Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2009/January

Ukrainian photos from WWII
I have a question about some photos taking in the modern-day Ukraine (then part of the Soviet Union) during World War II. They were taken by Soviet military photographers, and I'm not sure when they were first published. The place that I would scan them from is a book, Hitler versus Stalin: The Second World War on the Eastern Front in Photographs by John and Ljubica Erickson, published in 2001. It credits the images to the "Rodina Archive in Moscow and the Leonid Pitersky Collection in St. Petersburg." With that information, can someone help me pick out an appropriate tag to upload them? I haven't uploaded any of them yet; I don't want them to get deleted while searching for the right tag. Any help would be appreciated, and while I'll gladly try to help if I need to provide more information, I'm not sure if I can. – Joe Nu  tter  20:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If PD-Russia-2008 doesn't apply (which you'll need to determine for each individual image), then you would need to use a non-free tag, like and an appropriate rationale. Stifle (talk) 15:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would apply - it was taken in 1944, and the license mentions if they died before 1942. I also don't think I could apply anything fair use to it, because they're mostly pictures of tanks driving across the countryside, wrecked trucks, and guns going off. They aren't non-replaceable, I just would like them while I'm trying to get the article on the battle they were taken in up the assessment ladder with only maps and no pictures. – Joe Nu  tter  17:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * PD-Ukraine is another possibility. Does the book indicate by what right it used the photos? If an image is neither public domain nor licensed under a free license, and it doesn’t conform to WP:NFCC, we can’t use it. —teb728 t c 18:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if it would qualify for that. The creator is unknown, or at least not said in my source, and I'm not sure when it was first published. Do you know what should be done about uncertainty regarding the first date of publication? – Joe Nu  tter  20:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If an image is neither public domain nor licensed under a free license, and it doesn’t conform to WP:NFCC, we can’t use it.
 * I'm not sure. It might qualify for the PD-Ukraine, but I'm not sure. Does anyone know what should be done when we are unsure about when it was first published? – Joe Nu  tter  15:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Basic image upload question
Hi, Perhaps a basic question, but I´d appreciate some help. I recently uploaded the image File:Andreas Öberg.jpg but haven't been able to provide information to prevent deletion in 7 days (see template). What should I do? Or on which page/URL do I find help? (I have tried to locate this info but I am not so sure I am on the right track...) Thank you, Dafos (talk) 13:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly the Flickr image is copyright according to that page. If you have been given a licence directly from the copyright holder they will have to provide the appropriate confirmation to us. The instructions are at WP:CONSENT. He must understand that a Wikipedia only use is no good for us. ww2censor (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answer. No, I haven't been given a licence directly from the copyright holder (Flickr). In an email Andreas Öberg says that he is allowed to use this image. Just to make sure that I understand, a licence given from Flickr, is this the only way to prevent deletion and by using the email text on the WP:CONSENT page? (I haven´t contacted Flickr before so I don't know how easy this will be.) Or is there another way? Thanks again, Dafos (talk) 13:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Baalbek-GenPix.jpg
I have a question about this image- it has a pd-self, but then it says "Copyright (C) 2006 Capt JV Benjamin (14 MARATHA LI)". ???  Spencer T♦C 20:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The uploader's username is basically the same as JV Benjamin, so I think it's safe to assume that the uploader is the copyright holder. And as the tag says, the copyright holder has released the image into the public domain (if applicable, if not rights are given for any use to any party). Seems like everything is in order.-Andrew c [talk] 22:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

US National Archives photo
The last image of the website, I had see that it was US National Archives photo. Is it in public domain or GNU free license? If so, which copyright I should use? Aquitania (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not 100% sure, but it seems very likely to be a work of the US Navy. It is identified as a National Archives photo taken by Robert Hurst.  Most of the other Robert Hurst photographs claim more clearly that such works were official photos taken by the Navy.  It's difficult to say with absolute conviction, but I would believe the photo to be a work of the federal gov't and therefore appropriately tagged by  .  -Seidenstud (talk) 09:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Cover to a discontinued bootleg of a demo tape
Hey,

I recently uploaded the file File:Bowel of Chiley.jpg and I don'tknow which is the licence.

It is a demo tape by band Mr. Bungle and it was released without any permission on bootleg by Playhouse Productions, on 1991.

The original is very hard to find. Which licence applies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvareo (talk • contribs) 13:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact it is a cover of a musical release would seem, at first glance, to allow it to be used under the criteria found at the policy on Fair Use. However there are several issues at play. First, in general, articles on demos and/or bootlegs are not allowed per the "Albums, singles and songs" guidelines for notability. If this demo/bootleg can not meet the General notability guideline and the subject specific notability guideline than no article would exist about the recording and that would disallow a fair use claim.
 * If you can not use a claim of fair use the second (and third) issue would be if the image featured on the cover was a free image or not and, if so, who did the layout and design of the cover. In other words you currently state the image is taken from a website and that the "author" is "Unknown" so that would automatically raise a red flag as a possible copyvio unless it was established that it was Public domain. Because the website that you took this from gives no indication of the copyright status it is doubtful, from looking at the site, there would be any legit claim of ownership to this, or any of the images on the site, if they were to "give permission" for it's use. And even if the image featured on the cover were established as "free" it would not mean the layout of the cover would also be free. This image aside for a moment, there are numerous "royalty free" and "stock images" that can be used in layout and design work, however the resulting derivative work may not be free. And as for finding images on the internet freely obtained does not mean free to republish. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Even though the distribution of the music itself may have been a copyright violation, someone (presumably Playhouse Productions) still owns the copyright to the album cover, which is all we're concerned about in this case. I would say treat it as any other album cover.  Use   .   As usual, it would need a fair use rationale, and    should suffice.  That said, I noticed that "Bowel of Chiley" does not seem to have an article, and I question if it is notable enough on its own to have one.  So make sure that use of this image in another article is not decorative which would be a violation of WP:FUC.
 * By the way, I hope you don't mind that I wikified the file name in your post, for ease of reference. -Seidenstud (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was posting when you did this so I did not see it right away. We basically said the same thing. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Status of Mug Shots
What would the acceptability and copyright status of mug shots taken by local and state police departments and distributed to the public and press be? I'm spacifically talking about this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jeffrey_Epstein_mug_shot.jpg? I recieved a message on my "Talk" page disputing the copyright, and thus having it at Wikipedia. But look, it *WAS* distributed free of charge to the press and anyone who asked the Palm Beach cops for it. Proxy User (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In general, distribution, not matter how widespread and free of charge, does not make a piece of media free or in the public domain. Also, while works by the US federal government are automatically in the public domain, works of state and local governments are usually not (with a number of exceptions).  So, most non-federal mugshots, should be tagged with    with an appropriate fair use rationale.
 * However, Florida is one of the handful of states whose works (most of them, anyway) are automatically PD. So, this image can be tagged as PD.  However, being PD, it may as well be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, where there happens to be a template (  ) for Florida government works.  I'll go ahead and movie it to commons.  -Seidenstud (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As a follow-up, I have been bold and restored template:PD-FLGov (here on en). I have mentioned it at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags -Seidenstud (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

foto of Anti-Lynch Petition presented by the Southern Negro Youth Congress to U.S. Sen. Glen Taylor in 1947
It was removed from the Gwendolyn Midlo Hall Wikipedia page over copyright issues. It is in the public domain because it is 61 years old or if there is any question about that, I, Gwendolyn Midlo Hall, hold the copyright because it was given to me in 1947 because I am in the picture and it has been in my possession ever since. It has also been published on line on the website blackpast.org under Southern Negro Youth Congress. Please help me get it back up. Much thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghall1929 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually 61 years is not old enough for an unpublished photo in the US to be in the public domain. The copyright, unless it was assigned to you by the author of the photo, does not run out until 75 years after the death of the author. See: Public domain. You claim the copyright was given to you. How? Being in the photo or having it in your possession does not give you the copyright to a photo, unless it was a "work for hire", in which case you would own the copyright and therefore have the right to release the image into the public domain yourself, or the copyright was specifically assigned to you. You need to show that you are actually the copyright holder and then you can put in into PD so that it can be used on Wikipedia. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 01:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Harsco logo.gif
Is the rationale in the File:Harsco logo.gif sufficient?--Kiyarr lls- talk 01:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There are a bunch of fair-use rationale templates available that are used quite often. Your rationale looked fine, but I replaced it with the standard template:logo fur, thinking that editors were objecting to yours.  I have mixed feelings about the use of fur templates, but in the case of very non-controversial files (e.g., a corporate logo in an infobox about the corp), they work well, and you might want to familiarize yourself with them for future use.  -Seidenstud (talk) 02:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Integer Partition Table.png
I received the following message:

Thanks for uploading File:Integer Partition Table.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

I'm having trouble understanding the Wikipedia software and I'm not a patent lawyer, so I probably don't fully understand the copyright language. I suppose that my first question should be whether or not there is a user manual for understanding the terminology and how to use the Wikipedia software. I keep trying to tag my files and they seem to be tagged correctly from my view, but they keep coming back as untagged or as an orphanbot. Any help would be appreciated. The file in question is a table that I generated. The values and methods used to generate the table are supported by a new reference that I will include with the reupload of this file. I provided a reference with the last upload, which I found on the internet, but the new reference will be better.--JNLII (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:ICTIC. If you are the sole creator of the content, you need to decide how you want to distribute your content. After that, you need to simply add, for example, PD-self (or what ever license you choose) to the image page. Also, when you upload the file, there is a drop down menus box titled "licensing" which allows you to choose your license (and if you choose a license from the drop down menu, it will automatically add the tag to your image when you upload it). Let me repeat that. On the upload page, you have the option to choose the license you want. You must have been leaving it blank every single time you uploaded it, or we have some strange glitch in our software ;) Finally, if you are uploading free images, please consider uploading them directly to Wikimedia Commons as all free images are eventually moved there anyway. If you have further questions, feel free to ask. I'd be glad to try and help you.-Andrew c [talk] 17:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I tried it again. I noticed that if I remember that I need to add something and then return to the upload page, my license selection goes back to none selected, so this may be my problem. This time, I made certain to include in the textbox a line that says and I selected as a license "Own work released to public domain". The file was originally uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, so I reloaded it in the same place. I also added a short description for references, but the textbook citation will have to wait until I get home, where I have the book.--JNLII (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Colossal Cave Adventure Screenshot (Freeware, 1970s)
Some time ago I managed to track down a copy of the source code for Will Crowther's original Colossal Cave Adventure (the 1970s game that coined the magic words XYZZY and the infamous maze of twisty little passages). After some other people compiled that source code and released the exe files, I fired up the exe file in a Windows cmd window, adjusted the font and color scheme for aesthetic purposes, and then uploaded a screenshot. Yet the image has been tagged as non-free content and flagged for removal.

It's a text-only freeware program, there is no box cover art, and a screenshot of the interface is vital to explaining how a command-line parser-driven text game works.

I'm at a loss as to what to do... the software was freeware (so I don't see why it's been tagged as non-free), the screenshot is just text (and I'm not sure what to make of the request to reduce the file size -- if the text is still legible, then a reduced image wouldn't change the percentage of the program's content that's being reproduced, especially since I adjusted the typesize and color scheme on the Windows cmd utility myself, so it's not as if a larger image would reproduce more of the software's content). I could adjust the command line window's settings so that the typesize is really big, take a screenshot at that resolution, and then reduce the image, but that would be... well, that would be stupid. There is no box cover for this version, and even if there were, the box art would not actually show what the program interface is like.

I'm not experienced with Wikipedia templates, but I presume there is some way to keep the copyright-bots at bay, so if someone could add the appropriate templates, I'll be happy to fill out what I can.

Thank you for your time.

File:ADVENT_--_Will_Crowther's_original_version.png

Dennis G. Jerz (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You need to use the proper licence for this image. Try using Free screenshot that covers free software; you used a copyright software screenshot licence tag. ww2censor (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears the March 11, 1977 version of the FORTRAN source code does not have a copyright notice. The corresponding data file also does not have a copyright notice. Material published or distributed in the U.S. before 1978 required a valid copyright notice or it is the public domain. The File:ADVENT -- Will Crowther's original version.png image is likely a quotation of public domain text.


 * Screen shots of utilitarian text from command line computer programs, such as a directory listing, do not merit copyright protection.(See File:PC-DOS 1.10 screenshot.png) If the program output from one computer vendor is similar to every other computer vendor of the era, there is no creativity. A book publisher or a movie producer can not claim a copyright for using the term "The End" at the end of a story.


 * The Wikipedia "Free Software" copyright tags assume the Richard Stallman definition of free software. Screen shots of textual output from computers from the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s can be totally free as in public domain. We need a Free Screen shot license template for public domain software. – SWTPC6800 (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This photo
Hi. I need help. User talk:GeoffBarrenger has asked for my help in uploading a photo for the Den Schliker article. Apparently the user and the subject are contacts. I need to know if this photo is acceptable as is (I don't know much about photo stuff on Wikipedia). If that picture isn't good, is there a way to use this picture from his biography page? Its essentially the same picture, but a different size. Would the later picture be okay to use as a "press release"? Please help, I have no clue how to go about this... Thanks! Killiondude (talk) 10:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, assuming the subject is the holder of the copyright of the image (this is not always the case), it is nice that he is willing to release it under the GFDL 1.3 (per ). However, the releaser does not seem to understand what he is doing.  Releasing the photo under the GFDL is allowing permission for re-use, re-distribution, and modification (as long as such actions are compliant with the terms of the license).  To then specify as he does that the image may only be used on wikipedia.org, is a demand contrary to the permissions granted by the license.


