Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2008/July

Image:Worlds-End-Hingham.jpg
I selected "public domain" from the pull-down menu when I uploaded Image:Worlds-End-Hingham.jpg, but for some reason it did not stick and I got a complaint that the image was uploaded without copyright information. How do I get the menu back for editing the image properties? For avoidance of doubt, this is a photo I took myself and want to release to the public domain. Dr.frog (talk) 20:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You can edit the description page and add pd-self to the image. -- A dmrb♉ltz (t • c • [ log]) 21:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, done. But:  Why did it let me upload the image without a tag in the first place, even though I tried to select one from the drop-down menu?  And, when telling people they have to tag their images with copyright status, it would be a lot more helpful to point them at a mapping of of copyright statuses to tags instead of vice-versa; especially when the list you're pointing them at includes an overwhelming number of entries that are not valid or not applicable to the vast majority of cases.  I thought it would be easy to contribute my photo to Wikipedia; it's turned out to be hard.  :-(  Dr.frog (talk) 12:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not sure why it let you upload it with out the tag, but since you made this image yourself, you could have uploaded it to the Wikimedia Commons which only allows free-use images, and removes a lot of the license options. I have moved over your image, but if you have more images to contribute, I would suggest uploading them there. -- A dmrb♉ltz (t • c • [ log]) 04:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Question on the "You did this!" posters spread by the US in occupied Germany
During the occupation of Germany the U.S., tried to induce a collective guilt in the German population by for example spreading posters of Dachau concentration camp victims all over their occupation zone. The title was "YOU DID THIS!" or "You are Guilty of these Atrocities!" Here is an example of such a poster. Here is the same poster from a German Museum. I've seen the same poster on many different sites, so I presume it was the only type, or the most popular type. My question is, is there any chance of using the image on Wikipedia? for example in the Collective guilt or Psychological Operations (United States) or Denazification articles? Obviously the poster is the work of the U.S. army, and thus free, but perhaps the images it uses have a copyright owner making current use of it non-free? And how about the scans of it, does the VADS have copy right on it? Help please.--Stor stark7 Speak 18:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, this is a hard one. The museum itself does not have any rights to the image. Whether this is PD will depend on whether these photos were taken by US govt officials or whether they were taken by others and just pasted onto the poster by the US. (Also, it's possible that these photos, even if taken by the Nazi govt, were some of the photos whose copyrights were "seized" by the US govt.) Do you know anything about the photos in the poster? Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid not. all I know is the captions provided in the poster as translated by VADS (or Imperial War Museum) and that these posters were freely distributed. See this page from books.google. --Stor stark7 Speak 19:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've managed to find one of them, but it was fairly grueling work. Don't know if I have the stomach for trying to find the other six, if indeed they are available online. View of corpses lying in a row in Kaufering IV. [Photograph #00669]. Perhaps a "fair use" argument can be made for the poster? --Stor stark7 Speak 03:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Pre-1923 newspaper images and articles that are claimed to be under copyright
My public library offers access to page images of historical newspapers via several databases; for example, the Boston Globe 1872-1924 via Proquest. In addition to the text themselves, there is often badly-reproduced but still interesting graphics (e.g. advertising line art).

For example, a September 5, 1909 ad for Filene's notes that its "Tunnel Bargain Basement with its Automatic Price Reductions week by week--along with other extraordinary innovations--is the latest chapter in the story of the Filene Stores." An image of this ad would seem to be quite appropriate for the article on Filene's Basement.

But every result retrieved regardless of publication date carries a notice stating:


 * "Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission."

For articles dated earlier than 1923, can such a notice simply be ignored?

Surely a newspaper article in a U. S. newspaper, dated earlier than 1923, was published earlier than 1923, and therefore cannot be under copyright, and therefore there cannot be any "copyright owner" whose permission could be solicited? Dpbsmith (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct; for works published in the US, the published before 1923 rule has no exceptions. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * For works first published in the US. --NE2 20:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

However, databases like Proquest often impose restrictions on their users to prohibit the use of their public domain images/text elsewhere. This probably makes it only so you are forbidden to post the image, but it may not prevent Wikipedia from using it once you've uploaded. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Image and signature question.
Folks, I am trying to figure out whether I can upload the image of John Russo and his signature at this website for use in a WP infobox - would that qualify as fair use? I cannot find any explicit fair use policy on that website. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The signature will probably fall under fair use for an infobox, possibly even ineligible for copyright. The photo will not be eligible for fair use, and would have to be released under a free license by the copyright holder to be usable. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that -- I will upload the sig and see what happens. – ukexpat (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Free Image
Can anyone please find me a free good Naruto or Naruto: Shippuden, High School Musical or WWE image to use on a user page? --Gary0203 (talk) 08:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This page is to ask questions about images copyrights and usage, suggest you try Requested pictures. It may be difficult as you are only allowed to use free images on your user page. MilborneOne (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It ain't happening. The first two are copyrighted meida (anime, movie) and that even fan-made work are considered derivative work which is still copyright. SYSS Mouse (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Pictures required to publish in a travel guide
I am in the process of creating a travel guide to publish and need some images to overlay on top of my illustrations the (image) image.mapsGreater_london_outline_map_bw.png London Postal Districts Page & (image) image.HeathrowDiagram2006.png on the Heathrow page are ones I would like to use, what is my copyright situation, both would need futher adjustments to fit the work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.186.172.204 (talk) 08:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your links didn't work, so I'm assuming you're talking about this Greater London image and this Heathrow image. All you need to do is look at the licensing info on the image pages. The first image is released under the GFDL, so if you want to use it you must follow the terms of that license (full text here). The second image is in the public domain, so you are free to use/modify it however you like without restriction. -- Hux (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

question about using images from this website
It is from a Canadian Government website. Here is the copyright notice part of the page. Can we use images from this website?--Celtus (talk) 10:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No since comercial use is not allowed.Geni 10:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Music notation
Hi, I raised this issue above to someone else's issue, but didn't really get a response over whether it's possible or not, so I'm rephrasing this to a generality and asking again in another section if that's ok. Basically my question and reasoning is thus:

Are we allowed to have a portion of a song in musical notation in a article? Could we perhaps apply WP:SAMPLE to allow this if currently it isn't allowed? I know that's meant for sound recordings, but it does justify it's use on Wikipedia normally as, "Music samples can be a valuable addition to articles about bands, musical styles, and genres. They can illustrate the particular instruments or musical elements in a song in a way that a text description cannot. However, usage of such samples needs to comply with copyright law and Wikipedia's guidelines. The limitations on length and quality described here apply only to fair use samples; free content samples are not subject to these limitations.", and so doesn't explicitly say such samples have to be auditory, only non-text, and an image of musical notation is most certainly non-text. If a sample doesn't have to be audio, then obviously the image would still have to fit into the relevant time frame given in WP:SAMPLE. Could that be used for this purpose, or is musical notation for a portion of a song already allowed? I don't have anywhere specifically I'm trying to use this idea, but I was just curious really. Deamon138 (talk) 03:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Like all non-free content, in order to comply with Wikipedia’s non-free content criteria, music notation would have to be used in a way that contributed significantly to the article in a way that mere words could not. I can’t imagine a usage of music notation that would do that. —teb728 t c 22:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Example where music notation would convey significance much better than words: "Yesterday" (song): "The tonic key of the song is F major (although, since McCartney tuned his guitar down a whole step, he was playing the chords as if it were in G), where the song begins before veering off into the relative minor key of D minor. It is this frequent use of the minor, and the ii-V7 chord progression (Em and A7 chords in this case) leading into it, that gives the song its melancholy aura. The A7 chord is an example of a secondary dominant, specifically a V/vi chord. The G7 chord in the bridge is another secondary dominant, in this case a V/V chord, but rather than resolve it to the expected chord, as with the A7 to Dm in the verse, McCartney instead follows it with the IV chord, a Bb. This motion creates a descending chromatic line of C B Bb A to accompany the title lyric."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fefogomez (talk • contribs) 22:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah that example does look a bit mind boggling to the uninformed (me!). Deamon138 (talk) 23:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Using my WP:SAMPLE idea above, wouldn't a short 20 or 30 second (say) exert from a song be free anyway? Also from the same idea it says, "They can illustrate the particular instruments or musical elements in a song in a way that a text description cannot." Now surely musical notation can perhaps illustrate "the particular instruments or musical elements in a song." I know that when I've say seen articles on "the blues" on other encyclopaedias for instance, it has used muscial notation from some songs to illustrate the style of the blues. Would that not work using my example here? Deamon138 (talk) 22:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Speaking as a musician, I can see how there might be some use for small segments of copyrighted, musical notation, but in my opinion they'd pretty much be confined to articles (or sections) that were specifically about notation. In the example you gave above, I feel that notation is pretty redundant since an audio clip of the part of the song being described adds far more to the description than a written version ever could. In my opinion, including notation would be little more than decoration: those who can't read music wouldn't get anything from it while those who can already know what the description would look like in notation anyway. -- Hux (talk) 06:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Most musicians can work out the majority of chords in a music piece by ear, however only a handful can figure out the proper Voicing (music) of most chords. Fefogomez (talk) 08:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, but the purpose of the notation usage we're talking about is not to teach people chords/notes, it's simply to illustrate something that can be easily and more immediately understood by listening to a clip. If we're talking about a scenario where notation can illustrate it better than an audio clip can then I'm all for using notation. -- Hux (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable, thanks. So there's nothing essentially wrong with it policy-wise, it's just that it's usually best to provide the information in other ways, is that right? Deamon138 (talk) 06:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, imo. There's certainly no policy issue - both the notation and the audio fall under the same non-free content criteria as far as that goes. It's just a case of what works best from the reader's perspective. -- Hux (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

We seem to have a couple of users here who have differing opinions on whether music notation for a specific song could be useful to contribute to an article, any more than an audio clip would. Do we need to discuss some sort of new policy/guideline that would allow/disallow this kind of thing? Deamon138 (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It might be a useful discussion to have, i.e. when it's best to use notation and when it's best to use audio. I don't know that it would be a policy issue though. It feels to me like it should just be a guideline. It's kind of like a manual of style type of thing...but not! Any idea where we'd go to open that discussion and get some good input? -- Hux (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hux, this is still another bogglesome issue I have had in my mind. You can find myriad commercial song books with slightly different music notations for different well known artists like for example Elvis Presley or The Beatles. However every songbook claims to have the copyright for their own transcription of their songs. How can it be? Is there not like a "master" music sheet they all should reference as the copyright holder? Fefogomez (talk) 23:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think Hux here is probably right, a guideline makes more sense to discuss. Where do I/we go to discuss an idea for a new guideline? Deamon138 (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

when you give out plot points or talk about a book in excessive detail, aren't you violating copyright if not the very spirit of it?
I have recently started feeling that wikipedia has crossed the line in terms of performing an encyclopedic function. As Andrew Keen says in "The Cult of the Amutuer," the acquisition of knowledge isn't free and there needs to be a fine line to ensure we're not disintermediating the creative class and the original sources of this information.

The writers of books, or movies, documentaries, or anything else create copyrighted material that I believe they control the information as they see fit.

I can see a wikipedia article summarizing the content of a book, so that someone will read the wikipedia article and possibly decide to buy the book itself, much like how the radio plays a couple songs from each CD, so if the listener is introduced to the content he might be inclined to buy the whole CD. However, when you give away the whole CD, you completely take away the incentive for anyone to buy the product.

I believe wikipedia is in danger of doing the same thing when it gives away the entire detailed synopses of books, analyses and pretty much everything there is to know. I don't believe that wikipedia has the right to do that, even if it's not legal (although part of my question is if it is legal), and I believe it's doing a great disservice to the book itself. Of course, the same applies for a non-fiction book or documentary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphmorecritic (talk • contribs) 05:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The Writing About Fiction guideline considers this and does warn against it. Further discussion could take place on the Talk page over there or you could point people writing excessive plot summaries to that page. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 06:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with your main points here, but I don't agree that a detailed analysis of a book violates copyright. I think it's the very thing that keeps it from violating copyright. Also, I don't believe any of this takes away "the incentive for anyone to buy the product." If it's a book, only providing the whole text would take away that incentive. If you haven't read a book, then you know what you're getting into if you start reading the synopsis of it all the way to the bottom, and most people who would be inclined to buy said book wouldn't read the synopsis all the way to the bottom. Besides, I've listened to radio shows where they've devoted an hour to playing an entire classic album (if anything that made me more inclined to buy those albums). Deamon138 (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sphmorecritic: In US law, it is not an infringement of copyright to simply describe the plot of a novel (or film, or whatever), however detailed that description. Further, your belief that authors of creative works "control the information as they see fit" is also inconsistent with the law. Authors have a limited range of exclusive rights in US copyright law, the two main ones being the right of reproduction, and the right of distribution. Wikipedia plot summaries do not violate either of these rights, so from a legal perspective they're perfectly fine. -- Hux (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Isn't/wasn't there a case recently about J. K. Rowling suing some guy who made a Harry Potter encyclopaedia though? Would the result of that (if there has been one yet) have any bearing on this? Deamon138 (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

source and copyright status of self made photographs
Dear Madams and Sirs, last year I had uploaded two self made fotographs (Image:Multimeter-ShortTimeDuty.jpg and Image:AirCompressor-ShortTimeDuty.jpg) but then I received an automated notice by OrphanBot complaining for missing generic information, I suppose source and copyright status. They were self made fotos published with relinquishment of my copyright, so both source and copyright status were clear. Could somebody help me to understand, what's wrong with them? Thanks in advance --Bougainville (talk) 09:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The images were deleted nearly a year ago so rather than trying to get them undeleted I would suggest, as you have the originals, you can upload them again but make sure you add PD-self to declare them self-made in the public domain. MilborneOne (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer Sir. Do you think that some information could still remain in the database, avoiding the images to appear after one year if the images have the same names? Thank you for your answer in advance.--Bougainville (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have restored these photos and have added the appropriate licensing for you.  howcheng  {chat} 16:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Molecular bulldog face.png
Image:Molecular bulldog face.png was recreated from scratch, but is modelled after another one (Figure 1) published at proteinscience.org. Does anyone has an opinion whether it qualifies as PD (as currently tagged) or should be treated as a derivative work and hence copyright infringement? Thanks for your comments. --Eleassar my talk 10:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it appears that HIV-1 protease molecules all look pretty much the same, so the only real creative elements are the colors. However, if cyan, purple and red peptide strands have a standardized meaning in these sorts of diagrams, then you are home free. Otherwise, you might consider changing the colors, but even then it's a minor quibble. I think you're pretty much OK with this (assuming you didn't just trace the image in the PDF).  howcheng  {chat} 16:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

