Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/Archive 2

License tagging for Image:CTPbanknoteback.jpg
Re: License tagging for Image:CTPbanknoteback.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CTPbanknoteback.jpg The jpg image comes from A Gallery of Chinese Kapitans authored by C S Wong (deceased). It was obtained from a personal family journal kept, at that time, by my grandmother Lee Sau Yeng (deceased).

I have no idea how to call up the dead to ask permission. Could you recommend a suitable medium?

Thank you

--jefferyseow 00:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Copyright law varies from country to country, but usually all rights are not released upon the death of the creator. Copyrighted work's entry into the public domain usually occurs after a period of time after the creator's death. It could also be transferred to someone else, or their estate. Regardless, the fact that the creator of this work is deceased does not mean the image doesn't need to be tagged. We need all images to be tagged with their license so that we can sort them and protect wikipedia from liability. If you have any other questions let us know. - cohesion 05:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Judson. I do not know how to tag these. Since everyone is dead I might as well remove the images. How do I delete stuff that I've put on? Thank you. Jeffery.


 * Do you actually have the journal? If so, and it was given to you you could reasonably assume that you, being the heir, can license the work as you want to. If that's the case you can pretty much pick what license you would like from Image copyright tags. If I'm not understanding who has the journal now or something let me know, but to me, it seems like you could probably license however you want. If you have any other questions about the particular licenses etc. feel free to update the question, and I or someone will get to it :) - cohesion 18:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Luna Park Sydney Images
I would like to know how best to tag the following images, after Orphanbot complained about the lack of copyright tags. I typed out the copyright information and fair use justification, as I was uncertain how to format it to conform with any of the current tags.

Image:UFOlunaparksyd.JPG (the one OrphanBot compalined about), Image:Wildmouselunaparksyd.JPG, Image:Coneyinsidelunaparksyd.JPG, Image:Midwaylunaparksyd.JPG, Image:Maloneyslunaparksyd.JPG, Image:Rotorlunaparksyd.JPG and Image:Rotormidcyclelunapraksyd.JPG. The result of this discussion will likely also apply to Image:LunaParkSydney IB.jpg.

Please reply on my talk page. -- Saberwyn 12:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting case, these images were taken by the uploader, but the area (theme park) the uploader was in has a policy that images taken there can't be used for commercial purposes. This is also in Australia. I have left the uploader a message on their talk page explaining a little, but saying more to come. Anyone have any better insight on this? - cohesion 19:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I doubt that the policy in question is legally enforceable. At worst it's fair use, so I would tag as and permission, and write out the comment as-is on the image description page. Stifle (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I need more specific directions on adding my copyright tag
I uploaded some images today and forgot to select the free licence or whatever it is. I can't figure out how to add it, and I read the three entries on this page about adding a tag and can't figure it out. I tried overwriting my own image with the image again, with tag selected, but that didn't seem to work. Help! Please tell me step by step. I can read the answer either here or on my talk page, but if you answer here can you leave a note on my talk page so that I know to check? --Technicalglitch 23:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I finally figured it out! --Technicalglitch 02:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Haha, sorry no one could get to you earlier, but hey, this way you have the satisfaction of figuring it out yourself :D - cohesion 08:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Weird license
Something called a Biolicense on Image:Amino Acid Property Venn Diagram.png. No idea what the license refers to (there appear to be 3 different ones on the biolicense page, and the site is barely comprehensible in the first place), so I'll dump it on you guys. --Rory096 07:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems pretty straightforward to me: the license is too confusing, so the image isn't usable on Wikipedia. --Carnildo 08:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

What shall I do
I have uploades a picture Image:Ghassemlou.jpg from www.shnoweb.com but this site have not covered by copyright and I have tried to contact them but without any result. So what do you think of this.. OtrO DiAOtrO DiA 16:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Image from he.wikipedia
I uploaded an image that I got from Hebrew Wikipedia today. The Hebrew page for the photo is here. On that page (in Hebrew) the licensing says that the image was taken from English Wikipedia, but the image description page (Image:Ibrahimi-mosque.jpg) is blank. I then uploaded the photo on my own, and it is now located at Image:PatriarchCave.jpg. What would the proper licensing be, if any? --DLand TALK 02:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The original was deleted from enwiki for lacking source info, so the proper tag is no source. If anyone know hebrew the image should proably be tagged for deletion on hewiki too. --Sherool (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

What am I going to do?
Image:Otis_Elevating.jpg is the same photo as another one (Image:Otiselevating.jpg) that has already been uploaded onto Wikipedia. I meant to shrink it, but I forgot to. What should I tag it as, and what if I want to delete it? Kschwerdt514 23:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The image has been deleted, in the future if you want to delete an image that you yourself uploaded tag it with db-author and an admin wil delete it shortly. - cohesion 05:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

My images.
I have uploaded certain pictures of my grandmother, for the article about her. My mother, who holds the copyright to these photographs, has given me permission to post them. Siddiqui is trying to get these photos deleted. Please tell me what I should do.--Le Grey Intellectual 14:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Did your mother really intend to release the images under a license that allows commercial use and derivative works to be made? If so, there should be no problem.  If your mother is, for instance, uncomfortable with the idea that someone might add devil horns to the image and then sell it on a t-shirt, I'm afraid that we can't use it.  Jkelly 17:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am trying to raise the issue of copyright and plagiarism because the Le Grey has been checking and adding Copyright violation in many pages in Wikipedia. You can check Le Grey's contribution . In these images, Le Grey indicated that user made these photos himself/herself. One of the photo is of Fatima Jinnah, involved in Pakistan movement, who died on July 8, 1967 but Le Grey was born on 24th of April, 1992, as per Le Grey's user page. So I raised the issue of plagiarism since this user has been very active in protecting intellectual property rights. If these photos are made by Le Gre'sy mother then user must have indicated that. Le Grey judges other wikipedians very harshly on copyright and plagiarism issues while not following same rules himself/herself.
 * Siddiqui 18:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I do follow them myself! If you could tell me how to change it from 'self-made', I'd gladly do it. Or even just do it yourself, if you know how to.

Also, JKelly, my mum's allowed me to use the pictuyre for the article, but I do think she might have a bit of problem with the scenario you mentioned. (:. So, wot sort of license should I put on it?--Le Grey Intellectual 13:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, unless she is willing to release the images under the GFDL or cc-by-sa-2.5 or some other such license, they cannot be used on Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Used with permission?
I uploaded Image:General_Shaw_Clifton.jpg and Image:Robin_Dunster.gif for use on pages in Wikipedia. The former was to replace an existing image, but that image was classified with the tag "Used with permission". As I understand it these tages are out of date. What is the correct tags for these images (their websites are listed with the image)

--AllisterH 15:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How do we have permission to use them? The website has a copyright notice at the bottom. 'Permission' means that we need an email from the copyright holder agreeing to release the images under certain conditions. That email will need to go to our press office. Without that, then we can' have the images, I'm afraid. The JPS   talk to me  17:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Then I guess both these images will need to be removed, because I am unable to contact the copyright holder and arrange for an email release. The image on the Shaw Clifton page will need to revert to the previous image, which actually I note is from the same site. Is the permission for this (previous) image then? (I am not trying to be awkward because I feel the images on the relevant pages are important in convey the information, but I am trying to be consistent!)