 * In any case, I have emailed the subject, and will follow up here on this page after we have had a discussion. -Seidenstud (talk) 11:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for your help in this matter. I really appreciate it. Killiondude (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The author and I have been in touch, and we have straightened out. The photo is at File:Den_Schliker.jpg and while it is still awaiting OTRS approval, I went ahead and added it to the article.  -Seidenstud (talk) 07:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ships Nostalgia
I want to upload the image from, , and but the website said that the image was from. Is the image free? If so, are all of the images in Ships Nostalgia free and what copyright tag should I use? Aquitania (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt they are all free and you would need to ask the uploaders for more details about their origins.Geni 13:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Image:Australiabaseballfederation.jpg
I didn't upload this image, but I'm unsure what the dispute on it being non-free content is. It's a public logo used for the Australian Baseball Federation. Do we need written permission from the ABF? I can try and obtain some, I know a few people -  JRA _ Westy Qld2  Talk 04:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * All you have to do, is make a separate rationale for each article it's used in. It'll be pretty much exactly like the one already there, so just copy it. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Problems with deletions of converted image files
WillT.Net created a bunch of images from gif or png formats to svg. At least some of the these were existing images on WP or Commons that had good fair use information, such as the gif that he replaced with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AHS_Eagles_Logo.svg He made claims that he had created some of these images himself, which were in some cases not true, but probably in good faith (meaning that he had converted them himself). As he replaced the previous fair use images with his, the originals became orphaned and were deleted by bots. Soon after I warned him this would happen, after he put his image back on the American High School (Fremont, California) twice, and after several other editors had also givrn advice, he stopped posting. Now his converted images are being tagged for deletion. This will result in several articles tha had valid fair use logo images no longer having one. For American High School, the original gif is no longer available online and the Commons file is deleted. If there is any way that the editors who work in this arena can clean this up without simply deleting all the images, I think that would be good. If any deleted images with good fair use rationales can be revived or if their rationales can be added to the existing svg image files, perhaps they can be kept.--Hjal (talk) 07:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at the case you cited of File:AHS_Eagles_Logo.svg, what is wrong with the fair use rationale there? It uses  , which is pretty easy to apply to other files. -Seidenstud (talk) 09:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Allen Clarke (educationalist).jpg
A bot has flagged the fair use rationale of the above photo as inadequate. It looks fine to me though. Also how would a bot have the intelligence to know what I write anyway? It's all a bit wierd. Can anyone suggest how to handle this?Bletchley (talk) 09:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to cite the article it will be used on in the rationale Spartaz Humbug! 11:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you'd said that you were using it in the article Allen Clarke, which is a disambiguation page. In fact you've used it in Allen Clarke (educationalist), so the bot had noticed that the image was linked on a page not mentioned in its fair-use rationale. I've fixed the rationale's link which should solve the problem; so I've removed the deletion tag. ~ mazca  t 13:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Status please
Could you please kindly inform me about the the copyright status for The Modern Home Physician, A New Encyclopedia of Medical Knowledge? This was edited by Robinson, Victor, Ph.C., M.D., published by WM. H. Wise & Company (New York), in 1939. Thanks. Happy 2009! - AnakngAraw (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello there. Anybody there? - AnakngAraw (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It depends on whether the copyright was registered or not. Check out this page which shows many different scenarios for US published books and others. You need to do some work, but neither GoogleBooks not Worldcat gives any indication; while google lists it there is not even a snippet view so most likely is still under copyright but we can't be sure. You could use the book as a source for edits but the text may not be a direct copy. ww2censor (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. - AnakngAraw (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

picture copyright
The picture I used was sent to me by the subject himself--there is no copyright. Is it useable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleobatra (talk • contribs) 18:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are talking about the image File:Dennis.jpg which you then used in the Dennis O'Rear article, you have screwed up things. You uploaded the image with the same name as an existing image causing your image to overwrite the existing image and then be displayed in the other article. I have fixed that and removed your image from the Dennis O'Rear article for now. Just because someone gives you a photo of themselves does not mean they own the copyright but someone does, often the photographer. You need to find out if Dennis O'Rear owns the copyright or someone else and if he owns it, you need to get him to provide Wikipedia with a suitable licence we can use. He may even allow it to be in the public domain but that then means anyone can use it for any purpose. Check out WP:BCI before you proceed to upload it again and make sure to use a unique name for the file as well as providing an acceptable licence. If you mean the File:DJOREAR.jpg image you still need to find out who own the copyright per the above. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Correct copyright tag for recently uploaded images
File:Plateau_move_blank400b.jpg

I am the copyright holder of the game Plateau. These images contain trademarked logos as well. I am fine with the images themselves being used/copied but I don't want to cloud the copyright/trademark of the game.

What copyright notice should I put with the images? Jwplwiki (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If this is a photograph of a board game (which it appears to be) and you are the photographer, you can choose to license the image however you want. Any of the free licenses (GFPL, CC-SA, etc) should be ok. Then you can also tag the image with Template:Trademark to make it clear regarding the logos and other material depicted within the free photograph. I'm not positive on this one, but I'm pretty sure.-Andrew c [talk] 01:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of official seal of state and local governments in the US
As yet there seems to be no consitent treatment of how seals of state and local governments in the US are treated. What is the rule? I am specifically concerned with the use of the official seal of the City of Manhattan Beach, California, which is used at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Beach,_California -- I checked and learned that the seal as shown was changed and adopted in 1961. Can it be used here under the fair use doctrine? If so, how should the fair use rationale be completed? Thanks Oconnell usa (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately (for us), there can be no single, consistent rule for the treatment of state and local seals. The reason why is because their copyright status is judged on a case-by-case basis: for some states and locales, works created by government employees are in the public domain by default. However, in most areas copyright applies to government seals just it does for any other creative work. I don't know the status of works produced by the City of Manhattan Beach, CA, so you'd have to check. Alternatively, if it's a non-free image and you want to use it in a manner that is consistent with the non-free content criteria then see WP:FURG for information about how to create the appropriate non-free usage rationale. -- Hux (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Be aware that copyright is not the only issue relating to state seals. The Oregon State Seal, for instance, was produced in the 1850s, and is not eligible for copyright protection in the U.S.; however, there is a separate law governing its use. The seal may not be used (paraphrasing from memory, here) in any way that falsely implies official state endorsement of something. See the linked article for more detail.
 * In my personal, NON-LEGAL opinion, it's unlikely that any use on Wikipedia (illustrating the article on the state, for example) would violate this law; but YMMV. -Pete (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

University logo removal
Marylhurst University requests removal of its logo at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Marylhurstuni.png

There are many other images that may be used to represent the University. The University wishes to prevent misrepresentation and unapproved use of its logo. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarylhurstWeb (talk • contribs) 02:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I am under the impression, unfortunately, that the use of the logo in this encyclopedia qualifies as fair use, and is therefore allowed under U.S. copyright law without permission from the rights holder. If you feel the article is misrepresenting the University, perhaps you can point out the aspects in which it is doing so, and I (or you) can change the article to better represent the school in an unbiased way. Also, can you give any specific examples of the other images that may be used?  Perhaps we can agree on a better alternate image.  -Seidenstud (talk) 03:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

While it may be permissable under fair use, it puts our institution needlessly at risk ... and makes our logo available for free use through Creative Commons, which is not the University's intent. There are sites popping up on the Internet selling fake diplomas using institutions' logos; we must be vigilant in protecting the University's name. A better alternate image for Wikipedia use would be a photographic image used in University advertising. I would be happy to provide an alternate image. MarylhurstWeb (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think you will protect your University by pulling down images of your logo. If websites are selling fake diplomas, you should be attacking those sites and the people who use them. A logo is something you should be proud of. You should be glad it is being displayed as when people read the article and see the logo in the future, they will think of you. Under your reasoning I should have my institution logo removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathbob (talk • contribs) 22:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * File:Marylhurstuni.png has been marked only with a Non-free logo tag. It does not make the logo available under Creative Commons or any other free license. And it does not affect anyone’s ability to make a fake diploma. With all due respect, I can’t help suspecting that your posts here are a hoax: For I would expect that a representative of the university would come up with better reasoning than you have shown here and furthermore would have already proposed an alternative image. —teb728 t c 04:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No organization besides Marylhurst University has the power to re-license the logo. While most of the images on Wikipedia are freely-licensed, there is no intent or ability to give the world at large the right to use the image in violation of your copyright. Fair use is not a license.
 * It occurs to me, though, that it's possible a blog post I published might be the source of your concern. That blog post is unrelated to the (relatively few) images that are used under fair use on Wikipedia. If I'm responsible for this confusion, please accept my apologies.
 * Also, please be aware that Oregon has a pretty active community of volunteers who would be happy to work with you. You could contact us here, or if you'd like to speak to someone, call me at 503-453-9766. Not that there's anything wrong with posting here, that was a good step; just offering another avenue. -Pete (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Matisse-The-Dessert-Harmony-in-Red-Henri-1908-fast.jpg
Should we tag subject image by ? Later one (File:Matissedance.jpg circa 1909) is already tagged as.

If not, is it OK to have 1,476 × 1,216 pixels image tagged as fairuse?

Thanks, 4649 01:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Depends on publication date.Geni 01:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * How do we know if it was first published prior to January 1, 1923 or not? 4649 00:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

File:FaceKooLogo.png
This is the logo of the website www.facekoo.com. Should this file be tagged as public domain?--Wcam (talk) 06:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * maybe. Depends if you belive Davidyan74 and if you think they actualy have the right to make the release.Geni 13:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Does he have to do anything to prove it?--Wcam (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please keep this conversation in one place. I'm going to reply at Possibly_unfree_images/2009_January_5.-Andrew c [talk] 15:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

uploading a logo
I have tried uploading a logo for a company and it has been removed. This logo was produced internally and is used across all advertising and information. What should I select for the type of copyright? i have permission to use it, but don't understand the different choices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Online Team (talk • contribs) 13:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * File:Brightside logo.gif was deleted because it didn't have proper licensing info, and File:Brightside Group Logo.jpg was deleted because it was not being used. All images that are not free (such as a copyrighted log) must have an accompanying license tag (such as Non-free logo) and a WP:RAT, a fair use rational. You must explain why the image is used and how it qualifies for fair use (and we have helpful templates that you can fill out such as Template:Non-free use rationale. Finally, the image has to be used in the main article namespace, and nowhere else. Right now there is not Brightside Group article. You have a draft going in a user space User:Online Team/draft, however since the user space is not the main article namespace, non-free images cannot be placed there. A bot removed the image from that draft for this reason (see here). And that made the image unused. Unused, non-free images are basically automatically deleted after 7 days, so that is why the image was deleted. So, in summary, the image needs to be licensed, it needs a fair use rational, and it has to be used in an article in the main namespace (not the userspace or elsewhere). Hope this helps.-Andrew c [talk] 15:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Postcard image
This postcard image of the Carson City Mint |here is said to be in the public domain. I do not know what copyright tag to use for it. --Coingeek (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1866 is a long time ago. I put a pd-old on it. Might be one more specific than that (first pub prior to 1923 is always PD by US laws), but it should work as is. DreamGuy (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Satellite and aerial photos by state government
I was wondering if orthoimagery from http://www.nysgis.state.ny.us was free-use. There is no cost or restraints on downloading or using images from the site as far as I can find. If images can be used from there I was wondering what the correct templates would be.Camelbinky (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because something is freely available does not mean it is public domain. I could not find anything one way or the other about copyright on the site, and all images are copyrighted by default. (Unless the map is so simple that it does not qualify for copyright, but that would be rare.) A few states release imagery into the public domain, but I don't believe that New York is one of them. So in sum, this image is unusable unless you can find some explicit release saying it is freely reusable. It might be worth emailing the site and asking if they would be willing to release the images under a creative commons license--see WP:COPYREQ for instructions. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * While not the orthoimagery program, I found some information related to this topic here on the GIS Clearinghouse Coordination program. They specifically say that that data is NOT public domain and explain why they think it's better that way. I really don't know enough about these programs of this topic to say whether hit is even relevant or not. But I'll echo Calliopejen1. If we have no explicit reference to the license of those images, we have to assume they are not free. -Andrew c [talk] 22:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Zoological Museum of Amserdam pics: only with attribution
Ok, I have an image of the ZMA but they only allow usage with attribution. (like this one) Are we doing that? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This image on the page you linked to, when clicked larger, has a clear copyright symbol on the page. It also has a link to more legal information, which states that data can only be used for educational purposes, non-commercial, etc. All of these things are not compatible with wikipedia's image use policy, so the image cannot be uploade here (unless uploaded as a non-free image with a valid fair use rational). I hope I answered what you were asking.-Andrew c [talk] 22:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I asked them, and I was told that we can use the image for wikipedia but only with attribution (U kunt de foto, met bronvermelding, gebruiken voor Wikipedia. -> "You can use the photo with attribution for wikipedia"). That was why I asked as I asked it. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia requires that photos be freely reusable by anyone, including derivative works and use for profit. Permission for Wikipedia alone is not enough. Please see WP:COPYREQ for sample letters asking for the required permission. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, clear now. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Since this is an extinct bird, it seems highly unlikely that someone could take a picture of it, so there could be a strong claim for fair use of that image. Alternatively, that image looks like a stuffed bird, and it may be part of the museum's collection, so if it is publicly viewable, we could try to find someone who could visit the museum, take a picture of the display, and then upload the image under a free license. Even if the stuffed bird isn't on public display, they may allow someone to come photograph it. Hmm... just some ideas.-Andrew c [talk] 22:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

LIBELOUS POSTING NEEDS TO BE REMOVED
i just noticed that one of your editors posted something about me personally that is libelous and untrue and needs to be removed. What steps does one take to remedy this and file a complaint against the editor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FADEINMAG (talk • contribs) 02:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC) FADEINMAG


 * nb: I've replied to this at the editor assistance page. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This role account has been blocked. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  03:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Permission
Alpha takes a photograph of (Canadian) Beta. Beta dies 2008. The photograph is on the internet. Gamma gets a copy of the photograph from Delta. Gamma uploads it to wikipedia, understanding from Delta that Alpha is cool with this. Alpha doesn't want to upload it himself. Gamma thinks Beta is notable. What is the appropriate image licence and how does Gamma set about proving it? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  13:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Gamma should read WP:COPYREQ and have Alpha send an email to WP:OTRS licensing the photo under under a free license. —teb728 t c 23:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Additional input needed on a ticket at PUI
A ticket at PUI has been stale for several weeks now and is causing a delay in processing the page on which it is listed. Please contribute to if you have feedback to offer so that we might get this one closed. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Calendar Cover
I am in possession of a calendar released by St. Francis Preparatory School with images of the school in the past and a photo of the existing building. I believe these images would help in illustrating the school in its various locations during its history. However, I don't know the proper license under which to upload it or whether or not I can. I cannot find the name of the photographer anywhere on the calendar. ~ Itzjustdrama C  ? 22:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * We'll have to assume that the images are copyrighted. And since anyone could walk up to the school with a camera, it seems very unlike that there would be a valid fair use rational to explain the use of such non-free images. Perhaps we could find a wikipedian in that area who could go out and take a few shots.-Andrew c [talk] 23:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could contact the school (or other publisher of the calendar) to identify the photographer(s). Failing that there seems no way of getting a free license for the photos. So there would be no way of using the photo of the existing building; for as Andrew c said it could be replaced by a free image. If images of the school in the past are essential to understanding the article, we might be able to use them under the Non-free content criteria. But WP:NFCC is a pretty high hurdle. —teb728 t c 23:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I live in the area of the existing building so I could do that myself. I don't know why I asked about that part. Thank you for the answers. ~ Itzjustdrama C  ? 01:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Question about "Bumblebee Mustang.jpg"
Hello,

I recently uploaded a picture of a yellow Roush Mustang (File:Bumblebee Mustang.jpg) and was told to find a the correct license status for the picture. However, I am unsure as to which license to choose for the picture, as I took the picture myself on my camera phone. I would greatly appreciate some help with this. Please contact me on my talk page.

