Wikipedia talk:File copyright tags/Archive 5

Proposal to create a fair-use copyright tag for images from the Baltimore Sun Newspaper
Could there be a fair-use copyright tag created specifically for images scanned from the Baltimore Sun newspaper or images that are taken by Baltimore Sun photographers and posted on the Baltimore Sun's website? I have uploaded some Baltimore Sun images and placed the newspapercover tag on the images, however, the tag has been removed and has been stated to be an improper tag. -- KSweeley.


 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by KSweeley (talk • contribs) 10:04, March 13, 2006 (UTC)


 * No. BaltimoreSunimage should be deleted right away. Why do you think that fair use was in any case special if the image came from the Baltimore Sun?? Also, please note that making a "fair use" claim for e.g. Image:13240380bvcint.jpg is next to impossible: any Wikipedian in or near Baltimore could easily go there and get us a free photo from that place, so "fair use" doesn't really apply. It's more like a plain rip-off, violating the copyright of the Baltimore Sun.


 * BTW, you can sign messages to talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ), the software will replace them by your login name and a timestamp when you save the page. And furthermore, new messages are customarily added at the bottom of a page. Lupo 10:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Country-specific CC license tags?
Hi, is there any policy or precedent regarding the creation of tags and categories for country-specific Creative Commons licenses? I thought I might create some tags for the England & Wales licenses. David Johnson [ T|C ] 12:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

New Jersey National Guard Medals
For the pictures of the medals on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_National_Guard can I claim http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-ineligible because I got them of an army medals site. I think that would work. If not it looks like the medals for all the other states are simply being put under the PD template. Please advise. &mdash;the preceding unsigned comment is by MAS117 (talk • contribs)
 * Content from army sites seems to be covered by PD-USGov-Military-Army - or perhaps one of the other tags under the US military section. Photos or scans of medals are eligible for copyright, as someone who scans/photographs a 3D object then owns the copyright to that digital image, irrespective of the copyright of the original work. David Johnson [ T|C ] 00:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually PD-USGov-Military-Award seems to be more specific to army medals. David Johnson [ T|C ] 00:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Note that whilst it's an "army site", it doesn't seem to be a site of the US military - armyawards.com isn't responding for me just now, but it's registered by a private individual and thus I'm guessing work on it is not federally produced... Shimgray | talk | 01:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK. PD-USGov-Military-Award may still apply though as according to the tag photographs of US military medals may not be copyrighted. David Johnson [ T|C ] 01:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm.
 * The image so tagged is public domain because it was created by the DoD.
 * Copies of DoD images are not copyrightable.
 * It so happens that this DoD image is of X.
 * I don't think that this means "images of X may not be copyrighted", where X happens to be medals, but rather that images of public-domain materials (ie, DoD images) may not be copyrighted - it's a bit confusingly worded. As such, I don't think it still applies - it's not a product of the DoD, and we have no evidence it's a copy of a DoD image as opposed to one produced by the website owner. Shimgray | talk | 01:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if the PD-USGov-Military-Award would apply since these are state medals and probably weren't created by the DoD. - MAS117

Help
Can someone explain to me how to tag images which I create of musical excerpts which I have transcribed myself so that they do not get deleted for not featuring the appropriate tag?

As far as I understand since I created the image and released it it is GFDL but the content is fair use. Is this at all right? For example the deleted: Image talk:Hott Butter-Popcorn Melody.PNG.

Eventually someone will also notice [[Media:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg]], so I would really like to know how to tag it. Someone has already questioned [[Media:Hot Butter Popcorn Melody.mp3]], the existance of which was part of the reason for deleting its corresponding image, so I would also really like to know how to tag sound files in the same situation.

I also fear for the many images which I created from sources, and would really like to know how to tag those also.

I think it's bull that that image was deleted in the first place, and it seems that adding the exact correct tag with no assistance is a great burden for users who wish to contribute graphics. Unless someone helps me I will not be able to do it in the future. Thanks in advance. Hyacinth 12:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd say that you could not claim GFDL on such an image unless the musicial work it is representing is GFDL or compatible. The image is a derivative work of the music, and the right to create derivative works is controlled by the copyright holder.  If the only way that a recording can be used is fair use, then the only way that a derivative of a recording, such as musical notation or lyrics, can be used is under fair use.  IANAL -- AJR | Talk 23:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

web-software-screenshot
I would like to propose the creation of a web-software-screenshot tag as part of the screenshot hierarchy. If this is not the correct place to propose this, please direct me appropriately.

Currently the existing children of software-screenshot contain the linux-, mac- and windows- prefixes. Neither of these are suitable for screenshots of software that only have web-based interfaces such as ViewCVS.

The image associated with that particular article (Image:ViewCVS.png) was recently retagged from software-screenshot to both web-screenshot and mac-software-screenshot. Neither of these seem appropriate to me. The first because this is software and not a particular website. The second because there wasn't a mac involved at all. The user who tagged it as such said it was tagged in this way because the visible user interface elements were mac-like.

I think that a web-software-screenshot tag would certainly help in situation like the above. --TheParanoidOne 21:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It's been a week since I added the above and there have been no comments. The project page doesn't say anything about the creation of new copyright tags other than to "please propose the tag on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags first" which I have done. I'm wary of being bold in such an area, but I'll go ahead and create one if there are no objections. --TheParanoidOne 22:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I say go for it and use identical wording to the platform specific templates.  ALKIVAR &trade;Radioactivity symbol.png 03:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have added web-software-screenshot to the screenshots section. I would appreciate it if someone could have a quick look over the template and category to see if they conform to the existing template and category schemes. --TheParanoidOne 21:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey question
I have an image from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. I originally marked the image from the copyright tag, but now it is being questioned by another wikipedian. What copyright tag would be best for the following image? Image:HollandTunnelNYNJboarder.JPG. -- ZeWrestler  Talk 16:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * My concern about the image stems from the fact that the Port Authority is not a federal agency, and so is not bound by the federal public domain policy. It does maintain copyrights.  The PA homepage, http://panynj.gov/ has this copyright: © 2001-2005 The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. All Rights Reserved.  Since it is a 1927 photo, fairold may apply if a fairuse claim is made.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 02:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The port authority is part of an interstate compact between nj and ny. Interstate compacts are required to have congressional conscent for the creation of the agency. Our exact article on interstate compacts says "Frequently, these agreements create a new governmental agency which is responsible for administering or improving some shared resource such as a seaport or public transportation infrastructure."  The port authority is therefore created with congressional approval and because the port authority operates in multiple states, that should make them subject to federal agency rules.  Am I correct in my thinking, or is there something else that I am missing here? -- ZeWrestler   Talk 05:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Anyone know the answer to this, its been a few days since this has been posted. -- ZeWrestler  Talk 01:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think without any further information, we have to assume that the copyright statement on the Port Authority page applies. Fair use might still be an option, your call.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

ESA images
Images from the European Space Agency seem to be tagged with two conflicting tags. There is noncommercial-ESA which pretty much says that the images cannot be used. However, there is also ESA-multimedia, which says no such thing. There is a discussion at meta:ESA images, but it doesn't look like any conclusions were reached. Are both these tags valid, or is one redundant? Is the ESA-multimedia tag correct, that the ESA images can be used on the EN Wikipedia? The license doesn't seem to be compatible with the GFDL. Can anyone clarify? Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

