Image:Thomasstamp.jpg
 * Issued on December 2, 1964.
 * Launched by Indian Posts and Telegraphs Department, Value: 15 paise, Perforation: 14x13x½, and Watermark: None.


 * Image:St.thomas stamp.jpg
 * Issued on July 3, 1973.
 * Launched by Indian Posts and Telegraphs Department, Value:20 paise, Perforation: 13 and Watermark: None

Are these two postal stamps issued by a India Governement Department (in 1964 & 1973) copyrighted? Neduvelilmathew (talk) 07:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither of these stamps are PD because they are not more than 60 years old. See the Commons Public domain templates. Besides that, even if they were alleged as "Fair Use" stamps, they can only be used in an article about the stamp itself and not an article about the subject of the stamp. In that case they fail FU point #3, except perhaps for Image:St.thomas stamp.jpg used in St. Thomas Mount article but it does not have the correct licence and would need a FU rationale instead. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, correct me if I'm wrong here, but aren't stamps typically PD despite how old they are because they are produced by the government and paid for by taxes? That used to be a rule we followed. Did you not know that, or did the legal view on that change? DreamGuy (talk) 03:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not at all. While postage stamps are generally official government works, especially before postal deregulation, few countries put those works into the PD. Check out the commons PD licence page, the commons stamp PD templates and you will see how few country's stamps are in the Public Domain. India stamps are only PD after 60 years according to the template page but you may also want to read these two Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics/Archive 25 and Administrators' noticeboard/Archive59 discussions. The Fair use stamp images category also points out the proper usage of non-free stamps. ww2censor (talk) 04:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Indian postage stamps are under a Govt. of India copyright, and that persists for 60 years from the release date. Also, India Post explicitly prohibits any color reproduction of its images. And the stamps can't be used to illustrate the stamp's subject under a fair use claim. All these things have been discussed in detail in the past. --Ragib (talk) 04:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Rules of Acquisition - is the entire list a copyvio, or if sourced, fine?
During the recent Afd discussion declared their intention to delete the list - "Most of the votes above say this sourced. It is, but it is ripping those sources off. If this is kept, I intend to remove the list of rules as a copyvio." Myself and another editor questioned "How is quoting a line of text each from multiple episodes copyvio?"

Phirazo has repeatedly deleted the entire list, all of which has been sourced to original episodes or one of several books.

I would like some clarity as this editor seems determined to now delete sourced material. In particular is quoting the original sources acceptable? Should we leave out the Behr book rules as non-canon? etc. Any advice, preferably based is policy, appreciated as the editor cites WP:Copyvio and deletes everything. <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b<font color="#CC0000">oi 01:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The rules, individually and collectively, are principally the creative work of Ira Behr. As such he holds a copyright interest in such a list.  Copyright protected lists are routinely deleted when copied onto Wikipedia.  The only exception would be if you can justify a defense of fair use.  Fair use is governed by a balancing test consisting of:


 * the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
 * the nature of the copyrighted work;
 * the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
 * the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.