ZackTuren (talk) 05:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are going to release the image into the public domain then add PD-self. ww2censor (talk) 05:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I appreciate the help.ZackTuren (talk) 05:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Why am I getting an image fair use message from Fairuse Bot for a sound file?
I added a couple of short sample ogg sound files to the articles for Al Hirt and Doc Severinsen. A couple of weeks later I find boilerplate messages on my talk page from Fairusebot specifically referencing use of images. They're not images, they're sound files. When first uploading them, the system even adds a copyright rationale to the file's page, such as here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Doc_chimes_festival.ogg

Any input will be appreciated. Thanks. Docsavage20 (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You need to add a fair-use rationale to the file description page. See WP:FURG. Megapixie (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The bot probably wants adjusting to mention "files" rather than "images", but its point is still valid. All media are subject to the same copyright policies as images. ~ mazca  t 20:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

42 year old photograph from an unknown newspaper
The following photograph was taken from a website with no attribution to it: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRImarcelloTrafficantiRagano1.jpg It comes originally from a 1966 newspaper photograph of unknown origin. The photograph was used as evidence in a trial 36 years ago. A portion of this photograph has already been used in a Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santo_Trafficante,_Jr.) and listed as "public domain." I want to use the entire photograph in a new article. Are there copyright issues? If I can use it, what information do I give for it? Please notify my TALK page of any answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrio (talk • contribs) 21:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Dannii Minogue picture
I have been granted permission to use image from this website, which tag do I need to place on it? I asked this question on the Help desk and I don't feel I got the right answer can somebody please help me out?.-- intraining  Jack In  03:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your second link doesn't work. Nonetheless, do you have written permission? Tan   &#124;   39  03:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh that site was working fine a few hours ago (I think we have to wait for the maintenance to be done). I do have written permission.-- intraining  Jack In  03:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Email me; I can best explain it there. Tan   &#124;   39  03:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * O.K. I will email you as soon as the site is up and working again.-- intraining  Jack In  04:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Images from ATOC
Can images be used from ATOC website. The website issues this :- "Conditions of use: You may download and print pictures from the ATOC picture library from this site for media related purposes or for your own personal use only. This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context. Where this material is reproduced, published, broadcast or otherwise issued to others the source and copyright status must be acknowledged. For commercial applications there is a reproduction charge. If you are looking for a specific photograph or wish to use photographs for a non media related purpose, please contact the ATOC press office or call us on 020 7841 8020."

Also is there an appropriate image license tag for such photos? Thank you --STTW (talk)  12:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Such terms do not constitute a free license, and therefore such images can only be used here under a claim of fair use. See WP:FUC for more details.  -Seidenstud (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Seidenstud, so I'll better look for an other option. cheers. --STTW (talk)  10:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Where this material is reproduced, published, broadcast or otherwise issued to others the source and copyright status must be acknowledged. For commercial applications there is a reproduction charge." Does Wikipedia count as a commercial application?  Surely it's not making any money.  I would interpret that as saying there is no charge provided that we acknowledge the source and copyright status, which sounds pretty close to a Creative Commons attribution licence to me.  Of course, I'm no expert.  :-p  You could always contact them to ask for permission under such a licence, in any case.  leevclarke (talk) 04:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, this is definitely not ok here. Wikipedia requires that images be available for reuse of any kind, including commercial reuse. (Limited exceptions are provided for in WP:NONFREE.) You might want to request permission for free commercial use, though it's unlikely they'll grant it. See WP:COPYREQ for more information. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Pictures of product packaging
If I recall correctly, it's prohibited to upload/use pictures of product packaging. Does anyone know where this is stated in our policies or guidelines? Tan  &#124;   39  21:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure of the answer, but I see images like File:Sierra mist orange lemon.jpg a lot, with free licenses (often tagged with the trademark tag as well). I'd be curious to know the answer to this as well, because it seems like freely licensed product packaging images are ubiquitous. -Andrew c [talk] 19:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

jessica
i want to start my own radio station for my area i want to kn what and how i start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.7.69.11 (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This page is for media copyright questions only. ww2censor (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Using Text from Wikipedia on other website
I am building a website and am wondering exactly what I need to do to use the text from Wikipedia on my website and stay within the copyright guidelines.

Thanks, IkeL —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilhoskins (talk • contribs) 00:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You might want to check the FAQs, see here.-Andrew c [talk] 01:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See also WP:REUSE. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Image size
Hi. WP:ALBUM indicates that album covers should not be larger than 300px to meet WP:NFC. Is this based on a hard and firm rule, or just a rule of thumb? If an editor were, say, replacing smaller images with larger (File:Lil'Kim-LaBellaMafia.jpg and File:LaBellaMafiaclean.jpg) how would this be handled? Ordinarily, I'd tag it nfr, but that's an odd tag to use when the image is already on wiki at a good size. Wanted to check and see if WP:ALBUM knows what it's talking about, particularly since I've already addressed one of this contributor's articles as WP:CSD, and I don't want to seem bitey. Frankly, if WP:ALBUM is right, I'm still not quite sure how I'll raise the point. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a 100% hard and fast rule but we not use bigger non-free images that what is strictly nessesary to get whatever information the image is supposed to convey across in the article. In this case I'd say put the smaller image will do just fine, so just put the original image that actualy have a rationale back and tag the redundant one with {{subst:orfud}}. --Sherool (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Will do! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Or would do, but you did already. :D Doubly thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Image submitted to the Wikipedia entry regarding William Fetter
The image I submitted was given to me personally by William Fetter. I have enhanced its contrast and filtered it for clarity in its .jpg form. As far as I know, there is no copyright on the image. It may be the first example of computer drawn three dimensional objects.

Steve Ellis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen.R.Ellis (talk • contribs) 21:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * A work with any kind of creativity is automatically copyrighted simply by being created. From the fact that he gave the image to you, I would say that you could reasonably infer only a right to use it personally not a right to publish it on Wikipedia. His heirs or the original publisher probably own the copyright. —teb728 t c 08:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Image Use




Can this image be used? If it can, what would the license be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinosrawr (talk • contribs) 08:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I couldn't figure out for sure if it's public domain or not. Your best bet is to find out who the photographer was and the date it was taken. The other possibility is to use it under fair use, which would probably stand since he is no longer alive, but may still get deleted. For that you would use and a Non-free use rationale guideline. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 09:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinosrawr (talk • contribs) 15:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Image: A Side Productions company logo.jpg
Hi, I just uploaded the logo Image:A Side Productions company logo.jpg to A Side Productions. I would appreciate if someone could have a quick look at it and tell me if there is information missing, and if so, which? And where do I find this information? Thank you, Dafos (talk) 11:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I added the file's original source location and changed the licence from Non-free logo to Non-free commercial logo. ww2censor (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Picture of the Health Museum
Hello, I have some picture of The Health Museum I would like to add to their wikipedia page. The last time I added them, they were deleted. What do I need to do I get them accepted? They're part of the press kit from the museum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thm wiki (talk • contribs) 22:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears, based on your username, that you are affiliated with The Health Museum. (FYI usernames that imply affiliation with a company are discouraged; since it's a somewhat cryptic acronymn, though, I don't think it's so bad you'll be blocked and forced to choose a new name.) For photos to be included in Wikipedia (with few exceptions), they must be available under a free license. This means that they must be available for anyone to use for any purpose (including commercial use and derivative works). A list of suitable licenses is available at WP:ICTIC. Since these are press kit images, we would need confirmation from an official email address that this is authorized by the museum. See WP:COPYREQ for instructions on this. I would advise choosing a license, uploading the images, placing the chosen license tag on the image pages (e.g. cc-by-sa, see instructions at the top of the page if you need help), sending the permission email, and tagging the images OTRS pending which indicates that permission has been sent. (If this tag remains on the image for a long time without someone who staffs Wikipedia confirming the permission, the image will be deleted.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance, I'm just trying to help out. =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thm wiki (talk • contribs) 22:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Photo and posters on uncopyrighted web site
I have been contributing to the article on the Scottsboro Boys, which does not have pictures of them. This web site has a 1930s photo of them and their attorney as well as several Communist Party posters promoting their cause. http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/a_f/boyle/chronology.htm I cannot find a copyright notice anywhere on that page in particular or that web site in general. Would it be permissible to upload and use that material?

Springfieldohio (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, the main page has a copyright notice at the bottom. Tan   &#124;   39  16:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I spent some more time on that web site and see what you mean. However, that photo is on virtually every web site and shows up in every book about this case with no mention in any of the places that use it that it is being used with the permission of anyone else. That photo has to be in the public domain. By that rationale, would it be possible to say it was first published before 1978 without a copyright notice?
 * Springfieldohio (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you can't just assume that, because you cannot easily find out who owns the copyright or who took the photo, that you can say "it was first published before 1978 without a copyright notice". I looked around the Library of Congress image files and while I did not find this photo, there are a few other Scottsboro Boys photos there and all are restricted use. The likely situation is that this was taken at the jail and so would be an official work of the state of Alabama. Most states official work is copyright to them not like federal official works that are PD in the US. I did see one newspaper that published the photo. Why not ask them what the source was? You have some work to do to find the answers. Otherwise your only chance is to use it as a non-free image with a fair-use rationale claim. ww2censor (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you suggest such a fair use claim, so I can give it a shot. Again, that photo is everywere with no mention of having anyone's permission to use it. For instance, the Linder web site, while copyrighted, plainly says that he thinks his photos, including that one, are not copyrighted, but he does not know their source. "The materials included in the Famous Trials website are original works of authorship, government records, works for which copyright protection has expired, works reprinted with permission, or works that I believe are within the fair use protection of the copyright laws. If any author objects to the use of any work appearing in these pages, please contact me by e-mail and I will remove the work and review the propriety of including it. This is an educational and non-commercial site maintained at the University of Missouri-Kansas City Law School." http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/ftrials.htm The photo itself has no copyright notice or mention that anyone gave him permission to use it, so he must be relying on fair use to use it. If law Professor Linder thinks it is a fair use, one would think that there is a good case for it being a fair use.


 * Springfieldohio (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, one way to find out is to upload it and see what happens. I uploaded that image with my best defense for a "fair use" rationale. It is posted in the Samuel Leibowitz article, where I gave it my best shot for a "fair use" justification. If it has to be removed, it has to be removed. However, that photo is so historically important, is so old and is so unlikely to be subject to a copyright (the web site from which it came frankly says that), I hope it will either be blessed as is or someone can add the right words to make it eligible for "fair use".


 * Springfieldohio (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The burden of proof is up to the uploader to supply the justification based on facts not conjecture. You are trying too hard to infer this image is in the public domain without any proof. Using words like: "that photo is so historically important, is so old and is so unlikely to be subject to a copyright" is cojecture and not proof. Using a fair use rationale may be acceptable but the text fair use rational that you added to the image file is not good enough these days, you need to put the fair use rationale template into the file and fill it it completely. However, the use of the image File:Leibowitz, Samuel & Scottsboro Boys 1932.jpg in Samuel Leibowitz is definitely not acceptable until the rationale is fully completed. ww2censor (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Old image digitalised
I was hoping to add the image found at to Laurie Nash. It's known as the iconic image of Nash and has been used in a number of books mentioning him. The image was created in 1936 and under Australian law is in the Public Domain. Is the laws about PD different if a PD image is digitalised (as this one is)? Or do I need to scan the image from a book (hunting down a scanner in the meanwhile)? --Roisterer (talk) 05:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As long as you can attribute where you got the image and explain why it is public domain, it's fine. Stifle (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! --Roisterer (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Vishnu Gotra In Brahmin Cast
sir

Just tell me about vishnu gotra

Thanking you

B.K.Mishra

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.143.166 (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over two million articles, and thought that we were directly affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the online free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is a help desk for asking questions related to using the encyclopedia. Thus, we have no inside track on the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the left hand side of your screen. If that is not fruitful, we have a reference desk, divided into various subjects areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. Stifle (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

atlanta falcons logo/trademark
i am an upholsterer and would like to use the falcons logo on a car seat which i will offer for sale. what would i need to do to sell this product legally and not infringe on any copyrights vialotions. or how do i obtain permission to sell these car seats. is there a per use fee or per year fee? excuse my ignorance. thank you. 74.160.69.215 (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You should contact the Atlanta Falcons directly and/or a lawyer. We are Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, and we cannot give legal advice. —teb728 t c 22:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Book of Luke.jpg
I'm just wondering about the copyright status of this image, is the copyright owned by the publisher of the book or is bible text in the public domain? Guest9999 (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The original text would be public domain, but some translations would be copyrighted. I believe this is the King James version. It's sort of a special case; it's public domain in the US, which is good enough for inclusion Wikipedia, though it may still be copyrighted in the UK. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response, should the copyright tag on the image be changed from cc-self to public domain then? Guest9999 (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, because there is creativity in the photography so there could be copyright in the photograph. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. Guest9999 (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