British museum copyright question
Are images of art whose author died 100+ years ago considered copyrighted for Wikipedia, even if there producer claims a copyright over them like at a British museum. In the UK, copies of public domain images are copyrighted but not so in the US. (Template:PD-art) Since Wikipedia is under the jurisdiction of US Florida, are these images public domain for use in Wikipedia.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 18:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, in the English Wikipedia, they are fair game. Be sure to mark them with Do not move to Commons and state why.  howcheng  {chat} 16:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

image:QN Faggot.jpg
I asked a question about this image before I uploaded it, and I got this response, so I went ahead and uploaded it under those auspices. But I'm just not sure about the "no original creative authorship" aspect. -- Irn (talk) 03:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right, PD-ineligible does not apply here. PD-font probably works, though.  howcheng  {chat} 16:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Do I need to ask the owner to specify a specific license?
I'm planning to use some of the images from this site on the American President Lines article. The owner states "You may use my images on another website. Then please credit them as being from the collection of Björn Larsson...", but I'm not sure if I need to request that the owner specifies a definite free use license for the images, or if that statement be enough? Danny252 (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that's not enough, because nowhere in that statement does he authorize derivative works -- it's equivalent to a CC-BY-ND license.  howcheng  {chat} 16:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Danny252 (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia copyring warnings
Hi,

I have a new message waiting for me telling that the copyring is questionable on a bunch of photos that I took and added to wikipedia. Coud someone help me please and explain what the issue is please?

Regards, Socheid (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you created an image yourself, you can choose what license to release them under. See Image_copyright_tags, which has a listing of acceptable licenses. If you don't want to release them under a free license, then they have to be deleted. --Tombomp (talk/contribs) 17:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

New picture in article (Pink Floyd pig)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pink_Floyd_Pig.jpg has been added to the Pink Floyd article by User:Smooth0707, identifying it as a promotional poster from the 1970s. But the image summary and license details seem to be saying it's an original photo taken by a contributor in 2007. If it's a copyrighted image being used under fair use rules, it's my understanding it shouldn't have been uploaded to WP Commons at all, but to WP directly. A wrinkle in the whole situation is that I'm not sure if the uploader is the same person who inserted it in the article, since the upload was done last year, and the insertion was done today. If it was done by a different person, he may have his facts wrong about it being a promotional poster, and the image summary might be accurate. Where should I go from here? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The image you linked is from Flickr, where it says it's a photo from a 2007 tour. It definitely looks like it too, I'm not sure where stuff about it being a promotional poster from the 1970s could have come from. However, the Flickr image says it's a CC-BY-NC image, which isn't usable on Wikipedia unfortunately. I'd say it should be deleted anyway but apparently when it was uploaded, it was CC-BY 2.0, so I don't know what to do. --Tombomp (talk/contribs) 18:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Commons:User:FlickrreviewR is a bot which validates the licensing, so we know it was correct when it was uploaded. It's fine to use.  howcheng  {chat} 20:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking again, I think I misunderstood the poster as being from the 1970s because it was inserted into a section of the article about that era. Also, looking at the WP image page, I think I see who uploaded it originally (this wasn't clear to me before because it's not a highlighted link, and the first name in the summary box is a bot that did a modification, which confused me), so I think I'll just notify the user that he may need to do something.  I'll notify the person who inserted it into the article, too.  Thanks for your help. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

HI!!!!!! Most respectfully i want to know how to add tag a image ,i know how to add a image but don,t know how to subscribe a tag to it   thanks, khattana —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khattana (talk • contribs) 22:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The intercontinental shift of Volcanic Rock
In recent years this has become an issue that many do not understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.218.170 (talk) 17:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How does it relate to Media copyright questions? Guy0307 (talk) 12:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Rationale on Image:El Cabrillo Courtyard.JPG
I am not sure whether the fair use rationale at Image:El Cabrillo Courtyard.JPG is acceptable. I tagged the image as, but perhaps I am wrong. --Eastmain (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate Eastman raising the question. The reason I believed fair use to be appropriate here is that the El Cabrillo's courtyard is the reason for its being designated a Registered Historic Place.  The courtyard is featured in a Princeton Univ. Press book on Spanish or Hollywood mission courtyard architecture.  However, the courtyard is an interior space, behind locked gates, and not accessible to the public.  However, the owner has listed the property on VacationRentals.com for leasing purposes, and the courtyard photograph is taken from the on-line advertisement for the property.  It is used here in an extremely low resolution which cannot impair the owner's rights in the photograph; indeed, the photograph is used in an ad to draw attention to the property itself, not to market the photograph. Anyway, the image greatly enhances the article, and so I hope that qualifies. Cbl62 (talk) 02:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You probably should move this out of the infobox because for identification purposes, an exterior shot will suffice. The courtyard picture will best work next to the text that describes it.  howcheng  {chat} 02:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done.Cbl62 (talk) 12:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Library of Congress
I uploaded Image:GeorgeEastman2.jpg, which I took from the Library of Congress which said there are no known license restrictions. What license should I use and how should I upload from the LOC in the future? -Phil5329 (talk) 05:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ Megapixie (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I have got permission from an author to use photo in wiki. What license I should you.
I would like to upload some photos from Junior World Orienteering Championships http://jwoc2007.orienteering.asn.au/Photo_Galleries/index.html I sent email to an author Rob Preston (http://www.jwoc2007.orienteering.asn.au/Media_Galleries/?ItemID=1827) and got the following answer:

"Yes you have my permission as long as I’m credited as photographer/author. I’d love to know when the page is ready.

Cheers

Rob"

Now, can I upload photos form jwoc2007 and What license I should use? Or I have to write one more email to the author and ask about license?

Dnikitin (talk) 10:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Should I forward his email to permissions@wikipedia.org? Or something else?

Dnikitin (talk) 10:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * See WP:COPYREQ. Megapixie (talk) 12:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyright information on a picture
I am not sure what to do about these picture, I want to use one of them on my article Bicycle Rodeo but im not sure how to do it and if I am allowed to use one of them. Here is the link to the pictures, Please send me a response on the talk page of bicycle rodeo.

Thanks Again Cgman919 (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The images don't say anything about the copyright status, so getting permission will require using WP:COPYREQ --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that DektopBSD logos (and images with this logos) should be deleted immediately
I used db-i3 on Image:Desktop bsd logo.png and Image:Desktop bsd screenshot.png, because DesktopBSD logos and artwork collection are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 License. Austria. Ref: http://desktopbsd.net/index.php?id=76 According to policy for non-free content and CSD I3, all images, including DesktopBSD screenshots with DesktopBSD logos or/and artwork will be deleted immediately Shooke (talk) 16:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The CC license applies to assets on that page. A screenshot is an entirely different matter; and it won't apply. --Blowdart | talk 17:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The DesktopBSD bubble in taskbar of screenshot is part of the art collection of desktopBSD, see http://desktopbsd.net/index.php?id=76 Shooke (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair use is still a valid usage, even for things licensed as non-commercial. Dragons flight (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * please, read CSD I3, non comercial license is not valid, official English Wikipedia policy Shooke (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is used under fair use, NOT the CC-NC license. As long as the fair use claim is appropriate, the terms of the license are irrelevant. Dragons flight (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, please note the text of I3: "... except where they have been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content... " The fair use rationale is exactly a claim that this complies with the standards for the use of non-free content.  Dragons flight (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * exactly what are those limited standards for the use of non-free content? Shooke (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See the criteria for the use of non-free content. Dragons flight (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I can see WP:NFC, thanks Shooke (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've restored the logo, since it quite clearly meets our non-free content criteria. --Carnildo (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Upload an image from Star Tribune newspaper
I have permission via email from a photographer from the star tribune for a photo. How can I send it to wikipedia to get permission to download it? --Npnunda (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Image:3hagel0209.jpg.
 * See WP:COPYREQ --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 02:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

User made images
I was thinking about creating my own images for a particular article, and came across WP:IUP. With regard to user generated images, it says, "When licensing an image it is best practice to multi-license under both GFDL and a Creative Commons license." I was wondering why this is so? Specifically, what are the advantage/disadvantages of using GFDL on its own vs Creative Commons on its own vs Both of them vs Neither of them (i.e. some other license)? Deamon138 (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The GFDL was designed for large documents and contains some clauses that could be cumbersome or don't really make sense when applied to a single photograph. The Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike license covers the same basic points as the GFDL but allows attribution "reasonable to the medium", which makes it much more reasonable to use a single photograph. It's suggested to multi-license because if an incompatibility between the GFDL text and CC-BY-SA images were ever found(it hasn't been tested in court), it would be necessary to remove all images licensed as CC-BY-SA only. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay first, thanks for the answer, but I don't follow your third point i.e. about using GFDL and CC-BY-SA together. You say that if the two were found to not be compatible, then images with just CC-BY-SA would be deleted. That doesn't make any sense to me. Deamon138 (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's text is licensed under the GFDL. You can't actually mix content licensed under (current versions of) the GFDL and CC-BY-SA: GFDL says that the combined work may only be licensed under the GFDL, CC-BY-SA that it may only be licensed under CC-BY-SA.  (Multi-licensing makes things more complicated, and I won't go into the somewhat tricky legal theory in detail, but the general consensus seems to be that combinations of multilicensed works may generally be licensed under any or all licenses that all the original works have in common.)  The policy that allows CC-BY-SA images to be used on Wikipedia rests on the somewhat debatable assertion that the display of images on Wikipedia pages constitutes mere aggregation (as defined in section 7 of the GNU Free Documentation License) rather than the creation of a combined work.  Or, more pragmatically, that even if it doesn't, no-one will sue us for it.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So Ilmari are you basically saying if/when I do upload my own images, you reckon I should only license them in GFDL? Deamon138 (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's up to you. If you're willing to give up more control over your images, you could release then as PD-self or cc-by-3.0 (Attribution as opposed to Attribution-ShareAlike). If you want to use the GFDL or Attribution-ShareAlike, my personal preference is to multilicense under both of them. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Google Maps directions.png
Could I upload a higher resolution screenshot? If yes, what would be the maximum?

Thanks :) Guy0307 (talk) 05:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that's probably good enough. The image is large enough for a reader to see the UI elements and branding, but small enough that it's not particularly useful for any other purposes.  howcheng  {chat} 16:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think you could really read well the writing (where it says Maps, Sat. and Terrain). Guy0307 (talk) 01:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But there's no real need for anyone to read that in the image, especially since Google Maps is one click away for anyone to see the real thing. All you have to say is that the buttons to choose what type of map to display are located in the upper right corner of the map. Since the user isn't actually controlling Google Maps, it doesn't particularly matter if they can see that "Map" is the rightmost button or not. The image as it is now is sufficient for our purposes.  howcheng  {chat} 17:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Uploading Picasaweb images to Wikipedia Copyright question
A new editor is uploading images from a Picasaweb gallery using a creative commons licence. The webpage does not indicate that licence is applicable. The subject has been raised on Copyright_problems but needs some clarification as to if this is permisable, or if the images are actually Imagevio's. Richard Harvey (talk) 22:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've written to this editor, and he says that he is registered on Picasaweb and has obtained permission of the artists to release the photos. He seems willing to follow through with the permissions process, but I'm unsure precisely how that works with images. While I'm sure it would be sufficient to have the photo's copyright holder post a statement on the website releasing the image by GFDL, would it alternatively also be appropriate to send a permissions letter as is done with text? Or are images handled differently? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Either a note on the website releasing it under a specific license, or a note per WP:COPYREQ works fine. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I will advise. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Question about image use
Image:Kunisada_Memorial.png

I have been using this image in the Wikipedia article Toyohara Kunichika. User "Diti" has challenged my use of the image because of copyright issues and the image has been removed from the article. I have scoured the web with every search engine I can think of and haven't a clue where I got it. I do know that the Chazen Museum at the University of Wisconsin owns a copy of it, but they do not reproduce it online. I really would like to use this. The Japanese copyright expired in 1950, as the artist died in 1900. Thank you for your consideration. --clhowson (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you give some details of the dispute you're referring to, preferably in the form of links to pages? --Carnildo (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * NB: I have just done an edit on the Toyohara Kunichika article page and that image is still there! Image:Kunisada_Memorial.png was uploaded to Wikimedia as PD, see:- Kunisada Memorialso any dispute as to copyright should be made there. If an image is on Wikimedia then its available for use on any Wikipedia. Richard Harvey (talk) 00:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The dispute is laid out at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#Images_scheduled_for_speedy_deletion. Thank you for any help you can give me. --clhowson (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * True - the image is back. I used a control reload.
 * The image is in Wikimedia Commons because I put it there.
 * The issue at hand is the fact that I am unable to provide the source.
 * If the image is removed from Wikimedia, it will quite possibly be removed from the entire web.