User-created(?) image based on a copyrighted diagram adapted from a copyrighted source
There's a simple 2-D diagram in a book that I recreated in Illustrator and would like to upload and use in an article but after hours of reading I'm still no closer to determining which tag I should use (or even if it's reproduction is permissible). The diagram is in a copyrighted book and the attribution states it is 'adapted' from another copyrighted work (which I don't have - probably a diagram?). I've made some very small changes to the diagram (it's basically only a sequence of filled rectangles) so I don't think it qualifies as my creation? Are there grounds for 'fair use' or 'fair dealing' (because the servers are located in America)? Could someone point me in the right direction, please? Al001 20:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * A derived work has the same copyright status as the original work. So that would mean your only option would be Fair use. But depending on how simple this diagram is, it might not be relevant. Can you upload it somewhere else first so we can see? (eg photobucket, putfile) pfctdayelise 03:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay - here's what I was hoping to use: http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/2889/freudconceptionofthepersonalit.png Al001 22:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What if similar diagrams are in 2 different books by two different unrelated aurthors. could a replica of both diagrams be made into one that wouldn't violate the law because it is from multiple sources? -- ZeWrestler   Talk 16:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it then may be a derivative work of both sources. More info in that article.  If you can create a diagram representing the same information from a descriptive source other than those two images, I think it would then not be a derivative work of the images.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 22:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It depends on the diagram. What is it illustrating, exactly? Depending on how "basic" it is the aspects which you have recreated may or may not be a copyright problem. There is no simple answer to this question without knowing more about the subject matter. --Fastfission 22:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Mozilla
This has been a matter of some debate over at User:The Raven's Apprentice/Userboxes/User Firefox. It was created spesificaly to circumvent the "ban" on non-free images in templates and userpages. I originaly listed it on TFD, but it survided as "no consensus" with a 5 delete and 4 keep split. It seemed to fall into disuse afterwards though, but recently the issue have flared up again and a couple of users are trying every trick in the book, and writing new ones as they go along to get the "real" logo inserted into the template again, including resurecting this template (arguing that since it was kept on TFD it has support) with a rename and minor tweaks to make sure it no longer mention "fair use" (as to not violate WP:FUC). I think this should be nipped in the bud before others get simmilar ideas, and cause massive template creep, so some fresh input over at User:The Raven's Apprentice/Userboxes/User Firefox would be apreciated, I think they have pretty much written me off as a raving rule fetichist bent on "censoring" the firefox logo, and they treat it like a content dispute rather than a matter of policy. --Sherool (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Karsh images
Could I have some input on the images by Yousuf Karsh on Wikipedia, such as e.g. Image:Albert Einstein by Yousuf Karsh.jpg? I believe these are in fact not in the public domain in the U.S. and have been uploaded in error. So far, only one other editor has commented and apparently nobody at Wikipedia:Copyright problems dared take any action whatsoever. As I was the one who uploaded this particular image, I feel kind of responsible to get this situation resolved one way or another. See also Public domain for an extended discussion on what is in the public domain where, and its talk page for some additional comments on these Karsh images. Note that many of these images are also at the commons. Lupo 09:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Images from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
There is a picture in this PDF file from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation which could illustrate the article about Clarence Ray Allen. On the website, there is no explicit copyright notice. Are such images public domain and/or can we use them ? -- Ze miguel 16:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The image seems to have been published before March 1, 1989, so it probably is. --Carnildo 20:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Agencies of the California state government have their images in the public domain, but the agencies do make use of copyrighted photos. See PD-CAGov and discussion on talk page.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks to both of you for the help. -- Ze miguel 08:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

PA-KingCountyGOV
Template:PA-KingCountyGOV was created December 6, 2005 by. The use tag gives the following conditions:


 * you are hereby permitted by King County to copy, distribute, and otherwise use the information with one exception: no one is permitted to sell this information except in accordance with a written agreement with King County

The lack of permission to sell the information is incompatible with the GFDL. I propose that this template be deleted. Before I list it on WP:TFD, I thought I would seek some comments here. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 22:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. NC = not free. Any images tagged under that may be usable as fair use, but that's it. pfctdayelise 00:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * What fun. I've never deleted something under CSD I3 before. --Carnildo 04:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for confirmation. Now listed at Templates for deletion. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfree-image section
Just FYI, I updated the section to reflect the current process at WP:PUI, mainly the process time was decreased from 30 days to 14 and they no longer handle images with no license info, those are now speedy deletion candidates. I also did some other tweaks while I was at it. Dunno if the "history" section is nessesary, so feel free to expand/cut as you see fit. --Sherool (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft clip art
I propose the following tag for clipart gotten from Microsoft's online clip art service:

Category:Microsoft Clip Gallery images


 * Uh, no, please. Section 1.2 is has too many strings attached, and in any case, my reading of " You may not sell, license or distribute copies of the Media Elements by themselves or as part of any collection, product or service if the primary value of the product or service is in the Media Elements." is that it allows only noncommercial collections and thus is unsuitable for Wikipedia. Lupo 16:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * User:Lupo, I suspect that you are quite correct in that reading. Jkelly 17:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems to me that the correct tag for any such clipart is delete. There are too many restrictive clauses in the license: no commercial use, no re-distribution, restrictions on what sort of works can be created (one reading of a section would prohibit using Microsoft clipart on stub tags applied to pornography-related articles). --Carnildo 18:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Public domain, no notice
This is a suggested image PD tag. See http://www.copyright-laws.com/pgs/copyright-basics.html

 This image is in the public domain in the United States and possibly other jurisdictions, because it was published before January 1, 1978 without a copyright notice and/or any claim to copyright. This image could also be in the public domain if it was published between January 1, 1978 and May 1, 1989 without a copyright notice, and the error was not corrected within five years. See Copyright.

--Fallout boy 22:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * First, it should read "published in the U.S." instead of just "published". Second, I think it should read "first published". Third, first publication may be difficult to ascertain; I would expect any image where such a tag was used to have precise sourcing and a rationale explaining why the uploader or tagger thinks a particular publication was the first. Fourth, with respect to the last sentence, it may be difficult to make sure that no copyright was indeed registered in the U.S. within five years of the original publication without copyright notice. one basically has to ask the U.S. Copyright Office. Fifth, why "possibly other jurisdictions"? The tag is about a highly specialized case in U.S. copyright law whose precise conditions are non-trivial to check. It is unlikely that it applies to foreign works; and whether a U.S. work might considered PD abroad because it was PD under these conditions in the U.S. depends on many other things that also are difficult to verify: the various trade treaties between some other country and the U.S., which may contain provisions on copyright, whether the other country operates under the "rule of the shorter term", whether the work was also published outside the U.S., the current copyright law of the other country, whether that country ever made any retroactive changes to its copyright law, possibly the copyright law of that country at the time the image was taken or published or as of 1978, and so on. I understand it says "possibly", but somehow that is based on a very faint hope, methinks. See also WP:PD. Lupo 08:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea; I think it would make sense to have image tags for each case in WP:PD. I agree with Lupo's suggestions, and I also think that the 1978-1989 stuff might make better sense as a separate tag. How about something like:

 This image is in the public domain in the United States, because it was first published: Please provide justification on the image description page that demonstrates that this image fulfills the three points above. See Copyrights and Public domain.
 * In the United States
 * Between 1923 and 1977
 * Without a copyright notice and/or any claim to copyright

JYolkowski // talk 16:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That's already better, but I still think we shouldn't use a tag for this. I fear that the case is so difficult to prove that such a tag would be used wrongly most of the time. Using a tag for this special case just encourages its use. At the very least I'd use much stronger wording: no "please provide", but a clear command "You must provide", and add "In the absence of such proof, the image becomes a candidate for immediate deletion unless it is rightfully tagged differently" or some such. Lupo 09:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

There are certainly that would need this tag, example: Image:Audrey Hepburn and Cary Grant 1.jpg. This is how I would format it:

 This image is in the public domain in the United States, because it was first published in the United States between January 1, 1923 and December 31, 1977 without a copyright notice and/or any claim to copyright. You must provide justification on the image description page that demonstrates that this image fulfills the three points above. See Copyrights and Public domain. --Fallout boy 04:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course there are images to which it would apply. Charade appears to be one such case. However, my concern is that (a) such cases are rare, and (b) if we have a tag for this, I fear it will be mistakenly used by people who do not understand very well what would be involved in showing that indeed the conditions were met. Why not just give the rationale manually on the image description page? (BTW, on that particular image, I would expect to see a copy of the relevant paragraph from the article about the movie, not just an easily overlooked link at the very bottom. And I'd remove the "www.audrey1.com"!) Lupo 09:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Creative Commons button inconsistencies and licensing issues
The current set of Creative Commons tags are inconsistent. Some display Image:CreativeCommonsSomeRights2.png, while others substitute it with 90px.

The former is an official Creative Commons button and makes use of a trademarked logo, although its use falls within the terms of the Creative Commons Trademark Policy. The second is GFDL licensed, presumably created by WebBoy as a GFDL alternative.

I'm assuming that the GFDL image (and the accompanying GFDL license buttons) were created because use of the CC trademark somehow conflicts with wikipedia policy. However, many of the templates still use Image:CreativeCommonsSomeRights2.png, and nearly all of the templates use the official Creative Commons license buttons.

It is unclear to me if the Creative Commons license buttons are licensed under CC-BY as is claimed on their wikipedia image pages. I would lean towards them not being licensed under CC-BY, because of Section 8(e) of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 license: "This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here." However, additional restrictions are imposed on the Creative Commons license buttons by the Creative Commons trademark policy. I don't think that the images could be licensed as CC-BY and also be regulated by such restrictions.

In addition, there are no explicit suggestions that the images are licensed under CC-BY, except for the blanket statement "Except where noted otherwise below in our Trademark Policy, all content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license." Even though it's not explicitly stated, the very fact that they are noted in the policy seems to imply that they are not licensed under CC-BY, and are instead goverened by vanilla copyright law with extensions granted by the Creative Commons trademark policy. An e-mail to the Creative Commons folks should clear this up.

However, none of this would matter except for the fact that wikipedia has strict and complicated policies about image use. I do not know if the use of these images is acceptable on wikipedia, either under fair use law or licensed to wikipedia under the terms of the CC trademark policy.

Basically, we should pick one set of images and stick to it. Using the official creative commons images is permissible under their policies, but if it is not permissible under wikipedia policy we should adopt all of WebBoy's icons and use them in all CC templates.