US Navy Images Question
Hi, I want to upload images of SS Europa (1930) from to Wikimedia Commons but I don't know who is the author of those work and are they free? If so, what copyright tag should I use? Aquitania (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If they're verified as Navy photos, you can use PD-USGov-Military-Navy as a license template. Howover, I looked at the source site and they don't say the photos are from the Navy. FYI, it looks like the German government has donated a lot of photos of that ship to Wikipedia. Kelly  hi! 00:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Jayanthi Indian Acress.jpg
Image:Jayanthi Indian Acress.jpg is an image which was published in the news. Can this be considered as a free image? Bharathprime (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It would seem not. At the bottom of your linked page it says, "Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu" This explicitly denies free use. —teb728 t c 21:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, but it's important to note that even in the absense of such copyright notices beeing published in the news or anywhere else doesn't make anything free licensed. There needs to be an explicit statement saying the image is free licensed for it to be so (with the exception of old photos where the copyright have expired altogether, see public domain). --Sherool (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Bharathprime (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, she is alive, so the image is replaceable, so the fair-use rationale claim won't do either. ww2censor (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was wondering if I could use a frame from her 1967 movie in the infobox. Bharathprime (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Paul von Hintze
So, the image File:hintze.jpg has been tagged for deletion, on the grounds that there's no information about its source. It is true, there's no information about its source. That being said, the image is about 99% likely to be in the public domain. Hintze is depicted in his uniform, and he retired from the Navy in 1911. It is very doubtful he would have worn his uniform for a portrait after the end of the German Empire in 1918, which would put this image solidly in the public domain. In addition, Hintze was 59 in 1923, when copyrights expire - he pretty clearly does not look to be over 60 in the image. Beyond that, even if, by some chance, the image was taken after 1923, the chances are still pretty damned high that it's in the public domain. Works published between 1923 and 1964 (and Hintze died in 1941) are only considered under copyright if a) a copyright notice was attached when originally published; and b) if the copyright was renewed in the 28th year after publication. The idea that what is presumably a German portrait from the 1920s (at latest) would have had its U.S. copyright renewed is close to unbelievable. So, while I can't prove that this image is in the public domain, it's incredibly likely that it is. Surely whatever applies to allow File:Daladier.jpg to be on the commons ought to apply to this image. john k (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing the point. File:hintze.jpg has no source indicated while File:Daladier.jpg has its source indicated. If you want to prove it is in the public domian then you need to prove that not infer it. A source might help answer that question. The text fair use rational is not good enough these days, you need to put the fair use rationale template into the file and fill it it completely which includes providing the source which is a requirement. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest I would be inclined to accept this as PD on the balance of probabilities. Stifle (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * john k's argument holds only if the photo was published before 1923 or if it was first published in the US before 1964. It does not hold if it was first published abroad (e.g. in Germany) after 1923 even if it was taken before 1923. —teb728 t c 22:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, a few points. Firstly, by "source" what are we talking about?  The Daladier image just notes that it comes from a French government website but has no further information about when it was taken.  I'm no longer sure where I got the image file from, but if I download a lower resolution version of the same image from here and say that's where I got it from, does that satisfy the "source" requirement?  Other than the fact that the French government is perhaps a more reliable source than firstworldwar.com, I don't see how the information on the origins of the Daladier image are any more detailed than providing that about Hintze.  I terms of TEB's comments about public domain, I will admit that I'm not an expert on copyright law, and stipulate that he's right.  That being said, the probability is still quite strong that the image was published before 1923.  But whatever.  The whole treatment of images on Wikipedia is absurd.  We have here an image which is most likely public domain, which, even if it is not public domain, is never going to actually be claimed as a copyright violation, and whose use would arguably be fair use even if it isn't public domain and is claimed as a copyright violation.  And yet we can't use it, apparently.  I'd add that, although I have no wish to see it deleted, because that would be ridiculous, by these standards, the Daladier image is pretty clearly on shaky ground as well.  The image page provides absolutely no evidence that the picture is more than 70 years old, or that its author never disclosed his identity.  Daladier was prime minister until 1940 and lived until 1970.  And we know absolutely nothing of the author - we have nothing but the uploader's word that it's anonymous.  john k (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure where to put this.
I want to add it to the Tōhoku Daigaku Karei Igaku Kenkyūjo Kawashima Ryuta Kyōju Kanshū Chotto Nō wo Kitaeru Otona no DSi Training article, as it shows an aspect of the game's development - however, there doesn't seem to be any licensing to place it under, and no way to get it released by Nintendo. Can anyone give me assistance? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously a copyright image of a major corporation. Assuming (usually a bad thing to do) that there is no way of making a replaceable image at some game show or other event (even if you can't do it yourself), then the only thing you can do is to justify its use under the fair-use doctrine by following the fair-use guidelines and adding the Non-free use rationale template to the uploaded image. ww2censor (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I checked out the fair-use guidelines, and I strongly believe it applies - it cannot be replaced, and it provides significant commentary for the article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I was pointed here
so hopefully you can help. Copy-'n'-paste of my message from WT:CP:

I nominated the article Paul Grassi for deletion a few days ago, and while it looks like the article is probably going to be kept (if only as a redirect), there are three images on it that had uncertain copyright and source status. I told the uploader to specify their statuses, and he did on Talk:Paul Grassi. I have no idea if his specifications are sufficient, or if they are, what to put on the pages for the three images in question.

Hopefully someone can help me out here. Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 04:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No release under a free license so we can't use them. Permissions would probably need to sent to permissions@wikimedia.org.Geni 23:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Image use
The owner of the image I posted is the United National Gridiron League, but I'm not sure how do add that. It's the logo for the league. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearsfan1234 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The file needed a copyright tag such as non-free logo and a non-free use rationale. I have provided them for you; see the changes here. —teb728 t c 03:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Zimbabwe Banknotes
Several images I have uploaded have been recognised as not having a Fair use rationale by FairuseBot (click first list to see the list on my talk page). I am not sure why they have been tagged as such as I believe that all have a rationale - the page they were on has since been renamed (now Banknotes of Zimbabwe rather than Banknotes of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe). I wondered whether this was the reason for the tagging or if there was any other reason for it... Thanks  Mangwanani  (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not check each of the images but the ones I looked at do not have the Non-free use rationale template added and filled in for each image; they have a short prose rationale which is why the bot noticed and tagged them. The ones I looked at showed their use in articles (near the bottom) but remember that if a fair-use image is not being used in an article it may be nominated as an orphan and deleted. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * They are in an article, just the article they say they're in is a redirection page. Is that the problem or the template?  Mangwanani  (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is there are no Non-free use rationale templates in the individual image files. ww2censor (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How long do I have to ammend the issue before they're deleted?  Mangwanani  (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 week.Geni 20:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a much worse problem than the bot recognized: Banknotes of Zimbabwe has dozens of non-free images with no critical commentary. As it says in the Non-free currency tag, the image may be used only “for the purposes of commentary or criticism relating to the image of the currency itself.” The use of these images is a major violation of Wikipedia’s non-free content policy. In particular, WP:NFCC says, “Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.” With critical commentary the article might be able to use one or two non-free images, but not dozens. And WP:NFCC says, “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.” The images are used only as illustrations; the text is perfectly understandable without the images. —teb728 t c 20:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Three points: (i) The policy refers to used for the purposes of commentary or criticism relating to the image of the currency itself - not critical commentary only. The article Banknotes of Zimbabwe contains commentary on most (all?) of the notes - that is what the article is. (ii) Is it relevant that the majority of the images are of former currency units? (iii) How is this different from e.g. Euro banknotes or Banknotes of the Swiss franc? Babakathy (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCC requires not only "commentary or criticism" but significance so strong that omission would be detrimental to understanding the article. As for the other two articles, the images there are free (PD or licensed); so their use is not restricted by WP:NFCC. —teb728 t c 23:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC) If there are other articles with comparable multiple non-free images of banknotes, the images should be removed from them as well. —teb728 t c 23:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There are articles like this for most currencies. I don't see why the images can't be used under fair use policy (most of them are worthless, no one can make any money out of them and let's face it, what would forging Zimbabwe dollars do for anyone?!). I would however, like to draw your attention to this page. Surely these guidelines exist within the Numismatics WikiProject because they have had the go ahead by those with copyright paranoia. Why would numismatics editors be TOLD to present the articles in such a manner if it was not allowed?  Mangwanani  (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The WikiProject Numismatics style guideline for currency articles works fine for free images, but for non-free images it conflicts with Wikipedia’s non-free content policy. In order to increase the reuseability of articles, that policy is intentionally much more restrictive than fair use law. I have IFD’d File:Zimbabwe $2 1980 Obverse.jpg as a test case. —teb728 t c 02:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The cause of the problem is in fact just the name change. I don't think the bot can recognise page moves so therefore the simplest solution is to update the rationale to point to the current name. However I did take an opportunity to have the rationale of most images updated. --Marianian (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: I have revised the rationale of all affected images and should now point to the current article. --Marianian (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment:

I take this to mean that once the notes have been demonetized (which most in the article have) the copyright ceases to exist.  Mangwanani  (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. However, I may need someone to file a major RfC on the level of use of fair-use images of banknotes. --Marianian (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

copyright category
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do. The link gave me all these letters that make no sense. What I have is a drawing that was done by a friend. He used a NASA image for part of it. He has sent a letter saying he gives his permission. It seems I have to pick some category to classify the image. I could just try one after the other to see what works, but there are many categories. The last time I asked a question, I was told to read the directions. I don't understand the directions, but I guess you do not have the time to help me. Jim```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmarsmars (talk • contribs) 20:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What are the exact terms of permission your friend has give you?Geni 20:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And which specific image are you talking about, if already uploaded. You have edited some images, so we don't know which one you are referring to. ww2censor (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You’re asking about File:TEMPO3picture.jpg, right? (It would have been helpful if you had said so in your question.) Did your friend give you permission only for use on Wikipedia? If so, you need to know that Wikipedia requires a free license that allows reuse anywhere by anyone for anything. There are several licenses that give that permission. Some popular free free license tags are cc-by-3.0 and GFDL. Or if your friend gives up his copyright, you could tag it with . —teb728 t c 22:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help. I'm sorry I did not mention that the picture was TEMPO3picture.jpg.  I was totally confused.  I'm starting to understand.  Now if my friend has granted me permission to only use it for Wikipedia, what do I do?  Is there a form for him to fill out?  Does he send you a letter?  Do you take my word for it? Thanks, Jim ````  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmarsmars (talk • contribs) 20:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough: Permission for use only on Wikipedia is not acceptable. If that is the permission, the image must be deleted. —teb728 t c 01:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My friend would like to have the picture on Wiki; he would probably give me permission to use it in any of the categories. Which category of permission would be easiest to use?  How does he give permission?  Does he write a ltetter? send an email?  fill out a form?  Thank you, I feel like I'm heading toward a solution. Jim Jimmarsmars (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * More details for donating images to this wiki are here depending on how you and your friend want to handle it but remember, as was already mentioned, that Wikipedia use only is not acceptable. ww2censor (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Images from out of copyright book
Hi, I have a book from 1906 downloaded from the Internet Archive, which indicates that it is out of copyright and so apparently now in the public domain. I'd like to use several images from one chapter. What is the procedure for using these, especially declaring that they are out of copyright, suitable for use in a Wikipedia article, etc? Any guidance would be appreciated. Thanks. John. Jomeara421 (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just be sure to indicate the source (the book's name and date is fine, but an internet archive link is also useful) and tag the image with PD-US. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Thank you. Jomeara421 (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

writer?
who wrote this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.28.236 (talk) 23:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Which article are you asking about? —teb728 t c 23:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

new logo for Berwick Academy
the current logo image for Berwick Academy is out of date. The file is Berwick_Logo.jpg. We have moved to a new logo image for the school, which you can see on our website www.berwickacademy.org. How would I go about uploading the new logo image for Berwick Academy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wendos2 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you need to be WP:Autoconfirmed to be able to upload a file. You have already been registered for more than 4 days, but you need 10 edits--7 more than at present. Then you will be able to click on the "Upload a new version of this file" link at File:Berwick Logo.jpg. —teb728 t c 00:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It won't be any use for this situation, but for uploading free images, any registered user can do so at the Commons. Stifle (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Contd... Replaceable fair use Image:Jayanthi Indian Acress.jpg
I was about to add a frame capture from a Jayanthi starer 1967 movie in the infobox (for article Jayanthi (actress)). Please let me know if it's ok. Bharathprime (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Quote: However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable. (from Non-free content) Thanks, Bharathprime (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But Non-free_content also says that the accpetable use of: "Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television" but you just want a picture of the actress as you did previously here so that use in the infobox is not going to be "critical commentary and discussion of the cinema". ww2censor (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Please let me know if its possible to upload the screen shot or is it against Wikipedia policies. Bharathprime (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I will repeat what it says above. The link Non-free_content clearly tells you, yes, but only if it is used for "critical commentary and discussion of the cinema". ww2censor (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And to provide the converse, it is not acceptable for use in the article about the actress. Stifle (talk) 12:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your time. I appreciate your help. Bharathprime (talk) 16:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

License tagging
Thank You for your input, but I don't quite know how to tag a license for the images File:Uprb azul.jpg and File:Gran Sello del Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico .jpg. I would really appreciate your help.

Thank You, mverdejo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mverdejo (talk • contribs) 00:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)  --- (comment) He signed it, but not correctly in the Wiki Style as Wiki Protocol insists --BSTemple (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Where did you find the image? Why is Wikipedia permitted to use the image? (If you can answer these, we should be able to help you find the right tag.) Stifle (talk) 12:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Royal Airforce Badge.png
I have just removed the Source website for Royal Airforce Badge.png. I have strong doubts about this website. It may have changed since these pictures were taken from it.

Rafmarham.co.uk	says it is a Shopping Resources and Information website. Also that "This website is for sale!"

Should there be any links from Wiki to this site?

--BSTemple (talk) 09:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sports logo on University of Tampa page
I am attempting to update the University of Tampa page with a more recent logo for their athletics department. I'm new to Wikipedia, so I don't know if I did all the copyright stuff exactly right. And I can't seem to get the image to actually appear on the University of Tampa page. Can someone with more knowledge of this crazy Web site help me out? The image I uploaded is titled SpartanSportsLogo.jpg. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UTdan06 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you got it working. On your first attempt you misspelled the file name. —teb728 t c 01:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Reference image for object SCP 06F6
The image located here is governed by these usage conditions. I was about to upload it to include it in the article but the image upload page is downright scary and the only type of usage rationale that I can see applies to it is "Only non-commercial or educational use of this file is permitted", I think. I am not sure that this is the work of a US Government agency, although this is the Hubble. Help? Thanks! §FreeRangeFrog 17:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * “Copyright free” generally means public domain, but they give conditions, which does not sound like public domain. Perhaps the conditions are only a request of courtesy. In any case the conditions are consistent with free use. I recommend using an attribution tag.
 * I see no indication it is a work of the US government: the site at least seems to be run by the ESA.
 * BTW, never upload a file that is licensed only for non-commercial or educational use. It would be uploaded with a speedy deletion tag: Wikipedia does not accept such permission. —teb728 t c 01:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Uploaded as recommended. Thanks. §FreeRangeFrog 06:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

albert gallatin
my great great great great great great grandfather is albert gallatin and i think it would be nice if you could find some more information about him. and maybe even who is family is now.

thank you, Elisabeth Kelley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.93.37.221 (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the wrong place to ask for this, but did you look at the article? §FreeRangeFrog 20:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

robotics
friends plz mail the best free ebooks related to robotics................ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishi5566 (talk • contribs) 08:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but due to WP:NPOV we can not send you the best of anything. try wikibooks. Empire3131 (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Molecular structure of Melanin
I just uploaded File:Molecular_structure_of_Melanin.jpg thinking that it was fair use, but now that I think about it, I'm not so sure that it is, or I used the right license and all that... I'm hoping someone will tell me if it was acceptable. I found it on a harvard faculty page relating to some publicly posted work, and since most educational material is in the public domain I just assumed it would be fair use. Could someone enlighten me? --Pstanton 09:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
 * Well first of all, fair use and public domain are two separate things. There's a copyright notice at the bottom of the page the image is from, so it's not public domain. And there's no reason a freely-licensed replacement couldn't be created, so there's no justification for fair use. The options are to request permission via WP:COPYREQ, or to create a freely-licensed replacement. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 10:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You may want to request the WP:GL work on creating a free image, or better yet, contact the WikiProject Chemistry/Structure drawing workgroup. Hope this helps. (I agree that the image you uploaded is copyrighted and there isn't any appropriate claim of fair use because a comparable free diagram could be created). -Andrew c [talk] 15:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

next launch to space
when is the next launch to space

who are the people who will be going

what s the destination —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.37.131 (talk) 14:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this page is for questions about copyright. For general knowledge questions, please ask at the reference desk. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Question about information I omitted by mistake and is now corrected
Dear Sirs:

I have uploaded File:Yang_Zhen_Duo.jpg and obtained permission from the owner, Master Yang Jun, for the use of the picture under the GFDL. I emailed this permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Shortly after, I got a thank you note from permissions@wikimedia.org acknowledging the receipt of the documentation, and I noticed that the OTRS information is now in the picture's page. I thought this was all I needed to do.