--AllisterH 10:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * (I'm responding here rather than my talk page so that others might be able to respond while I'm busy) I'm not sure I understand were this 'permission' came from in the first place? What evidence do we have? I agree, as it stands both images need to be removed. The JPS   talk to me  14:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * These have been speedied, "with permission" is not sufficient. Stifle (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Lawrence of Arabia on Brough Superior
I need help correctly tagging an image - can anyone help please? Thank You, Rgds --Trident13 23:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC) The image is here Image:Lawrence Brough Cranwell.jpg
 * I have tagged it with promophoto can you update it with more information on the source, not just the url? Do you know why the photo was taken for example? - cohesion 06:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank You! It is likely to have been taken on delivery of one of Lawrence's new Brough Superior's - he had seven during his life, all named "BOV George" and then it's number. It is also dated around the time of the publication of Lawrence's wrting "Revolt In The Desert", when a large number of publicity photographs were taken. Rgds, --Trident13 08:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't make this tag work
I uploaded the Image:Urjala.jpg file and tried to find a way to tag it like Image:Lempäälän_vaakuna.png has been tagged, because I believe the same rules apply to it, but I couldn't get the tag to work. The tag I'd like to use is "{ {PD-Coa-Finland } }". Is this a tag that only works with files that are uploaded to wikimedia commons, or is there a way to make it work for the Urjala coat of arms too? --Nerwende 02:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, PD-Coa-Finland does not exist here, we just have the generic "this file might or might not be copyrighted" type COA tag. Since it's a free image I would recomend simply uploading the file to commons and use the tag they have there. Once the file is available on commons list the now redundant "local" version you uploaded here for deletion. --Sherool (talk) 05:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I uploaded it to commons after making an account there and tried to fill in all the info. The tag works now for it, but there's still the warning "does not have information on its copyright status" because I didn't know what to choose from the drop-down menu to accompany the tag. :/ What would be the appropriate choice, and how to edit it? Sorry, I feel like a total newbie here now. --Nerwende 10:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Go to commons:Image:Urjala.jpg (since the file is on commons), then click the "edit" tab, then remove the bit. I would also recomend moving the  bit into the licensing section. Also note that the "local" version of the file will "block" the commons version from here, so when you add it to a page it will link to the version of the image that you uploaded to Wikipedia and not the commons version. That's just the way it works when two files have the same name, don't worry about it, the commons version is still there and usable by all other projects, and if the local version is deleted the commons version will automaticaly be unstead instead without anyone noticing. --Sherool (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Thank you for guiding me through it so patiently. :) Nerwende 18:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

if i change a photo enough is it still copyright?
i had a teacher tell me that if i use a copyright image but change it enough it is okay to use. is this true? and how much does the image need to be changed? 67.149.14.82 18:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)amanda


 * I hope he was not a teacher of copyright law :P Well it sort of depends a bit on local laws, and what you mean by "use". For private use between friends most countries give very broad liberties (disclaimer: I am not a laywer). However that does not mean you have any rights to the work, just that you can do pretty much whatever you want with it in private. If you upload the result to the internet or print flyers and hand out or whatever it would constitute "distribution" and most likely be a copyright violation. Anyway as a rule using someone elses work will at best give you shared rights, if you have permission to use the work first, see our derivative work article for more details (not our best article, but you should get the gist of it). --Sherool (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Message
I've received an automated notice by OrphanBot that the is untagged. However it has the tag {Coatofarms}. May be the bot is malfunctioning? -- Brand  спойт  00:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "Coat of arms" isn't really a license tag, it's more of an indication that the image may have restrictions on it above and beyond any based on copyright law.


 * The copyright situation with coats of arms can be confusing. In the European tradition, the "coat of arms" that is granted is actually a text description of the arms, and any graphical depiction is one artist's impression of that description -- an impression that is certainly eligable for copyright. --Carnildo 06:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Furniture.jpg
"Free art license?" I'm too lazy to read it, one of you can see if it's compatible. --Rory096 05:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yup yup, FAL A dmrb♉ltz (t • c • [ log]) 05:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Rackeve05 038.jpg
All the pictures I gave yesterday to the Wikipedia, were pictures I made myself. I want to give them under the GDFL licence. Coffeinfreak 07:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem, just go to the ones that aren't tagged and add gfdl. To remove the notice by orphanbot after you have tagged something, edit the page like I have done here I noticed also that a lot of the images you uploaded on the 3rd list the source as "german wikipedia", that is not really an acceptable source. Just because it's from another wikipedia doesn't mean the images are GFDL, because obviously if we allowed that we could just play a shell game with images and steal anything :) Anyway, just to let you know the images may, in the future, be marked as no source. At the very least provide a link to the german image, and if you speak german update it with the actual source of the image. - cohesion 18:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Images from (Michigan) Senate PhotoWire
Can someone please tell me the correct tag to use for Image:CatherineLaurion.jpg and Image:CrystalHayes.jpg. The images are in the public domain, per this note on the index page: Photos on the Senate PhotoWire are intended for media use and may be freely reproduced. PageantUpdater 08:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As they are made for the media, I would use Promophoto which is a fair use tag. –Mysid 13:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * They may be intended for the media but it does not state that they are only for media use.  In fact the "intended for media use" and the "may be freely reproduced" are broken by the "and" which makes them two separate entities.  Niether does it say they may be freely reproduced by the media (only).  There's a difference! (lol too much statutory interpretation practice for law today :P) I'm sure that these can be used freely, I just need a tag. PageantUpdater 13:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging
I have uploaded an image without a tag. Now I want to tag it. How can I do this? Michael —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kimera2256 (talk • contribs).
 * Go to the image's page, hit edit and type in the tag from WP:ICT A dmrb♉ltz (t • c • [ log]) 17:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use of logos
I've been wondering about the usage of enormous lists of small logos (like in the articles SkyCable or List of Norwegian television channels). Is it legal, or should I remove the logos in cases like this to make the articles comply with the fair use doctrine and stop wasting bandwidth? Thanks in advance. –Mysid 13:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a somewhat contentious issue, just so you are aware before you start working with it. There has been previous discussion Wikipedia talk:Fair use, mostly around actual galleries. This is a table, with some information about each image so your case is somewhat weaker. It is problematic for bandwidth reasons especially for dial-up users etc, and that argument would probably get more traction. So the short answer is you're right it's not a clear cut case of fair use, but there is significant disagreement on the issue. - cohesion 04:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Putting Image Tags
How do I insert or edit an Image tag after I have uploaded the image and forgotten to add the Image tage the first time around ?Jordy 17:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Go to the image's page, hit edit and type in the tag from WP:ICT A dmrb♉ltz (t • c • [ log]) 17:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:PlantefargetSpelsaugarn.jpg
I have been warned this picture may be deleted.

The material depicted is collected by me, the photograph is taken by me.

The licence connected to this picture says:

"Licensing

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".

I cannot avoid to keep wandering about the eagerness to delete pictures.

What more is needed to avoid deletion of this picture. It is used in the Norw. entry "Plantefarger" (plant dyes).

--Frode Inge Helland 17:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Do not worry, your image will not be deleted, and there is no eagerness at all to delete free images. What has happened to it is quite complicated, though:


 * In February, you uploaded this image to en.wikipedia twice, as Image:PlantefargetSpelsaugarn.jpg without any copyright information, and as Image:PlantefargetSpelsaugarn2.jpg with . It appears that you also uploaded the image to no.wikipedia under the GFDL.
 * In March, User:Kjetil_r moved the image from no.wikipedia to the Wikimedia Commons: PlantefargetSpelsaugarn.jpg
 * On April 27 the first en.wikipedia version was correctly tagged as having no license, and you were notified on your talk page.
 * On May 5, I noticed both versions on en.wikipedia, and deleted the first, since it was not licensed and was not used in any articles.
 * When an image is on the Commons, and there is not image by the same name on any particular Wikipedia, the commons image becomes visible on that Wikipedia. That's why now, when you visit Image:PlantefargetSpelsaugarn.jpg on en.wikipedia, you are actually seeing the properly-licensed image on the commons.