-Fadookie Talk 06:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The GFDL versions were created because the Creative Commons logos (might, apparently) conflict with Commons policy. The Commons doesn't allow fair use images.  I think the Creative Commons logos can be kept here on Wikipedia as fair use logos; their use in Template:cc-by-sa-2.5, and other templates, would be fine.  I suggest that someone should upload local copies of them, tag them as logos, with a link to the CC policy page, and change all the CC templates to use the official logos. dbenbenn | talk 19:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, but the Creative Commons Trademark Policy grants a license to reproduce the CC logo under their terms, so it doesn't have to be a fair use claim. As for the buttons, permission is granted to use them in accordance with the terms outlined in the Trademark Policy.
 * So, none of these images have to be claimed as fair use (which is what indicates) as long as their inclusion under the terms of the CC trademark policy does not conflict with wikipedia and/or wikimedia commons policy.
 * -Fadookie Talk 05:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

tagging Image:3DMAZE-line370-delay5-to-0.png
Can somebody go over and please help tagging the Image:3DMAZE-line370-delay5-to-0.png? I tagged it both as a game shot and as unsure --- see that image's history for details. Please respond at that image's talk page or by retagging as you feel the best. TIA! --BACbKA 22:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Advice on photograph of pages of old scientific journals
I have an image that is a photograph of two pages from The Journal of the Chemical Society of London, originally published in 1865. I don't know who took the photograph or when. The author of the intellectual property actually published in the journal died in 1922. Is there a suitable PD or other license available? All comments appreciated, thanks. -- Cactus.man &#9997; 15:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * PD-old-70 will do, because the author died before 1936. Superm401 | Talk 20:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. -- Cactus.man &#9997; 08:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Which tag for Google Maps
I came accross Image:Ucf.JPG, a google map. What copyright tag should I use? If they are not allowed on Wikipedia, someone needs to search 'Google maps' in the image namespace to delete all of theos too. --michael180 16:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * They do not allow commercial use, so it can't be on Wikipedia. It should be tagged NonCommercial.  I went through the beginning (relevant portion) of the list (after that, they seem to be just links to Google Maps); I think I tagged most of infringing ones. Superm401 | Talk 20:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:FOTWpic
Template:FOTWpic says FOTW prohibits commercial use of its flags. FOTW, in fact, has no authority to allow or prohibit any kind of use of its images; they're all copies of preexisting works that are made to be as precise as possible, and therefore in the U.S. fall under the original work's copyright in all preexisting precedent (although the precedent isn't strictly binding). So every flag listed under that template is basically either public-domain or fair use, and should be tagged as such, with FOTW acknowledged as the source as a courtesy. Currently the template makes it seem as though FOTW's terms are relevant.

In other words, I'd suggest the text of the template be changed to something like

=

&mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That's certainly reasonable. Copyright can not be gained without creative effort, which FOTW is not inputing.  However, the template should more definitively state that the image is being used under fair use, and provide a fair use rationale. Superm401 | Talk 07:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it is another "this may or not be suitable for Wikipedia, it may be PD or fair use, so give a rationale if fair use" (emphasis mine but based on the regular versions) template It is already formatted similarly. -- WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  23:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point, Superm401. How about the following:

=


 * On the other hand, I must say that this seems slightly copyright-paranoid to me. Governments aren't going to sue anyone for using their flags as decoration; it's generally endorsed, in fact.  Also, many flags are in the public domain anyway, since their copyright has expired.  I'm not sure we need to be as extreme here as with most fair use. &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * According to Template:Flagimage, "representations of national flags are subject to copyright as original works of art... because they are not representations of two-dimensional works of art." I think we need to straighten this point out first before going any further.  Anyone remember any history about the flag template?  JYolkowski // talk 01:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Looking through the history, User:David Newton added the bit about their not being subject to Bridgeman. Given that he says on his user page that he's a member of FOTW, I have to wonder about that.  Given that it happens to be blatantly ridiculous to say that flags aren't covered by Bridgeman, I've edited the template (which I shouldn't be able to do, since it's supposed to be protected, but oh well). Anyway, is anyone here a lawyer?  For that matter, given that no country's going to give a damn if we use their flag in a non-demeaning way, should we maybe start up an attempt to form policy on the use of government symbols on Wikipedia at the Village Pump? &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * IANAL, but AFAIK, national flags are ineligable for copyright in the United States. --Carnildo 07:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

&#123;{CopyrightedFreeUse}}
IMHO this template needs a serious rework. It's way too vague, and a lot of people misuse it (in good faith) because it's not clear enough about what it entails. Just browsing over the category I see 4-5 likely copyvios just on the first page. It's just way to vague, and a lot of people asume that anyting that's "public" (especialy on the net) is allowed to be used for any purpose, without realising that "for any purpose" include making derevative work and commercial purposes and so forth. The template should spell this out more clearly to weed out the honest mistakes at least (some people also seem to pick this because people are less likely to "bother" you about it like they will if you put GFDL on some "non self made" stuff or make a dodgly "fair use" claim for the image. As for the images already tagged; by the look of things they could use a serious copyright "audit" anyway.

Any ideas on how to change it without making people feel we are are changing the rules in mid game as it where? I see from the discussion on it's talk page people have been reluctant to change the template because it "it has legal power", and we should be carefull about changing the terms without the uploaders and/or copyright holders knowledge. Personaly I don't see the problem in making the intent of the template more clear, so what if peple have misunderstood it in the past, either change tags or delete the mistaged ones IMHO. IANAL though... --Sherool (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I just re-tagged some album covers in there. It does need a thorough going-through.  Jkelly 23:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:PD-AKGov
I removed this from the list of US public domain tags. Does anyone know if this is correct, and if so, which law states it? --Carnildo 07:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * PD-AKGov &mdash; for images created by the State of Alaska that are ineligible for copyright.
 * I'm pretty sure that we've gone through this several times and determined pretty conclusively that California and possibly North Carolina are the only states that regularly put stuff into the public domain. I've redirected PD-AKGov and another new one, PD-WAGov, and the other 46 possibilities to no license.  Hopefully that will be the end of these incorrect templates.  JYolkowski // talk 22:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That's dedication. Good job. Superm401 - Talk 03:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No, actually, it's not. Image copyright tags specifically lists PD-WAGov as a public domain source of images, as confirmed in the example image listed. I've reverted the changes to this template. McNeight 07:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. Maybe I jumped the gun on how definitive the source was, but if you look at my research on Template talk:PD-WAGov, you'll find that, at least for the State of Washington, it is public domain. McNeight 08:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * See my reply on Template talk:PD-WAGov. I'd appreciate anyone with better knowledge of state law than I do to comment either here or there.  JYolkowski // talk 15:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

How are the copyrights determined? Can we use any pictures we find on the internet? DprevotDprevot 21:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This does look like the same problem we had with, IIRC, Delaware - someone interpreting a public-records (ie, freedom of information) law to mean public-domain. I'd be very leery without a statute explicitly stating it. Shimgray | talk | 15:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone care to explain the difference? According to public domain:


 * A creative work is said to be in the public domain if there are no laws which restrict its use by the public at large. There may be no laws which establish proprietary rights in relation to the work, or the work or its subject matter may be specifically excluded from existing laws.


 * I realize that it's no legal document, but I think I was fairly thorough in quoting Washington law chapter and verse as to why it is in the public domain. Certainly as much as PD-NCGov does, and it does not explicitly state the words "public domain". McNeight 21:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. If you are really, really, really looking for a specific wa.gov website that specifically says the words "public domain", then the Washington State Department of Health website states:


 * Information presented by the government on this web site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied. Use of appropriate byline credits is requested. Information from this site may not be copyrighted and lists of individuals or directory information (including address, phone or E-mail) may not be used for commercial purposes.


 * Does this perhaps meet the burden of proof? McNeight 22:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It says that lists of individuals or directory information can't be used commercially, so it's clearly not public domain. "Public information" isn't the same as "public domain", and while it allows distribution and copying, it says nothing about editing or selling, both of which Wikipedia must be able to do for it to be usable (well, it would be usable if we couldn't edit it, just less useful). &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Football cards
i have a question about the following image: Image:Brendon_Lade_Footysticker2000-2.jpg

what copyright would it fall under? The image is copyright Select Australia. Rogerthat 06:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Probably the tag to use for this is imagevio. If it were being used to discuss Select Australia's football card(s), a fair use claim could be made, but that doesn't appear to be the case right now.  JYolkowski // talk 17:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Scanned images from books/magazines/etc
Specifically of pictures rather than text. I've looked through all the information on copyright here and I've skimmed through some of these archives and the archives of others, so forgive me if this question has already been asked and I missed it. Anyways, if you own a book, magazine, or manual...as in you purchased it, is it okay to upload an image scanned from paper media you own as long as you put down due credit (The publisher of the paper media, or the studio that made the material you bought and so fourth.) And if it is okay what copyright would it fall under exactly?