Unfortunately I did make the mistake of not including the name of Master Yang Jun as the copyright holder, who granted his permission to use the picture in its description. So, several days later I got a warning that the picture might get deleted if I didn't comply with this. I have now corrected this. So am I now in compliance? Please tell me what else I need to do if I am not.

Please also clarify this: I thought that the documentation for this picture, which now exists in the OTRS, provides all the necessary information about the copyright owner and his permission for using the material. I don't understand why the picture is threatened with deletion (see page) when all the documentation already exists. Please consider this question  aside  from the fact that I didn't comply with the requirement of including the name of the copyright holder and the statement that he has granted permission for the use of the picture, a requirement that I have now fulfilled.

Thanks,

Panicpgh (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good now. The editor who put the OTRS authorization up is actually the same one who contacted you about the problem, so I'm not sure why he didn't just put in the missing information himself, but all is now well.  Thank you for your attention to our copyright rules. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Have permission from my Uncle to put up a picture he received in his will
I have a picture of "Merill Chase" for the article about him. It was taken in 1977 by the Rockefeller Institute and passed on to my Uncle as part of the will. He has no problem with it being on Wikipedia or whatever is necessary to put it up. I am confused as to where to upload it. I assume I forward an email from him to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org afterward? I want to upload a picture owned by someone else and have his permission. This doesn't seem to be an option although it seems reasonable. Randomplanck (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)randomplanck
 * If your uncle owns the *copyright* on the photograph (rather than just owning a copy of the photograph), then you can post it provided that your uncle is willing to release it under a free license (which would allow anybody to reuse the photograph for any purpose, basically subject only to the requirements of attribution). If he isn't willing to do that, or if your uncle doesn't own the copyright to the photograph, then I'm afraid that you can't upload it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Why are the rules for pictures stricter than the rules on content? The picture is more than 30 years old. I doubt anyone at the Rockefeller University still works there who took the picture. Does that mean they hold the copyright? I could have them release the copyright I assume? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomplanck (talk • contribs) 23:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The rules are not stricter for pictures than for text—quite the opposite. All text must be released under GFDL. Pictures can be released under other free licenses. In exceptional cases pictures can be used without a free license. If you can identify the copyright owner, you could ask them for a free license. See WP:COPYREQ for details. —teb728 t c 00:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sergio Galindo
I have a photo of the Mexican novelist Sergio Galindo that I want to upload to the Wikipedia article about him that I have authored. The photo appeared on the cover of the following publication:

Galindo, Sergio (1970). Nudo. Mexico City: Editorial Joaquín Mortiz.

No copyright or authorship is indicated in the book, and the copyright for the book is now owned by the author's widow, Angela Gonzalez de Galindo, who also owns the original photograph. The photograph was scanned and sent to me at her request by the author's son, Manuel Galindo. Sra Gonzalez de Galindo does not recall who took the photograph, which was taken over forty years ago.

I would appreciate advice. Thanks! Cjholula (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Playrix_logo2.jpg
Hi,

I uploaded the image File:Playrix logo2.jpg. by mistake. It was intended to be an updated version of the file Playrix_logo.jpg. How can I delete the Playrix_logo2.jpg file and make it an updated version of an earlier file?

Thanks, dashakob —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dashakob (talk • contribs) 14:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Near the bottom of the File:Playrix logo.jpg you will see the link to "Upload a new version of this file" which will overwrite the existing file and File:Playrix logo2.jpg will be deleted soon enough. ww2censor (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * On the page File:Playrix logo.jpg, you will see a link towards the bottom "Upload a new version of this file", under the file history. You can use that to upload a new version. Alternatively, you can use the basic upload window and just make sure you are naming the file EXACTLY the same as the file you want to upload over. As for deleting files you created, try db-self. Hope this helps (and this wasn't an image copyright question, so in the future consider going to Help desk or WP:PICTURE.) -Andrew c [talk] 15:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Congressional Cemetery photo
I took this photo a few months ago. I want to add it to the cemetery's page, as well as a separate article I might write about for the totem-pole arch itself. My question is whether or not the arch can be shown since it's located on federal property, but made in 2004 by the Lummi tribe.  APK  is not a Womanizer  15:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to know the answer to this. We have Non-free 3D art. But then we have "free" galleries of public art. I mean would we need to retag File:LovePark.jpg and scores of other photos as non-free? This is a good question.-Andrew c [talk] 15:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah-ha. Freedom of panorama. In Germany, photos of public sculptures are not considered derivative work, where in the US, they are.-Andrew c [talk] 15:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for finding the Commons link. So I assume it's a "no" on being able to use the photo?  APK  is not a Womanizer  15:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Without tagging it as being non-free and giving it a fair use rational, I'd think the answer would be no. But since I am just learning about this now, I'm not sure I can be a good source for an answer. Let's see if anyone more knowledgeable stops by. Sorry!-Andrew c [talk] 15:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem and thanks for the feedback. I've uploaded many photos, but try to avoid the non-free & fair use rational images. That's why I'm clueless on those issues. Hopefully someone else will reply today. Cheers.  APK  is not a Womanizer  16:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Andrew c is correct. This can only be used to the extent it satisfies WP:NONFREE. Unless the arch is discussed in-depth, it is probably unnecessary to have a photo of the arch in the cemetery article. If you wrote an article about the arch specifically, however, it would probably be easy to justify using a photo of the arch in this article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Thanks for the help.  APK  is not a Womanizer  00:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

LIFE photo archiv
Can I use photos from LIFE photo archive hosted by Google? If "Yes", What license do I have to use? --Dnikitin (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The ones I looked at say for "personal non-commercial use only" which means they can't be used here unless they meet the criteria --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, they are practicing copyfraud. The copyright of many of the photos in the archive has expired. To use a LIFE photo, you must apply the standard copyright rules. Since they say some images were not previously published, you can't assume (as people sometimes do) that anything before 1923 (i.e. PD-US) is ok. Any image whose author has been dead for at least 70 years is okay, though. I think for this rule anything before 1850 or 1860 is fine. Tag it with PD-old. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hannah Montana 3 cover
Would i be able to use this cover from this website for the Hannah Montana 3 Cover? If yes what License should i use? Neighbours564eva (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No. As the comments in the blog state the image is a fake. Wait for Disney to release the real cover.--NrDg 00:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

48-hour notice of deletion
I received the following Notice of Possible Photo Deletion:

Possibly unfree File:Diazphoto-2 .jpg

'''An image that you uploaded or altered, File:Diazphoto-2 .jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Lincolnite (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC) --Lincolnite (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)'''

The copyright to the photo in question, is owned by the subject of the bio article - Ruben Diaz Jr.

The notice further encouraged me to pursue a "Non Free Content" license - but I'm not sure that is correct, since the owner of the photo (Diaz) never relinquished the copyright. He is free to release the photo, at will.

The "Notice of Possible Photo Deletion" also stated that the photo had been "duplicated" from another source, which is incorrect. The photo itself was the original source.

What is the appopriate license or action to take, to avoid deletion (within 48 hours) of this and other photos?

Thank you,

MBernal615 (talk) 03:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please follow the instructions at WP:COPYREQ. For the photos to be used in the article, Diaz must release them under a free license. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Woodward & Lothrop
I've been adding images to the article, including this historical photo from the LOC. I found a better quality version of the picture, but when I tried to upload a new version of the file, the old photo is still there. It appears I've forgotten how to do everything during my WikiBreak. Can someone tell me what I'm doing wrong? Thanks.  APK  is not a Womanizer  03:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To which photo are you referring? When specifying a url for a LOC image, you have to copy and paste the permanent URL located on the image description/archival page - the URL is a temporary one that goes dead within hours. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Gak, didn't see that wikilink. Give me a minute, and I'll help out. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, first a couple things about the image description page. To credit images from the LOC, it's best to use the LOC-image template. Also, be sure to check the rights information for each photo you get from the LOC. Some are PD and some aren't, for various reasons (they are by all means not always PD-USGov). So now the image description page is cleaned up. Next, for getting and downloading the high-res image files. At the LOC page, after clicking to the image page from the bibliographic info page, download the image from "Retrieve uncompressed archival TIFF version" - this gets you the good one. Then use some sort of photo editing software to change it from TIF (which wiki doesn't accept) to JPG. I also cropped it, corrected some perspective distortion, and fiddled with the levels a bit, but that's a bonus! Then from the wiki image page, select Upload a new version of this file. Then just select the image that is on your computer and upload over the top. I've actually done all this for you, but hopefully this will be useful for next time. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh and a sidenote - check out how long the exposure was, even for a daytime shot like this. There's tons of ghost people wandering the streets... Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, those ghosts are kinda freaky/awesome. Thanks so much for all the helpful info...and for the "bonus." ;-) That block is one of my favorite places to take pictures, especially the Madame building. Cheers.  APK  is not a Womanizer  06:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair Use or my licence?
I'm thinking about taking a picture of a scale used in a hospital cafeteria, which has a state inspection seal on it, for use on the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services article. There's no doubt that such an upload would be acceptable under Wikipedia's image policies (since the image would greatly aide in te indentification and recognition of the agency, since there's probably many people out there that would recognize those inspection seals even if they didn't recognize the agency itself by name), but the question is whether that would be a fair use upload or a licence of my choice upload. The seal itself, which is the whole purpose of the image's inclusion, I believe would be considered intellectual property of Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the Division of Standards exactly. Also, the scale is HCA property (therefore not my own), but I doubt that's an issue. By the way, would it be acceptable to use such an image on articles other than Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services if it is fair use (for example, scale)? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 01:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just choose your own license. The seal should be PD-FLGov (probably should note this on the image page). The design of the scale itself is not copyrightable. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages) 16:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Proplems with pelee island image
Yesterday I uploaded a file on Battle of Pelee Island I recived a message saying it may be deleted, however I do not know the copy right or even if it has one. would love some assistance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordino0 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about File:Pelee island battle plaque image.jpg? That image has no source or copyright information. When uploading images you need to provide that, but you may not have the right as the image may be copyright which is why you need to say where you got it. Did you take it or get it from a website? ww2censor (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

about my upload
What symbol I should put my upload images free for use educational purpose? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepism (talk • contribs) 00:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no such tag. Wikipedia does not accept permission only for educational purposes. Permission must allow reuse by anyone for anything, including commercial use. See WP:COPYREQ for how to handle third party permission. I notice you have been adding GFDL-Self tags on your user talk page. Do not use this tag on files unless you personally own the copyright on the file. —teb728 t c 00:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Removing watermarks from images
I've gone through a number of images from Category:Images_with_watermarks removing watermarks and I'm a little confused about all the various copyright licenses. "Public domain" I understand... no problem removing a watermark from those. But the others? Can someone familiar with the issue give me a simple plain english summary of which watermarks can/should be removed and which should stay? I'm happy to remove them here and there when I can, but I don't want to create problems. If the issue is complicated or full of gray areas, or depends on this or that, etc... I'll just stick to the public domain images and keep things simple for myself. Any guidance would be appreciated. JBarta (talk) 04:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a good question. The issue of "watermarking" and how to deal with it is an issue that is still very vague. I started a discussion back in September 2008 that includes watermarking issues. As for your question there are images tagged that should not be. For example in looking at the first 4 images the first 3 contain watermarks that are small enough not to be a bother. They are also descriptive. File:001-quiapochurch.jpg's watermark blends in so well I would have missed it at a quick glance. File:1153754022.jpg is a questionable image in the first place because it does not seem to be fully user created and it is sourced to a website, which is also watermarked on the image. Because of the website url it could be nominated under CSD G11. In the broader sense images such as File:AVPmoviefilming.PNG, File:Alextrebek86.jpg and File:CallTheShotsMusicVideo.jpg (and any image like it) are frame gabs being used under fair use. These should not have been tagged to begin with. To expand on that any image being that is tagged as Fair Use and is using a FUR should not be tagged with watermark. Images such as File:CheapTrickCollage4334-1000.jpg and File:ChicagoCollage2-1000.jpg (along with the other collages the same user has created) are slightly more complicated. They seem like blatant advertising but removing the "advertising" portions - Chumash Casino Resort logo, website urls, show time/date - would be nearly impossible. However if one had the time to "cut up" the collages it could be done as they are all licensed under the [Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5] license which allows for a "remix" of the image provided that credit is always given to "Dwight McCann/Chumash Casino Resort/www.DwightMcCann.com". The full 2.5 CCL has important wording in that should be considered. Namely section "4. Restrictions", subsection "c." which says, in part, that "You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work" as well as "in the case of a Derivative Work, a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Derivative Work (e.g., "French translation of the Work by Original Author," or "Screenplay based on original Work by Original Author"). Such credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Derivative Work or Collective Work, at a minimum such credit will appear where any other comparable authorship credit appears and in a manner at least as prominent as such other comparable authorship credit." (EDIT: I did some looking and found that the user stopped contributing his work because of credit removal. See the "Image Attribution" dif on BorgHunter's talk page from November 19, 2006 that says, in part, "Since having my images themselves "edited" by re-uploading the initial image while removing the attribution requirements and then having attributions removed from the articles themselves I have decided that the donation of my work in this manner does not suit my needs since all attribution quickly disappears." Also "Attribution of Images" dif on another user talk page from November 9, 2006 which partially says "My intentions with regard to Wikipedia were to share high quality images of major artists for public use, but not without acknowledgment. This is clearly not an appropriate medium and my contributions were ill considered.")