 * Now that we at en.wikipedia know that the image is on the Commons, where it is accessible to all languages' Wikipedias, we can now, with your permission, delete Image:PlantefargetSpelsaugarn2.jpg. ×Meegs 19:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

how to tag images about a band taken from official sites
i was including pictures from a bands official site, obviously promotional photos. definately not a violation of copyright. how do i tag these? -- sausagefence 3:31 9 May, 2006
 * If you are certain that an image meets our very narrow definition of a publicity photo, then you can use . If not, it is best to use  and write-up a detailed rationale for the image's use in the band's article.  In either case, specify the URL of the page containing the image, and any available information about its photographer or copyright holder.


 * Fair use notwithstanding, please bear in mind that there is ample opportunity to produce or procure free images of contemporary bands that are consistent with Wikipedia's goal of creating a free encyclopedia. Adding a copyrighted image may seem to improve the article in the short run, but in the long run it can be detrimental by obscuring the fact that free images are needed. ×Meegs 12:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Pizza Pops.jpg
I just got the OrphanBot message. I've changed the licence. Could someone make sure I've used the correct one and remove the OrphanBot tag. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't this be a derived work, with a copyright held by General Mills? Presumably, they would never grant a free license.  Even if taking the photograph granted the photographer some rights (I don't know), the rights to the original work (e.g. the box), would still hold.    --Rob 21:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * See Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.; this seems to be merely a mechanical reproduction of the product's box artwork, and thus like the original, all of its rights remain with Pillsbury.  As with album covers, though, there is as strong a fair use claim as there is for its use in an article about the product.  Use  with a short rationale. ×Meegs 01:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be better to get an illustration directly from them, actually, since this isn't as high-quality as what they likely have. Or at least try to get a box without those wrinkles at the corners, cut off the sides so it can lie perfectly flat, and scan it on a flatbed scanner to remove the light effects, then crop it to remove the stuff at the sides of the picture. &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've always been curious about these kinds of "product pictures", if the photo has been of the box sitting on a table and taken from an angle would it still be considered a copy? I've always wondered where to draw the line with these things, is to OK to release a photo of a coke can as GFDL self? How about a photo of a guy holding a coke can? Gnn, gives me a headace :P --Sherool (talk) 06:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's hard to work this out, but a fair use claim is certainly possible here. However, we need a better picture - can you either scan the box or get a photo without flash? Stifle (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The line drawn by Bridgeman is that "slavish copying" doesn't grant copyright. If your goal is to reproduce the exact two-dimensional art, but you unintentionally take it at a slight angle, or with some glare, or whatever, that doesn't grant you copyright.  But if you introduced additional nontrivial elements intentionally, that's copyrightable as a derivative work (although if the base work is copyrighted, it doesn't negate the copyright of the base work). A photo of a Coke can would be a derivative of the (presumably copyrighted, unless it's a lot older than I think it is) logo and can design.  You could release the derivation (angle, lighting, etc.) under the GFDL, but the base part would mean we'd need a fair-use rationale anyway; it would, however, mean that anyone with permission to use the base work (e.g., the Coca-Cola Company) could use your derivative if they followed the GFDL.  We really don't have any good tags for things with multiple copyrights, so probably a fair-use tag with a text note that whatever parts belong to you are GFDLd would be the way to go. Exactly the same logic applies to a photo of someone holding a Coke can. &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Still needs a fair use rationale, though, it was uploaded after May 4, 2006 and uses . --Rory096 07:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I seem to have missed all this as it's not appearing on my watch list. The reason for using the picture that I took is that there are no photos available at the General Mills site. I assume that this is also going to apply to Pizza Pockets? However, in that case there are pictures available at the site so should I replace it with the one there? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesnt matter what photo you use, just add a fair use rationale. --Rory096 18:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Could someone look at Image:Pizza Pops.jpg and see if that's OK. If it is I'll put the similar one on the other picture. This is harder than creating articles. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems fine. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Three images
Image:Mikemalloy1.gif, Image:Thierry Meyssan2.JPG, Image:James Petras and Thierry Meyssan.JPG. The first one I didn't upload but received specific permission from the subject's producer (who is also his wife). The other two may be freely used provided that attribution is given (the website they came from specifically gives these instructions). OrphanBot says they need tags, but, in my scan of the tags page, none of them accurately describe the status of these images. —Sesel 23:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * For the first image, you must obtain permission for the image to be licensed under the GFDL or some other free license, not just permission for use on Wikipedia. Furthermore, please ask the copyright holder to e-mail their release statement to permissions at wikimedia dot org.  I've updated the other two with the correct tags. &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Question
I found this image Saro_Skeeter.jpg onthe website http://www.free-picture-graphic.org.uk/saro-skeeter-helicopter.htm. The image had an accompying message that this image could be used non comercially, and also stating that it is for educational use in particular. It seems to me that this kind of image should be allowed, but if it is, I could not find an appropriate tag for it. Either way, could someone please help me out with this? Aborrows 05:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid such images are not acceptable on Wikipedia, our content have to be compatable with our license. The gist of the GFDL license is that anyone can use the content for anyting (commercialy or non-commercialy), provided that a) they credit the previous authors, b) make any new work based on it available under the same terms, and c) include a copy of the GFDL license text (there is some stuff about cover texts and document history and so on but you get the idea). Content that is only usable for non-commercial use, or by special permission and things like that is too restrictive to be compatable with that license, and thus not allowed even if Wikipedia itself is non-profit. There is a small "loophole" with invoking the fair use doctrine of US law to use images that are unfree, but it's supposed to be a "last resort" only (a fair use picture is slightly better than no picute), so our policy is fairly restrictive on fair use content. --Sherool (talk) 05:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights"

Copyright Question
Newspaper Articles I just uploaded two copies of newspaper articles as reference for a new article I started. Would someone check and let me know what I need to do from a permissioning/citing/tagging perspective?

--Irishkevin2 14:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you please give the page names of those images? Use Image:imagename.jpg . Stifle (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've found the images from his upload history and responded to him at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights. In the future, Irishkevin2, it's usually best if you only post your question in one place. &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Coat of arms
I uploaded Image:Coat of arms of Hungary.png to replace Image:Hungary COA.jpg. It's exactly the same image, from the same source, but 14% of the file size and with no JPEG artifacts. When I uploaded the image and was prompted for a license, I chose "None selected" from the drop-down menu, because I didn't see there. After uploading, I immediately edited the image description page to add, as this is the copyright tag given for the previous image.

Just now I received a message from OrphanBot, which informed me that the copyright status of the image is not specified. Does not qualify as a copyright-status tag? If there is a copyright problem, then I don't have any further information; I was simply uploading a PNG replacement for the original JPEG version, and the copyright problem must logically extend to Image:Hungary COA.jpg as well. If there is no copyright problem, then I guess I should just ignore OrphanBot's message and delete the tag from the image description page for Image:Coat of arms of Hungary.png, and maybe someone should look into OrphanBot's behavior. —Bkell 01:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

repost from above
 * "Coat of arms" isn't really a license tag, it's more of an indication that the image may have restrictions on it above and beyond any based on copyright law.