To whoever answer's this, thank you for your time.--Kiyosuki 09:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. Even if you own a book or a magazine or whatever, you don't own the copyright to any of contents of the book/magazine/etc. and so cannot do anything that would violate copyright law (e.g. reproduce them on Wikipedia).  JYolkowski // talk 16:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It should also be noted that this is even true of screenshots, photos, or the like. The creativity that goes into setting up the shot is sufficient to warrant its own copyright, although the resulting image might be a derivative work and the holder of the pictured program/work (if applicable) would have rights in it as well.  So you couldn't, for instance, scan in a photo of a piece of art under fair use, because it's not fair use with respect to the journalist's copyright.  (However, there's generally no copyright if the think you're taking a picture of is two-dimensional, since that involves no creativity in the angle or anything; see Bridgeman vs. Corel. &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If the image published in the book or magazine itself is in the public domain (for instance, as a U.S. government work, or as a reproductive photograph of an old two-dimensional artwork), then the copyright on the book or magazine cannot and doesn't cover the image. Lupo 15:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have pretty much the same question, so let me see if I understand what was said above. If the image is low-res, single, and properly credited and tagged, what's the difference between that and a screenshot, comic book cover, magazine cover, etc.? The image of actress Kristen Kreuk currently displayed on her article is AWFUL, and I've been looking for an adequate replacment that does not violate copyright. I found a nice pic of her in a Neutrogena ad in the March 2003 issue of Teen People, and want to know what the copyright implications would be. If I scan it at a low res, and credit and tag it, how are the copyright implications different than say, a movie poster, screenshot, comic book cover, etc.? (Just asking because I wish to understand.) Nightscream 18:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The image currently being used in that article is infringing on the copyright of Seventeen magazine, and seems to have been listed at WP:CP. An image from an advertisement for soap would be infringing upon Neutrogena's copyright, and could be defended as "fair use" only if there were an article about that advertisement.  If the subject of the article cannot be photographed by someone willing to release an image under a free license, the thing to do is to contact Kreuk's publicist and ask for a press kit promotional picture.  These are done as "work for hire"; the copyright is owned by the publicist and we can then claim "fair use" with some degree of comfort.  Jkelly 18:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Moscowmetro-2005-2.png
What would this get again? Image:Moscowmetro-2005-2.png I forgot, sorry. I also can't read the website's policy (it's in russian) --michael180 18:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The web-site policy just says that if used, the attribution is required. Placed the "attribution" tag. Good enough to anyone? --Irpen 06:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * imagevio. The image has a very nice copyright statement in the bottom-right corner, and it's quite easy for a Wikipedian to make a replacement map. --Carnildo 06:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have asked User:SPUI, the creator of many, many fine maps, to make a replacement in the public domain. --michael180 23:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Tags on Templates for deletion
Some tags have been listed on templates for deletion which may be of interest. The templates listed are Template:PD-AUGov, Template:Webimage, Template:PD-USGov-Congress-USBG, Template:QualificationsandCurriculumAuthorityCopyright, Template:LandRegistryCopyright, Template:TeacherTrainingAuthorityCopyright, Template:Ordnance Survey Copyright, Template:UNPhotoArchive, Template:PD-old-50. Template:CanadaCopyright is waiting to be orphaned. Does anyone involved in image tagging ever look at templates for deletion? Secretlondon 03:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This evening I've been doing a lot with the copyright templates because I am developing an image tagging tool... so I suspect that I will be keeping a closer eye on all of these. Thanks for point them out! &#126;MDD4696 04:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Software screenshot question.
Here's a quick question that came to mind when i was changing a copyright tag on a software screenshot. I know we have a specific fairuse deviation software tag. Now, if the software that the screenshot is of is under a GPL or some sort of other public domain licencing, like OpenOffice, would the screenshot be under a free licence as well? -- ZeWrestler  Talk 17:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, in principle. However I'm not 100% sure what happens to programs that rely on the default Windows API for windows management. Microsoft just might claim copyright to the minimuse, maximise and close icons on the program window for example. Not sure of those would qualify for copyright though, they are fairly generic, so I'd wadger it's ok to license such screenshots under GPL or whatever suitable license (IANAL though). --Sherool (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Should a new copyright tag be created for that case?-- ZeWrestler  Talk 19:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This has been discuseed before. I don't think we want to use images based on a free software license.  That creates unexpected consequences, like providing "source code". Fair use is better in this circumstance, in my opinion. Superm401 - Talk 01:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposal
The proposed tag is shown below. If no one objects, I will create Template:NoICT.

 This image is missing a copyright tag. You can help Wikipedia by adding one of the tags listed on Image copyright tags.

The following is a talk page message called Template:ICT-notice, intended to be substed onto the talk pages of users who upload such images.

Thank you for uploading the image onto Wikipedia. However, an copyright tag must be placed on it, or it may be deleted. Please tell what source the image came from, that is, whether it is your creation, a photo you took, a website screenshot, a public domain image, or a fair use image. Thank you!

-- King of Hearts | (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what advantages this would have over no license. Tagging something with no license means that (currently anyway) User:OrphanBot will automatically orphan the image and warn the user.  Also, to me it seems double the work tagging something as NoICT to have someone tag it with another tag later, instead of the folks at WP:UI tagging it with the other tag in the first place.  JYolkowski // talk 00:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I was just checking if there was such a copyright tag to avoid creating a similar one. How is my talk page notice? -- King of Hearts | (talk) 01:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

If someone was prepared to establish a wikiproject to deal with adding the correct copyright tag to recently uploaded images, it might be a useful tool, but without a base of editors interested in doing that work, I think we are better served with the current tag 'em and (if no information is added) delete 'em.--nixie 01:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Need Help
With the recent deletion of GermanGov, I'm left wondering how I should tag all the images of the Third Reich/Nazi Germany that are left now untagged and awaiting deletion. fairusein seems like a horribly cheap copout, and I'd prefer something that actually acknowleged their source. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 14:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with fairusein? IMHO it's a very good tag. Just acknowledge the sources on the image description page, if they all have the same source just copy & paste... --Sherool (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Is GFDL the default?
If the uploader of an image declares that they have taken an image, and they fail to tag at appropriately as PD-self or GFDL-self; is that image subject to deletion, or is it automatically licensed as GFDL the way user-contributed text is? I'm interested in an answer in general, although Image:ScottK2.jpg is what made me think of it (the uploader indicated they took the photo in one of the upload edit summaries, but left the image description blank). Obviously, the ideal situation is that after being notified the uploader self-tags the image as appropriate, but I'm sure in some cases that never happens. Now, if I saw a professional image of Britney Spears I would doubt the the photographer would have uploaded, but in the case of regular politician (like this), it seems reasonable to beleive the image was taken by the uploader, as claimed, and that they therefore own the copyright. Regardless of this image, I'm more curious of general principal/policy of whether images uploaded by their copyright owner are automatically licensed under GFDL. --Rob 18:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, uploaders are required to release images under a free license and GFDL is preferred (Creative Commons licenses are acceptable and the images can also be released into the public domain); if they do not tag the image, GFDL can be added. The policy of demanding GFDL (or another free license) is noted on the upload page as well as in Image use policy. Superm401 - Talk 23:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This is what GFDL-presumed is for. --Carnildo 08:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * However, if you know they uploaded it, GFDL is legitimate. Superm401 - Talk 03:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Help! (do you read Hebrew?)
I need help determining the copyright status of an image which I found on the Hebrew version of Wikipedia. I assume it has a copyright tag there, but I can't read it! The image (and a link to the corresponding image page on Hebrew Wikipedia) is at Image:Canossa.jpg. - Che Nuevara:  Join the Revolution 18:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest that since the source of the image is an Italian website, that is the more useful language in this case. It is not clear to me that we would have a strong fair use claim for this image, or that the website mentions authorship or copyright status of that image.  The latter of my two statements should be checked by someone with a better command of Italian.  Jkelly 18:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

My Hebrew isn't great, but here's a rough translation of : "The image is taken from the site of a sausage (??) project that can be found near Qenusah (?). There is also לינק (?) from among the statement for the associated site, and there are additional images there from here (?).  (Start box)  This image is protected by copyright.  With this, the user who uploaded it must give a reason that its use is justifiable.  The location of the image is: http://www.chianinadicanossa.it/Dove.htm.  This image should be edited to add the name (?) of its importance such that it's protected (?)."