Best licensing attribution
The grandson of Vic Aldridge, whi I know personally, would like to use a rare family photograph of Vic with his son and Mordecai Brown on Vic's page, but he wants to keep as much legal control of the photo as possible, while letting Wikipedia use it. What's the best licensing attribution to use?-- Bedford Pray  05:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, his wishes and Wikipedia's mission are in conflict. Wikipedia's purpose is to offer freely usable content - including commercial use and derivative works - so that readers don't have to constantly seek permission to use text, images, and other media from the site. It does this by utilizing free licenses such as the GFDL and Creative Commons. Pretty much the only right retained by the copyright holder under those licenses is the right of attribution. If he's not comfortable with this then he's probably not going to want to use his photos here, unfortunately. -- Hux (talk) 09:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Image was published in 1911, but a different site claims it to have been in 1925
I've come across a pair of conflicting sources that use a similar image. The First claims to be published in 1912 - it is the back cover of the first timetable listed on this page. Under this, the picture would be free, as the copyright would have expired. The Second claims to be 1925 - yet if you look closely, the picture of the ship is identical to the first, even if it is in a different poster. This image wouldn't be free for use, being after 1923. If possible, though, I'd want to use this, due to higher quality and better resolution (when the raw image is accessed here

Is it possible that:


 * The latter source has the wrong date - the first seems to have to be definitely correct, since the brochure cover on the page states clearly it was published in 1912 - and should therefore be free for use?
 * The latter source reused the same image, but was published in 1925 - would the picture of the ship itself, being identical to one first published before 1923, therefore be free for use, if the rest of the image was not used?

Please ask me for clarification if I've been confusing! Danny252 (talk) 00:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The artist died in 1912 . So it seems likely it was published pre-1912. The fact that the artist has been dead for 70+ years means the image is effectively public domain PD-art. Megapixie (talk) 01:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help Danny252 (talk) 01:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Photo of prototype car from Wired
First time image uploader here… I'm looking to improve the Aptera Motors article with an image of their original prototype, seen here in a link from this page. The company is otherwise pretty secretive. Would it be fair use to include it in the infobox to illustrate the difference between the prototype and the production car? Should I use a reduced resolution version? Try to get in touch with Wired? Thanks. EdgeOfEpsilon (talk) 07:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not clear from the Wired article if they took the photos or if they are promotional photos taken by Apterra (or I've missed where it says). Contacting Wired to find out is fine as a first step. Then you would follow the directions at WP:COPYREQ. As for fair use, I don't think there is a good enough rationale, but it's possible there could be some reason. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 08:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Question about user activity
I've been on vandal patrol and noticed Stylegamer is adding several images (stills from movies, I suppose) to articles. Here's an example; Kandukondain Kandukondain, specifically the big image at the top of the article. Now, I'm thinking that isn't fair use, but wanted an expert opinion before I started bothering the user. Thanks! --JaGa (talk) 09:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * One fair use screenshot is reasonable, possibly a couple more if they're the subject of commentary. More than that is not reasonable. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 10:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've found a great resource for images - or have I?
This website would be a great place to get images from to use in biographical articles of female professional wrestlers; if I can use the images on it that is.

The question is, can I use them? Are they free-use? (For that matter, how can you tell?)

By the way, I don't know if this makes any difference, but as I understand it, the guy whose website it is took them all himself. --The Machine (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything about them being freely licensed. Check WP:COPYREQ if you want to try asking. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Self-made images, user names, and real names
If I upload photographs I've taken or images I've made, I am the author and the copyright holder. In filling out the licensing form, is it enough to give my Wikipedia user name, or must I specify my real name? Are all of the suggested free licenses compatible with a Wikipedia user account as copyright holder (i.e. does cc-by-sa still work)? Thanks. --Reuben (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, copyright can be attributed to a pseudonymous name. More information: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl101.html --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Reuben (talk) 01:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

image:NewDLR.jpg
I have no idea under which this image was uploaded to the internet. The orginal images are at these URL: Thanks,  Tyw7, formerly Troop350     (Talk) 13:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/2008/02/new-dlr-rolling-stock.html
 * http://bp3.blogger.com/_RZ_ujIXCINU/R7cx9thcdDI/AAAAAAAAAM4/A14o00WRONA/s1600-h/dlrnew.jpg
 * If you don't know, then we have to assume it's copyrighted. You need to ask the person whose blog it is for a licensing release (assuming they own the image). See WP:COPYREQ for help on this.  howcheng  {chat} 16:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How about the picture from the Transport for London website, which is under the United Kingdom government (http://developments.dlr.co.uk/enhancements/rollingstock/index.asp)? Is it under copyright laws?  Which license should I use?  -- Tyw7, formerly Troop350      (Talk) 11:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, we have to assume it's copyrighted and not usable, unless we have reason to believe otherwise. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Stale case at WP:CP, assistance requested
Hi. I've encountered an image situation while clearing out the backlog at WP:CP with which I could use some assistance. The image was tagged on May 22nd and is listed here. There has been no progress on investigating this matter since June 24th. Would somebody mind taking a look there and responding to the issues raised about Image:Upper Abkhazia village.jpg ? I'd be most grateful. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm presuming nobody here has input on this. Perhaps I'll take it to Possibly unfree images and see what people come up with there? It can't hang out forever, and no other admins seem to be wandering by to close it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * PUI probably best bet yes.Geni 22:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) I'll haul it over there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Using a figure from a Wikipedia Page - who do I need to contact?
I am currently writing a report on e-government in Belgium for the OECD (Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development).

I would like to use one figure on the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgium

Your copyright explanantion said to contact the author, but I cant figure out who this is. Please let me know urgently how to proceed!

Whilst we are an international organization / non-for-profit, our studies are published and sold.

Kind regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.51.65.37 (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you need to contact the author, they will usually be listed in the "File history" section on the image description page. You can click on any of the images to be taken to a page giving a full description of the file. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Which one is it? Guy0307 (talk) 10:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Photo question
I posted a photo that I took myself of a building for which I have a historical photo, to show what that building looks like today. There is a message on this photo that says something about it being deleted on July 6th. It can't violate any copyrights, I own the photo and it is unimaginable that anyone would object to it. Do I have to do something to keep it from being deleted? Or does someone have to challenge it to get it deleted?

Springfieldohio (talk) 03:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Megapixie (talk) 04:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You need to release it under a free licence. See Image copyright tags/Free licenses for a list of them. GFDL and CC are the main ones. If you want to use use GFDL, use this template: GFDL-self, if you want to use CC use this template cc-by-sa-3.0. Guy0307 (talk) 10:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Free vs Quality
Which is preferred by the majority of Wikipedians. Free images or fair use images? I think that fair use images have no place here but needed to ask.

Linuxguymarshall (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If there is a free equivalent, the free version is always preferred. That's pretty much the extent of how you can really get answered here; free vs fair use is a huge topic that's not really worth rehashing. --Tombomp (talk/contribs) 18:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

International government logo
Image:Metro martin carrera.gif is listed at WP:CP as a potential copyright violation. It is a logo for a railway station in Mexico, used at Metro Martín Carrera. It is asserted under fair use provisions for logos. I can't tell from reading Logos if this use necessarily falls within fair use provisions, and (again) thought to follow up with editors more experienced in this area. The Metro seems to be under the provenance of the Mexican government. The universal metro logo, on commons, is currently by the same editor. I see at Logos that some Logos of the US Government are protected. Is there a clear rule on this kind of thing? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If it meets the criteria of fair use, then the restrictions on the distribution can be disregarded. I would suggest checking that it meets WP:NFCC, ending the Copyright Problems process if it does, and if it's still disputed, take it through WP:FUR --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for you help again. I will do. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hilton Signature Logo
I uploaded Image:Hilton_Signaturelogo.GIF and I couldn't figure if it proper. I edited (from http://www.planitonline.com/contact.cfm?client_id=hiltr&CFID=9948908&CFTOKEN=90456118) the image to focus on the Hilton Signature. If I doesn't fit how can I remove it?

--B64 (talk) 03:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sheet Music
This is still a challenging issue I have not been able to solve. You can find myriad commercial song books with slightly different music notations for different well known artists' songs/compositions, for example Elvis Presley or The Beatles. However every songbook claims to have the copyright for their own transcription of their songs. How can it be? Is there not like a "master" music sheet they all should reference as the copyright holder?

I assume, if I make my own original transcription, then I, being the copyright holder, would be exempt from the fair use policy in order to comment on a pertinent wiki article. Comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fefogomez (talk • contribs) 05:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's largely because these songbooks require some creativity in order to reduce the music to just guitar, or just piano, or (etc). That is normally copyrightable. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 13:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible copyright violations using quotes in sources
Following a discussion here, I would be interested to know if long quotes from copyrighted sources (in this case the BBC's news site, copyright notice here) should be considered copyright violations or not.

Cheers and thanks, pedrito  - talk  - 08.07.2008 09:21


 * Comment: If you burn some time and follow the talk page diffs it becomes clear that the "long quotes" referred to here by Pedrito are actually two one liners (one from each BBC article) added to resolve Pedrito's concern/claim that the initial text+ref without the added quote were to be deleted as "well poisoning". Insisting that the clarification is a COPYVIO and edit-warring to delete it concenrs me that, in the future, others might make the same claim as Pedrito has.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  09:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's beyond the point. What I'm asking here is if this is a WP:COPYVIO. Cheers, pedrito  - talk  - 08.07.2008 09:50
 * Looking at the article, Gaza beach blast, they are one sentence long, and clearly identified as a quotation. This is not at all a copyvio. It also appears that this is an example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, though I'll assume good faith for now. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Original Sheet Music from copyrighted Songs
The wiki guidelines say:

—''for images of sheet music, whether scanned or recreated, but not sheet music covers. ''

What license should I use for an originally created sheet music piece? Fefogomez (talk) 11:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * First off, determine if the song is in copyright. If not, you may use whatever licence you feel like. If it is, then it would really depend on length, complexity (there's a difference between 5 bars of fully-orchestrated music and just outlining a bit of the melody) and so on. A safe bet might be article name. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 13:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you mean sheet music for music that you yourself have written? If so, then see the available licenses at WP:ICT.  howcheng  {chat} 04:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Youtube, micronations and copyright
I have found 3 videos on Youtube that I think will benefit articles on micronations. They are all news reports on micronations but I am not sure if I can use them on Wikipedia.

The 3 videos are:


 * 
 * 
 * 

Can I use them?

Thanks - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 13:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"Can I Use them?" - by that I mean can I upload them or only links to the videos acceptable? Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 14:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Based your description, only links is allowed. However, posting that on youtube might constitute a violation of copyright themselves and it might be deleted in any moment. I'd suggest you write the content in the article, with appropriate citation. SYSS Mouse (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 17:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Joan Of Arc
Bold textItalic textwhy was joan of arc a martyr? What was her belief that made the English burn her?Bold textItalic text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.60.184 (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can’t find the answer at Joan of Arc, you can ask at Reference desk/Humanities. This page is for media copyright questions. —teb728 t c 19:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

How do we determine if photos of copyright signage, or balloons, are ok on Wikipedia?
Freedom of panorama in UK only applies to permanently installed 3D objects, as I understand, and is even more restricive in other countries, such as the US. So, can any of you help me out with an answer to this question:

Wikipedia talk:Logos

I think I asked it in a place where there is not as much expertise as here.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Answered on user talk page.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 16:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Port Logo
I'm working on an article about my local port, and I was wondering what steps I should take to use their logo in the article. It could be possible to obtain permission, but how do I show that permission in the uploaded file? Cleverlycreated (talk) 16:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There are three possibilities. If you provide more information, we may be able to provide additional assistance:
 * The logo is public domain because the copyright has expired or it's too simple to be eligible for copyright. Then you can use it without asking.
 * The use of the logo meets the criteria for using it under fair use. Then you can use it without asking.
 * You get permission to use it, as described in WP:COPYREQ. It isn't enough to just get permission to use it on Wikipedia.
 * --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparel Arts illustrations
In the 1930s there was a great magazine called Apparel Arts. It was produced by Esquire, then discontinued near the end of the 30s, and there have been no reprints since. The pictures in the articles are widely available on the internet on specialist sites and in many books on period fashion and style. They remain the best and most useful illustration for many articles on Wikipedia. Given their wide use and that they are already all available on the internet, may I put up some illustrations (not whole articles or any of the accompanying text) as 'fair use'? Kan8eDie (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If copyright wasn't renewed, then it's public domain now. See PD-Pre1964 --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think it is safe to say it was not renewed. Kan8eDie (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops. It actually was.  I suppose we shall have to just wait... Kan8eDie (talk) 22:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Photo of O'Neil De Noux
I took a photo of O'Neil De Noux with is obvious permission and posted it on the article I wrote for Wikipedia. I found the photo has been deleted because I failed to put some sort of tag with the photo. I took the photo. I own the negative. How do I put it on O'Neil De Noux's Wikipedia page?