 * The copyright situation with coats of arms can be confusing. In the European tradition, the "coat of arms" that is granted is actually a text description of the arms, and any graphical depiction is one artist's impression of that description -- an impression that is certainly eligable for copyright. --Carnildo 06:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Now, for more info, there are a number of these images on enwiki and commons, see commons:Image:Hungary COA.jpg and commons:Image:Hungary coa.png. It seems at least some of these images came from Vector-Images.com, and can be used with attribution only. Ideally we would have only one image on the commons in some vector format with a copyright tag. Right now Image:Hungary COA.jpg is a higher resolution jpeg than the jpeg on commons that it is masking, it is also used on a lot of articles. The smaller size one seems to be the one from Vector-Images, so I am hesitant to replace them with the larger unsourced unlicensed versions. If we can get a source/license for the large ones that would be best and then the lower resolution ones could be replaced.

Hope that all makes sense, short answer though is yes we still need a source and license for the higher-resolution images. - cohesion 16:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The source is given; see . I'll follow up on the licensing. —Bkell 16:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

How do I Copyright Tag a Uploaded Photograph ??
Hi ... The orphanbot has mailed me saying that I need to copyright tag my uploaded photos. I took the photos myself, but just how do you tag it ??? Thanks ! --David Humphreys 04:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

aha !!! just worked it out !!! --David Humphreys 04:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Glad it worked out :) Also remember if you are uploading images that you took yourself or that are free content feel free to upload them to the commons so that all the language projects can use them. commons:Special:Upload. (You do need an account there, it's best to use the same username) If you have any questions let me know :) - cohesion 16:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Web Sourced images
Hi ... I have found a website that states "All my photographs are free to use on non commercial websites." Does the photographer receive a credit on Wikipedia or is that considered advertising ??? Thanks --David Humphreys 13:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually while it seems like we should be able to use images like that, we can't. Even though wikipedia is a noncommercial site our license (GFDL) allows for commercial redistribution. That does actually occur as well, with about.com etc. To answer your question more directly, some people license their work as requiring attribution only, and that's ok and would not be considered advertising. So, the attribution isn't the problem, the non-commercial aspect is :) - cohesion 16:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Albino Gorilla picture
Hi, I uploaded this picture to the Floquet de Neu page (about the albino gorilla) from here on Dutch Wikipedia, but I can't read Dutch so I don't know what they put the copyright status as. Does anyone know? Thanks TastyCakes 22:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It appears that they copied it from the English Wikipedia (originally uploaded at Image:Snowf2.jpg), and that image was deleted for not having source information. The page on the Dutch Wikipedia doesn't have any information on copyright. --Carnildo 22:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Damn. I think it's the perfect picture for the article..  TastyCakes 00:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I keep getting warnings on most of the images I upload all of which, I might add, do have the licensing information in there, granted I do not select from the drop down menu but usually insert a Coatofarms tag since that is the most appropriate for the images that I've uploaded. Is there anyway to prevent from getting these warnings? --ImmortalGoddezz 22:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * See above.  Coats of arms are not necessarily free. &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Permission question and Non-free fair use in tag
Hi, I uploaded:

Image:Photo jennings2.jpg

I have permission to use it on Wikipedia from the University of Evansville, and it is used on the University of Evansville website as promotional material. Should I mark it as promotional material, or Non-free fair use in and withpermision tags?? Btw, I don't think the Non-free fair use in Tag works very well, unless I'm just not using it right. Thanks! --Mh143 23:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)mh143


 * First of all, I'm afraid that permission to use it solely on Wikipedia is insufficient. We have many mirrors, such as about.com, that must be allowed to use our images.  The image needs to be released under the GFDL or similar license to be used freely. Second, all pages on Wikipedia are case-sensitive; Fair Use In doesn't work, and you need to use fair use in or Non-free fair use in.  Also, the parameter provided is which of our articles you're using it in, not the source of the image. Third, you do need some kind of fair use rationale unless the image is released under a free license such as the GFDL.  I'm not sure if this qualifies under any of our fair use rules, unforunately. &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Nicholashooper.jpg
I just uploaded Image:Nicholashooper.jpg to Wikipedia from the page http://filmmusicworld.com/radio/index.php?todo=showstory1&header=&page=&storyid=183&storycategory=&storycategory1=. I was unsure of the licensing because none of the options seemed to quite fit the situation. I don't want to cause a problem with copyright status, but I don't think this picture is a violation of any copyrighting, because I have seen the picture at various other web pages before, when talking about Nicholas Hooper. Please advise as to what is the right thing to do with this image. Thanks a lot. --Fbv 65 edel (discuss 16:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is a great deal more scrupulous about copyright than most websites. In the case of this image, I'm not sure it's acceptable for use under any of our fair use categories. &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for your help. I understand entirely. Is it acceptable to link to that web page on his Wikipedia page, or something that would provide readers of the article to see his picture? --Fbv65 e del (discuss 14:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Since that page is presumably using the image with permission, it's fine to link to it. &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Simetrical. I suppose the image can be deleted now? --Fbv65 e del (discuss 21:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It should be deleted fairly soon. You can get it taken down more quickly if you'd like to add db-author to it. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

TOO MUCH NONSENCE ALL I WANT IS TO UPLOAD A PICTURE OF THE CONVENTION CENTER THATS IT NOT STEAL ANYONES PICTUER OR NOTHING AINT LIKE YALL GON GET SUED OR ANYTHING I MEAN COME ON!
LOOK MAN THIS WHOLE UPLOADING A PICTURE THING IS TOO DAMN DIFFICULT AND ONLY U KNOW HOW TO DO IT OR UNDERSTAND IT I MEAN DAMN ALL I WANTED WAS TO PUT A PICTURE OF THE PUERTO RICO CONVENTION CENTER BECAUSE THE ARTICLE DIDNT HAVE ONE AND IM TRHOWN A LOT OF BULLSHIT AT ME AND THEN U COME N TELL ME ALL THIS MAN U NEED TO HELP ME OR SOMETHING I MEAN DAMN CMON MAN —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Queens finest (talk • contribs) 18:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please calm down. No need to shout. Whether or not we will be sued is irrelevant. We are trying to make a free encyclopedia. Free encyclopedias need free content. If you can't find a free version of this picture (or one that qualifies as fair use) then I am afraid we will continue on without a picture of that convention center. I don't know how we can make this any easier for you. In general, we cannot accept random pictures from the internet, so, no matter how we structure our system, using such pictures will be difficult. Try contacting the copyright holder of the picture and asking them if they would license it under a free lincese. BrokenSegue 18:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tag
I have uploaded a file which doesn't contain any image.It is a word document converted to pdf.I have not made use of equation editor(if u consider that to be an image) in making the file. I have made the file by myself.But it is asking for an image tag —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srikaushik (talk • contribs)
 * If you made the document, you can use the tag "GFDL (self made)" in the Licensing pop-down menu. --Fbv65 e del (discuss 14:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia can not display a pdf file inline, though, so your file is not going to be usable within an article. If you need to display mathematical notation, you should use TeX, as described at meta:Help:Displaying a formula. ×Meegs 17:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

logo
I have added Image:Newwlbtlogo.JPG to WLBT-TV twice. The first time, I forgot to select that it was a logo. I tried to go back and include that information, but wasn't successful. Therefore I uploaded the image again with the correct information, thinking that it would override the first image...looks like it didn't.