 * Though each point matters, I would say that the courts and Wikipedia have often chosen to give a heavy weight to commercial implications, when present. It appears to me that our publishing the list meaningfully detracts from the commercial value that the rightful copyright holder would have in publishing the list himself (i.e. through his book).  As such, I would generally say that fair use is not a suitable justification if one intends to publish the list in its entirety.  You are of course permitted to have an article discussing the list and provide limited excerpts from it.  Dragons flight (talk) 02:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that Phirazo is correct to delete the list of rules from the page since any use of copyrighted material that is likely to fail a legal Fair Use test is not allowed. In this case, the fact that a book exists listing all the rules means that Wikipedia's display of those rules in their entirety detracts from the publisher's ability to sell the book. In this way, the use fails point #2 of the non-free content criteria. In addition, printing all the rules is a violation of point #3, which demands that we use the only minimum amount of a non-free work in order to get across the point being made. Using a few rules to give the reader a general understanding is fine, but using all of them is unnecessary and therefore a copyvio. -- Hux (talk) 02:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your responses. I've now removed all the non-canon ones, specifically the ones put forth in Behr's book. The canon ones, to be more clear were all aired during the original episodes. In addition, the entire list can be seen in multiple online venues, for instance here and a quick Google search would seem to show hundreds of other sites carrying similar informtion. Given this information is the original canon acceptable within policy? <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b<font color="#CC0000">oi  19:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "I found it in other places on the Internet" is a lousy rationale - I could find lots of obvious copyright violation on the Internet. Memory Alpha is a copyright infringement lawsuit waiting to happen.  The only thing keeping them safe is public relations.  The distinction between canon and non-canon doesn't magically make verbatim copying fair use.  --Phirazo (talk) 01:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's get some uninvolved opinions please, your take on the situation is quite clear. <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b<font color="#CC0000">oi  02:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, Phirazo's assessment of the situation is accurate: the key issue is not canon versus non-canon, it's copyrighted versus not copyrighted. If I understand the situation correctly, all the rules appear in published works, which makes them copyrighted, which means we can only use them according to Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. The fact that plenty of sites on the internet make use of them illegally does not mean that we can do so as well. It means that all those sites are breaking the law and that's something that we need to avoid. -- Hux (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. For the many editors who look to re-adding is Non-free content criteria the best place to direct them? <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b<font color="#CC0000">oi  22:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The rules can be discussed, but listing them individually, whether canonical or not, is a clear copyright violation. DreamGuy (talk) 03:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we've moved beyond that. Now we're trying to find the best place to direct those who question the removal to avoid future issues - "For the many editors who look to re-adding is Non-free content criteria the best place to direct them?" <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b<font color="#CC0000">oi  22:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use?
I have heard two different things regarding this subject. Se here's my question. I redrew a raster image of a logo into a vector image of that same logo. Is the image that I redrew still need have a fair-use rationale? Or am I free to license it as I please? The original image is located here and my redraw is located here. Please notify me of your reply on my talk page. Thank you. -- p b r ok s 1 3 talk? 04:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The vector version would be a derivative work so it is non free and would need a fair-use rationale yes.Geni 10:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks! -- p b r ok s 1 3 talk? 12:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this defect resolved?
Image:DeGuignes_Pekin_livres.jpg The fair use rationale for this image has been questioned. Perhaps since the book was printed during the reign of Napoleon I, I should have just used a public domain template -- something like ? I added more words in the "Purpose" section. Is this what I should have done initially? If this is not what is required, it becomes obvious that I really don't understand well enough? --Tenmei (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don’t think this is a non-free image. If it were, we probably could not use it: Wikipedia strongly restricts the use of non-free content. By WP:NFCC, “Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic.” Simply illustrating an article does not qualify. And the patronage of Napoleon could be stated in text; it would be clear enough with no image. In any case the article has no critical commentary on the image, which would be required for a non-free image.
 * The books were published in 1808; so the copyright expired long ago. I recommend replacing the non-free book cover tag and the use rationale with PD-old. —teb728 t c 20:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  --Tenmei (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait, wait, wait... These books are old, but someone took the photograph. The photo in this case is of several three dimensional objects, so such a photo would include new artistic decisions on placement, angle and lighting... is this photo taken by the uploader? If so, he owns the copyright and can release it through GNU or whatever. If the photo is by someone else, that person owns the copyright. DreamGuy (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * On the basis of DreamGuy's analysis, I removed this image from the sole article in which it was posted. I also modified the information on the image description -- indicating that my reasoning was flawed when I uploaded the image.  It should be deleted, but I don't know what more I should do. --Tenmei (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I am suspicious of online references
Should Wikipedia delete audio files of songs that are more than 30 seconds, or 100% of the recording? Should Wikipedia delete articles that cite references that will lead readers to a site with illegal content?TLD GmbHph (talk) 04:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The answer to the second part is: NO you do not delete the article just because there is a citation to a bad site. A site with illegal content is probably not a reliable source, and if it is not a reliable source, the link to that site can be removed. (or if the link to the bad site is in the external links section, you can delete it under these guidelines WP:EL) If there are no reliable sources for the article, then you can follow the deletion procedures to get rid of an article that is probably not about a notable topic. --  The Red Pen of Doom  05:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the article should not be deleted, but the links MUST BE-- we do not link to copyright violations, whether they are otherwise reliable sources or not. DreamGuy (talk) 17:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For copyrighted audio, if the file is of the entire song then it should probably be deleted. If, on every article that the file is used, the length of the file is longer than it needs to be in order to illustrate the point being made then it probably should be deleted and replaced with a shorter version. If its length is appropriate in article A but too long for its use in article B, then it should be removed from article B but the file itself should not be deleted (a shorter version could be uploaded for use in article B). The 30 seconds thing is a rough rule of thumb but in and of itself it should not be considered an absolute. It depends on the context in which the work is being used.
 * For articles that have references pointing to sites that infringe copyright (e.g. YouTube), as TheRedPenOfDoom says, the article should not be deleted. Instead, just delete the reference or replace it with a better one. -- Hux (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Images' copyright
Is there any copyright at the all images in this page and this page?Aquitania (talk) 03:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * yes. Why wouldn't there be?Geni 03:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Because the images are so old they'd be in the public domain by now. DreamGuy (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