LydiaDx —Preceding unsigned comment added by LydiaDx (talk • contribs) 00:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you own the copyright(and it sounds like you do), then choose a copyright tag from WP:ICTIC and put it on the description page for the image. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 01:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Xbox.gif
Something tells me this can't be licensed by the author as GFDL. – xeno cidic ( talk ) 01:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct. I tagged it for deletion. -- Hux (talk) 04:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * User claims animation is self-made. Guy0307 (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If he made it himself, then kudos, because it's a damn-near exact copy of what I see on my TV when I turn on my 360. Derivative work in that case. – xeno <font color="#DCDCDC">cidic ( talk ) 11:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Old photo of a person through family
I am editing an article about a deceased relaative who was a politician and I would like to upload a photo of his, made available by his surviving children. The photo was taken in 1940s by a photographer that is impossible to identify and by all acounts must be dead for more than 40 years. I don't find anything in the copyright descriptions on Wikipedia that can describe this situation accurately. What should I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirfakhr (talk • contribs) 06:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume this is in the United States? Would PD-Pre1964 apply? --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 08:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There's also a chance that PD-Pre1978 applies: the image was never copyrighted to begin with. --Carnildo (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Bob Oksner Image
The image of Bob Oksner was taken with my camera and is my personal property. Why did you remove it from his bio? I filled out all the info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperonb (talk • contribs) 13:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you add a licence that Wikipedia permits? Have a look here for a list of them. Guy0307 (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

geek
What is a geek? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.155.15 (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To look up the article on “Geek” type geek in the search box and click Go. To look up a word with no Wikipedia article, type the word in the search box at Wiktionary. If that doesn’t work, try asking at Reference desk. —teb728 t c 19:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Watermarks on pre-1923 U.S. published images

 * Image:DanceCardCoverUSPresidentialCandidatesGroverClevelandEtc1884.jpg from  along with Image:PostcardTheodoreRooseveltSpeechAtTheAlamo.jpg from  with the exact same potential problem: Both images have "VPCTX" as a "watermark" on them. User:Peter Kaminski alerted me that this might be a copyright problem. I have no idea. (He mentioned Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., maybe that's helpful.) In the past, I've uploaded one or two images with an eBay watermark in the lower right-hand corner, and I can go find those and crop or delete them if I can get a copyright answer here. I don't normally upload images with watermarks for aesthetic reasons, but these seem to fill a need, so I'm inclined to keep them unless I can't. If the eBay watermark would be treated differently from this one, please advise. Noroton (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Watermarks are disallowed in user-created images (last paragraph in that section), and discouraged but not a deal-breaker in images from other sources. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, these weren't user-created. I have nothing to do with that eBay seller. Noroton (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

SkyHook JHL-40
Can I use one of the images at to illustrate the SkyHook JHL-40 article? The aircraft has not yet been built, so the only available pictures are the artists concepts released on news articles and on the SkyHook website. If so, under what Licensing terms would I list it on the upload page? Thanks. <font style="color:darkorange;">BradV  19:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything in the page that would allow permission to use them. You can try WP:COPYREQ. If that doesn't work, you may be able to use them under fair use if they meet WP:NFCC --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the Boeing website permission is given to news media only. I've emailed them to see if they will release something under the GFDL. <font style="color:darkorange;">BradV  20:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Third Reich propaganda leaflet
Could someone knowledgeable about German copyrights take a look at this leaflet and say whether it is the type of work considered an Amtliches Werk and therefore free from copyright? Can we be certain that it was actually a government work in the first place? --Rlandmann (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * One of the problem is exactly WHAT it is saying? (I cannot read German.) SYSS Mouse (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It's an extract from the speech Hitler gave to the Reichstag on the day of the Remilitarization of the Rhineland (7 March 1936). The leaflet asks people to vote for him in an upcoming plebiscite to mandate his actions. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As no-one can claim copyright over it, I think you could do whatever you want with it, however as it is not really your work it would be better if you released it as public domain. Guy0307 (talk) 12:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What leads you to conclude that no-one can claim copyright over it? --Rlandmann (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * He means there is no legal successor of copyright after the Nazi.SYSS Mouse (talk) 02:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

From what you say, it is the text of the leaflet that matters.


 * The text is most likely treated as a derivative work from the speech, which is made by Hitler. Since he was the Fuhrer already, this constitutes as the work of the government of Germany (specifically, National Socialist German Workers Party), as the speech is made from the official position.


 * However, there might be other legal implication concerning Nazi propaganda, other than copyright, to use the image. SYSS Mouse (talk) 02:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there any chance the current German Government is the legal copyright holder of the work? If not, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be in public domain, but of course I could be wrong. Guy0307 (talk) 06:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There are several elements here. The extract from the speech is actually exempt from German copyright (as a speech given in the Reichstag). It's actually the rest of the leaflet that I'm concerned about, and most particularly, the logo towards the bottom right.


 * The problem is that I'm not sure who owned that logo and the overall leaflet design. The original uploader believes that it was a work of the then-government, which I think is a reasonable assumption (but an assumption nonetheless).


 * IF this assumption is correct, then the leaflet may be free of copyright IF it qualifies as an Amtliches Werk ("Official Work"). To restate my question: would a leaflet like this qualify as such a work? --Rlandmann (talk) 07:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To answer that, text like "Therefore, on March 29, Hitler is [the] correct [choice]" is not copyrightable (no creative element), as is the typeface. Overall design alone is not sufficient for copyright. For the logo, most likyle form the government. (Yes, you need professional judgement here). SYSS Mouse (talk) 13:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The Deutschlandfahrt was organised by Goebbels, which makes it a logo for a Nazi-government organised rally. Hence, no copyright. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 09:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Care to explain? SYSS Mouse (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Undoubtedly this is an Amtliches Werk but if you are now only worrying about the logo I know that all the Zeppelin flights used several different handstamps on the envelopes and postcards carried. These handstamps were all productions of the Reichspost, so there is no copyright issue. Unfortunately I don't have either a Michel or Sieger specialist Zeppelin catalogue, so I can't see if this particular handstamp is illustrated there, but it is similar to many others I have seen over the years, all of which are post office productions therefore Template:PD-GermanGov is the most appropriate licence, though there is a specific template for Third Reich stamps Template:PD-German Empire stamps which, I presume, covers all post office work. While not a postage stamp this "logo" is essentially a handstamp. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 14:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Manual copyright searches - how do you apply results?
There is a copyright depository near where I live that has most renewal files. As far as I know, the years before the 1980's are not online so can only be searched manually. Obviously it would benefit Wiki Commons for someone to take the time and add some more useful images.

I have studied copyright law and have a lot of experience in it. I know how to use these references fairly well. If I do my own search for renewals and find there wasn't one filed, the image, for certain years, would be public domain. So how do I go about putting that information on the image description and license page? Do I need any hardcopies of anything (the only thing available would be photocopied pages)? What does Wiki need? Thanks for any suggestions. Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you just say so on the image description page. I haven't seen any policy or procedure that requires more than that. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 07:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, fine. But I would suggest that someone create an official tag for this to avoid future abuse and for easier 3rd person verifiability - for instance: add (required or suggested) fill-ins like I think those would pretty much eliminate any sloppy claims of public domain material, since anyone else could go online or call the library listed to confirm most of this. It would also help to remove any claims of copyright infringement by showing a complete and good faith effort to require accuracy.
 * Search type: manual or online;
 * Search date
 * Search done by: self, other person, or copyright office (you can pay them to do searches for you)
 * If online - provide URL
 * If-manual - provide
 * Library name
 * book title
 * version
 * page number
 * card catalog number
 * date of original copyright, if any;
 * name of original copyright holder, if known.

I read on Wiki that studies showed only 15% - 7% of books and other publications before 1978 were renewed. The Commons could be improved greatly by people with the desire to do some research. In fact, a "how to do a copyright search" page, and "where," would be useful and might get some people motivated.

As for removing "searched" material from the Commons I think it should be done carefully by giving the uploader a chance to fill in any missing blanks. Nor would I give every administrator the authority to handle those deletions since searches take a lot of time and shouldn't allow for abuse by inexperienced admins. Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Here are some examples of searches that I have done.
 * Image:Electronics Illustrated Mar 1961.jpg
 * Image:Electronics_World_Sep_1959.jpg
 * Image:Radio News Nov 1930.jpg
 * Image:Homebrew Computer Club Sep1976.png
 * Image:Bill Gates Letter to Hobbyists.jpg
 * Image:Time-magazine-cover-alexander-meiklejohn.jpg
 * Image:Harold vanderbilt time.jpg
 * SWTPC6800 (talk) 23:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

These are really good examples of describing self-searched online items. I like the way they not only describe the results of the search and where they were done, but also an intro giving the basic copyright rules you were going by. Thanks for showing these and doing all that searching. That Bill Gates letter alone was amazing! Only a little over 30 years ago and it reads like ancient history in our dot-com generation.Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Private place
Mai I upload photo taken from private place. Of course, there may be own work or whichelse is CLEARLY marked under free license. RushdimIDlike (talk) 07:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Depends what country you are in and what the photo is of.Geni 12:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

copyright holder
May I upload a fair-use images by marking who copyright holder is, for example, "The work's Copyright holder is XXXXXX ".RushdimIDlike (talk) 07:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, free content contain non-free copyright or that have been infingement will be accepted by wikipedia?
 * Wikipedia has a fair-use policy, and your image might fail it. What is it? Guy0307 (talk) 10:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

paul herzel,animal sculptor
is he well known as artist?who is he? my adress in france  claudemardon@gmail.com      thanks for help  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.197.142.190 (talk) 01:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * -- Hux (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Local Authority archive material
Where I live the local councils have a massive archive of photographic material. They publish low res images on their website, but, in order to finance the scheme, which otherwise comes from the public purse, they charge for full size images and therefore retain copyright.

Since I believe they would want their material to be disseminated for the pubic benefit I would like to ask if I can incorporate the low res images on the pages I write on local history in such a way that the full res ones have to be got from them.

I would add that the dynamic URL system they use means that links to them very quickly become unuseable.

Is there a copyright template that I can offer to them that would suit the purpose? Chevin (talk) 10:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, not unless it is legally in the public domain. You may wish to pursue requesting copyright permission, but unless the copyright holder (in this case, the local council) is willing to license the image to us under the terms of the GFDL or another free license, we cannot use it. --B (talk) 13:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's fine. Are there any instances where someone has released the low res image for use, but not the original full resolution version?Chevin (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This is done for music by Magnatune (though it picked a 'non-commercial' license which is not suitable for Wikipedia.) I would not be surprised if someone does this for low resolution photographs. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen a few sports photographers here and there that release low-res photos under the GFDL or a CC license, while retaining full copyright (and thus the ability to sell) their higher resolution versions. --B (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

DVD documentary screenshots
I've just uploaded a screenshot from a DVD documentary (one of those "making-of" ones which come with feature films). I tried choosing an appropriate license for the picture but the multiple-choice license chooser thing didn't seem to cover such things. What's an appropriate license for such things? Totnesmartin (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Non-free video screenshot --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ah, cheers! Totnesmartin (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Picture of a product
Can I post a picture of a product, even if it is not the original manufacturer's photo? The picture can be found here: http://www.planet-groove.com/roland/images/jv-1080.jpg

Giltramirez (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For a product that that, we only have to make sure that the photographer released their work into the public domain or a free license. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 03:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Image Usage Confusion
New user here. Rather confused by the maze of image guidelines. Uploaded an image to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Milagro_Vargas.gif and received a notification on my talk page with this in it: "If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged."

I obtained the photo through Google Images on a website called Americancomposers.org. No copyright information posted on their website. Should I remove the photo? Or, should I attempt to contact the subject of the photo for permission to use?

And, to clarify, what qualifies as a free image? Are the only images that are free ones I have taken myself or ones that were taken over 70 years ago?

Sorry, bear with me. I'll get the hang of this thing yet. --CercareVerita (talk) 03:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it should be removed unless new information comes up. We have to assume a work is copyrighted unless found otherwise. If you want to ask for permission, see WP:COPYREQ.
 * Free images are either under a free license or in the public domain. Public domain isn't 70 years ago, there are rules that vary from country to country that could make it less or more. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 03:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Logos of World Championships
I want to upload several logos of orienteering championships in order to use in World Orienteering Championships article. What license I have to use? just or not?

Dnikitin (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Assuming the logos are copyrighted, non-free logo would be the copyright tag to use. Each such non-free image must also have a rationale for each use explaining why the use conforms to Wikipedia’s restrictive non-free content criteria. I would guess, however, that what you describe might not conform to those criteria. In particular, by WP:NFCC the use would have to significantly increase readers’ understanding of the topic in a way that mere words would not. And by WP:NFCC, multiple items of non-free content can not be used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. —teb728 t c 20:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Using diagrams, drawings from peer-reviewd articles
I would like to include a drawing from a peer-reviewed article in a page I'm making. Would this be appropriate? If it is appropriate how would I tag it? Is it dependant upon the journal in which it was published? The author? What about diagrams in peer-reviewed journals? Morri7 (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Very unlikely to be free. In many cases the journal will hold the rights otherwise the author. Some open acess jounrals are under a free license but know which ones is quite a trick.Geni 21:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Correct license for a copyrighted image
Image:2007 10 girasole1.jpg was uploaded from http://curbed.com/tags/the-girasole Curbed asserts ownership of all photos on their site unless otherwise noted, but permits "online only" use provided a hyperlinked credit is made to them. Considering that first requirement, I really have no idea what free license this would be under, and suspect it doesn't actually fall under one, but I'm not really sure (the website certainly doesn't specify a license ). It may be worth noting the uploading user has had some trouble with copyrights. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We would consider online use only to be non free (even if some imagainative use of RFC 1149 might make it more free than the person releaseing it might expect).Geni 23:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

International Organizations Copyright?
Hello...I'm looking for information about organizations such as NATO, or the UN, or other international organizations copyright information...where is it? Is there such a list? I'm specifically interested in the copyright of images from the Non-Aligned Movement, which has a website here with images from the formation of the NAM. If these images were taken in Yugoslavia, which no longer exists, can we use them here? Thanks! Hires an editor (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Copyright will normally be the law that applies in the country the photo was taken in. The conference was in Belgrade, wasn't it?  See Serbia's entry in these articles:


 * List of countries' copyright length
 * Serbian copyright law
 * Non-U.S. copyrights
 * Hope that helps. For historically significant events where you can't get the photographer to grant a free license, or get a free alternative, see non-free content policy and guideline.  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So regardless of which international organization we're dealing with, it depends on the country where the picture was taken? What if the organization itself took a photo for the organization's purposes? (In this case, for documentary purposes). Do we have a list of copyright for, for example, NATO, or the UN, or others? Hires an editor (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is a list. International organisations don't set copyright law, individual countries do.  They may choose to license their works liberally, but this is unusual (I know of one that is sufficiently liberal to be free content: the Space Telescope Science Institute.)  If they do, you should find the license, or a public domain declaration, near the photograph perhaps like this.  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Premier League Fixtures for 2008-09 Season
The Premier League grants licences third parties to reproduce fixture list data through the company Football DataCo. They claim that right through a legal precedent in English law set in 1959 against Littlewoods Pools, but the European Court of Justice ruled that the Premier League and Football League cannot demand payment from media and pools companies for the publication of fixture lists and match information, as their database is "created" rather than "collected", or something like that.