 * Perhaps the best answer is to say to use your own judgment until the watermark "policy" is made more clear. If it is fair use I would say to remove the tag about watermarking and don't edit the image. If it is a freely licensed image but looks like a copyvio, and is unused or questionable if would meet our Non-free content policy, I would say just make a nom for CSD i9. Beyond that just because an image has text on it, and someone may have tagged it, does not mean it needs to be "fixed". It is also best to read the full license to see what has to be done, if anything, when creating a derivative work - and yes, removing or croping something from an image makes it a derivative work. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I was thinking about this, and I didn't bother replying because the OP asked for a simple english summary ;) My advice was going to be to basically ignore (or remove the tag) from non-free images. TV station identity on screenshots isn't really a watermark or otherwise problematic for that matter. But then I was thinking about something like File:Dildostietc.jpg. It's a movie poster, and in the lower right corner, there is a third party web address indiafm.com. Since this third party site didn't create the movie or the poster, and has nothing really do to with the copyright or production of the poster, would it be OK to remove that? Same thing for File:Msmt.jpg and the www.bollywoodhungama.com. What do others think about removing third party advertising from non-free images? If we do get the image from a third party instead of from an original scan or from the copyright owner directly, do we need to give them credit, or can we remove their web addresses and watermarks from non-free images?-Andrew c [talk] 17:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL! Well with me there is no such thing as a "simple English summary" I guess. Because of an "unrelated to watermarking" discussion on the fair use of images I would be hesitant to remove anything from certain images. I will say that if it is a movie poster and a url or other credit appears on the image I would simply try and find a non-third party watermarked version and replace it. While this may not be the case in the examples given, a studio or other provider will sometimes allow use on a given website and it is watermarked to "track" it's use. So, in that case, Wikipedia would be claiming fair use of an image and, using the images you gave, credit is, indeed, given to that third party website as the source. File:Msmt.jpg shows http://www.indiafm.com as the source, and that redirects to http://www.bollywoodhungama.com and the text under the FUR contains the wording of "Taken from IndiaFM.com and the press kit that was released there". One could figure if the studio released an e-press kit to that website it was why the poster is watermarked. For a explicit example of this type of watermark look at File:BambiWoods DebbieDoesDallas Wikipedia.jpg which is not only watermarked but whoe description text says "Was scanned by VCX Ltd., Inc (copyright holder) and edited specifically for use on Wikipedia. Image clearly states VCX's ownership and the expressed permission to be used on Wikipedia." While this would seemingly fall under i3 because it is clearly marked as "permission for this image to be used in Wikipedia. This permission does not extend to third parties" the fact it is tagged with a FUR negats use of that. On the other hand if the image is taken from an e-commerce site and also says "Order now", "pre-Order now" or "only 9.95 at URL" and it is not being used in an article about some form of advertising, fair use or not, it should fall under G11, in which case there wouldn't be any real need to try and remove the offending text. More than likely though it could not be tagged as such and would have to be tagged using the Template:Di-disputed fair use rationale saying that it was a form of advertisement and was not being used in an article about advertising. My main point here being that re-editing a fair use image simply to remove text falls outside the realm of our fair use policy and our current watermarking policy, as it were. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

What did I screw up?
I was directed here from the Help Desk. So, I'm just copy/pasting my question over from there:

I'm not a lawyer.

I uploaded this image. I wasn't sure what license to choose since none of them are very straight forward and just say "it's a picture of a dead person". There's only the "historical or iconic image" option which mentions deceased persons. Additionally, I'd like to know if I filled out the fair use rationale correctly. I don't want to be bothered by some tag on my talk page in a few days saying that I didn't dot some i or cross some t. That's what always happens whenever I add any image, so I'd like to nip that in the bud. Thanks, -- Dismas |(talk) 17:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The rationale looks good. My only suggestion would be to crop it more tightly, then it's clearer that it's for identification, and not other more puerile purposes. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 05:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I might crop it further...  Dismas |(talk) 16:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

African-American Marines on Iwo Jima
Can I use this image here (See #110)? How would I find out if this image (or any other from archives.gov) is in the public domain? Lawrencema (talk) 12:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Go to National Archives Frequently Asked Questions and look under "Copyright". The first "answer" states: "The vast majority of the digital images in the Archival Research Catalog (ARC) are in the public domain. Therefore, no written permission is required to use them. We would appreciate your crediting the National Archives and Records Administration as the original source. For the few images that remain copyrighted, please read the instructions noted in the "Access Restrictions" field of each ARC record." The last "answer" states: "NARA as a policy does not sign documents stating that particular records are not copyrighted because government records are in the public domain. For other materials, it is the user's responsibility to determine copyright." And aside from that the actual page for the image is found here: "Carrying a Jap [anese prisoner from stockade to be evacuated and treated for malnutrition. Iwo Jima., 02/23/1945"] and according to that page the user and access restrictions are "Unrestricted". Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Taking a picture of Copywrighted Material
Hi, I was wondering if you took a picture of a painting under copywright could you upload it here ? many thanks DFS454 (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, because it would also be subject to copyright as a derivative work.  Sandstein   15:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

added a tag
i just added the correct tag. can i take the untagged box off of the image page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitfisto999 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What image are you talking about? ww2censor (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd guess File:Album The T-Wayne Show cover.jpg. Appears to be resolved. (EhJJ)TALK 01:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Picture without copyright
I recently added a picture that I took myself that is not copyrighted. However, it says that without copyright information that the photo will be deleted within a week. I don't really care about the rights to the photo- I would just like to share it with the public in order to make the Tuscola High School page more enjoyable for wikipedia readers. If I can leave this picture on here without obtaining a copyright license, that would be great- but if not, how would I go about getting a license and would it cost me anything?

The file is: File:Tuscola3.JPG
 * You don't have to 'obtain' a license. Since it's you that owns the copyright (it is copyrighted, by you. That's how copyright law works), you can release it under a license simply by stating that you do so. Depending on the license, this will allow other people to use the photo is certain ways while retaining some rights for yourself. However, if you don't care at all about the rights, you can state this by replacing the 'no copyright information' tag with pd-self. Doing this will relinquish all of your rights over the photo and allow anyone to use it for any purpose. Algebraist 17:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You may want to review Image copyright tags for a sampling of acceptable licenses that you can choose (they are all FREE, in multiple senses of the word;). Did you take that picture on a cell phone or something?-Andrew c [talk] 17:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would however suggest you return to the school, if possible, and take a new photo because the quality of this image is very poor. Then you can upload it over the current image using the same name with whatever licence you decided to use. ww2censor (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

State Inmate Public Image
I got an image from Florida's DOC Inmate Search (its a picture of a inmate), is this image acceptable with wikipedia? wildboyz_211 (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You didn't provide a link to the image, so we really cannot help you yet. ww2censor (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Works of Zaha Hadid
Hi. I've begun work on the list Works of Zaha Hadid, which I hope to bring to WP:FL status. I'd like to have opinions on whether it is considered admissible under our current application of WP:NFCC to use a fair use image for each non-realised project in the list, or for each realised building in a country without freedom of panorama, as e.g. with File:Zaha Hadid - Malevich's Tektonik.jpg. Thanks,  Sandstein   14:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Non-free images are not allowed in galleries. Having a table with thumbnailed images is basically a gallery. For an article about the work in question, then using a non-free image seems within our fair use policy (especially with a valid rational), but I'm pretty sure that use of non-free images in a list like this would not be permissible. -Andrew c [talk] 16:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Which part of WP:NFCC prohibits non-free images in galleries? At any rate, as I envision it, the list of works by that architect would not be a (mere) gallery; it would visually demonstrate the development of her work over time, the understanding of which would be substantially lessened without illustrations.  Sandstein   00:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn’t prohibit galleries as such, but WP:NFCC says, “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.” If one of the works was so notable that it merited its own article, and if understanding the article depended on actually seeing a non-free image, then you could use the image in that separate article. But you can’t use non-free images just to illustrate a list. A non-free image of an artwork can be used only if it illustrates substantial critical commentary, and only if it is highly significant to understanding that commentary.
 * The article as it stands, moreover, has an even worse problem. None of works in the article seems to fulfill Wikipedia’s [draft] notability standard. —teb728 t c 00:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The topic of the (very incomplete) article is the body of work of Zaha Hadid. Since architecture is a visual art, I submit that seeing images of the works is indispensable for the understanding of the topic. With respect to notability, the individual projects currently in the article are not notable (although most of the to-be-added ones will be), but that does not matter, since only the subject of the article - Hadid's work - must be notable, and as the work of a Pritzker Prize winner, it indubitably is.  Sandstein   01:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was referring to this in regards to galleries. If you don't want to believe the advice myself and teb have given you in regards to your question, feel free to try to change the working consensus/policy at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. This Q&A page isn't the best place for changing and or debating policy points. You may have a good rational, and the community might support it if you suggest it. I'm just saying that the examples I have run across, and the manner in which the guidelines are currently written go against non-free images in the way you want them in your list. You did ask. Sorry you didn't like the answer :P -Andrew c [talk] 01:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As it says in your non-free 2D art tag, an image of non-free art can be used only for critical commentary on the work in question, on the artistic genre or technique of the work of art, or on the school to which the artist belongs. (Your text is just captions—not critical commentary.) And by WP:NFCC the use of the image must be essential to understanding the commentary. In order to have commentary on the work, the work itself (not just the artist) must be notable. (This pretty well precludes a complete list on an artist with any non-notable works.) On the other hand if the commentary is on the genre, technique, or school, then by WP:NFCC at most one non-free image could be used to illustrate the subject and even then (by WP:NFCC) only if no free image could illustrate the subject.
 * A complete illustrated list of an artist’s work is probably impossible on Wikipedia. (Can you find any example of one?) —teb728 t c 01:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would help you understand if I mention that an important part of the purpose of WP:NFCC is to encourage the reusability of articles by minimizing the use of non-free content. —teb728 t c 03:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your advice, TEB728 and Andrew c. It seems that current thinking is that only notable works accompanied by critical commentary can be so illustrated.  Sandstein   08:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Applying Fair Use rationale to entire organizations
A bot (User:FairuseBot) deleted Oregon Department of Forestry logo from Sun Pass State Forest and Santiam State Forest articles. Both of these state forests are sub organization within the Oregon Department of Forestry which the existing Fair Use rationale covers. The Fair Use rationale for using Oregon forestry department’s logo should cover the entire department including all five state forests not just the departmental headquarters. What do I need to do to keep the bot from deleting the logo again?--Orygun (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is only 1 fair use rationale in the Image:ODFlogo.png image file but that image is currently used in five articles and each use requires a fair use rationale. That is why it was deleted. Fix that and you should be fine. ww2censor (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How would I go about doing that? Do I need to make individual copies of the logo--one for each article?--Orygun (talk) 04:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just go to Image:ODFlogo.png and copy the existing fair use rationale, paste it in another four times and modify each as appropriate for the use in each of the four other articles in which the image is used in as listed near the bottom of the page. It is the same image in each different article, not different ones but you must have a separate fair use rationale for each separate article it is used in. ww2censor (talk) 04:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Think I followed above instructions correctly; however, would like someone to check what I did at File:ODFlogo.png to be sure it's right. Thanks!--Orygun (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There are now three fair use rationales but the image is used in five articles, so if you are happy to allow the image to be removed from the extra two articles, then it is ok. ww2censor (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good, I'll put the rest in now. I just wanted to make sure I was doing it right before I made too many changes.  Thnaks!--Orygun (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

logos
Hi, what is the Wikipedia policy on logos, in specific example, something like the Rocky Mountain Football League. Can it be used on their page or can it only be used with the permission of the organization? (Image is here KellanFabjance (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Permission is not required. See WP:Logos for full details. Algebraist 20:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Bot says no source information is provided - but it is in the FUR
File is Image:Google Maps directions.png. Guy0307 (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Where?! The only “Source” I see in the non-free use rationales is “This is a screenshot taken from an optical disc, television broadcast, web page, computer software or streaming media broadcast.” That is hardly better than specifying the source as “the Universe.” If that is what you think specifies the source, you have to specify which optical disc, television broadcast, web page, computer software or streaming media broadcast. —teb728 t c 23:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Permission from copyright holder
I was given permission to use a photo on Wikipedia by the copyrigh holder of the image. They allow it to be used anywhere, how can I upload it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kschuler (talk • contribs) 01:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Using an Image with permission
Hi I'm not sure of the procedure but I want to get permission to use this |image. There's instructions at the bottom of what to do. Do I just request this at OTRS? many thanks DFS454 (talk) 12:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This image has more than one issue. Most important the image says "(AP Photo/Tom Hevezi)" which strongly indicates the Associated Press owns and/or represents it and they are the one that need to be asked about it's use. As for requesting permission you should contact the Associated Press because that is who the image is credited too. I would ask A.P about the statement of "NO INTERNET/MOBILE USAGE WITHOUT FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION PREMIER LEAGUE(FAPL)LICENCE" as well. It may be possible to obtain permission, see File:Marked-ap-letter.jpg for an example. I would try contacting Dawn Cohen from A.P at DCohen (at) ap (dot) org first and asking for permission for use here. Keep in mind though if they do give permission they are not going to re-license it for free use. As an aside, because of the credit to A.P, an with no OTRS on file from A.P, it would rule out any fair use claim as it's use here would "replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media". [policy criteria number 2] (See also Wikipedia Signpost - September 22, 2008, in particular the "example that fails/passes" sections.) Of course it may also fail criteria number 1 as the image shows currently living people. So without an OTRS on this image it's use is not going to be allowed here. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks for the detailed reply, I'll try and find an alternative. Could you explain in simple erms what the wikipedia OTRS is? i tried reading the article but it appeared a bit complex for me. Many Thanks DFS454 (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As it would relate to an image, "in a nutshell", the copyright holder mails a permission letter and that letter is assigned a number that goes into a database. See File:Harmon.jpg, File:FranticTimes-AlbumCover.jpg and File:HcCollageKidsWeb4 03.jpg for examples of images with an OTRS ticket number. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you DFS454 (talk) 09:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Karenbriggs.jpg
It is a fair use image for a bio-article. Should this image be removed?--Wcam (talk) 05:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Karen Briggs is a living person; so a free picture of her could be taken. Thanks for pointing this out. I have deleted the non-free use rationale and removed the image from the article. —teb728 t c 06:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

wondering what to do
I do not understand why my copyright of this image is being disputed, or what to do about it.File:Tricky,KukandMark.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidfrost08 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like it was already resolved, in favor of keeping the image, at Possibly_unfree_images/2008_October_18. To avoid this in the future, you should state on the image page why you are the copyright holder, even if it's just "I took this picture myself". --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Anne dvd.jpg at Adoption
Could someone have a look at the image File:Anne dvd.jpg in the context of it's fair use in the Adoption article and give an opinion on it's appropriateness. The concerns I have are listed at. Thanks. Ha! (talk) 01:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing that out. I have removed the image. —teb728 t c 02:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