How about an images which are postcards, cut view (cross section), and portrait which unknown artist in this page and this page?Aquitania (talk) 04:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Has the potential to be very messy copyright wise. Unlikely to PD in the UK. In the US it would depend on when they were first published there and how.Geni 09:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Those links go to the same pages as above. Was that a mistake? DreamGuy (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No, that is not a mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.11.18 (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Callum keith rennie.jpg
This image is tagged as free, but it displays a (C)+web address I can't read at the top, half hidden in the hair of the subject. I'd like to know if it's free or not free, as it appears in a biography of living person. Thanks, Rosenknospe (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For whatever it may be worth, it looks like the text says "(C) belelie@livejournal.com" —teb728 t c 20:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

looking for specific event
I have been searching for Butler Field House in Indiana for articles in October 31, 1963 the Holiday on Ice show ther .. I cannot seem to locate anything on this do you have any suggestions

thanks tbrat2900@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.138.13 (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This page is for questions about copyright. See WP:RD for questions on other topics. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

But what if you don't know, and can't find out?
I would like to use the image at the bottom left of this website to illustrate a proposed article about Jane Winstone, a New Zealand pilot who was killed in her Spitfire in WW2. The photo is 70-ish years old, no-one knows who the photographer was, no-one knows who possesses the original print or neg (if they still exist) and no-one knows who supplied the image for use on that website. The website manager says that although their site is copyrighted, they don't claim copyright of the image and we are free to use it. Is that enough? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a regular here, and someone else might have better information. I would suggest, however, that if *they* don't know who took the photograph, then actually *they* don't have the right to use it themselves, let alone give permission for someone else to use it.  An analogy:  If you buy stolen property from a guy who bought it from a fence, in most jurisdictions that is insufficient for you to keep it, because it's still ultimately stolen property.  I'd let it go - just because they don't claim copyright doesn't mean copyright doesn't exist on the image, and therefore you should assume someone does have copyright until proven otherwise.  Best,  <span style="background:	#ADDFAD;color:yellow">Laughing Vulcan  11:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You could label it as a non-free image Article but it would need to meet the requirements of the Non-free content criteria and have a fair use rationale - probably under the grounds of no free equivalent available. MilborneOne (talk) 11:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * However, Non-free content criteria specifically states that other usage policies must also be complied with, citing Image Use Policy (IUP) as a specific example that must be complied with. IUP comes right out and says it:  "Always tag your image with one of the image copyright tags. When in doubt, do not upload copyrighted images."  (Emphasis mine.)  In this case Kaiwhakahaere doesn't know: a) Who the actual image copyright holder is (if any) - it isn't the website where it was found it from Kaiwhakahaere's own description, b) If it is actually a copyrighted image, or not, c) if the copyrighted site where he found it, obviously using it from elsewhere, has permission itself to use it or grant license right to it.  Seems like doubt to me, and therefore should not be uploaded, period, until and unless the image's copyright holder is understood (which IS a requrirement of using the template you cited, correct?)  (BUT, again, I could be wrong.)   <span style="background:	#ADDFAD;color:yellow">Laughing Vulcan  22:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, the bit you emphasised, says When in doubt, do not upload copyrighted images. Note it specifies copyrighted. We don't know that the image is copyrighted at all, despite all of my enquiries, and I'm not sure I need to assume it is, per your earlier statement "and therefore you should assume someone does have copyright until proven otherwise". No matter, its not a big deal, so I won't bother to upload it . Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that all images are copyrighted by default. If this image was published in New Zealand (which we aren't even certain of), copyright doesn't expire until 50 years after the death of the author. (See PD-NZ.) The uploader bears the burden of showing an image is not copyrighted, but all the evidence suggests that this one is. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Lou 1955 di Guido Ruzzier.jpg
Hello! I am Guido Ruzzier - caroguru@gmail.com - and I am the author of the photograph of Louis E. Sauer which is discussed in page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yvonnert#Image_copyright_problem_with_Image:Lou_1955_di_Guido_Ruzzier.jpg

Free publication of the photo was originally granted by me to the owner of the webpage http://www.arc1.uniroma1.it/saggio/Libri/Sauer/SauerIlaud.html

I am quite willing - being a very, very old friend of Louis' (the photo was taken in 1955) - to let anybody else freely use the image, with no restrictions, provided my name is mentioned as the author's.