What should I do now?
 * Here is a list of your uploads. Two of the images are not tagged as logos: Image:Old WWL logo.jpg and Image:Wlbtlate70s.jpg. You do not need to re-upload the images to tag them correctly, though. Instead go to the image's description page, click "edit this page", and add  to the bottom of the page.  For more information, see Image copyright tags.  ×Meegs 17:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

One Question
I made my own account but I'm having trouble with basically everything, I just want to put a picture of me so that people would know it's me. but it says that the image must be copywriten. Why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abraham Castaneda (talk • contribs) 22:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Is the image you're referring to Image:MeAtTheChain.jpg? It needs to have a tag identifying its licensing. See Image copyright tags for your choices. I assume it's a picture of you that was taken by someone else. In this case, the photograph is the intellectual property of the photographer, not you, which means you have to get the photographer either to release all rights to it (in which case you can use No rights reserved), or to release it under the GNU Free Documentation License or an acceptable Creative Commons License (see Image copyright tags for details). No rights reserved (or PD-self, which comes to the same thing) is the least hassle, but it does mean that if someone modifies the image and/or uses it for commercial purposes neither the photographer nor you can do anything about it. Angr (t • c) 09:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Motorway Hungary.jpg
? Sounds like crap to me, I'm sure there's a reason we dont have a tag for that. --Rory096 21:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This should go to Possibly unfree images -- this needs much more informative source information and some proof that the Hungarian government releases its work into the public domain. Jkelly 22:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Adding a tag
Hoe do I add a tag to a picture that I uploaded?


 * Go to the image page, hit "edit this page", then add the tag. If you have trouble finding the tags they are listed at Image copyright tags, if you have trouble finding images you have uploaded go to the upload log and enter your name in the "User:" box (case sensitive without the User: prefix). --Sherool (talk) 06:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I need a licence
I need a licence for the picture Image:Shenzhen night street.jpg.

Thank you very much for your attention.

by Alexander Needham 15:18, 16 May 2006


 * It's got a license; you're the author and you've released it into the public domain. It should be fine. Angr (t • c) 15:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

help with tags
hello, i am brand new to wikipedia, and am very confused as to the whole tagging buisness. I added a very famous pic of Christine and Léa Papin to the entry on them, and i credited the source, but i don't know how to tag the picture... The photographer is unknown, and the exact date is unknown, but the picture was taken circa 1927-1931. I think that the picture is considered to be "public domain", but I still don't kow what the hell I'm meant to tag it as, there is so much confusing info... could you please help me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PlushHoney (talk • contribs) 19:41, 16 May 2006  (UTC)
 * Actually it's unlikely that Image:Jknk.JPG is in the public domain. Everything published in the U.S. before 1923 is, as well as everything whose author died more than 70 years ago. As you say, the picture was probably made in the 1930s (and probably in France anyway, so the 1923 rule doesn't hold anyway). Without knowing who the photographer is, it's impossible to know if his 70 years are "up". I'd say you're best route is to have the image (both the copy at Image:Jknk.JPG and the copy at Image:Image-Jknk.JPG) deleted (just put db-author on them) but keep a copy on your own hard drive until you find out what the source is. Did you e-mail the webmaster of http://grands.criminels.free.fr and ask where they got the image from? Angr (t • c) 20:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This isn't an easy one. I found what appears to be the original image that your Image:Jknk.JPG is a crop of.  The webmaster of that particular Geocities site suggests that the image was taken in 1927.  We would, unfortunately, need to know when it was first published, or the death date of the photographer, to determine this image's copyright status.  Jkelly 20:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

So I need to find out where the pic was first published (probably a French newspaper of the time) and then credit that source and tag it accordingly? Sorry, but i am so clueless about this! Thanks for the help guys, by the way!!!
 * It's not just a matter of crediting the source, though that's important too. If the image is still copyrighted, then it can't be used unless you can argue that its use falls within the provisions of the fair use doctrine. Angr (t • c) 14:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

How do I add links and a Copyright tag?
Hi, I'm a bit new to this whole editing thing and I need to know a few things. How do I add links and a copyright tag to the image Image:Jack the Jackalope.JPG ? I clipped the image from a sceenshot Gamespot had on it's site and they took the screenshot from the Rampage: Total Destruction video game that belongs to Midway. --Rizer 15:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Rizer.
 * Basically, we can't use that image here. There is the tag Screenshot where fair use is claimed for a screenshot, but copyrighted images can't be modified in any way, and you've clipped the screenshot to make this image. The best tag to put on it now is db-author so it can be speedy deleted. Angr (t • c) 15:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see why a cropped screenshot would be bad, if anyting it would probably make for a stronger fair use claim since we only use exactly the bit of the copyrighted work that we need (tilting the "amount of work used" aspect of fair use in our favour). IANAL though, but that has been my understanding thus far. If you try to pass your modified version off as your own sure that's a copyvio, but I'm pretty sure modified works would be covered by fair use too, espesialy if the modification is simply to remove all parts of the work that is not relevant to the current use, and the original source is clearly identified. --Sherool (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Cropping, like and process of creating an excerpt, is allowed. If you couldn't "crop" a book by pulling only a quote, you'd have to reprint the entire thing, and that's certainly not fair use. --Davidstrauss 05:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Seriously? I all I did was crop the image to that of the subject mentioned in the text. I have seen it done several times on this sight already...and you are telling me it can't be done? I've read the screenshot tag you've put up, but I am still confused. If I understood it correctly, that how is it that any images of the more recent subjects with similar tags are visable? Surely most of the other videogame images within the site fall under the fair use claim? How would I be able to find an image where I will not violate the fair use claim?


 * Okay, poking around a bit more I think Sherool is probably right. The correct tag to use is Game-screenshot, which explicitly permits the use of a computer game screenshot "for identification and critical commentary on ... the copyrighted character(s) depicted on the screenshot in question". Angr (t • c) 20:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Olympic-rings.png
Orphanbot has described the image as having no source, but it has a fair use rationale. What should be done? Thanks, Andjam 14:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's also marked as being redundant to an image at Commons, so I say let it get deleted. No big deal. Angr (t • c) 14:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * But what about the commenting out that Orphanbot does? Andjam 14:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * OrphanBot always leaves a message in the image's description page saying where it's been commented out from. Angr (t • c) 15:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So we know which pages it got commented out from, but with 500+ pages involved, are all the commenting outs going to be reverted manually, or will a bot fix it? Andjam 01:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't delete it, as it might be deleted from Commons in the future. It's being debated there. --Rory096 19:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

type of tag needed
hello,

I was doing some editing of some pages on wikipedia and i uploaded some pics I foun on the web using google image search...But I don't know which copyright tag I should use for them. Please help me —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kong24 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for coming here to ask. We'll need to know some things about the images before we can allow them to be used on Wikipedia.  For instance, Image:Mountains.JPG says it was taken by "Gregg Herbert".  Are you Gregg Herbert?  You put up a tag asserting that you were. As for the others, they might qualify as fair use, but it isn't likely.  Unfortunately, they're being used here for exactly the same purpose as the owners use them for (identifying the individuals in question), and therefore they aren't "transformative".  Combined with the commerciality of some of Wikipedia's mirrors, our legal case for using these pictures is unfortunately somewhat dubious.  Those may have to be deleted. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

roosevelt.jpg and lincoln.jpg
i need help on how to tag the pictures, i have no clue how. Can you help me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Desty22 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please describe the images and tell us where you got them and what they would be used for here so that we can help you. (Also, I would suggest next time that you choose more descriptive names for your uploads.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Desty22 hasn't uploaded any images (or if he has, they've been deleted already). Angr (t • c) 21:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * They were deleted. --Rory096 21:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And by me, no less. How embarassing! Angr (t • c) 21:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You were linking to the wrong page. Image upload is in logs, not contribs, and they incidentally remain there even if the upload is later deleted; cf.  . —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Advice reqd re appropriate copyright tag
Could someone advise me on the appropriate copyright tag to apply to Image:X1 sub.jpeg? I have email permission from the Copyright holder, in this case the National Maritime Museum, their only condition being that it be labelled "&copy; National Maritime Museum".