Not entirely helpful, but I think the uploader believed it to be fair use or the Israeli equivalent (the template used is called "protected use"). The Babelfish translation of the page mentions nothing about copyright, though, and I'm guessing that this is in fact a copyvio. &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I would suggest trying to ask someone in Category:User he-N, this is what the babel categories are for ;) --Sherool (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

older pictures
How are you supposed to find out the copyright status of pics of say, a ship from 1880, something like that? if it's from the net and there is no notice saying what the status is, and the person who created the page is unlikely to have taken the pic himself, are you supposed to email that person? what if he doesn't know either? can you assume that all pics like this are non copyrighted unless otherwise notified? because this applies to a large number of pictures. I could just provide a link on the page to the person's pic. that would solve any copyright problem. however it would:

a) allow them to delete/change the picture to something other than what the link says it is. b) take their bandwidth (which is worse? copyright infringement or bandwidth taking?) at least CI doesn't cost them money! thanks! SpookyMulder 13:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * According to US Copyright law, anything published before 1923 is in the public domain. Use the PD-US tag.  Note that accurate reproductions that don't have original authorship are equivalent to the originial work.  So, the act of digitizing an existing image is not sufficient to create a new copyright on an otherwise public domain image. (see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.) --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, if the 1880 image was published before 1923, there's no problem. For unpublished images, see WP:PD. The problem in such cases is to find out whether they were indeed published pre-1923, if you want to be absolutely certain. Lupo 13:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * ok thanks, does this cover images from other countries? and again, how can you tell if a pic you find on some web site was originally published before 1923? If it was taken in 1880, say, I'm guessing it probably was. I also assume that means I can scan stuff out of books pre-1923, or even copy the entire book out? I guess taht's how that free books online stuff works but I don't know much about that.

SpookyMulder 13:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, for pre-1923 books feel free to vacuum out the contents (that is indeed what Project Gutenberg does). For many older images, poking around with Google and in libraries will turn up the real source; when only a couple photos of a ship have survived, everybody is going to be reprinting the same ones. Historian do dig up previously-unpublished photos from time to time, so 1880-ness of photo is not a guarantee of early publication. (Yes, it's all a gigantic pain.) Stan 13:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, I believe the law actually requires publication in the U.S. prior to 1923. For images from other countries, it's probably really difficult to determine if and when it was published in the U.S.  I suppose at some point, you just have to make a judgment call.  SteinbDJ 15:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Album and single covers
Thanks Street walker 10:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have a few questions about album and single covers.
 * Can we upload images that are cropped from album or single covers?
 * Can we use images that appear in an album's inlay or booklet?
 * If you provide some sort of encyclopedic analysis or discussion, you can claim copyrighted images as fair use. If you want to crop a cover to focus on just a portion of the cover that would probably be fine... I can't think of any other instances where you'd want to crop them. Just be sure to leave a rationale on the image page justifying its use. &#126;MDD4696 03:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I was wanting to use an album or single cover as the top image for Michael Jackson, as the current one is most likely to be deleted or atleast removed from the page. I was wanting to then crop the album or single cover to just show an image of him, and not the title of that single and/or cover. Is this OK or not? Street walker 10:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well our albumcover tag says they should be used only to ilustrate the album itself. That includes cropping out parts of them. Why do you say the current one is likely to get deleted? Doesn't it have a source? In wich case just find a photo that does have a source (a good one, not like "found on Goole", or "taken from photobucket" or "found on this Geocities site" and what not) and use that istead. Surely there is no shortage of official promotional Michael Jackson photos or other such images who's copyright holder is known. --Sherool (talk) 11:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You cannot claim a cropped album cover as fair use unless you are illustrating the album cover. Since Michael Jackson is not an album cover, this would not be fair use :). &#126;MDD4696 23:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait, really? It seems to me that an album of Michael Jackson is very relevant to Michael Jackson. &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I made a mistake. However, I think it would be wise to make it clear that it's a cropped album cover. &#126;MDD4696 21:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No, you didn't make a mistake. Album covers should be used to illustrate the album itself, not the artist.  Cropping the album cover would tend to make the image unable to do so, so I wouldn't recommend that.  However, an uncropped image of an album cover would be very relevant at Michael Jackson to illustrate discussion about the album in question.  JYolkowski // talk 22:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I uploaded this image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Snot_alive.jpg but I don't fully understand the copyright thing... Can someone give me a hand? I found it browsing on google images... What's the copyright tag supposed to be on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Morón (talk • contribs)
 * Album cover
 * I tagged it with Template:Albumcover. Jkelly 21:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Screenshots of public-domain programs
Hi, I noticed this on User talk:Seahen, and I don't know an answer (IANAL), so I figured I'd ask here: suppose you have a program that has been released into the public domain by its authors (in this case, Castle of the Winds, a computer game). Further suppose that someone takes a screenshot of that program. The question is then: is the screenshot then copyrighted to the person who took it, or is it automatically in the public domain as well? Any clarification from the licensing gurus would be nice... :) -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 00:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Depends. If there's no creativity involved (say, a shot of the title screen), then the image is probably in the public domain.  If it's a gameplay shot, then the person making the screenshot can claim copyright based on the creativity in composing the screenshot. --Carnildo 07:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If the program is public domain, the screenshots are public domain. See Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. I think that a person would have a very difficult time claiming a personal copyright on videogame screenshots. Textures, models and level designs can all be copyrighted because they are original works. There's really not much you can do with "composition" that would make a screenshot original; it's simply an arrangement of original works. The arrangement would have to be sufficiently original or creative to be copyrightable, and even then, it's a weak case. &#126;MDD4696 23:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Bridgeman v Corel only covers exact reproductions of public domain 2D artwork. And Red vs Blue seems to indicate that you can be creative enough in composing a screenshot to get copyright on it. --Carnildo 05:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There can be a great deal of creativity in setting up a clever screenshot. That would be equivalent to a photographer arranging his subject matter; only the most minimal creativity is required.  Probably only shots of menu screens, splash screens, and the like (two-dimensional artwork with exclusively static elements) would fall under Bridgeman&mdash;even a screenshot of a 2-D game can be creative, insofar as the screenshotter picks the exact setup of when to take the shot. &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 06:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I still feel that the argument would be rather weak, but not altogether out of the question. And just for clarity, Red vs. Blue is not a screenshot, it is a video. There are scripts and action that enhance its originality. &#126;MDD4696 21:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "There is little doubt that many photographs, probably the overwhelming majority, reflect at least the modest amount of originality required for copyright protection. 'Elements of originality . . . may include posing the subjects, lighting, angle, selection of film and camera, evoking the desired expression, and almost any other variant involved.'"  That's from Bridgeman v. Corel, quoting Rogers v. Koons in the second sentence.  The standard for originality is set extremely low, and Bridgeman covers only "slavish copying" of a preexisting work.  That's clearly inapplicable. &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Copyright
Hello. I uploaded the image Image:Depeche_Mode_-_Suffer_Well_cover.jpg, and I need to put the copyright status. I get the image in a Spanish site, and I am licensed to use it. Wich copyright template must I use?--Daniel bg 18:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * - Che Nuevara:  Join the Revolution 19:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Cartoon image
A user wants to upload a larger version of the Muhammad cartoon controversy image which is under the fair use licence. The image was initally tagged for a copyright violation because of its size by KimvdLinde and later I deleted it. But is this resize allowed or not under this licence? -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 22:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * (the user, me would like to add) that Anonym deleted the image even though I had tagged it as fair use. I'd like to point out the following:
 * This is a PNG, enhanced verison of Image-Jyllands-Posten Muhammad drawings.jpg It has been:
 * Converted to a lossless format
 * Cropped to a better quality
 * Resized to 1000 pixels (eg the image is visible in a computer monitor)
 * Text is still unreadable at this resolution
 * Contrast has been enhanced.
 * List of Newspaper cover images 1000+ pixels:
 * Image:Wilsonvillespokesmanlecarticle.jpg
 * Image:Boar01.jpg
 * Image:The_Tech.jpg
 * The image in question is Image:Image-Jyllands-Posten Muhammad drawings.png
 * I am claiming fair use under a (modified) T:HistoricPhotoRationale and T:newspapercover. I need an admin to protect it . Thank you GraphicArtist 23:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The image in question is Image:Image-Jyllands-Posten Muhammad drawings.png
 * I am claiming fair use under a (modified) T:HistoricPhotoRationale and T:newspapercover. I need an admin to protect it . Thank you GraphicArtist 23:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You can't have an admin protect it without a reason. I know that much. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 23:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The main question in fair use, where we have a legitimate purpose for the image in an encyclopedia, is generally whether our use of it impinges unnecessarily on the authors' market. Shrinking the image is one way to reduce its infringement of the authors' market, but only insofar as it loses details; the viewer would thus still have some reason to go out and buy the image from the author, so that he could see the extra details. If GraphicArtist's version isn't more easily readable or otherwise closer to the original in utility, its actual size is immaterial. I can't see the image, of course, so I can't say anything for sure, but is there anything wrong with the current image anyway? By the way, given that Anonymous editor is a sysop, there's really not much point in getting the image protected. &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

USPS post-1978 stamp images
Looking through Category:USPS stamps, the vast majority of stamp images are used in articles to illustrate the subject of the stamp. This is not recognized as a fair use by USPSstamp, which says:
 * "It is believed that the use of postage stamps to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design) [...] qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law."