Unfortunately, I have no idea how to get in touch with "Yvonnert" (who probably does not know how to reach me), but I'm sure you'll find a way to solve this small matter to everybody's satisfaction.

Best regards, Guido Ruzzier, Milano, Italy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.36.119.95 (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Handled at WP:EAR and User talk:Yvonnert. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Use of an Image for living musician
A relatively novice contributor to Wikipedia, I have permission, via email, to upload an image of rhythm and blues guitarist Henry McCullough by both the photographer and Henry's management. They have asked me because I am a registered user of Wikipedia and they are not. How do I satisfy Wikipedia's copyright standards for this upload? Kuan-shih Yin (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:COPYREQ --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

GFDL
Good morning, Copyright Gurus! Some content had been marked as copyvio on the Wessex Institute of Technology article. An edit war ensued, but that's tangential to this issue. WIT has apparently released their content under GFDL, but I'm not sure if that page is enough for us to reuse the content (no link to the license, the mention of Wikipedia in the page). Is WIT's content GFDL, or would use of such content still be a copyvio? -- Mark Chovain 21:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, since they're the presumably copyright holder, they don't have to follow every nuance of the GFDL on their own site, just to make it clear that their content is under the GFDL. That said, it is kind of lacking; exactly what content is licensed? are there any invariant sections, endorsements, disclaimers, or any of the other special sections covered by the GFDL? who exactly should be credited? --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Public Domain question
There is a picture of Abraham Lincoln I want to upload, and I know the image is in the public domain because of US copyright expiration policies. However, the website gives no indication of the source (although I know who took the photo), or if the image has been altered (although I know it has not been). However, this is the highest rez of the image I can find. Is this an image that is still safe to upload to wikipedia? Thanks. <font color="#006666">smooth0707 (talk) 14:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you find one of the lower-res images that has a source, show that it's the same image as the higher-res one, so that they have to be from the same original image? --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't had much luck finding a lower res via an internet source. <font color="#006666">smooth0707 (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Press Kit Images
I assume any images taken from a manufacturer press kit can be used in Wikipedia, right? A manufacturer releases a press kit specifically so the images within it can be used by anyone without having to worry about copyright violations. Is there a proper way to state that when using an image from a press kit? Alf rules (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The tag is Non-free promotional. You'll note that the image still has to meet non-free content criteria in order to be used in Wikipedia. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

antenna theory
which antennqa is used in mobile handsets —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.91.251.196 (talk) 06:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This page is for media copyright questions. You might get an answer at Reference desk/Science. —teb728 t c 06:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Image of William Longair
I've just found this image of former Manchester United player William Longair, who played for the club in 1895. I want to upload it to Wikipedia to use in the article I'm writing about him, but I'm not sure of its copyright status. Obviously the image was taken more than 70 years ago, which may have some bearing on it, but I'm not sure. Help please. – PeeJay 08:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the author probably didn't die 70 years ago. Pictures of early footballers are a problem in this respect.Geni 20:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * PD-US should do it, but the image can't be used on Commons. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

business proposal
please i would love to have an eassy on business proposal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelnaboh (talk • contribs) 01:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over two million articles, and thought that we were directly affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the online free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is a help desk for asking questions related to using the encyclopedia. Thus, we have no inside track on the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the left hand side of your screen. If that is not fruitful, we have a reference desk, divided into various subjects areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. Stifle (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you put a link of email this article or reference ?
Why don't you put a link of email this article or reference ? You should have this link to make more of your information. Please do it.

And as I told you before you should have a kind of notification to be checked by the main editors about the articles that are wrong as it is "vandalism" to delete complete articles. I deleted complete articles about my country which were wrong and I had problems (my ip exposed..) and called a vandal for doing it! --166.114.206.90 (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In general, you should be discussing these sorts of things at the help desk - this is the page for questions regarding copyright. As for the email button, I have submitted a feature request for you (see https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15325). This is something that a fair number of people ask about. I can't answer your question about vandalism because it appears that your IP address has changed since your last contributions. In general, you won't be accused of vandalism if you explain yourself on the talk page. (Click the "discussion" tab at the top of the page.) Articles are deleted not by blanking them but by listing them at WP:AFD. You may need to register an account to nominate an article for deletion. (Side benefit: hides your IP address!) Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There is the facility to place an "email this article" link on pages, but it is turned off for performance and anti-spam reasons. Most browsers have a feature to email a page to someone anyway. Stifle (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