John Babcock
Is it ok to use the picture of John F. Babcock here?
 * No. It's a copyrighted image, with no evidence that it's freely licensed, and it's of a living person, so it fails the non-free content criteria. Algebraist 13:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK cheers. Ryan 4314   (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yearbook photo
What are the copyright issues for uploading a yearbook photo for a notable person, namely Patri Friedman? It is a scan from a yearbook that I purchased. Physicsman1965 (talk) 03:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you purchase a copy of the yearbook, or did you purchase the copyright of the yearbook? If the former, then you'll need to follow our non-free content policy (WP:NFC). The image would have to be tagged with an appropriate non-free license and accompanied with a valid fair use rationale (assuming one could be written). Hope this helps.-Andrew c [talk] 03:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the guidance. I only bought a copy of the yearbook, so I'll consult the non-free content policy.  Physicsman1965 (talk) 04:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, actually the above advise applies to dead people, but Patri Friedman is alive so a fair use rationale will fail per WP:NFC because any non-free image is replaceable, i.e., a new free licenced image is possible while he is alive. ww2censor (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure of the entire situation, which is why I added (assuming one could be written). Hypothetically, if there was a lot of media attention regarding that specific year book photo, then a valid rational could probably be written. But I have to agree otherwise with ww2censor: photos of living people used for simple identification purposes need to be free.-Andrew c [talk] 04:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

There is one more issue - the yearbook scan shows that Patri Friedman went by a hyphenated name in high school (asserted in the article). I uploaded the picture and wrote in the rationale that there is no other available proof of his use of the hyphenated name, other than official high school records that would be privileged by US federal law. I'm hoping that this is a good enough rationale. Physicsman1965 (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think a simple citation would be ample proof. We don't require that all our sources be documented photographically, nor do we require that we show these photographic documentation in the article (imagine what an article like that would look like!). I think in this case, your fair use rational is not valid because the image does not show us anything that words couldn't convey (and on top of that, we could crop out the yearbook image and just have the scan of the text to convey the exact same thing, not that I'm saying that would be any more helpful... just a demonstration of how superfluous the yearbook photograph is to the rational).-Andrew c [talk] 04:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hypothetically, would it be possible to write a FUR for a yearbook image of someone famous if they are still alive citing the need to show the famous person in their younger years? ~ Paul T +/C 02:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Depending on how old it is, but that would go for any image of a living person, being from a Yearbook or not. Several issues still need to come into play such as asking yourself "How would a high school yearbook image better help the reader to understand the subject". Unless there was an article about the yearbook or about the image itself it is doubtful it would meet all 10 of the criteria. But you might consider what NFC - Unacceptable use, Images, number 12 says. There is a note reading: "However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable." Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If their appearance when they were young is important. But in that case, there's almost certainly a better choice of picture. --Carnildo (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Is his appearance important at all ? I don't see why we need a non-free image here. Megapixie (talk) 02:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

DoD disclaimer
Here's something interesting:. The Dept of Defense lays out terms of usage for its photos - including requiring approval before using them in "commercial advertisement." Are they mistaken, or allowed to do this, considering that works of the Federal Gov't are automatically PD? -Seidenstud (talk) 06:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not really an answer, but I notice that the site’s Terms of Use page acknowledges (as expected) “Defense Department imagery and unclassified information is usually deemed to be in the public domain.” —teb728 t c 21:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting issues. I know, for example, the wording on the same page of "As governed by DoD Directive 5040.5 (Alteration of Official DoD Imagery), the accuracy or integrity of our imagery must be maintained in accordance with established DoD imaging ethics." falls into line with the wording of some of the CCL licenses. I could gather that if you combine that with the personality rights disclaimer the commercial use would make sense as well. In other words say there is a recent image of the inauguration and a racist organization used it in an advertisement of some sort. I can see the cause for concern that would tie into all of their "terms of usage." The PD aspect is another side of it however but I am wondering how recent images figure into things and how "DoD Directive 5040.5 (Alteration of Official DoD Imagery)" figures into PD images? Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the "ethics" mentioned, apply exclusively to those working for the DoD, and not the public. I think the restrictions of "commercial" use merely prevents images from being uses in advertisments, which would imply endorsement.  That's ok, since in general, you can't use images of a person or organization to imply a false endorsement (regardless of copyright).  I don't see any restriction on copyright, which is the only thing we care about.    --Rob (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But it's worded so broadly as to transcend personality rights. If it were only about personality rights, it would say that, or at least explain that it applies to photos with personality rights issues.  But a very large portion of DoD images do not contain people.  An aircraft carrier has no personality rights.  Yet, the way it is explicitly worded implies that such a boat photo would need clearance for use in advertisements- which is not consistent with treatment of PD works.  -Seidenstud (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It didn't find it too broadly worded: "Talent Releases. Our imagery is provided without talent releases on any individual portrayed. Imagery is provided with the understanding that the DoD has no authority to waive the privacy rights of any individual depicted in government media. And no exclusive rights to official records may be claimed by any organization or individual." Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Help with Musuem owned photograph
Hello. I was looking again for images relatinb to Bruce Kingsbury and came across this in the collection of the State Library of Victoria. The image was taken in the 1940's, and images are released into the Australian public domain if the image was taken before January 1, 1955. However, I am uncertain whether the State Library's ownership of the image extends the copyright and prevents its use. I have looked at this page, but I am still wanting a second opinion. &raquo; \ / (⁂ | ※) 14:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If the copyright is expired, it's expired. The state library can claim all it wants, but can't recopyright a PD image. Stifle (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Concurso Nacional de Belleza 1969
I want to use a photo that appeared in a magazine that no longer is published. Can I use it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliaaltagracia (talk • contribs) 23:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What is it a photo of? What do you want to use it for? Stifle (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, where and when was the photo originally published? (I'm guessing Colombia, 1969?) Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Question about Copyright tag for image
HI I've uploaded an image of actor Kevin Phillips. It's his head shot and it's his property, what should I tag it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanchambergroup (talk • contribs) 19:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That image is not appropriate here on wikipedia. Images of living almost always fail WP:FUC. You could try contacting the individual or their publicist to see if they would release that or a similar image under a free license (see WP:COPYREQ), or you could look for a free image (some images are flickr are freely licensed, or you could contact the photographer to see if they would donate an image, etc). Hope this helps.-Andrew c [talk] 19:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am his publicist at the Chamber Group and Kevin has given us permission to post it on his profile —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanchambergroup (talk • contribs) 19:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for helping. Unfortunately, Wikipedia accepts only freely licensed images for its articles. This means that whatever image is added must be available for any uses (even commercial uses and derivative works) by anyone. A list of acceptable licenses is at WP:ICTIC. I recommend Creative Commons attribution-sharealike (cc-by-sa-3.0) because it is relatively simple to understand, or public domain (PD-self) if you don't want to reserve any rights at all. When and if you choose to release the photo under a free license, please confirm the license by emailing permissions-en@wikimedia.org with the following declaration.

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK [ insert link ].

I agree to publish that work under the free license LICENSE [images: choose at least one from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_tags e.g. Creative Commons Attribution-Share alike v.3].

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

DATE, NAME OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER
 * If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask again here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Deriv?
Is this file a copyvio? It's a deriv of the Wikipedia logo, so yes? Wanted to double check before tagging it. Thanks, §hep   •  Talk  05:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Copyvio or not, its permission says "only to be used in Wikipedia", so it's deletable. Stifle (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still trying to get comfortable with Commons, could you recommend a tag that I place on it? Thanks. §hep   •  Talk  22:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * should do you. Stifle (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This image is on the commons so will need to be deleted there, for the same reason. ww2censor (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. §hep   •  Talk  20:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

File:NZ Passport Cover.jpg
This image claims to be CC/GFDL licensed, which I find highly dubious given it is simply a photo/scan of a work of the New Zealand government. I know crown works are copyrighted in NZ, but can I replace this image with a better quality one off the internet and claim it as fair use? +Hexagon1 (t) 03:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That would seem fine. I've speedied the existing image as a copyvio. Stifle (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what to put on the image description page, with the advent of copyright phobia and bots that make me seriously contemplate a homicidal rampage I steer clear of that area. If anyone felt like writing a desc page I'd upload the image? +Hexagon1 (t) 05:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Shorpy
The image seen here was taken in 1911, but it's been cleaned up and has the Shorpy logo in the lower left corner. Can we use pre-1923 pictures if they've been processed by someone else?  APK  is like a firecracker. He makes it hot.  19:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the cleaning-up is copyrightable, at least in the United States (it has no creative element), and the logo appears to be just letters in a standard font, which would make it also uncopyrightable. Algebraist 19:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the help.  APK  is like a firecracker. He makes it hot.  19:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Image Provided By Subject
Individual cited in article e-mailed a photo for use on the article. How should this be attributed to pass muster? DFW HOYA (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * According to the deletion log, the photo was delete for lacking sources or licensing information. Since it has been deleted, I can’t see what source and licensing information you provided. But from your comment here I would guess that you did not provide a license tag from WP:ICT/FL. You imply here that the subject gave permission to use the photo in an article on Wikipedia. Ironically that is not good enough: Wikipedia requires a “free license,” allowing use of a photo by anyone anywhere for anything. If the subject is willing to grant that, see WP:COPYREQ for how to handle the permission. And the image page needs a license tag from WP:ICT/FL, indicating which free license he agreed to. —teb728 t c 00:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Painting of Adolf Hitler
Hi, I'm currently doing research for an article I intend to write about Albrecht Durer's . One of the images that my sources consistently mention when talking about the use of this print by Nazi propagandists is this painting of Hitler as a "white knight":. I was wondering if this fell under 17 U.S.C. 104A(a)(2), for seized enemy property: the painting was seized by US troops near the end of the war, as the bayonet hole in Hitler's face attests. However, the entire situation is quite complicated, so I thought it best to post here...  Litho  derm  16:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Handbook of the Birds of the World
Hello, i think all the images at this article: Handbook of the Birds of the World, excluding the upper one, should be deleted. The user uploaded them with GNU and CC by SA license, but its clear he dont have the copyright of that book. Thanks, --Erfil (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of photos in Federal Government public records
To nominate a building for listing on the National Resister of Historic Places requires photographs of the building to be submitted as part of the application. Are those photographs Public Domain? The nomination package of which they are a part is clearly a Federal Government public record subject to Freedom of Information Act/etc.--Orygun (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Being in the public record does not make a photograph in the public domain. It is in the public domain if it was taken by an employee of the Federal government as part of his official duties. —teb728 t c 05:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Acceptable?
I've got a picture of Lord Denning dressed up in his army gear. He is dead, and it is likely impossible to find any other picture of him from that stage in his life (they weren't big on paying for multiple portraits of Second Lieutenants). The published work if was taken from was made in 1990, so it isn't free use, but would it fall under fair use to illustrate the part of the article on his life? I'm aware of the image policy on WP, the problem is the definition of 'significant'; his army work wasn't what he was primarily known for. Any help? Ironholds (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Since there isn't any image on his article at the moment, and he's dead, using an image under fair use should probably be OK. Stifle (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Mm, yes. Suppose I could get an image under fair use which better represents him and the reason he was well known (him in judicial dress, looking sage); would this picture still be usable? Ironholds (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Under the NFCC, it could be used 'only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding'. I make no comment on this particular case. Algebraist 01:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well it would be helpful to illustrate his army career, but... Ironholds (talk) 07:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again Image:Noronic49.jpg
I have raised this before, but there has not been a useful answer.

The image Image:Noronic49.jpg is tagged as being a Canadian image that is public domain in Canada, still under copyright in the US, and usable in Wikipedia as fair use under US law. My question is, once again, what makes this a Canadian image if it was taken in the US? Is this just a mistake by the uploader or what?

Note that there is also a copy in Commons at commons:File:Noronic49.jpg and this copy is being tagged as public domain in the US because, it says, it is a work of the federal government! If this is correct, the tagging of the first copy is doubly wrong. But is it correct?

Either way, Wikipedia/Wikimedia's use of the image is legitimate, but it is important to state the right reason why it is legitimate. Can someone find out what the story is here?

(As before, please don't reply to me on the talk page for this IP address; I rarely use it. If you have something to say, reply here and I may remember to look for it. But if what you have to say is that you can fix the problem, you don't need to tell me about it.)  --70.48.232.147 (talk) 06:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've speedied the image here as a duplicate of the Commons image. If anything, Commons is stricter than us, so if they're happy with it, I don't see any problem. Stifle (talk) 10:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Was there any actual source information on the local copy that you speedied? There's none on the commons version, and I've tagged it as such.  All I can see from the log is a fair-use claim.  --dave pape (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair use of image question
The article Soul Food Taqueria on a music album contains the front and back images of the copyrighted art work on the album cover. Is the editor justified in included two copyrighted images of the album cover because he discusses the art work in the article on the album? Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 01:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The image in question is File:Soul Food Taqueria back cover.jpg. The discussion you have on the talk page seems spot on. There is nothing unique about the back cover that the front cover doesn't illustrate in relation to the article text. Front cover depicts a "Soul Food" Taqueria by the renown graffiti artist. I can clearly see that in the front cover image. There is nothing in the description that would necessitate seeing the back cover, nor does the back cover increase my understanding significantly of the article text. Under precedent and a reading of WP:NFC, a second non-free image fails 3a and 8.-Andrew c [talk] 16:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The primary reasoning behind the non-free content criteria is to prevent unnecessary, decorative use of copyright images, or lazy use of replaceable images. If the article cogently discusses the art in question there should be little doubt that it is being validly used under fair use - the specific number of images is not itself a problem if they significantly improve the reader's understanding of the topic and cannot be replaced with a free equivalent. There are plenty of multi-sided pieces of album art that do fit this criterion.
 * However, in this case I think Andrew C is right - there isn't much to be said about the back cover and hence the article to be honest does not really say much that needs illustrating with it. It falls into the "excessive and decorative" category, pretty much. ~ mazca  t 16:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

File:A-12 Oxcarts.jpg
The image: File:A-12 Oxcarts.jpg has a license of: ) "This image or file is a work of a U.S. Air Force Airman or employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image or file is in the public domain."