Examples of uses that go against this: Image:ReaganStamp37.jpg in Ronald Reagan, Image:Solympics4321.jpg in Special Olympics. There are many more. Can these images be safely used in articles that are not about the stamps? Thanks for any input. --ChrisRuvolo (t)
 * The two cases you mentioned don't appear to be fair use right now, but could be with some changes to the article. The stamps need to be used to illustrate the stamp in question.  If the pictures of the stamps were used to illustrate a paragraph discussing the issue of the stamps and had an appropriate image caption, they would be fair use, but that doesn't seem to currently be the case.  JYolkowski // talk 17:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I would say the Reagan stamp usage is definitely not fair use. It's traditional to issue a stamp for every president on the 1st anniversary of their passing, and I don't recall any special story about the stamp, so there's no additional information being conveyed by the stamp image. Similarly for the Special Olympics stamp. (By contrast, the Elvis Presley stamp has a huge backstory, probably enough for its own article even.) Stan 13:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Construction image in UnderCon
I have a notice that an image I uploaded was unclear in the copyright status, but (having looked thru this page and the WP page) I can't figure out what to do with it. Could someone look on the web site listed on the Image page and tell me what to do with it? CliffHarris 03:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You can contact the author of the page you got the image from. However, if you cannot get through to him, then the image will likely be deleted because we cannot confirm it's copyright status (beyond that the website owner holds it). This is a simple graphic, and a free one could easily be produced. Then again, it's not used anywhere (other than a template which is not used anywhere), so there's not much reason to... &#126;MDD4696 23:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Usage tags
Hi there. I just have a quick question that needs answering. Is there any tag I can use that would make this image keepable? User:Denniss has tagged a tonne of images related to the Canadian Forces for deletion, and I was wondering if any of them were salvagable. Thanks, Ouuplas 05:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You may be able to tag them as fair use. The image is copyrighted by "Her Majesty" (the Canadian government, as far as I can tell, See 12) and fair use is the only way we can include non-freely licensed copyrighted images. Be sure to provide a rationale if you do. &#126;MDD4696 21:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help. Do you think I'd be able to use some sort of "promotional image" tag? I'm not too familiar with fair use tags. Ouuplas 00:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Unless there's something special about that particular image, I don't think it's usable in Wikipedia under fair use. --Carnildo 04:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Images don't need to be special; they just need to be very relevant to a particular article, of low resolution, and there needs to be almost no freely available alternative. This is a picture of the CF-18 Hornet, right? So as an illustration of the plane it's perfectly relevant. None of the images at that article are freely licensed either... although, under fair use, there should really only be one fair use image there since they are all depicting the plane in general. And to respond to Ouuplas: no, there's not a promotional tag you can use, because it really doesn't fit into promotional images as we've defined them. It is a copyrighted government work as far as Wikipedia is concerned. &#126;MDD4696 04:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't fair use require that commentary or research be carried out on the work in question? There's no real commentary on the image itself, only on the thing it depicts.  (That said, I doubt the Canadian government makes a practice of charging fees for the use of its photographs, does it?) &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

How to tag: "intended for media use and may be freely reproduced."
I was looking to use an image from Michigan Senate Photowire web site. It says "Photos on the Senate PhotoWire are intended for media use and may be freely reproduced.". What would the appropriate tag for this be? And would an image from here be deemed sufficiently "free" that an fairuse rational isn't needed? --Rob 05:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Verbatim reproduction is not sufficiently free. promophoto is fair use with this kind of publication in mind.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Could someone talk to this guy?
User:BorisTM is very aggressively not understanding the concept of copyright:. Could someone with a little more tact than me explain things to him? --Carnildo 08:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

If I'm the Copyright Holder?
Thanks for any help you can provide. I am the copyright holder and creator of three images that I'd like to use on my UserPage User:StaceyCochran. Two have already been deleted and it looks like the third will be deleted soon. How do I prevent this from happening if I'm the creator and copyright holder of the images? StaceyCochran 17:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I wasn't able to take a look at the images, since they were deleted already, but first: Are you sure you're the copyright holder? If you are, check out Image copyright tags. &#126;MDD4696 23:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:PD-Armenia
I was wondering, could I create an Armenia copyright tag, similar to that of PD-UA-exempt and PD-CzechGov? -- Clevelander 13:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there a section of Armenian law that explicitly puts its national symbols and/or whatever else in the public domain? If so, I'm okay with that.  JYolkowski // talk 18:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Images created by the state government
There are two images I uploaded, Image:MarquetteInterchangeAfter.jpg and Image:MarquetteInterchangeBefore.jpg that were both created by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation. It is my understanding that these images can be used for non-commercial use, or are in the public domain, but I'm not sure how to tag them. Can someone help me out? Karlshea 23:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Works of the Wisconsin government are not in the public domain. If they can only be used for non-commercial use, unfortunately that isn't sufficient for Wikipedia, so they should likely be tagged as imagevio.  JYolkowski // talk 01:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Russian copyrights
I have placed both PD-USSR and Sovietpd on TfD. Please see there for pointers to the relevant discussions. Lupo 10:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

scan of image of 2D-art
''PD-art - for images of works of art where the artist died more than 100 years ago. But if the person or organization who digitized it has released it under another license, list that other license as well as this one.'' So even if the work itself fulfills this condition, the image might be protected. So I cannot scan an image of a 15th century painting from an art book and publish it here. Could someone confirm this? Piet 16:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The painting, even if scanned from an art book, is not copyrighted. In most countries there's a provision in the copyright law that says that only original works get copyright. This of course excludes all kinds of exact copying, photographing, scanning or digitalization.
 * The art book publisher would get a new copyright only if they make some creative restauration or modfications to the painting, but they almost always try to have a copy as exact as possible.
 * This is true only for images of 2D objects -- for sculptures and other 3D objects, choosing the angle and perspective is considered something creative, and photos of scuptures are therefore copyrighted. bogdan 18:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. So PD-art is always enough as a tag for paintings where the artist died more than a century ago? That's quite good news. Piet 08:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

David Alpay, from northerstars
I've been warned about copyright infringement, but I wonder whether something like nothernstars.com can actually lay claim to an image. Te site is copyrighted, true, but it's a publicity still that exists in other places as well. Here's where i got it: Northern Stars
 * In order to determine whether a photograph is a publicity photograph or not, we need to know the original source of the image. If we know that, and can then determine with certainty that the photograph is a publicity photo, then it can be tagged as such.  However, if not, then it may need to be deleted.  Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 00:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I see it's been removed. I understand why, but it was my understanding that publicity photos can be freely distributed/reproduced. Is there a wiki page that explains this specific aspect of copyright infringement?  I'd like to point out that probably a majority of the commercial photos on this site have been taken from original publicity still, i.e. screencaps or movie posters.  How is this different?
 * - Darkhawk (10 Mar, 2006 - 17:52 EST)
 * northernstars.ca (not .com) simply indicates that images belong to the respective copyright holder (see this) so you'd need to trace to the copyright holder and go from there. Dl2000 16:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek rank images
I have created a proposed image tag at Template:PD-StarTrekRank. Star Trek rank insignia mostly consists of pips, circles, and stripes in some form of layout. Such basic graphics can't be copyrighted (I think) but there have been a few cases where someone has drawn two circles next to each other, called it the insignia for a Starfleet Lieutenant and the images will be targeted as unfree or a copyvio against Paramount Pictures. This tag should take care of this. How can we make it offical? -Husnock 00:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think that Paramount Pictures has released that stuff into the public domain. JYolkowski // talk 00:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * How can Paramount Pictures copyright a circle or a square? That is the whole point. -Husnock 00:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Paramount Pictures did not release any material into the public domain, so the template is misleading in that regard. While a circle or a square itself cannot be copyrighted, there appears to be sufficient creativity in all images at Comparative ranks and insignia of Star Trek that I would think that they would enjoy copyright protection.  Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 00:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The comparative article has a lot of problems with it (its actually up for deletion). The images at Starfleet ranks and insignia are (in my opinion) better researched and sourced.  As stated above, I'm mainly concerned with the simple stuff like two or three circles next to each other or three stripes in a row.  This tag would solve the problem of calling it a copyright vio.  How can this tag get officaly approved?  I would like to start using it (I kind of already have!) -Husnock 00:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess my main concern is that I wouldn't want people to think that images of all Star Trek insigniae are in the public domain, since I don't believe they are. I'd welcome other opinions on this, but looking at Starfleet ranks and insignia, I would think that there are only about eight images that don't have enough creativity to be eligible for copyright protection (in the "Enlisted ranks" section, for the motion pictures).  While a circle or a square itself cannot be copyrighted, I believe that there can be creativity inherent in arranging them in a certain order, positioning them in a certain manner, shading them in a certain manner, etc.  I might, however, be amenable to a PD-ineligible-symbol template that said something along the lines of "This is a simple geometrical symbol.  This symbol doesn't have enough creative effort..." or something like that.  Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 02:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The bar for creativity set by judicial precedent is very, very low. Simple positioning is sufficient to grant copyright; consider a typical photograph, where all the creativity in the work consists of arranging preexisting uncopyrighted objects.  Every one of the template-linked images is clearly eligible for copyright by reason of arrangement, coloring, and texture. The images could maybe be used under fair use, but that's unlikely.  You aren't providing critical commentary or research, just reprinting the images with explanations.  That's something the owners of Star Trek make money off of, you know.  I recommend that the images be replaced with textual descriptions. &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Umm comparing fictional ranks is a breach of copyrights then? 4 golden circles over a red square is definately not eligable for copyright. Hence, I do not believe "copyright" is an issue here, there may be a trademark issue. Since the template clearly identifies that image is a "star trek rank insignia" there is no problem there eirher... -- Cool CatTalk 19:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As long as the pictures are not exact or near--exact depictions, the original author can release them into PD independently of Paramount. For example, I may create a picture of Jean-Luc Picard and upload it as my own work so long as the picture isn't too close to existing works such as to affect profits. (Compare crayon drawing to near--screenshot.)  Fair use does not apply here; we are just republishing the images.  Trademark is a little trickier: search NY Times for 'F Line Bagels'.  The legal basis of trademarks is anything that would confuse a consumer in product selection; Wikipedia is not selling the images.  GChriss 18:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Six Wired Bird Of Paradise
I uploaded the pic for Image:Sixwiredbop.jpg including the copyright holder notice and the site I got it from, but the site did not indicate the status of the copyright, whether its intended for free use online or as part of a press release. CyclopsScott 05:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Unless noted otherwise, the copyright holders reserve full rights, and the works can't be used on Wikipedia. In the future, try to a) look for works made by employees of the U.S. federal government (those can always be used and are often available), or b) ask the copyright holder if he's willing to release it under a license such as the GFDL. &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 08:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Emoticons
Almost every third message board on this planet uses this and many other similar images, , , , , , , , , , and the funiest (which i think would not be very appropriate if mass-used here), etc. There are images that show shotting, hitting someone with a hammer, etc but that's way off. So what do you people say? -- Boris 08:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What do we say to what? Anyway, see Emoticons.  The images on that page are all freely licensed. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That's the "say" i needed. Tnx. [[Image:Smile.png]] -- Boris 13:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:CopyrightedFreeUse should be deprecated
I hereby propose that CopyrightedFreeUse should be officially deprecated in favor of NoRightsReserved, and that a notice should be added to the former template stating this. Images currently tagged as CopyrightedFreeUse should eventually be either retagged as NoRightsReserved or listed on WP:PUI.