Salmanazar 21:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no date for the image? Did they understand that they were okaying commercial and derivative use?  Better forward that email to permissions.  The correct tag is attribution.  Jkelly 22:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If they only want to allow use on Wikipedia, however, you can use in conjunction with a fair use tag. --Rory096 22:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please reproduce the exact text of the e-mail here (as well as forwarding it to permissions at wikimedia dot org). It must explicitly state that it can be used, modified, and sold with no restrictions except for attributions for attribution to be valid. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Correctly Specifying the Source and Creator of an Image
I've had both Image:Blacktailedgnatcatcher.jpg and Image:California_Gnatcatcher.jpg tagged as having no source information by OrphanBot, even though I've tagged both of those images with and given the source URL. What else do I need to add to the information accompanying these images? --InvisibleK 12:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know what exactly OrphanBot looks for when determining if an image has a source, but this time it goofed up. I removed OrphanBot's tags and added the word "Source:" before the source information; hopefully that will take care of it. Angr (t • c) 13:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It was a bug in OrphanBot, which I've fixed. --Carnildo 19:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Divya_Bharti.jpg
I have provided a source for the image and most likely there is no other original source for this image apart from some fansites or any info on who owns the copyright. I am sure it can still be used on wikipedia though. Could you advise on what should be done? Thanks. (Shakirfan 21:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC))
 * So, we don't know the source. Unfortunately wikipedia cannot include images where we don't know the source or license of an image. - cohesion 00:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Iekessinger.jpg
The image in question is a digital photo I took of an actual photograph, and then cropped. The photograph of Don Kessinger is a Chicago Cubs team-issued press photo which was taken in the early 1970s and freely distributed to various media outlets for publication (publicity). This is one of many from my personal collection, which I have acquired over the years. My uploading of this image for Wikipedia's benefit is in no way profit-oriented. I thought I had tagged it correctly. Should I retain the tag and/or license I used, but also name the source (Chicago Cubs)...or should I use the "fair use" option? Please let me know what to do. Thanks. BurmaShaver 22:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't the license, it's that there's no source information. Just give the information you gave above about where you got the photo from, and you can remove the "no source" tags. Angr (t • c) 00:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Iekessinger.jpg
Thanks for the info. I followed your directions as best I could, and re-named the image Iekessingerd.jpg so that I could re-upload it. Please let me know if it is now acceptable. If it is, I will fix other similar images. BurmaShaver 01:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, Image:Iekessingerd.jpg is fine now. You didn't have to re-upload it, though; you could have just updated the info on the original image. Anyway, now that the second upload is correct, I'll go ahead and delete the first one since we don't need two copies of the same picture. Angr (t • c) 09:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Message about copyright tag
The picture in question (Image:JonandAngela.jpg) is mine; it comes from  The Belch Dimension Comics #2. I created it and own it. Please refrain from deleting it. Thank you. The_Iconoclast 07:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Leaving this request here won't keep it from getting deleted. You need to replace the tags on the image description page with (1) a statement that the picture is your own work, and (2) a license under which you're willing to release it. For self-made work, some obvious choices are PD-self, GFDL-self, Cc-by-2.5, and Cc-by-sa-2.5. Angr (t • c) 09:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I have To Add The Copyright Tag To My First Uploaded Image; May You Help Me ?
Hello,

I have to add the tag: "NO Right Reserved" to my first Image: "Kippah"; how may I do it ?

Ty.

Bye.

Giuseppe

--Aerostrato 08:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You already did, three minutes before leaving this message. You can remove the tag now. Angr (t • c) 09:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:RedArmy_kursants1933.jpg
Hi there. I've never uploaded images before so I wasn't sure about copyright status when filling those dialogue fields. However, my verbal description was I believe clear. In addition: this is a private photo never published, I obtained it from the relatives of those potrayed. They were willing to share a memory of their fathers (that later fought World War II and died there). Their only conditions were: Anything else? Cause I won't like my first Wikipicture being deleted.AlexPU 09:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * non-commercial use only
 * providing the additional war info of the portaryed on request of readers
 * If they only gave permission for non-commercial use, then Wikipedia can't use it. Images at Wikipedia either have to be free for commercial use (not because Wikipedia itself is commercial but because some mirrors are and some other "downstream" users may be) or else a fair-use claim has to be made for them. On the other hand, if this photo was taken in 1933, it may be public domain anyway, because it's more than 70 years old. You could use the template PD-old-70 in the licensing section and remove the "permission" line from the summary. This does mean, however, that what the family does or does not permit to be done with the photo is irrelevant. Once the image is public domain, there's nothing stopping anyone from adding humorous speech balloons to the picture and selling it on a tee-shirt. Angr (t • c) 09:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, to be exact: I got this and other photos from a 67 y.o. woman collecting and sharing knowledge of her KIA father (one of the officers potrayed) and his artillery unit. She is very far from any legal considerations :). I only promised her to:
 * help her cause using Internet by providing the pictures for worldwide usage and supplying additional info on her father on further request of anybody
 * not make money from those pictures
 * There's a 100% guarantee that neither me nor Wikipedia would be legally persecuted for the usage of these photos.


 * I guess I'll use that 70-years rule for settling the case. Thanks for help, hope for the same in future.AlexPU 11:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * PD-old-70 is, unfortunately, entirely inappropriate for this image. That image is only when the author has been dead for seventy years or more, which seems quite unlikely.  If the author is known, you'll have to wait 70 years after his death (which will probably be a few years yet, unless he died soon after the picture was taken); otherwise, you're going to have to wait until 2053, 120 years after the work's creation.  So currently, it's being used under a noncommercial license, which is unfortunately not acceptable for Wikipedia.  Any chance you could get her to allow commercial use? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Any chance it's public domain because it was taken in the Soviet Union before 1954? Or does that only apply to works of the Soviet government? Angr (t • c) 20:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well PD-USSR is for works published in the Soviet Union before 1973. This image has not been previously published so I think a different set of rules apply, though I'm not 100% sure what they would be in this case (in the US it's life + 70 for unpublished works even if they where created before 1923 for example). --Sherool (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Since it was unpublished, the rules are very simple: 70 years after the death of the author if known, otherwise 120 years after creation. It's unfree. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

What do I do?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:M1917rev.gif

This image is a black and white variation of a government picture. The site and a link to the original is on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathbunny (talk • contribs) 06:42, 23 May 2006


 * The page has no link to any original, it says it's of unknown origin and speculate that it may be from a goverment site (what makes you say that?). Unless you can dig up enough info to tell us who made the original photo (or at least who hold the copyright to it) there is not rely a lot we can do except delete it as having a unverified status. --Sherool (talk) 06:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oops.

http://tri.army.mil/LC/CS/csi/sahist.htm http://tri.army.mil/LC/cs/csi/m1917rev.jpg

Didn't save the page preview.