But all this is probably immaterial anyway, because Wikipedia is based in Florida, which (as far as I'm aware) protects the right to reproduce facts, and surely the dates set for future football matches in the 2008-09 season are facts? Can we put these fixture dates in the article and consider ourselves safe? Cheers. --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 09:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm 99% sure there shouldn't be a problem. Guy0307 (talk) 09:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If someone outside the UK uploads the info, they would be safer. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thailand government portraits
Oil paintings commissioned by the Thai government of kings and prime ministers are available for use at official government websites, but are being deleted, resulting in the use of snapshots of the same taken by lucky Wikipedians. What gives? Pawyilee (talk) 11:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I just uploaded Image:Field Marshal Sarit Dhanarajata.JPG and used it at Sarit Dhanarajata. The Thai Wikipedia article here uses this image tagged with a Thai Garuda logo, the slashed copyright symbol and a statement of the law in Thailand with regard to public domain images. Pawyilee (talk) 11:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Image of magazine cover
I'd like the use an image of a magazine cover taken from the magazines website for the infobox in the magazines article. Can someone tell me if this is ok and how to do this?
 * It may be usable under fair use. Check if your use would meet WP:NFCC. You would tag it Non-free magazine cover and write a fair use rationale --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is an example article that has a magazine cover with a fair use rationale. Model Rocketry (magazine). -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 01:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

business history in wiki
can i write a business history in wikipedia?

wikipedia deletion page says it is legal is this true

cause i do not what it deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.149.15 (talk) 08:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:BFAQ. Please also note that this page is only for questions about images and media — other questions should go to Help desk. Stifle (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

DEPRECIATION
What are the type of depreciation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.223.4.34 (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

DEPRECIATION
What are the types of depreciation?41.223.4.34 (talk) 14:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

2 Maps Author put on his website
Can I use these two maps ( and ) for the article The Emberverse series? I've noticed on the Middle-earth article there are maps under a licensing agreement that these may fall under but I am just not sure. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, those are unofficial maps, so if someone were to create new maps and put them under a free license it would be just as good. If they were official maps one might argue that a recreated replacement would not be as good for understanding the work(that's the basic argument on the middle-earth article you cite). --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Both maps appear inside the novles of the series, does that change anything? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case, you could possibly make the claim that the maps are important to understanding the work, and thus usable under fair use. I'm not familiar with the work, so I can't make the call over whether they are important to the understanding. Check whether it would meet the fair use criteria and if it would, you would use a rationale similar to the middle-earth maps. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 03:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Use of images from Wikipedia Esperanto
The English language article on the Asmat people has no pictures, but the Esperanto version does. The images in question are, , , , and. Is it permissible to use those images in the English version, and if so, should I link to them directly or do I need to re-upload those to the English Wikipedia commons? Thank you, Arjuna (talk) 01:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * They appear to be copyvios so useing isn't really going to be posible.Geni 03:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To be a bit more detailed, it appears they are using the images under fair use. There's no way that all those images are usable under the fair use criteria. I found some images that are freely usable. If you need more images, try here. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 03:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Coins minted in 1911 in the UK?
Okay, I know that images published before 1923 in the US are public domain. What we have here (albeit tagged with a text copyvio tag) is a coin that was minted in the UK in 1911. I don't know when or if it was ever "published" in the US or what would constitute publication. Hence, I don't know if the image was "published' in the US prior to 1923 or not. The tagger asserts that it is still under copyright in the UK, which honors life + 70, with a sculptor who died in 1952. (It checks out that he was the creator of these coins and that he did die in 1952.) Is this public domain? Or a copyright violation? Help? I'm not sure how to close this one out at WP:CP. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * money tends to be messy. Pure copyright the coin is in the public domain as crown copyright expired (crown copyright expires 50 years after publication). The complication is that countries tend to put a bunch of restrictions of what you can do with images of money although in this cause the coin is no longer legal tender so less of an issue.Geni 03:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is complicated business. :) I'll mark this one as no vio then and remove the tag. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 04:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawal from public domain
An uploader has recently changed the copyright on two images Image:DLZ129 spar.jpg and Image:SoSL Fabric 1927.jpg from pd-self to cc-by.3.0. Can an image be withdrawn from public domain ? MilborneOne (talk) 11:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, but you are free to distribute your own image under any license you want. The former license is still valid.  If a content creator wants to publish their image under additional licensing terms, it would be a really bad idea to insist that they also publish it under the old terms.  If anyone cares, the evidence of the old tag is there. --B (talk) 13:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So the image is still in the public domain just not so obviously ? MilborneOne (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be my interpretation, yes. But as far as that goes, as an aside, that if it ever came to a copyright infringement lawsuit, I'm not entirely sure that our tags are legally sufficient.  If someone "accidentally" clicked on the PD-self tag in the drop box, then corrected it 30 seconds later, for example, I can't imagine a court ruling that they had released their rights to it.  Now suppose instead of noticing it 30 seconds later, he notices it 30 days later.  I'm not a lawyer, but our tagging system has always made me a little bit uncomfortable because I'm not certain how much legal force it would have if it ever did get challenged in court.  But anyway, that's outside the scope of your question.  If you intend to use the image in your own projects, I would suggest getting the advice of a lawyer as nobody here can give you anything more than our best guess.  As for our rules here, as long as you change from one compatible license to another, we don't really care. --B (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply - it just looks like the change of licence and the addition of in-picture credits appears to be as a result of the uploader having in-caption credits removed in articles. MilborneOne (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There has recently been some discussion on the uploading editor's talk page about image licencing mainly with Rlandmann, but earlier with myself, including these images in particular, so you may want to refer specifically to this post particularly the sub-section about the DLZ129 spar image mentioned above and this in particular. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 04:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The main point here is that Centpacrr knew he had chosen a PD licence and if he did not like that he should not have used it. Back in January 2007 an OrphanBot post specifically referred him to both Image use policy and Image copyright tags and again licencing was mentioned in some other problem image posts so he was made aware on several occasions before uploading these images that Wikipedia has certain rules about licencing images and had time to investigate them in detail or ask questions if he was not satisfied. In those circumstances I could not support a 30-second later, or even 30-day later, mistake scenario. In fact on June 4 2008, I suggested his concept of PD was flawed but that was after he had uploaded the above 2 mentioned images. I think those two images must revert to PD as they were licenced when uploaded and perhaps in future he should use a more restrictive licence if he does not like PD. ww2censor (talk) 04:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would suggest leaving the images tagged as they are in this case: as Rlandmann notes on Centpacrr's talk page, the choice between PD and CC-BY makes little difference as far as Wikipedia is concerned, and reverting the tags would just seem needlessly spiteful. It's not even clear if we'd really have a "legal right" to do that — if the dispute ever got dragged far enough to involve a lawsuit, the relevant legal doctrine would (IMHO, IANAL) be promissory estoppel (or the equivalent in the applicable jurisdiction), and the court would, assuming neither party was acting in obviously bad faith, not apply any strict rules like "you tagged it PD, it's PD" but instead seek to find a compromise that minimized any unforeseen harm to either party.  As having the images licensed under CC-BY causes no harm to Wikipedia or even to just about any potential reusers, and as the uploader seems to have been (and indeed may still remain) genuinely confused about the meaning of the various licensing options, a court would probably find it reasonable to let the modified license stand.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

How do I remove my own images?
Hello, I wish to remove images I uploaded because they were uploaded without realizing what kind of copyright tag I was using. How can I do that?

Also is there any such copyright tag that specifies that the media I upload can ONLY be used on Wikipedia and nowhere else without my permission?

Help is greatly appreciated! I am very picky about what and where my images are used for and I worry that there is no way to stop people from, in my eyes, stealing my work that I add here. I like adding images to Wikipedia because I feel articles are useless without them, but if there's no way I can essentially protect what's mine then I want my images off of Wikipedia.

Thanks, --jonrev (talk)


 * Nevermind, I think I figured it out. --jonrev (talk) 03:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You can't. You released the images, that isn't revseable. Of course if you ask nicely we will likely remove them anyway.Geni 03:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You certainly can modify the copyright if you upload an image with the wrong tag then correct it. The user may upload the wrong image and have to ask for it to be deleted. Errors in uploading are not binding contracts. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 04:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a contract but releases are not reversable.Geni 10:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, I have some of my images tagged for deletion, but when I re-upload them with the correct copyright tag, is there such one where it allows the image to be only be used on Wikipedia?--jonrev (talk) 06:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Guy0307 (talk) 06:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, Wikipedia is a free-content encyclopedia. What we are attempting to build is intended to be available to anyone, anywhere, for free. That means images contributed to it must be released under a free-content license, or into the public domain, so that our work can be reused and distributed as widely as possible. FCYTravis (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Kent State University Stark Campus
There are several images used on the page Kent State University Stark Campus which are labeled as public domain images on Wikimedia Commons, but the author is listed as the campus itself and they seem to be promotional images from the school. How would I check that? --JonRidinger (talk) 03:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Since the images are at Commons, it's probably best to ask there. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 08:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-free content - No free equivalent
A question about no free equivalent.

Most of the articles on Scottish clans are lacking an image of a crest badge used by clan members. Other than a few user-created crest badges, there are no free images for most clans. Can we use non-free images for the clans which do not have the user-created images?--Celtus (talk) 10:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Depends on the age. Newer ones will still be under copyright so yeah no free equivalent. Older ones will be PD so free equivalent will be posible.Geni 12:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Original letter from Edward Elgar to Ignacy Jan Paderewski
I have an ORIGINAL letter from the famous English composer Edward Elgar to the famous Polish composer/conductor/composer/later prime minister Ignacy Jan Paderewski. I would like to publish this in the article I have started on the musical composition Polonia (Elgar) which Elgar dedicated to Paderweski, and Elgar mentions the composition in his letter. It is NOT a reproduction from any publication.

Which category would an original letter be in?

P0mbal (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Copyright in the UK expires 70 years after death. According to Edward Elgar, he died in 1934. 1934+70=2004 so it is public domain. You can use PD-UK. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind help P0mbal (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Korean War Crimes
I was the original author of a topic called Korean war crimes which was recently speedily deleted for copyvio. I would like another opinion on this.

First copy; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ex-oneatf/Korean_war_crimes

Last copy; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ex-oneatf/Korean_war_crimes2

I spoke to the deleting admin and responded to his inititial criticisms stating that the topic is exact title of at least one major academic work and referenced in many and that I thought he was jumping to conclusions about my sources, e.g.


 * a vets page he linked to I had not seen. Actually it uses the same declassified government document as I referenced, the Philip D. Chinnery report which is why it is the same.
 * The Scofield (Asia Times) quotation was referenced at the bottom of the page.
 * The Gittings (Guardian) quotation was referenced at the bottom of the page.
 * Ditto a blog again quoted the same original reference as I quoted. That feel that does not equate to me quoting it.

All the original references I used were listed at the bottom of the article.

I already accepted the need to place the quotation in inline citation as requested and had marked the article inuse. The problem with addressing contentious issue if one interprets the data, one is then accused of "original research" and so I use short, referenced citations where there can be no accusation of synthesis etc.

Thank you. --Ex-oneatf (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Citing a source doesn't make it acceptable to copy text from that source into the article as if it were original. Quotations are not the issue.  If you copy and paste text without quotation marks, or any other indication that it's quoted, that's not a quotation.  That's plagiarism, and unacceptable.  --Amble (talk) 01:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Could
Someone more knowledgeable about the GFDL, take a look at Image:GreatSign.JPG, uploader put a clause on it requesting that any non Wikipedia entities "ask his/her permission" to use the image. Nan oha A's Yu ri    Talk, My master 21:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Permission-only is not free; the image should be marked nonfree on that basis. -<font color="32CD32">Jéské <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 22:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See Media_copyright_questions and User:Jonrev. Guy0307 (talk) 06:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Since User:Jonrev didn't understand the license when he uploaded, and did not intend to release his photos under the GFDL, he can request speedy deletion.  On the other hand, if he chooses to leave them on Wikipedia, that would imply his acceptance of the license, making it likely that his  "permission" requirement would not stand. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Something Wrong With "Fresno, CA" Page
If you go to the "Fresno, CA" webpage, it was apparently hacked by someone called "the Zodiac".--TopGearFan (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears to be fine now. There has been some wide-spread template vandalism lately. -- Admrb♉ltz (t • c • [ log]) 23:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Uploading an image of a live person
I just had an image removed, although the person himself sent me the picture and gave me permission to upload it here to Wikipedia. His name is Graeham Goble, and I work with him here in the U.S. (he lives in Australia). I'm confused on what to: (1) Select for WHAT KIND of image it is; and (2) what is meant by saying "GFDL-self" or "PD-self". Are these latter terms supposed to be placed in the code on the edit side, or is it supposed to be placed in the tags section?

It was frustrating to have this image removed as it took me over two hours last weekend to figure out how to successfully upload the image to begin with.