using blocks of information.
how would I go about posting blocks of information on my own website and how would I cite that. thanks 70.41.143.1 (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Justin
 * See WP:FDL. The policy is laid out pretty clear. <font color="#006666">smooth0707 (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:REUSE is a better page to start out at. Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Painting's image copyright tags
What image copyright tags is use for painting with a copyright?Aquitania (talk) 03:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Non-free 2D art, assuming that the artist has not licensed the paining under a free license, and the copyright has not expired. Inasmuch as this is a non-free tag, a non-free use rationale is also required. —teb728 t c 06:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

When I want to upload the portrait, there is no Non-free 2D art for me to choose. How do I choose it to be an image copyright tag?Aquitania (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You might have to add it manually. Though if it's related to the image I'm thinking it is (Image:Lusitania at New York, 1907.jpg), it's likely to be deleted for various other reasons.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

expanding Amharic Wikipedia
Greetings, dear sir/madam I want to expand wikipedia in our local language(Amharic- Ethiopia) as my thesis MSc Degree partial fulfilment. Can you guide me on how to do it? Thnaks a lot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.55.95.61 (talk) 08:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The | Amharic Wikipedia already exists. Editing would be like here (English Wikipedia) Guy0307 (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Insulated Gate Bipolar Transistor equivalent circuit
I found a website that has an alternative equivalent circuit for IGBT's, and I would like to mention it on the talk page of the IGBT article, but I cannot find the original. Is it acceptable to upload a new image that I make to illustrate the same concept, as long as I state that I did not devise the idea? Thanks. Ilikefood (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mind, it's probably ok simply because it should be mentioned in the article, and i'm not taking credit for the idea. Ilikefood (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Out of copyright because contemporanous portrait painted >200 years ago
what is the appropriate tag? artist unknown. Kittybrewster <font color="0000FF">&#9742;  10:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * PD-art. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Image constantly removed
I work for the Animal Legal Defense Fund and am obviously by no means a Wikipedia expert. I cannot figure out how to appropriately tag our logo for use. Please instruct me on how I can upload our logo and display it on our article page without it being removed. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldf (talk • contribs) 20:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Use the non-free logo tag. Inasmuch as the image is non-free, it also needs a non-free use rationale; you can use a logo fur template for that. (You might want to upload it with a more descriptive name than Image:Logo jpeg.jpg.) —teb728 t c 20:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC

Tag for paintings 60 years photographed in Museums or scanned from fliers or textbooks.
I have photos taken from museums public exhibits, or scanned from museum's catalogs or very old textbooks from the 80's. These images wherever they were photograph or scanned are from paintings made by famous painters they are 70+ years old and they can be seen in Galleries and Museums. Say for instance "the jungle" by Cuban painter Wilfredo Lam, taken in Havana's Fine Art Museum, or the same image scanned from a Literature textbook of 6th junior high.

Thank you. --Lezumbalaberenjena (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Our position here is that there is generally no separate copyright on the photograph of the painting, so it doesn't really matter where you got the reproduction from (your own photograph, or a book or catalog et cetera). The only thing that matters is the copyright of the artist on his painting. Now, I don't know what the exact rules in Cuba are, but in most other countries copyright persists something like 70 years after the death of the artist (not 70 years after creation of the painting!), so that would make an image from Wilfredo Lam still copyrighted. If you want to use the image to support some analytical discussion of the artist's style, you could legitimately invoke fair use; in that case, tag it with Non-free 2D art. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the help, I will use the fair use in Lam's case or any other similar to that as suggested. Looking for more info about copyrights in Cuba after reading your comments I found this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:PD-Cuba, it is written in Spanish, but basically it says that under Cuban laws it is: 50 after the dead of the painter, 50 after the creation year of the work if it is anonymous, and 25 years after the dead of the photographer if it is a photo. I have another doubt if you please. If it is then more than that can I put it up without worries? --Lezumbalaberenjena (talk) 00:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad to be of help. Yes, if you have a painting older than the copyright times applicable to the country in question, you can upload it without any problems. In that case, you can tag it with PD-art, perhaps adding a brief note about what the relevant rule is and when the painter died. By the way, you may have noticed that the painting you quoted as an example, the Jungle by Lam, is already included in his article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Upload an image
How do you upload an image? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Im all that (talk • contribs) 14:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Read the guide at Uploading images. MilborneOne (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)