I don't know how to tag images —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deathbunny (talk • contribs) 13:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Not every image on a government website was produced by an employee of the federal government in the course of his duties. The image isn't acceptable unless you find evidence of who made the base image. To retag an image, just edit the image page.  You may want to check out How to edit a page for some basic formatting help, etc.  For instance, you should sign your edits to talk pages with four tildes: ~ . —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * On the site, many pictures have specific copyright information on them. The exceptions include pictures seen in military factfiles and other government sites.  Can we assume that, given that it's a government site and that it specifically notes other people's copyright information, what isn't marked is government copyright? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deathbunny (talk • contribs) 05:00, 25 May 2006  (UTC)


 * No, I'm afraid we can't assume that. If it doesn't give info on who took the picture, it has to be assumed copyrighted.  (And by the way, you can use four tildes to sign your name and the date:  .) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Medical imagery
Photos I took, of x-rays of myself. Technically, since the original x-ray was done by someone else (of course), who holds what copyright? ~ Booyabazooka 00:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm uncertain how much creativity is involved in X-raying. Is it just sticking someone in a roughly appropriate position and then pushing a button?  If so, X-rays are probably not subject to copyright.  If it has to be adjusted, fidgeted with, whatever, then it would likely be eligible, and the copyright holder is whoever actually took the X-ray (or whoever was employing the person to take the X-ray). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is really interesting, since the x-ray is also the actual result of a medical test, it would be regulated by a whole lot of other laws as well. This is one of those times when I think to get a good answer you might need an actual lawyer ;) Speaking from a healthcare point of view though I think most healthcare workers would think the image was yours, whether that's legally true or not. - cohesion 07:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

how to tag an image
I don't know how to tag an image. Could u help me please? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrishomingtang (talk • contribs) 01:21, 24 May 2006


 * To tag an image when you upload it, select the appropriate tag from the dropdown box. To retag an already-uploaded image, simply edit the image page as you would any other: click "edit this page" and change the contents appropriately. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And just one little "gotcha" to watch out for. It does not, repeat does not work to re-upload the image and picking the correct license from the drop down box to fix an already uploaded image. When you overwrite an existing image the description of the old image stays as is, whatever you type in the description box when you upload a new version is just shown (in trunkated form) in the upload log, it does not get used. So the only way to fix the tagging of an already uploaded image so to go to it's page and click the edit button. I often see people franticly uploading 5-6 versions of the same image trying to get the tagging right when all they need to do is edit the page. --Sherool (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Fluffy999
Hi, on a number of occasions I have pointed out to User:Fluffy999 about uploading possibly copyrighted images. A relative newby, he has uploaded a number of images which are clearly copyrighted/scans from books and usually tags them with a tag. To his credit, however, he usually cites the source (if it's from the internet, but not if it's from a book).

The most recent example is Image:Hume-trimble-NOBEL-PEACE-PRIZE.jpg. Fluffy999 gives the url but there it clearly states that the image in question is "((c) Micheline Pelletier/CORBIS SYGMA"

I would be grateful if someone could discuss the seriousness of uploading copyrighted images with Fluffy999, as I don't think he fully understands what is allowed on Wikipedia and what is not. I would address the user in question directly but recent experience has shown that Fluffy999 does not take very well to any constructive comments from me and, on the advice of an administrator, User:Jtdirl, I no longer communicate with him directly.--Damac 10:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Fluffy999 has been busy uploading images taken directly from the BBC website. I've listed these on Copyright problems/2006 May 24/Images but have not tagged them, as this will only provoke personalised attacks on me by the user in question. I'd appreciate it if someone dealt with the problem and explained to Fluffy999 why copyright laws do not allow users to upload any images they feel like from the Internet.--Damac 09:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello, if an image is in violation its fine to remove it or if the tag is more likely to be fair use- please advise. A lack of images doesnt detract from the quality of my submissions.  My real problem is not some malicious intent to infringe copyright but that there are so many rules and regulations that its almost impossible to make out what I should and shouldnt upload and how it should be tagged.  Since I am new and learning the ropes I will make mistakes although I sometimes will be wrongly accused eg. yesterday an admin deleted a GFDL labeled image I made saying it was a photocopy.  When I pointed out it was made in MSPaint there wasnt a problem- incorrectly tagged.


 * To Damac's credit he hasn't tagged these images although has been previously advised by one admin, Jtdirl, to cease & desist from tracking my movements around the wiki, User_talk:Damac. Yet he persists., so more senior intervention looks to be required. Fluffy999 09:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The previous user is blatently misrepresenting what User:Jtdirl advised me to do, as anyone with a modicum of functional literacy would understand if they read his actual comment at User_talk:Damac.--Damac 10:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not the place to go into it, although worth pointing out to people here as they may just take your post at face value. Its fine if you deliberately ignore admin Jtdirl's advice to cease & desist- advice is not binding it seems. Hannes78 10:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC) (sockpuppet for Fluffy so he can avoid stalking)

How do wikipedia determine pictures' origins anyway? They can delete whatever pictures they think it's not copyrighted or they can't delete them until someone tell them it's not copyrighted. It is difficult for new people to post pictures. Chris 01:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * When you upload a picture you have to supply the source from where you got the picture. That way someone else can double-check that the license is correct. Saying "I found it on Google Images" is not an adequate source though, you have to say where the picture originally came from. Angr (t • c) 07:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't tag automatically added?
If I load an image and choose the correct copyright status, why is the appropriate copyright tag not automatically added? JMcC 11:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It is (if by choosing copyright status you refeer to the drop down list on the upload form), unless you are uploading something on top of something that already exist. The stuff you put in the upload form is only actualy used when you upload something for the first time (bit of a gotcha there). If you uploaded the image once and forgot to tag it and then try to upload it again (with the same name) with the correct tag it won't actualy work, all it does is create a new version of the image file itself, the decription page is not changed in any way. In those cases what you need to do is go to the image page and click the edit button and add the tag manualy (you can find them listed at Image copyright tags). --Sherool (talk) 12:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it was a re-load. I found the tags and chose a plausible one. JMcC 15:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem to be uploading a lot of images that were taken by other people and saying they have waived all their rights, that's not especially common, and we might need to verify that. Do you have any evidence of this? Also keep in mind we are not really looking for "plausible" license tags as much as correct ones. - cohesion 08:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Pictures
How do I "add a tag" to a picture I uploaded. And what is a tag? The web address of the picture? RoryS89 18:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)RoryS89


 * Hi. You seem to be uploading images that you like that you have found on various websites.  Please don't do that.  See Image use policy for information on what kind of media is suitable for uploading to Wikipedia.  Jkelly 18:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Jeg er quisling og navnet ragnvald blix.GIF
This is a carricature of Vidkun Quisling, first published in 1944 in Göteborgs Handels- och Sjöfartstidning. It widely known, and represents a significant historical value. Anyone knows if it can be published on Wikipedia? -- H eptor  talk 19:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * According to no:Ragnvald Blix the author died in 1958, so under U.S. law it won't enter public domain until 1 January 2029. It could perhaps be considered fair use (using the Art tag) in a discussion of Blix that referred specifically to this cartoon (rather than just using this cartoon as an example of his work). Angr (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for answering. Too bad the image can not be used in the Quisling article-- H eptor  talk 13:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

preston,poulton and layton station photos
them Image:Layton railway station.jpg and Image:Poulton le Fylde railway station.jpg and Image:Preston railway station.jpg are mine honest. user:jonjoe
 * That's fine, but you need to tag them properly anyway. You have to decide under what terms you're licensing them. If you want them licensed under the GFDL, add GFDL-self to the image description page. If you want to be attributed as the author and retain a few other rights, use cc-by-sa-2.5. If you want to completely release all rights to them, add No rights reserved or PD-self. See Image copyright tags for more discussion. Angr (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:BlackmoorBook.jpg
I own the rights to the image through Dave Arneson, the Creator, who I am the webmaster for. Why the hell was it deleted and what dumb ass did this without e-mailing me? Put it back up with all the images added.
 * The image was deleted because you did not include a copyright tag for it. When you upload an image, you get a big, colorful message saying that your file will be deleted if you do not provide a copyright tag, and that's what happened. The image has been deleted completely, we can't put it back up. If you still have a copy, you can upload it again, but this time be sure to put a copyright tag on it. See in particular Image copyright tag for tags that are appropriate to put on your own work. Angr (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyright help
I think I have done this right - could someone check to make sure it's OK?