Thanks, Tami (GAPeach64) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GAPeach64 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would suggest reading WP:COPYREQ first. If the people reviewing permissions have an e-mail to work from, they can update the copyright tags for you. If you have any questions after that, just let us know. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 02:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Painting stonecave.png
Can someone take a look at Image:Painting stonecave.png? It is a photo of a painting by Ching Hai, and is used on that article, but was uploaded with a GFDL license. Unless User:Truthexplorer is Ching Hai herself, I don't think TE can do that. <b style="color:#990066;">Aleta</b> <sup style="color:#0095B6;"> Sing 15:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite right. Just because I can take a video camera into a movie theatre - doesn't make the resulting video footage entirely mine. I'd list it as a speedy Megapixie (talk) 01:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

DVD screenshot of a promotional photograph
I'm planning to upload this image for use in the article Davros (per discussion at Talk:Davros, it will replace one of the existing images on that page). I got the image from a screenshot I took from the Genesis of the Daleks DVD, but it was not from the television episode itself. The DVD contained a selection of publicity photographs taken during the making of that story. Should I use Non-free television screenshot or non-free promotional? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would go with non-free promotional. Make sure to include a fair use rationale. Megapixie (talk) 01:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

All uploads of a user are suspect
I beleive most or all of the uploads of User:Sirius86. He now just tags everything PD-self. His image descriptions are typically just a file path on his hard disk. He could, in theory, have taken some of the pics, but he surely didn't take the picture Image:Mirza Mahmood Ahmad1924.jpg. Now, that picture may be public-domain due to its age, but the fact he tagged it as self-made, makes me doubt the identical tagging of more recent uploads. Some old, now deleted images, did have a url, but the site indicated the image was copyrighted, with all rights reserved (hence, they were deleted). I think an admin should get involved, and the user shouldn't be able to keep uploading images, without a better explanation. But, I'm not sure the procedure for reporting the problem. --Rob (talk) 02:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Attempt to make contact with the user on his user talk page, explaining that he needs to provide a source for the image (i.e. a webpage or book where the image came from). Give him a couple of days, and then if he hasn't taken action, tag anything without a proper source as nsd. Point him at a good example of an image with sourcing information - say (randomly) Image:Nuremberg_chronicles_-_NISSA.png. Megapixie (talk) 05:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Posibility of Fair Use?
Is there any way to use this image (from this page) as fair-use non-free image on 120 Days of Sodom? A previous version of a photograph has been deleted on commons due to copyright violation tough i do feel a photograph of the original manuscript is valueable to the article. FruitcakeNL (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Only when it passes all the criteria of Non-free content criteria. Garion96 (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Would it be in principle possible for somebody to go to the museum/library where it is kept, and make a free photograph of it? If yes, it's out, for being replaceable. Note that it might be the case, depending on the local rules, that the library doesn't allow the publication of photographs without their consent; in that case a free photograph is probably not possible (we could just as well ask them to release one they have themselves; we're at their mercy either way.) In that case, I'd say fair use is legitimate, as the article contains a discussion of the physical form of the scroll, which profits significantly from the photograph. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I concur that this use appears to satisfy all points of Non-free content criteria. The source of the image would need to be attributed as noted at Citing sources and the image page would require a fair use rationale template as explained at Non-free use rationale guideline. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I use this license for a picture?
CC Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported? This is the picture If so, how to mark it/upload it? Please respond on my user talk page, thank you. Brainmachine (talk) 22:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Wikipedia does not accept images with the Non-Commercial or Non-Derivative licenses. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Photo tag
Is the license tag and fair use rationale for this object from a king's tomb correct: Image:Golden shell from Sekhemkhet's tomb.jpg Or is an additional license tag required? It has no free equivalent as all tourist photography has been banned in the Cairo Museum. Thank You Leoboudv (talk) 02:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added a license tag covering other non-free content. That should be enough I think. Kevin (talk) 03:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your prompt response Kevin. You are an angel. Regards, Fabian from Canada Leoboudv (talk) 03:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Joey Jordison
Hey I'm currently working on completely rehauling and refining the Joey Jordison article as part of the Slipknot Project and I wandering if I could use this image under a FUR. Similarly to the Dave Lombardo article I would like to use it to demonstrate his involvement in this one off event in which they played a show with Metallica. The image used on Lombardo's article attributes this as the source and there is an image on there with Jordison in however I feel the one from his myspace is better. There isn't any free images available of this event and my main concern about using the one from Joey Jordison's myspace is what would be specified as the source because you cannot reach the photo gallery without logging in to myspace. Would it be possible to still upload this image or should I just use the oen from the Metallica website? <font color="#344D69">REZTER  <font color="#3C225E">TALK <font color="#344D69">&oslash;  07:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * First see if you can get the image you want using WP:COPYREQ. Then see WP:NFCC to see if it would fall under fair use. Citing something that requires a login as a source is not a concern in itself. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

A police officer may try to establish a friendly atmosphere.

or

A polite officer may try to establish a friendly atmosphere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.75.114.114 (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I uploaded an image (URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TiranaOld.jpg) but do not know what the copyright license is. Please visit the URL and get back to me.

Thank You.Shikuesi3 (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mirza Mahmood Ahmad1924.jpg
How should Image:Mirza Mahmood Ahmad1924.jpg be tagged? The uploaded used PD-self. That seemed unlikely, since its claimed to be made in 1924 in India. Looking at PD-India it seems images published then would be public domain. But the uploader says it wasn't previously published. This is what they said in response to my last query: --Rob (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The Photograph has no copyright and is in my ownership. It has not been published anywhere or printed in a book, neither is it available anywhere online (not taken from any website). Sirius86 (talk) 12:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I beleive this image is public domain due to its age, but do not know. As mentioned in a prior section, I ask for other editors to review the other uploads of the same user (many of which are more recent, and have more questionable copyright status). --Rob (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

chemistry
why silicon has a lower melting point than diamond —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.92.48.234 (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See Reference desk.  howcheng  {chat} 18:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Self-created image based on a published source
I created Image:Toastmasters curriculum.png back on the 17th. I created it myself, but the content of it is based on information and a somewhat similar (although incomplete) graph provided by Toastmasters International in 2006. Nothing of the actual TI supplied graph is in my image, plus mine is oriented vertically whereas the TI one is horizontal. So is my work owned by TI and usable under fair use, owned by me and released under CC-BY-3.0, or what? (Whoever answers, please ping me on my talk page in addition to here, so I know for next time.) --coldacid (talk|contrib) 21:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Bare facts are not copyrightable. You should be in the clear with that one. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 03:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Image from Library of Congress website, but is in collection of Library that recommends Fair Use
It is unclear to me what the license for this image is. Is it public domain (i.e. pre-1923)? The canal in the picture was drained in 1920. The website recommends using "Fair Use" because it does not know who created the images or even if it's still copyrighted. Also, the website recommends contacting the library that houses it if you plan to use it for commercial purposes. So can I use this image? It's located at the American Memory from the Library of Congress, and the "rights and reproduction" information is located here.J.H (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If it was published before 1923 it's in the public domain for sure PD-US. Published before 1968 and copyright not renewed, again public domain PD-Pre1964. First published before 1978 without a copyright notice, again public domain PD-Pre1978. But it's still possible it escaped all of those; more information is needed. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 03:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lonnie Frisbee.jpg
Hi, I've added a template but unsure if i also need a fair-use rationale or other details? Apologize as images is not my forte. <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="#FF4400">oi 22:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Currently the tag says it is public domain. Do you know of any information to support this? When was it created/published? Was the copyright registered? --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 02:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Images from automobile brochure literature
I recently uploaded pictures from commercially available automobile brochures which were deleted by "Asher(something)". I have seen images from automobile brochures on Wiki before (currently) and am wondering why certain ones are allowed but others aren't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MJEH (talk • contribs) 01:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Automobile brochures are like everything else; automatically copyrighted when they are created. However, they may be usable if they meet the fair use criteria. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Medical images
If a patient obtains a copy of his or her own medical images (X-Ray, surgical photos, etc.), who owns the copyright? Is it the facility where the images were obtained, or do patients have the right to release medical images of themselves to the public domain or under the GFDL? --Ginkgo100talk 00:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a work-for-hire -- When someone hires a photographer to take a photo, as a work-for-hire, the customer owns the copyright, not the photographer. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No no no. Copyright can only be transferred in writing or operation of law (e.g, inheritance). Just because you paid for a photo doesn't make the copyright yours.  howcheng  {chat} 18:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * With respect, no, that's not what the copyright code states. Quoting SC § 201 (b):


 * "(b) Works Made for Hire. — In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright."


 * When it is a work made for hire, no written transfer is needed, because the person who was paid to do the work never owned the copyright. The owner is the author of the work; with a work made for hire the author is defined as  "the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared".  There is no transfer, the person who hired the photographer owned it from the moment of creation.  That's fundamentally different than if someone takes a photo by their own initiative and then sells it to someone else; in that case it is not a work made for hire and the copyright could only be transferred with a written agreement.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC
 * I will trump you with the definition of "work for hire" from 17 USC § 101, wherein a work for hire situation is created only when an written agreement states that it is.  howcheng  {chat} 22:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

When you pay for a medical exam, there is no contract giving anyone copyrights to images the doctors produce, which would be needed for any work for hire argument. Mere paying of someone for some work does not become full work for hire unless that is stated upfront and agreed to. Inherent to the definition of a work for hire is the idea that someone is the employer of the other, not merely paying for services. When you see a doctor, the hospital is his or her employer, not you. You are the customer. You are purchasing medical services, not image rights. By Jack-A-Roe's tortured argument you automatically own all rights to anyone you pay for anything... if that were true then there'd be no class specifying other kinds of rights because there only would be all rights. This is pretty basic copyright law information. Anyone with any confusion should pick up an introductory title on communication law, as that should be sufficient in most cases to clear this right up. DreamGuy (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing for PD images
I'm asking this question in reference to recent mass tagging by User:OsamaK. I understand images require sources. However, if an image is clearly PD (say a 19th century photograph, which will be PD almost 100% of the time), and was uploaded without a source a few years ago, when the rules were less strict, must we get rid of it? Can't we use some common sense and presume PD status for all 19th century images? Some concrete examples: (d. 1807),  (d. 1894),  (d. 1890),  (d. 1893). Biruitorul Talk 19:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Same discussions opened in the same way, about same username in Wikimedia Commons more than once. People didn't agree that PD-olds are out of source policy. Anyways, such this action must not be done in a simple question. After deep discussion we have to open a poll for canceling PDs sources. Generaly, I think that simply, source for old images is important as much as importance of modern images. --OsamaK 20:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sources are important, no question. And for images uploaded today, it's good that we demand them. But common-sense exceptions can be carved out, I think. PD can for instance be presumed for images of people who died before 1923, certainly 1900, right? What's the worry here? Biruitorul Talk 20:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In my option, I cannot trust any image here with no source. We are in a wiki, that edited by many and many people (We're the biggest wiki ever, no?). To solve the problems of forgery, deception and lack of confidence we have to ask the uploader (No caring when uploaded, when taken, when died) about a trust source.--OsamaK 21:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you see, that's a fairly singular opinion (and also breaches WP:AGF). Plus, a determined forger could just lie about the source, no? Let's be realistic: this is Anton Rubinstein, who died in 1894, and is a PD image - if nothing else, per Occam's razor. At some point, the burden of proof has to shift from presuming copyright to presuming PD. I'm not sure where precisely that is, but I'm quite confident an image taken sometime in the 1860s fits the PD bill. Biruitorul Talk 21:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, Is there are any inconsistent points between WP:AGF and WP:CITE? I don't think. and I'm really trusting in people who wants to build Wikipedia, but in the other hand, Wikipedia has two useful policies in this case: WP:CITE and WP:NOTMIRROR. So images must includes citing a source and they cannot be kept here forever, because we will move them to Wikimedia Commons (Betacommand has a great work with this) which (After all) deletes unsourced images.--OsamaK 11:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is being discussed in multiple places, but the upshot is many people oppose OsamaK's interpretation as needlessly destroying countless images that would require countless hours of work to find again, assuming people even know what's missing, because they won't if they are deleted. Considering the strong opposition, and the very common sense concept that certain old images are automatically public domain no matter what the source is ultimately, I would hope that OsamaK would immediately stop trying to get these images deleted until he can show a strong consensus that Wikipedia community wants them deleted... which won't happen.
 * Public domain is public domain. Source is completely irrelevant. Sourcing is vitally important for OTHER kinds of images, but not for PD images. DreamGuy (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I think this is an nonconstructive discussion. I'll stop it there, save your time for more useful things.--OsamaK 21:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Use of a Photo hanging in a Govt building.
I want to place a photo of an individual on a page that I placed on Wikipedia. This is an unsigned photo which hangs in the local City Hall. The photo itself contains no copyright information. I believe it could be used under Fair Use with a comment that it hangs in the Lyndon, Ky City Hall. This person lived from 1830 to 1891 so it is an old image. Am I correctSTONE8HENGE (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC) STONE8HENGE
 * Anything published before 1923 in the United States is public domain, unconditionally. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If you take the photo of the pre-1923 photo yourself you should be fine (it'd be PD-old for the tag). Photos/scans of the two dimensional object (the photo) that do not have any artistic changes made to it would also be fine, because mere reproduction of a two dimensional work does not grant a new copyright. The only potential problem you might have is for someone else's photo of a three dimensional object, which, based upon angle and lighting, can be a new artistic work with a new copyright. So don't steal your friend's photo of a fancy picture frame. ;-)  DreamGuy (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Is my image free?
Is my image, Image:Two All Grown Up books.jpg, free? - I ask because a user who I've had a past dispute with, and who has a history of uncivilty has listed it here, Possibly unfree images/2008 July 22. This user could be a troll and I don't really want to get into anymore major disputes with them unless I'm 100% right! All Grown Up Whovian 07:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not free since it's derived from an unfree image. It's not possible to make free images out of unfree ones just by taking a picture.    --Rob (talk) 08:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Then would a fair-use tag be in order? All Grown Up Whovian 08:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. The photo is used to illustrate the cover, so it's fair use. Guy0307 (talk) 12:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, I've changed the licence to . I hope this sorts the problem. If so, could a sysop or anyone for that matter confirm it here? Thanks All Grown Up Whovian 12:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You need to add a fair use rationale for each article it's used in. See Template:Book_cover_fur. Guy0307 (talk) 04:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

mk:Слика:Firemk.png
A user asked me to upload this file (to mk.wiki) and to determine its copyright status. However, I'm not sure what to do myself. The image is to be used in this article. It's a translation of an image taken from here (website), originally from this website:. I read the copyright section, but even though they approve of the fair use for educational purposes, I'm not sure whether I should claim fair use for such an easily replaceable image. And what's the appropriate tag? Thanks in advance. --iNkubusse? 15:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you already named the crucial argument here: it's replaceable. One of the conditions imposed on non-free content by the Foundation is that we can't claim fair use for material that's replaceable with free content. And as you certainly know, a non-commercial-use-only license just means nothing to us. Sorry about that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, but what about creating another scheme based on the information from the image? Can I (or the other user) just draw a house and write 'if this, do that', still based on the info from the image? I mean, it's common knowledge and I don't think that it can ever be copyrighted, but what do you think? --iNkubusse? 16:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Facts aren't copyrightable. If someone redraws it from scratch, using only the facts but not the wording, it's fine. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 01:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok then, thanks. --iNkubusse? 04:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