However, I contest that this picture was taken by a DoD employee of a classified military installation, of then classified military aircraft. I find this doubtful, we have no way to verify that this was taken at Groom Lake, or authorized for release? I don't doubt that the image is authentic, I believe I have seen the aircraft on the CIA website, but the image's location can't be verified. Sephiroth storm (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a commons image and they are more strict regarding image uploading but if you still wish to pursue it I would do so over there. ww2censor (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also: The image's location is not pertinent to whether the photo is PD—just the employment status of the photographer. —teb728 t c 05:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Or that the image is legitimate. I'll take it up over at Commons. Thank You. Sephiroth storm (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair Use rationale for File:WilliamACoulter2.jpg
I have uploaded File:WilliamACoulter2.jpg, and have been informed (via a bot) that it is in violation of Non-free content criteria #10c. In order to bring the image into compliance with said rule, I have written a Fair Use rationale (which obviously I should have done previously, but was unclear about the necessity of so doing at the time). I have affixed the Fair Use rationale to the Licensing section of the file page. If its is necessary for me to place the text of the Fair Use rationale within some sort of tags, please do be so kind as to let me know, so that I may rectify that omission. Otherwise, I am reasonably confident that my Fair Use rationale addresses the NFCC#10c issue, and that this image file should not be deleted on February 2nd, as it is otherwise presently scheduled to be.

Here is a copy of the text of my Fair Use rationale for the image file in question:

''Fair Use Rationale: The image is presently being used, and on my part is only intended for use, in the article on William A. Coulter. The image is of a painting by the late Mr. Coulter (deceased in 1936). The image is of the entire painting, as seems appropriate. The original painting itself belongs to a person who wishes to remain anonymous, but this person has granted the Paul and Linda Kahn Foundation permission to create a copyrighted image of the painting for use on their website. Linda Kahn has given me her explicit verbal permission to use this image, on condition it is attributed to the foundation (as of January 26th, 2009). The image is so attributed in the Coulter article.

''The image serves the purpose of presenting an example of Mr. Coulter's work, in that William A. Coulter's notability stems entirely from his work as a painter (and illustrator), and thus some representative sample of his work helps to illuminate his historical and cultural significance, as well as presenting the reader with a visual example of his artistic style. The image is of what is almost certainly (I do not believe this assertion is likely to be in dispute) his most celebrated painting, by virtue of its dramatic impact (it is his rendering of his personal witness to the events of the San Francisco Earthquake of 1906, and specifically the subsequent fires which destroyed the majority of the city), yet never-the-less remains a representative sample of his work (particularly in so far as it is consistent with his history of creating paintings almost exclusively of a marine or nautical theme).

''I am unaware of any free content source of an equivalent image, and based on my searchings, and on my knowledge of the painting's status as privately-owned, am extremely skeptical that such an image could be located by anyone (although, obviously, it is impossible to make a definitive statement in that regard). KevinOKeeffe (talk) 03:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This fair use claim seems entirely appropriate to me. Don't know what triggered the bot. I'll go de-tag it. Sorry for the inconvenience. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought a painting made in 1906 in the U.S. would be public domain. --Rob (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)  Added:  I found this is also at Commons:File:William Coulter - San Francisko.jpg, so I think we can delete the copy on Wikipedia.  --Rob (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Harlem Heights
I want to upload the image of the plaque commemorating the battle but I'm not sure if I can. It comes from [this site http://www.wikicu.com/Battle_of_Harlem_Heights], another wiki site, so I'm not sure if I can or not. Would it be okay to put it under fair use of an existing building if I cannont? Thanks. -Kieran4 (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Appears that the whole site is licensed GFDL.. and I assume images are included, but I'm not going to say 100% for sure.-Andrew c [talk] 02:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Assuming of course that the plaque is old enough to be out of copyright (looks it) and that the uploader held the copyright on the photo (seems likely they took it themself). Algebraist 02:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks.-Kieran4 (talk) 02:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

George Ramsay, 9th Earl of Dalhousie article image
I have limited skills when trying to determine the answer to copyright questions here in Wiki, this is doubly so when it comes to images, so I thought I'd post an enquiry here. The image attached to this article appears to simply be a photo shopped version of an image lifted directly off the Canadian Encyclopedia website, which is clearly copyrighted. The editor who posted it is claiming an exemption to copyright rules because the image is in the public domain because it's copyright has expired, which doesn't appear to me to be the case. is this a legitimate use of this image. If you choose to respond, please post to my talk page. thanks Deconstructhis (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * From the style of the image, the chances are high that it's a portrait from around the period that the subject was alive. If not, it can't have been painted much after he died. So yes, the claim that it is now in the public domain is very likely to be correct. Note, though, that sites routinely claim copyright over images that are in the public domain when they have no right to do so. The copyright claims of the Canadian Encyclopedia are irrelevant here. (This comment also posted to the user's talk page, as requested.) -- Hux (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments, it's appreciated. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 05:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Source/upload info needed for Commons files
I came across these three files, that state en: wiki as their source, but then didn't copy the information across. The first & second files are likely licensed incorrectly (should probably be PD-User instead of PD-self), the third file needs a source & license checking. Could someone check the deleted file info here & copy it across? Thanks! File:Bronze Demi Cannon Culverins Pmoth.png, File:BrittleAluminium320MPA S-N Curve.jpg and File:Bolshevik-meeting.jpg. Kind regards, Deadstar (talk) 10:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Deadstar (talk) 10:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Help please to delete the image: Duyfken replica in Cooktown harbour
My photo Duyfken replica in Cooktown harbour was incorrectly captioned by myself - it should read "Endeavour replica in Cooktown harbour." I don't know how to delete this file - I wonder if someone would kindly delete it for me, please? I could then upload it with a proper caption. Many thanks, John Hill (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You can use csd-g7. (EhJJ)TALK 04:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and tagged it. -- Hux (talk) 05:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * John, the image is noted as being marked wrong, there is no reason to delete the image nor was there a reason to remove the move to commons tag. As long as it is noted to rename the image on the move it is fine. Why the sudden urge to delete? I see it was uploaded in August of 2007 and the given license does not allow for "retractions" (i.e - deletions) simply for a misnamed file. Soundvisions1 (talk) 06:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reupped it using the "correct" name. 12:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Horiata
Hello, my great grandfather User:Iliada wrote a song called Horiata. It is on the CD Axehastes Epitihies. I would like to upload the song so when people read the George Fteris article, they can listen to his song. The problem is, I don't know who owns or owned the copyright. I talked to my grandfather, and he said it had probably expired. Many times have I contacted the record company, but they have never responded. Wouldn't my great grandfather own the copyright since he wrote it? What should I do? --Iliada (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Iliada


 * As a Greek work, copyright in the song would have belonged to your great grandfather, and will last for 70 years after his death (until the end of 2037). Assuming no other transfer was made, ownership should have passed to his heirs (such as your grandfather).  However, any recording of the song will also have a separate copyright on the performance, belonging to the performers or to the record company.  To upload the recording here, you'd either need permission for a free license from all of the copyright owners involved, or you'd have to follow the Non-free content process.  --dave pape (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Image:Transplants- Diamonds and Guns.ogg
This file appears to me to have an insufficient detailed fair use rationale for each use as detailed in WP:NFCC. Would that be correct? Should I tag with something like  ? Thanks

--Rogerb67 (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Stifle (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Public domain and non-PD licenses?
Since being uploaded, File:DLKamtrakdepot.jpg has always had Creative Commons and GFDL license tags, but the uploader's description includes the statement, "I release rights to it to the public domain." I understand that the license tags can be used together, but is it possible to combine PD with anything else? And if not, which one(s) get(s) cancelled out? Nyttend (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A PD declaration isn't compatible with any license because, by definition, releasing something to the PD represents a total and permanent relinquishing of all rights to the work. The existing tags should be replaced with PD-self. -- Hux (talk) 04:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Ljubica Sokić.jpg
Hi, in a message from User:Stifle I was informed that fair usage for File:Ljubica Sokić.jpg is under suspicion. I am not into the matter of fair usage so I'm asking here; Ljubica Sokić has died last year so we can't make another photo in any way. I searched the net trying to find any free image, but the person, though very famous for her artist qualities and opus, wasn't really a Madonna type of person so there are only a few of her images available. This image, furthermore, is a screenshot from a TV program. Hoping I provided all the relevant information, I'm kindly asking you to help me in determining whether this image can be qualified as "fair use" in article Ljubica Sokić or not. Thank you in advance. --Дарко Максимовић (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The first step is to look over the Non-free content criteria policy. Make sure it meets all 10 of the required criteria. Second, once you have established that all 10 criteria are met, follow the guidelines at Non-free use rationale guideline and fix the existing rationale. However, my suggestion, because this is a frame grab, would be to consider replacing the currently used generic Non-free use rationale with Template:ScreenshotU and make sure everything is filled out, making special note the the subject has passed away in the "replaceable" section. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * While you were posting that, I briefly filled out the relevant fields in the generic fair-use rationale and uploaded a reduced-size version to comply with WP:NFCC. A better fair-use rationale as Soundvisions suggests would be a good idea, but believe I've solved the immediate problem. Additionally, I'm not sure about the suggestion of Template:ScreenshotU due to the assertions it makes in the Replaceable section - it seems tailored specifically for articles about the TV program screenshotted, rather than a person who was on the program.~ mazca  t 18:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You can add your own rationale, one does not need to use the default text. Also, because it is a frame grab from a television/video there does need to be some rationale as to why a frame grab can not be replaced by, say, an actual photograph. (i.e - "there are only a few of her images available" indicates there are other images - why is this one the "best" one might ask?) Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I said "only a few" just not to say "no pictures at all", because it might be there are some but I haven't found any. I watched this TV programme and grabbed a frame just in case, then searched the net and found none. --Дарко Максимовић (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Titles of logos
I have a question regarding Image:Crown oil logo.PNG. Since that Company is called Crown Central Petroleum, they should name all their images Crown Central Petroleum or Crown Central LLC, or even Crown Central logo, or whatever. Right? Since there is a different comapany called exacly Crown Oil, (see Crown oil ltd article, or Image:Old Crown Oil logo.jpg or Image:Red Crown Oil Logo.JPG), I think they should be the only one's allowed to use the Crown Oil logo name only for their description? This also concerns the article - when you search for crown oil- you get crown central petroleum, to get the actual crown oil, you have to type in crown oil ltd, so typing in crown oil should take you to the actuall crown oil ltd article. Especially that their official website is www.crownoil.co.uk and they own the following domain names crown oil, crown oils-both take you to their website. In a short cut-typing in crown oil (whether it's for logos or articles) should take you to crown oil ltd logo or article; and typing in crown central petroleum should take you to crown central petroleum logo or article. Am I right? Crownoil1947 (talk) 12:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I see it didn’t prevent you from uploading File:Red Crown Oil Logo.JPG. File names are not a big deal; don’t worry about it. While we have eachother’s attention, however, I have some concerns about your logos and username.
 * In the first place your logos are too large for non-free images. Wikipedia usually allows non-free images to be only about 300 pixels wide.
 * Also Wikipedia usually does not allow non-free images to be used in a gallery. Generally an article can have one non-free logo for identification. Use of a second logo is allowed only in extraordinary circumstances with substantial criticaly commentary on the image and where readers understanding of the article depends on seeing the image.
 * Also Wikipedia does not allow usernames that indicate company affiliation. You should change your username, or you may be blocked from editing.
 * Sorry for the bad news. —teb728 t c 23:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Horiata
I did what you said and uploaded the song, which is now on the page User:Iliada. But it says that I don't state its copyright. How can I fix this, and not get it to be deleted in 7 days? Thanks --Iliada (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Iliada
 * Who owns the copyright on the song? And who owns the copyright on the performance? (Sophia Vembo? Columbia Records?) Have those copyright owners granted a license which allows anyone to reuse the file for anything? If so, which free license? When you know the license, you can edit File:Horiata.ogg and add the tag indicating the license. If you are not personally the copyright owner, see WP:COPYREQ for how to handle permission. —teb728 t c 02:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC) (The song is 510 sec long; so non-free use is out.)

Proper information for Wikipedia screenshots?
I'm uploading some screenshots I made from Wikipedia pages, for a tutorial I plan to add shortly to Wikipedia. I've got a number of other screenshots (for this and other tutorials) that I also want to upload; I'd like to make sure that I'm posting the correct information on the image/file pages I upload so that I don't have to individually, later, update each, which would be a royal pain. (I'm using commons:Commons:Tools, for what that's worth).

So my question is this: of the four screenshots that I've added so far, are any wrong (in the sense of incorrect or missing information about the image), and/or is one or more of these better in terms of source, copyright, and other information?


 * File:Wikipedia-The Missing Manual 0106.png
 * File:Wikipedia- The Missing Manual 0103.png
 * File:Wikipedia- The Missing Manual 0101.png
 * File:Wikipedia- The Missing Manual I mediaobject1 d1e935.png

Thanks! -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia-screenshot might be better. Stifle (talk) 10:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's what I used for the second of the four, above. Unfortunately, your good advice came after I'd uploaded all but a dozen of several hundred screenshots.  -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 14:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Very old portrait of John Wesley Gilbert
So, I am writing an article on John Wesley Gilbert (you can check it out here) and I have come across a historical photo of him. He was born in 1864, died in 1923. In the photo, he looks to be about 25-35 years old. Here is the website I found it at. He's 3rd from the top. The website is part of the Brown University library system. My question is if this picture's copyright expired? If so, could I upload it here? If not, could I upload it as a fair use historical image? Which option should I choose to upload it? Thanks! SMSpivey (talk) 08:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * All works published or registered for copyright before 1923 are in the public domain in the United States. All works created before 1978 and first published 1978–2002 are under copyright in the U.S. through 2047. All unpublished works by authors dead over 70 years are in the public domain the United States. All unpublished works made for hire more than 120 years ago are in the public domain in the United States. The portrait of John Wesley Gilbert appears to be taken when he was a student at Brown. The question is: When was it first published? — Walloon (talk) 06:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is pretty unclear when it was first published. However, I did find a second portrait of the fellow in a book published in 1902, so, problem solved (you can see it at File:John Wesley Gilbert.jpg)! Thanks so much for all of your help! SMSpivey (talk) 06:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)