I've copy and pasted an image saying there I don;t want anyone to use it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pub3.jpg

Is it right?

--Steve1509 08:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it's not. It says it's used by permission, but "The terms of the permission do not include third party use." Images used at Wikipedia have to be freer than that. If you are the copyright holder of that image, please go to Image copyright tags and select an acceptable license (e.g. No rights reserved, GFDL-self, cc-by-sa-2.5). As it stands, the image can be deleted at any time under Wikipedia policy. Angr (talk) 09:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

How do I attribute copyright for the following?
Winstar Farms gave me an image image:DH head.jpg for use on Funny Cide's page of wikipedia. But I don't know which copyright label to use for this. It's not my copyright, it's Winstar's copyright. I can find no choice to suit. They also sent me a gif of their logo. Perhaps that's how they expected their credit?

--Ki Longfellow 19:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You will have to ask Winstar Farms to release the image under a suitable license, such as GFDL, cc-by-sa-2.5, cc-by-2.5, or no rights reserved. Use for Wikipedia only is permission, and such images will be deleted.  Wikipedia content must be hostable by third parties and must be modifiable and sellable.  You might be interested in Boilerplate requests for permission. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Need Help
Hi, I need help documenting the copyright status of this image: Image:Ref of evil.jpg It is the movie poster for an independent film. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Potashnik (talk • contribs) 03:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've tagged it for you. For future reference, the tag is movie poster. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Tag
How to put a tag on this picture : Image:Crab pulsar VLT BL.jpg Thanks B. Lempel
 * I'm not sure we can use it at all. The original here says "&copy; European Southern Observatory" suggesting that unlike NASA, ESO does not put its work into the public domain. If that's the case, we can't use an image derived from it. Can't you find a NASA image illustrating the same thing? Angr (talk) 12:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

How to tag for copyright purposes
Hello this is 1255 20:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC) with the question on how to tag for copyright of Dwight Walton. I think I did it correctly, but I am not too sure. Please somebody help me and verify that I did the right thing. Image:Dwight Walton.jpg. Thank you, --1255 20:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You still need a copyright tag. In this case, I think the best one to use is   since you've already given a detailed fair use rationale. Be sure to removed the untagged tag when you add Non-free fair use in. A purely aesthetic comment: I think it would look better if you cropped the frame out so that the edges of the original photograph correspond with the edges of the pic used here. Angr (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Editor uploaded an image with no tag
Hi, an editor named Mrknowitman uploaded a video capture of a movie. It is at Image:Presentation3.jpg. OrphanBot left a message saying that has no copyright tag. What will happen to this image if the editor doesn't provide a tag? I think it is deleted within a week? I'm not sure.

I never delt with images. Thanks for understanding. Cheers --Starionwolf 23:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If the image is not given a fair use rationale and used in an article, it will be deleted within a week. (If it could be released under a free license, such as the GFDL, then it wouldn't have to be used in an article to be kept, but that's obviously impossible here.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Luque testimonial.jpg
Hi, I saved this image a while ago from a news article on http://www.nufc.co.uk about Albert Luque's contribution in Alan Shearer's testimonial match. As I can no longer find the image on the website I can't provide a specific link to it, but it is a publicity photo of Luque in the testimonial so does this not qualify as fair use? I got tagged for not providing a source, even though I mentioned the website from where I got it. Cheers - Northeasternbeast 11:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read Publicity photos. It's actually extremely unlikely to be a publicity photo, which are almost never candid shots like that. More likely it was made by a newspaper or magazine photographer and used by permission on the NUFC website. AFAIK, to qualify as fair use we'd have to track down the original source, not just the source you got it from. Also, to really be fair use, it would have to be difficult or impossible to get a free image of him, which it isn't: just take a camera along next time you go to a game! Angr (talk) 12:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Jiroft location
hi, i can't understand,it is quite confusing,my question is this: how can put an image tage for my image? about licence, this image is depicted by myself, how can give a licence to myself? please give me a clear way to mange this photo.thank you very much —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abdolreza (talk • contribs) 13:24, 30 May 2006  (UTC)
 * I see that the images you have uploaded are Image:Jiroft location.JPG and Image:Jiroft loction in Iran's map.jpg. Since the second one is identical to the first one, but smaller, you don't need it, right? Since you're the creator of the map, all you have to do is click here, replace   with , hit Save page, and you're done! Angr (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Do be aware that by doing this you're agreeing to irrevocably license the image under the GNU Free Documentation License. You may want to review the terms of the license before you agree to it. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 06:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Since he already put the GFDL tag on the smaller copy Image:Jiroft loction in Iran's map.jpg I assumed he understood its conditions and just wanted to do the same thing to larger version. Angr (talk) 07:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

~ A photo of painting that I own--artist deceased
I couldn't find any tags appropriate to this circumstance. How should such an item be tagged?

--Driftwud 16:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC) Thanks, Driftwud
 * I assume you're referring to Image:Gordienko flamingo.jpg by George Gordienko, who died in 2002, right? AFAIK a photograph of a two-dimensional work of art like a painting is subject to the same copyright restrictions as the painting itself. The painting is still copyrighted and will be until 1 January 2073; I assume the copyright holder is his heir. Unless you can convince his heir to release the painting under the GFDL or a Wikipedia-friendly version of the Creative Commons license, you'll have to make a claim for fair use if you want to include it. The tag is Art, but it says it has to be used "for critical commentary on the work in question, the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or the school to which the artist belongs". So in order to use the painting in the article on George Grodienko you'd have to discuss this specific painting critically. Angr (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If he owns the painting, he owns the copyright and can license it as he wishes. --Davidstrauss 05:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear on what you're saying. Physical ownership does not equate to ownership of copyright; if I own a picture, I'm no more permitted to copy and license it than if I own a computer program or book. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 17:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

UEFA four and five star stadia list
Regards this pdf file Image:UEFA4and5starstadialist.pdf

I'm unsure how to categorise this document. It's a pdf file which I was emailed by the UEFA media office as a reply to a request for some information. It's available to anyone that contacts UEFA asking for it, however it's not available as a download from their website, hence why I uploaded it here (It's purpose is as a reference in a edit dispute over "UEFA five-star stadia" rather than an image to be used directly in an article).

Thanks for your help. --Red star 15:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm... it's definitely copyrighted by UEFA. I'd slap a fairuse on it with the rationale you gave above, and then once the edit dispute is over, put db-owner on it to have it deleted again. Keeping it here short term is probably okay, but it's not something that should stick around forever. Angr (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)