City Flag
Hi, I have a city flag image of Rochester, New York. This image has been converted to SVG, whereas the old image was JPG, and had incorrect licensing information. However, I do not know if I should treat it as if it were any other flag, and tag the image with Pd-ineligible, or if not, what license it should be. Help me out, please!  <font color="#6495ED">Hamako  15:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * How old is the flag and how complex?Geni 15:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe the flag was made around the 90s. It is only 2 colors. Here's a copy of the image: .  <font color="#6495ED">Hamako  16:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

McNab image
Hi. I was hoping to get assistance in determining the copyright status of Image:Alec McNab.jpg. It has already been deleted from the page I posted it to. I have listed the source on the image page itself. Libro0 (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a couple possibilities: If it was published in the US before 1964 and the copyright not renewed, then PD-Pre1964. Published before 1978 without notice of copyright PD-Pre1978. Check those pages for any additional caveats that may apply. Otherwise, copyright expires 70 years after the death of the creator. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 02:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Book Cover Images
So I'm working on filling in books that have hit number one on the non-fiction side of the New York Times Best Seller List, and that means creating a bunch of new book articles. I'd like to upload cover images to illustrate the books in question for their particular articles, and my understanding of the copyright reading is that this would be okay under fair use. However, I'm not 100% sure if I'm allowed to use the cover images provided by the publishers (example: for the Mistaken Identity article) or if I have to go out and find a copy of each book and take my own image. I know either image would be a derivative work of the cover, I'm just having trouble understanding whether or not a plain image of the cover also counts as having its own copyright that needs to be respected. I searched quite a bit and couldn't find an answer, but I do apologize if this is an obvious question. If anyone knows one way or the other, I'd greatly appreciate an answer. Thanks! Vickser (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay I looked around a bit and found plenty of other articles using publisher/amazon images and since a response above mentioned that plain images of 2D objects don't create their own copyright, I think they're okay to use. So, my question then becomes if I'm going about this right.  Could someone take a look at this used in Beautiful Boy: A Father's Journey Through His Son's Addiction and double check that I'm doing it right? I'd hate to upload a bunch of images wrong. Vickser (talk) 02:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Covers are usually okay under fair use if they meet WP:NFCC, and you've done the fair use rationale correctly. A faithful reproduction of a two-dimensional work doesn't create a new copyright; I'm a bit concerned about the pseudo-3D therefore. I would crop it out to be on the safe side. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! The 3Dness was a good point, even though that's the image amazon and elsewhere were using. I was able to find a 2D copy and get the old one speedily deleted .  Thank you again for the help! Vickser (talk) 03:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Remove an image
Are copyright free images with a statement of no-commercial use permitted on Wikipedia if the subject matter has no equivalent here? ie: there is no image on the article on Commons. All objects from Cairo Museum like this Image:Golden shell from Sekhemkhet's tomb.jpg are now unavailable since all picture taking has been banned. Any tourist who tries to take any picture in the Cairo Museum of Tut's treasures, etc since 2005 will be expelled. I don't know if my fair use rationale here is OK. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the source you cite, the museum does allow photos by special arrangement. —teb728 t c 21:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, these people would be scholars and none of them has placed any free images on Commons. That is why the images are almost impossible to get free. Leoboudv (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * By WP:NFCC, “Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.” The fact that no one has uploaded it yet does not negate the fact that a free equivalent could be created. —teb728 t c 02:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

non-free fair use rationale query
On the talk page Image talk:Usfa-engraving.gif I would appreciate knowing whether the non-free fair use rationale posted is sufficient to defend the image's use in the article it is used in. Would someone be kind enough to take a look for me? Newportm (talk) 01:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * How old is the engraveing in question?Geni 01:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking. The company was founded in 1993, so it is definitely less than 20 years old.  It's not like it was made 150 years ago, though it is supposed to look like it was...Newportm (talk) 01:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The non-free use rationale does not address WP:NFCC: “Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.” It seems to me that no image is needed to illustrate the article where it refers to this image.


 * It also fails to address WP:NFCC: “Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.” Why does the article need 6 non-free images?
 * With regard to WP:NFCC: “Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.” It might be argued plausibly that the article would profit from a specimen of USFA Custom Shop work. But that doesn’t mean it needs this image (or any of the other non-free images which it has). Any specimen would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Couldn’t someone make a free image of some specimen of their work?


 * By the way, a non-free use rationale belongs on the image page not the image talk page. —teb728 t c 02:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Your comments and insights are invaluable. Thank you. Newportm (talk) 02:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Copyright holder has given consent under GFDL and CC-by-sa-3.0, I have forwarded correspondence to OTRS; what is the next step? Do I use the applicable templates and paste them onto the image pages? Newportm (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The copyright holder understands that this permission is for use by anyone for anything (not just Wikipedia), right? If so, replace the Non-free fair use in and Non-free promotional tags with GFDL and CC-by-sa-3.0 tags, and change the use rationale back to the Information template. —teb728 t c 19:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Newportm (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have updated just this image in question so far; if correct, I'll proceed. Under attribution on the CC-by-sa-3.0 tag, is it customary to just give the company name as shown?  Should I have left the fair use disputed tag you placed on it? Newportm (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The “by” part of the cc-by-sa-3.0 tag means that a user must attribute the image to the author or licensor. The parameter tells specifically how to attribute it. It does no harm to remove the tag, for fair use is no longer claimed. —teb728 t c 21:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

PD Image but host site is.. ?
Questionable. The figurehead of Andrew Jackson was published in Harpers Weekly in 1875 which makes it PD but I'm not sure about the site its hosted on as it's the State of Florida. I'm sure I could use this but want other opinions on the deal. Thanks. --Brad (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you are safe with PD-US. -- Admrb♉ltz (t • c • [ log]) 06:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Image available on wikimedia Commons Image:General Jackson - Harpers Weekly, news media image (1875c).jpg. Note also Harpers Weekly article for other images and licences and Wikimedia commons Category Harpers Magazine. Richard Harvey (talk) 07:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I had searched commons for "Andrew Jackson" but that one didn't come up. --Brad (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

How I should change an image info?
Greetings,

The following photo:

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

has incorrect information. The real author is Iranian photographer Hamed Khorramyar and the URL of the original photo can be found here:

http://hamedpix.com/details.php?image_id=1&mode=search

My Question is, how can I change the author info? And since the image used in several pages in Wikipedia, where should edit in order that the change become reflected in all linked pages automatically?

Regards, Kasra

Kasrayousefi (talk) 05:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The image has been moved to WikiMedia Commons, which is an archive that all WikiMedia projects including Wikipedia use for their images. You can edit it and any project will be able to view the updated information. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 07:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Dariers disease
I am glad to finally find a place that has some sort of info on this skin disorder. i have a lot of questions abot it and one of my main ones is are there any over the counter skin cleansers that are better to use than others? as well as lotions & deodorants?

For the longest time now right behind my knee were it bends i break out really bad in the summer and i have been putting deodorant over it and it seems to work but lets face it deodorant isnt cheap. so if there are any other products please let me know.

I also seem to break out on my neck and chest. Also my forehead mainly when seasons chamge and in the summer time from wearing hats i suppose. i Get it on my scalp on my back and my bikini/ panty line. I need some sort of help! --Joni1082 (talk) 06:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Joni1082


 * Unfortunately we are not medical doctors, and we are here to assist with copyright issues with images uploaded to Wikipedia. I would suggest you see a MD for this issue. -- Admrb♉ltz (t • c • [ log]) 06:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Signature of politicians
I have Autographs of few Indian politicians I want to add it to there info box. Can you tell me under which format should I scan them and upload them? And what copyright tag and license should I select? (Note that all the politicians are alive!! how to upload it in public domain?)-<font face="Old English Text MT" color="Blue"> Suyogaerospacetalk to me! 12:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Signatures may not be eligible for copyright, see Signature. The tag to use here is PD-ineligible --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

pictures
how do i put a picture about the person or subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luckigurl (talk • contribs) 20:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See Help:Images and other uploaded files —teb728 t c 23:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

which copyright tag?
I am unsure which copyright tag to use for my image. It is an image that the firm I work at paid a photographer to take the image, the photographer gave us the rights for Marketing for our firm provided there is a copyright line. The image is not free to others, but it is free for us to use for marketing purposes. This being said what copyright tag to I use for these images. Thankss! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpickrel (talk • contribs) 21:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair use. Because the photographer itself did not place it into the public domain or release it under a Creative Commons license, it can only be used on Wikipedia as a fair-use image. -<font color="32CD32">Jéské <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 22:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Use of fair use images is highly restricted on Wikipedia. In particular an photo of a living person can almost never be used under fair use because a free image could almost always be taken. If you are referring to Image:Rafaelvinoly.jpg‎, is there some reason why someone could not take a snapshot of him? —teb728 t c 22:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Episode Summaries from other Websites
I am wondering if I would be able to use episode summaries from other websites and then citing my source. It seems like a silly question, but can I do that?Redsoxpatriot30 (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you mean copy-and-pasting text from another site, no, not unless the author has licensed it under GNU FDL or something like that or released it to public domain. You can rewrite them in your own words, in which case you wouldn't really need to credit them at all, though you could still do that if you wanted to (maybe in a footnote). Richard001 (talk) 03:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

cc-by-2.5 license disputed
Could people please give their 2c here... I don't believe there are any issues but Matilda believes there is. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 01:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Computer sketches of cartoon characters
Just for illustration, is it acceptable for users to upload images of certain cartoon characters in which they drawn on their computers? 124.106.203.113 (talk) 01:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that would be a derivative work (see fan art), which we don't allow. It could be used as fair use if it's just "for illustration", but a screenshot or something would be better. Richard001 (talk) 03:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Images from the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress
The images in the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress are not all in the public domain. The site has a full page listing conditions of their use. But many pictures from this website are displayed on WP. Most have a blanket "Works of the Federal Government are in the public domain" template justifying their use. But the site itself seems to suggest that its images (although not its text) ARE NOT all in the public domain. It also purports to require that any reproduction be attributed to the House or the Senate, to wit:

Images on this site are provided as a contribution to education and scholarship. Not all images are in the public domain; some images may be protected by the U.S. Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). Do not duplicate without permission from copyright holder. Copyright information is provided whenever possile, but it is ultimately the responsibility of the user to determine and satisfy the copyright and other restrictions.

Unless otherwise noted, images of Representatives are provided by, and should be credited to Collection of U.S. House of Representatives. Images of Senators are provided by, and should be credited to the U.S. Senate Historical Office.

Although I'm a lawyer, I know less than nothing about intellectual property law. Do we have a problem with images from the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress? David in DC (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * For the most part, no. I have seen a few cases where the accompanying photo is marked as copyrighted, but most of them do not indicate any such copyright, so those are fair game as far as we are concerned.  howcheng  {chat} 22:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. I'll stop worrying :) David in DC (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Image of a display showing the scientific artwork of Zdeněk Burian
There is a photo taken of the work of Burian here. I was wondering if the photographer can release such an image under a Commons compatible license, or whether it would have to be uploaded here under a fair use license if at all. Would it depend on the resolution? Richard001 (talk) 03:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The resolution wouldn't matter; it's a question of whether the collection of Burian's images displayed in this photo is considered a derivative work of the originals. It's a difficult call here, because no single image is the subject of the photo, but copyrights tend to be as restrictive as possible so I would take the more cautious route and say that it could only be used on Wikipedia as a non-free image. The photographer does have the right to release it under a Creative Commons license -- that just covers his/her creative aspects (the angle, lighting, etc), but there's still the copyrights of the original images to be considered.  howcheng  {chat} 22:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

copyright tags and sources?
I have recently had an image deleted because I failed to provide a tag or source data and I'm afraid I don't know what a proper way to fill out those fields would be. I have the rights to the image and they would qualify as fair use even if I didn't, I just don't know how to express that through Wikipedia, help?

Thanks, Andy.W.Ellis (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you took the photos yourself, you have to release them with a free licence. A good choice is Cc-by-sa-3.0. This means that others can share your work as long as they credit it to you, and they can remix it (use it in their own work) as long as they release it with the same licence (by-sa), and of course attribute to you. It is generally the most restrictive liicence you can use. See as well. Guy0307 (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, an image that you find on the internet (like Image:JMU Wiki.jpg) may not be usable. Almost all content on the internet is copyrighted. This means that we can use it only with the permission of the copyright owner. And Wikipedia is very fussy about what permission it will accept; the permission must allow reuse by anyone for anything. See WP:COPYREQ for how to handle permission.
 * As for fair use, Wikipedia is very restrictive about fair-use images. For example, the JMU bluestone image could not be used in the under fair use on the Bluestone article because it could be replaced by a free-use image and because its use is not essential to understanding the article. See WP:NFCC for all the restriction on fair-use content. —teb728 t c 03:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Correct Copywrite tags?
Can someone please look at this and let me know if I did this right?

Image:Yak Ballz American Nightmare.jpg

I got the pic off a website that allows you to use his pics as long as you credit the pic with his name

Demented101 (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit wary that it doesn't explicitly say whether all uses are allowed, including commercial use and derivative works. I would get a permission e-mail using WP:COPYREQ first. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Upload Image Question
I want to upload a photo of a storefront for a wikipedia page. I'm an employee and have verbal permission to do so. I know how to upload images but what steps do I need to take to make sure i'm not violating any copyright rules and so the image doesn't get pulled?