Rationale: The current wording of CopyrightedFreeUse is too vague. Specifically, compared to NoRightsReserved, it lacks the important word "irrevocably". This has led to cases like, which clearly contradict our copyright policy. The template cannot simply be changed (or redirected), since other cases like this, where the uploader has interpreted the text of the template narrowly, may exists.

—Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The majority of stuff currently tagged with CopyrightedFreeUse is mistagged. I've seen people upload virtually anything and tag it with this tag.  I tend to agree that we need to do something.  JYolkowski // talk 22:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ilmari. NoRightsReserved is much more specific, and the "irrevocably" part of it is very important. &#126;MDD4696 23:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, good idea. &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 08:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Per comments above, I have now removed CopyrightedFreeUse from MediaWiki:Licenses, and have added the notice "This template should not be used for new images. Please use NoRightsReserved instead." to the template itself. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Wrong choice - the NoRightsReserved tag is far more than a license grant. It's trying to give up all rights, including copyright, moral rights and trademark. Better to have an irrevocable version of this existing form, which does't also give up the other rights. For these reasons, the suggested aternative is a very poor choice, doing far more than what it would be replacing. Jamesday 21:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

How to put this option in my MediaWiki
I may have to put on my flame resistant suit as I'm not sure this is the right place to ask/post this. Please forgive me if is wrong. But, I'm wondering how do i put the "Licensing" option on my MediWiki installation??? I don't see an extension, etc. BTW. I'm running 1.6, and I've been searching for a while. Thanks. 65.223.91.130 01:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason coded that, so you might want to ask him. &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Car images
OK, I have recently uploaded a few images of cars, and some of them I've tagged as being ineligible for copyright since they were taken by local used car dealerships or random people. However, some the "ineligible" images have been disputed, so I'm wondering what to do when I find such an image. --ApolloBoy 05:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Photographs are almost always copyright the photographer, even when there isn't much evidence of creative work. If you can't find out who took the picture, then it is unsourced and has to be removed (for all we know, the picture was taken by a famous photographer). Stan 06:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * So what am I supposed to do then? Would I tag these pictures as "fair use" in this case? --ApolloBoy 19:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No, they wouldn't qualify as fair use either. I would suggest either getting the authors' permission to release them under a free licence, or tagging them as imagevio.  JYolkowski // talk 20:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Shoot. I guess one of these days I'll have to run out with my camera and start taking pics... --ApolloBoy 20:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That is, indeed, pretty much just what we want you to do :-) Shimgray | talk | 03:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, but what if I can't find the car I want to photograph or find any promo images of it? What am I supposed to do then? To be totally honest with you, I doubt used car dealerships (for an example) will even care about the images they take. I think we need to create a new tag that can be used for images of common objects taken by local businesses and the like. It'll make my life a lot easier, that's for sure; I'm tired of my talk page getting filled up with those annoying image warnings... --ApolloBoy 01:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * We've already got a perfectly good tag for that sort of image: imagevio. Just because the victim isn't likely to complain doesn't mean we can go around violating copyright left, right, and sideways. --Carnildo 08:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

How to change current copyright tag? Attribution Non-commercial?
I accidentally uploaded images without selecting a copyright tag. How can I go and change it without uploading a new one with the correct tag?

Also, if an image has an creative commons attribution-non-commercial license, how can I list it as such?
 * Find an apropriate tag on this page (Image copyright tags), then copy the code (for example or whatever) to the image page. For the spesific image in question you would need &#123;{db-i3}} though. Non-commercial images are not sufficiently free and will be deleted on sight, don't upload such images unless you can use them under a fair use claim instead. --Sherool (talk) 03:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Click the edit this page button at the top of the image description page and copy the tag in over the old tag. -Nv8200p talk 18:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to remove disclaimers from Template:GFDL
Please see my proposal and rationale for creating a new version of the GFDL template that does not include the troublesome "Subject to disclaimers" line. Dragons flight 18:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe this is a bad idea and a possible misinterpretation of the "Subject to disclaimers" line. These disclaimers are Wikipedia's. If someone uses the image, they will either remove that line from their licensing tagging (its not required by GFDL) or provide their own disclaimers when their hyperlink is clicked. The disclaimers are important. -Nv8200p talk 18:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * After rethinking this, you guys are probably right about getting rid of that line. There is a disclaimer link at the bottom of every Wikipedia page to cover this without burdening every image. -Nv8200p talk 21:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The GFDL explicitly requires that all disclaimers be maintained, so at present any reuser is required to provide a copy of all of Wikipedia's disclaimers, which is the circumstance I would like to avoid. They can add their own disclaimers, but they are not legally permitted to change or remove ours.  Dragons flight 18:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure if we are allowed to do that. Copyrights also explicitly mentions these disclaimers. Lupo 09:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

talk 21:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I replied on the Village pump. JYolkowski // talk 21:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The disclaimers don't belong on the GFDL template - it's being used for images where those disclaimers were not present at the time the uploader licensed the image, without the disclaimers. No reason to force an author to license with disclaimers when they want to license without them. I know that I've never licensed an image with those disclaimers required for my licensees and object to a claim that they are required under the license I've granted. Jamesday 17:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Community use only
I would like to propose the addition of an image copyright tag embodying the license described on the following image description page: Image:Tim Starling.jpg. Some background discussion on this can be found at and User talk:Tim Starling. -- Tim Starling 06:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand what you would like to do, but I consider any form of Wikimedia-only license to be an intolerable burden on reusers. Dragons flight 06:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Nobody wants their user page mirrored on 500 advertising-laden sites across the Internet, with every instance of the word "Wikipedia" replaced with the site's name. We now provide XML dumps which exclude user pages, there is no excuse for accidental user page reproduction. -- Tim Starling 07:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Then we should figure out a way to change the licensing for userspace, cause as of right now even the crappiest advert laden spam farm has every right to reproduce any user page they want. Besides, let's be clear your terms are not user-space only, they are Wikimedia only.  This would mean someone could create a problem with reproducing any non-article page simply by inventing an excuse to put sunglasses wearing dude on it.  Reusers and even derivative works sometimes incorporate content based on policy and even talk pages.  As a single use, your image probably will never create problems, but if allowed to propogate your license undoubtedly would eventually.  However, let me put my objection another way.  Wikimedia should not be in the position of providing and encouraging people to download content dumps that contain items which those people are generically forbidden from using.  Unless Wikimedia-only content is accompanied by a technical solution to prevent it from contaminating the dumps, I will be universally opposed to all such proposals.  Dragons flight 07:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've nominated the image in question for deletion at Images_and_media_for_deletion/2006_February_23. The current license for this image is incompatible for Wikipedia use.  Thanks for understanding.  Jkelly 22:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not approve of this license. We ask people to provide free content, then we, as user, think our uploads should be protected in some ways. This is against the spirit of Wikipedia. If you don't want your image used elsewhere, do not upload it here. If you do not want your user page on 500 other sites, don't create it here. -Nv8200p talk 20:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