Shefler2 (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You could do worse than reading the top half of this discussion for the opinion of Natl1. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Solms Public License
I just came across this image which is licensed under the "Solms Public License". Details of the license can be found on the Solms website, by clicking the link at the bottom (I can't give a direct link). It looks 'free', but I don't believe we have a copyright tag for it. Is it worth creating one? Could someone a little more familiar with these obscure licenses take a look for me? Thanks. J Milburn (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * One of the conditions is "The knowledge is provided free of charge." That's comparable to a NonCommercial license, which isn't a free license. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That license is a mess. In addition to prohibiting commercial distribution, it also (apparently unintentionally) prohibits derivative works. --Carnildo (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That is how I read it as well, as NC and non derivative. Non free license. -- Admrb♉ltz (t • c • [ log]) 21:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Eurgh, God knows how I missed that. Glad I brought it up... Thanks for your thoughts. J Milburn (talk) 09:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I defiently see ND, but where do you see NC? Non-free anyway of course. Guy0307 (talk) 03:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm seing NC in the third bullet point, "The knowledge is provided free of charge." That said, the wording isn't all that clear and the license is generally a mess.  Certainly not wiki appropriate. Vickser (talk) 03:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Crest for railway company no longer in operation
I have uploaded an image at Image:Somerset and Dorset Joint Railway Crest.png for use in the article Somerset and Dorset Joint Railway. The railway company is no longer in existence, and the line was closed during the Beeching Axe in the 1960s. The crest is reproduced from a old photo, but hand drawn by me using a CAD package. Which copyright notice would be appropriate for this image? Own work into public domain, or something based on logos? David Bailey (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you had hand drawn from a blazon it would be your own work. However since you hand copied a photograph, your drawing will probably be more similar to the original crest than if drawn from  a blazon, so you would need to find out the copyright status of the original crest, if you can find out the date the original artist was deceased.  If you don't know, then it is fair use and satisfies WP:NFC for the railway's article.  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I couldn't find out who the copyright holder was.  Would Somerset and Dorset Joint Railway be an appropriate licence tag for fair use?  David Bailey (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If the logo dates from 1863 it could be PD.Geni 12:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Company was formed in 1875. Guy0307 (talk) 13:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 133 years might be PD but we also run into young aprentice issues and we don't know who did the work.Geni 14:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair use?
Before listing this for official review, I wanted to see if somebody more experienced with the nuances of image use could take a look. The article Hairway to Steven not only include a copy of the back cover (Image:Hairwayfront.jpg), but breaks the back cover into individual pieces to illustrate each song. (One of the individual pieces, for example, Image:Butthole Hairway 1.jpg). I know that WP:ALBUM recommends front cover. I don't know if back covers are problematic in themselves. This one seems like it could legitimately be the subject of commentary, given that the images depicted are meant to demonstrate the tracks. But there is no actual commentary. It seems sort of akin to putting album covers in a discography, which is disallowed, but it's really still all one image. Feedback and advice much appreciated. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I could see using a back cover instead of the front cover, but this article uses both – and two other images as well. By WP:NFCC, using more than one image needs a stronger rationale than “identification.” NFCC is far more restrictive than legal fair use; apparently the uploader doesn’t understand that. —teb728 t c 22:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Photos from Wikipedia
Hello there,

I have been chosen by the Goethe-Institut - Jordan to make a calendar for the year 2009. They gave me some photos that I can use, but they are not enough... As far as I'm concerned I can use some photos from Wikipedia, but I have no clue which!

Can someone tell me please which license has a photo to have in oderer to be used freely? Could you make a list of them? I really need your help, URGENT! The guys at Goethe-Institut are just uncomfortable with using photos that may cause any risk related to copyright... I need to confirm to them that yes, I can use some of your pics. (we don't mind referring to the author of the photo on a special page at the end of the calandar if required!).

Looking forward to hearing an answer soon!

Thanks in advance,

Mariam Abu-Hussein —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schwertlilie (talk • contribs) 08:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See for information on reusing content. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of photographs and articles
Dear WIKI as all the photographs have been shot by me so there is no valid reason for its deletion.And above that I dont have any source to validate same except myself. Same goes for articles. kindly reciprocate. aditya sharma —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adityainmeerut (talk • contribs) 11:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For your images, please see WP:ICTIC for how to tag them. For your articles, look at the links it the messages to see how you can address the concerns being brought up. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyright question
I would like to upload some images of James Larkin White. In this effort, I sent an e-mail to a park service employee that I know asking for some public domain images which could be used in the article. Several images were sent with the following information: "Here are some Jim White photos from our archive. We have more so let me know if there is anything in particular you would like. For your article could you mention that the pictures are courtesy of Carlsbad Caverns National Park?"

My question is what copyright tag should I use? Some of these photos were taken before Carlsbad Caverns National Park even existed. However, the park service employee seems to believe they are in the public domain because they are from the park service files.

Comments? WTucker (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nominally, the correct tag is PD-USGov-Interior-NPS. However, in order to use that tag we'd need to be able to show, reasonably reliably, that they were created by an NPS employee in the course of his or her duties. Most of the time this is fairly easy: we just link to the page on the NPS site. However, this is a trickier situation. I would doubt that an email from an NPS employee would be considered good enough evidence that the photos are in the public domain, but that's just my opinion. Others may disagree. -- Hux (talk) 03:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Vitthal.png
I, User:Redtigerxyz, scanned the image from the Maharashtra Times newspaper, which acknowleged the image to be given by the Kalnirnay Calendar. The stone image's background was removed and the photo digitally enhanced and edited by me. The same image is available on http://solapur.gov.in/images%5Cvithal.jpg, which is a site, owned by the Maharashtra Government. The copyright is given here.

"Material featured on this site may be reproduced free of charge in any format or media without requiring specific permission. This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context. Where the material is being published or issued to others, the source must be prominently acknowledge. However, the permission to reproduce this material does not extend to any material on this site which is identified as being the copyright of the third party. Authorisation to reproduce such material be obtained from the copyright holders concerned."

What is the copyright tag, this img can be uploaded with? Currently uploaded with fair use tag.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We can't accept material with any restrictions on it's use. The condition "This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately" is a restriction that means we can't use it. It's not usable under our non-free content policy because a replacement could be made that is freely licensed and just as informative. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A replacement is not possible as the temple does not permit photography in the temple.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Finland
I found the following at, "Rätten till ett fotografi gäller till dess 50 år har förflutit från utgången av det år då fotografiet framställdes." ('the right to a photo is valid until 50 years has passed since the end of the year when the photo was made') What would make any 51+ years old Finnish photo PD, or? --Soman (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why was PD-Finland redirected to PD-Old? --Soman (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Came across commons:Template:PD-Finland50, seems to have answered my query. --Soman (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Feeder - Forget About Tomorrow CD 2
I've got the image for the CD 2 of the single, 'Forget About Tomorrow'. I have asked permission from the website to be able to upload the image to Wikipedia.

The site is:

The image is:

Any chance in being able to upload this. I thought it was a good idea.

Thanks! --Wick (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Getting permission to use an image only on Wikipedia is a waste of time: Wikipedia only accepts permission for use by anyone for anything, including commercial use and modification. See WP:COPYREQ for details about permission. —teb728 t c 22:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Old paintings in picture frames
Are photos of old painting in elaborate frames copyrighted like because of the frame. The frame and picture were created 100s of years ago.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 23:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Short answer: no. Longer answer: if the photograph is solely of a painting/frame and that painting/frame is in the public domain (which in this case it definitely is, seeing as it dates from the early 17th century), then the photograph is ineligible for copyright protection under US law on the basis that it contains no original, creative work. -- Hux (talk) 03:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't load the url, but if the frame is a three dimensional object, then presumably, any new photograph of it, would be considered a creative work, and subject to copyright by the photographer. --Rob (talk) 04:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

about a image and video on a article
There is an image/video on the article ejaculate at the bottom of a man ejaculating in the video. There is already an image of various stages of a man ejaculating at the top of the article that is more then enough. The Video is unneeded but i don't think i'll get anywhere with the people on the talk page. There is no need for the video when there is already an image and i need to know how to have it removed from the article since other editors will just put it back and have put it back. Yami (talk) 06:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * People on this page have no special authority regarding what images/videos should go in an article. I'd suggest using the talk page, or (if you want more input from the community) an RFC. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Beer bottle with label
Which tag applies to photographs of beer bottles (or any food packaging, for that matter) which include the product label? Are they considered logos? Is there a recommended image size restriction? — Loadmaster (talk) 05:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We have non-free product cover. There's no hard-and-fast rule for image size, but it probably shouldn't be much larger than the thumbnail display in the article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Pre-1923 U. S. newspaper content from online databases, claimed to be under copyright?
Forgive me for asking this again... I'm quite puzzled by one of the answers.

My public library offers access to page images of historical newspapers via several databases; one is "America's Historical Newspapers," which is credited to "Readex, a division of Newsbank."

Everything retrieved by it, regardless of source or date, contains a boilerplate notice "This entire product and/or portions thereof are copyrighted by NewsBank and/or the American Antiquarian Society. 2004." However, the database only goes up to 1923 and therefore almost everything in it ought to be in the public domain. Quite a lot of the images contain very interesting material. In particular, I'm looking at some very early example of crossword puzzles in which I'd like to use the image of the puzzle itself.

Can I simply ignore the copyright notice for material published before 1923 (and for which there's no reason to suspect it was first published outside the U. S.?) I can understand that the graphic apparatus surrounding the image itself, in their viewing software, or the layout and content of their "results" page (text plus image snippets) might be copyrighted, but I completely fail to see how something that's intended to be simply an accurate reproduction of public domain material can be copyrighted.

Here are the previous replies, and it's Calliopejen1's that has me particularly puzzled.

Correct; for works published in the US, the published before 1923 rule has no exceptions. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

For works first published in the US. --NE2 20:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

However, databases like Proquest often impose restrictions on their users to prohibit the use of their public domain images/text elsewhere. This probably makes it only so you are forbidden to post the image, but it may not prevent Wikipedia from using it once you've uploaded. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Photobucket
Can images from photobucket be uploaded? Photobucket's terms of use seems to explain that all public photos can be copied, modified, and distributed for any legal use. In particular, see under the section "Proprietary Rights in Content on Photobucket". I originally asked this question at Help desk where there is some discussion and a suggestion that I should ask here. Snowman (talk) 09:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, for many reasons. First, most photos on photobucket are not actually owned by their uploaders. Second, the terms of use do not make images as free as is needed. All photobucket "users" may "copy, print or display publicly" the photos that are there, but there is no mention of derivative works, or who constitutes a "user". (Any mention of modification is a right granted to photobucket itself, not to anyone else.) Finally, if you take down your photos, these rights cease to exist. Wikipedia requires irrevocable licenses. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You appear to be mistaken because the images can be modified. This is a quote for the terms of use: "By displaying or publishing ("posting") any Content on or through the Photobucket Services, you hereby grant to Photobucket and other users a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, worldwide, limited license to use, modify, delete from, add to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and translate such Content, including without limitation distributing part or all of the Site in any media formats through any media channels, ..." To me this appears to be a public domain license, or something very similar to it, but I would like some help in interpreting these terms of use of photobucket. Also, if a photobucket user has uploaded several photos on the same theme with the same camera, it is likely that the images are their own work. It is the same with flickr, it is a wiki guideline that wiki uploaders assess if the images seem likely that they are the flicr users own work. I would like some assistance with the interpretation of the part of the photobucket license that deals with the license termination. To me it appears to imply that the license terminates when distribution ceases, but only photobucket have an obligation in the terms of service to stop distributing the images. Snowman (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Still, random people who have never been to Photobucket are probably not "users", and so are not granted a license. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * From the terms of use: "The term "User" refers to a Visitor or a Member." ;) -- Hux (talk) 02:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And many wikipedia users and reusers are neither.... Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * While Calliopejen1 was mistaken regarding modification and derivative works, her other points are still sound and enough to disqualify PhotoBucket photos from being usable here. As she said, Wikipedia's requirements are that media is either in the public domain, or released under a permanent, free license that allows any and all modification and use, including commercial use. So, while PhotoBucket allows more or less unlimited use, the terms state that at any time a user may remove this license and revert their photos to private status. This means that the PhotoBucket license is not a permanent one, so it's not acceptable to Wikipedia, unfortunately. (PS FYI, there's no such thing as a "public domain license". "Public domain" is a term used to describe the complete absence of any license or other restriction on the use of a work.) -- Hux (talk) 02:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So one barrier to use of the wiki is the possibility that the photobucket license might change. This is what photobucket says to its uploaders; "After you remove your Content from the Photobucket Website we will cease distribution as soon as practicable, and at such time when distribution ceases, the license to such Content will terminate. If after we have distributed your Content outside the Photobucket Website you change the Content’s privacy setting to "private," we will cease any further distribution of such "private" Content outside the Photobucket Website as soon as practicable." Snowman (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

old pictures
How can I get a copy of an old picture if I can get photographer who's now deased permission≈≈≈≈≈≈ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.148.51 (talk) 02:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not totally sure what you're asking. Are you in possession of the photo? Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

A little clarification on public domain images please
On the Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States, it states that images would be in public domain if its creator has passed away more than 70 years ago, or if unknown, 120 years after it was created. Now it also states that works unpublished created before 1978 but are published during 1977–2003 are only in public domain at 2048 earliest. Does that mean that for example, a photo created in 1840 and stored in a box for 150 years before being unearthed,
 * was in public domain when someone scanned and posted it on newsgroups (1998),
 * exits public domain in 2002 when published in a book,
 * and will not reenter public domain until 2048? Jappalang (talk) 08:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The general rule is that works do not exit the public domain once they enter it. The photographs you describe would enter the public domain 70 years after the photographer's death (or, if unknown, 120 years after creation), and would remain there, even if they were subsequently published. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That is good to know. I just want to be sure and cover all angles when I go looking for public domain photos.  Many thanks for the answer.  Jappalang (talk) 09:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)