My Own Work
Hi. What kind of copyright statement do I have to put in if it is my own creation? Only I made a picture and now it has been deleted. Any help would be appreciated. Ajax 16:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * In the image description page, add a statement to the effect that you created the image, and then tag it as GFDL-self or one of the tags listed at WP:ICT. Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 21:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Tagging public domain images copied from a private source
I maintain a web site on a not-for-profit basis that contains images I scanned at the National Archives, then edited and posted on my own site. Some of these have now appeared in Wikipedia articles and the Wikipedia Commons without my advance knowledge or permission and in some cases with neither a link nor attribution. While the original documents are in the public domain, my images have required effort and expense to track down, identify, scan or photograph and then crop and otherwise edit. I'm pleased they can be useful on the Wikipedia but (in keeping with the Wikipedia's own image use policy N.B. rule of thumb number 2 ) strongly desire attribution and a link back to Wikipedia's source, my web site (which contains much more information on the topic than the Wikipedia).

As a win-win solution, would it be suitable to create for these images a tag similar to PD-GWPDA with my site as source? It could link (as that tag does) to a policy stating that: (1) permission is granted to use the images on the Wikipedia providing the end user credits my web site as the source and incorporates an HTML link, (2) I would like to be notified via e-mail of projects intending to use these images; and (3) all copyright issues are be the responsibility of the end user.

If yes, then I would like assistance in creating such a tag. If appropriate, I can provide a logo for incorporation in the tag. Thanks! -- Mccomb 12:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I note that User:160.79.32.242 (talk • contribs) has been changing the above comment. I assume that this is the same person, but not logged-in.  All images on en:Wikipedia and Commons should have the source of the image listed on their description page, which often takes the form of a link to a website.  If you see an unsourced image that is obviously from your website, please do update the image description page with a link to that source; this would be both uncontroversial and helpful.  I do have a slight concern about a template, which might imply that every image on your website, which I have not looked at, is okay to use, which may or may not be the case.  Incidentally, if we were to use a logo in Template: space, it would need to be under a free license.  Thank you for bringing up the matter for conversation here.  Jkelly 17:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes it's me; sorry. There are two cases: (1) When a "poster" applies no tag. That I can fix by applying your answer (above, though wouldn't it turn me into a policeman? I have neither time to devote to this nor any wish to be perceived as an antagonist). (2) When a "poster" applies a tag such as

or


 * The "poster's" basis for choosing this tag appears to be the caption on my site, which documents my source in detail and which the "poster" will likely quote. But (see the second tag above) the contribution of a presumed (!) "employee of the U.S. Navy" is not the only cite-worthy contribution in the long chain of events that creates a JPEG image and puts it where a Wikipedia "poster" can find it, do you agree? A big difference from the spirit of the Great War tag (top). One solution to (2) might be (a) to revise the wording on these tags and always couple it with (b) a line crediting my site. The reason I suggest creating a special tag, however, is to make life easier for "posters" and to prevent me from becoming a policeman. I'd rather be a collaborator ... and in that sprit, if such a tag were created, I would not mind it being applied to any image identified on my web site as edited from a public domain original document (not forgetting the courtesy of notification, above). I'd also be glad to provide a free license logo -- your other question. Do you need examples of my site or Wikipedia pages, or is my description here sufficient? -- Mccomb 15:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it's always Wikipedia/Commons policy to link back on the image page, even for public-domain images. If anyone sees an image from your site that's reproduced without a linkback, they should add it, but the problem is that nobody here will recognize it as being from your site.  I don't think an additional tag would help this; if someone puts in the effort to select the correct tag from a huge list of specific site tags rather than just slapping on a generic tag, they'd be likely to have followed our linkback policy in the first place. That said, there would be nothing wrong with creating a tag specifically for your site (how many people would realize it exists and use it is another matter), but do be aware that while I'm sure we all appreciate your work and (as stated) will credit you for it if we use it ourselves, we can't place terms on the reuse of the images, simply because they're public domain.  Copyright protects creativity, and while painstakingly scanning and cleaning up large numbers of public-domain texts is doubtless labor-intensive, current United States copyright law doesn't protect it, so we aren't going to put up a tag that suggests otherwise.  See Bridgeman v. Corel. &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding your first paragraph, I perceive uploaders don't follow the policy and don't "put in effort to select the correct tag" (or there is no suitable tag). Rather, in a snowball effect, they seem to select a tag they see others using in similar situations and, perhaps without thinking twice, assume it's close enough in wording and that its presence is sufficient ( i.e., that no linkback is needed).  My grounds for saying "snowball": I can show more than one uploader who appears to have done this. Therefore, may the wording of the present tags be changed in a manner that promotes the inclusion of a linkback, consistent with Wikipedia's policy? Specifically, in the two examples above, replace "This image comes from ... " or "This image is a work of ... " with "This image was scanned at ... ".   Such wording would acknowledge the person doing the scanning as the policy calls for; and with that in place, I'd feel more comfortable in adding a linkback to others' postings of my work (though I still do not want to become a policeman).  This is why new tags might be better here: a government employee may very well create images exactly as the wording of the present tags reflects.  Supposing it's desirable to preserve these tags, then can you help me with new tags?  Either (1) for the National Archives and Naval Historical center beginning with "This image was scanned at ... " or (2) a single new tag incorporating a linkback to my site (which is a potential source of >500 photo images to the Wikipedia) before the situation snowballs further.  Not relevant to our main discussion but regarding your second paragraph, does Bridgeman v. Corel really cover this situation?  In it, emphasis is placed on originals reproduced as exactly as possible.  That's not what I've done ... and now I read in the linked [Feist v. Rural writeup that Justice O'Connor writes that "the standard for creativity is extremely low.  It need not be novel, rather it only needs to possess a 'spark' or 'minimal degree' of creativity to be protected by copyright ... if Feist were to take the directory and rearrange them it would destroy the copyright owned in the data."  So doesn't my situation hinge on how minimal my creativity is or isn't? (Just call me "Sparky!")  But again, the legal question is, to me, merely a curiosity at the moment.  Seriously important is (1) getting credit and a link to my site as the source (in keeping with policy) and following request/notification, at least as a courtesy; then (2) seeing the subject matter handled as well as possible on the Wikipedia.  Surely I'm not alone in wanting this. In fact, trusting that (1) can be resolved happily with a suitable tag, I can imagine becoming a contributor by posting more images myself. -- Mccomb 9:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Since this is, after all, Wikipedia, you can add attribution to any image you find that was uploaded from your site, but I'm not sure at this point what you want beyond that. Would you like a squad of Wikipedians to help you systematically hunt through the many thousands of images to find the handful of yours not correctly attributed to you?  Do you think the upload screen text is in some way lacking (if so, you can suggest changes on its talk page)?  What can we do to solve this problem? &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Bridgeman v. Corel does apply unless you're adding new creative content of some sort. But, you're quite right that we should be crediting the source of the image and the photographer of the original and its source - so we should be linking to your site as the most recent source in the copyright history of the work, which we want and need to be sure we have a good paper trail. Please do add those links to any images which you see here. You might also, if willing, consider releasing to the public domain and/or under the GFDL the images in any jurisdiction where the US law doesn't make the image public domain, just to comprehensively cover things in any place which doesn't have the US law. That is, assuming that like those using the images, your personal interest is in making as much about history as possible known and shared as widely as possible. :) Regardless, thanks for your calm and well reasoned approch - it's appreciated. :) 16:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Jamesday


 * Thank you both (three, actually) for your thoughtful replies. As a non-Wikipedian, I appreciate your tolerance! Let me think through and consult; more soon. -- Mccomb 12:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So ... I propose a tag: “This image courtesy of the Destroyer History Trust which has edited it from a public domain source. Fair use is encouraged providing notification, attribution and a link are given to the Destroyer History Trust in accordance with its conditions of use.” Short, but might simply this accomplish all that's needed? I can provide a free license logo. -- Mccomb 17:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, it seems I've used "Fair use" incorrectly so what should it say ... "Use?" Help me wrap this up (or point me in another direction!).  Thanks.  -- Mccomb 18:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No, sorry, if an image is public domain, no conditions of use may be required. Wikipedia policy is that links to image sources should be present on image description pages.  I hope you find that sufficient.  No new tag is necessary.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 22:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, see examples for images scanned at NARA and images from the Naval Historical Center. Thanks, all, for your time. -- Mccomb 15:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

DND/CF images
OK, so what tag do I use with DND/CF images? DND/CF alows reproduction here, but it isn't free-and-clear public domain, and the other categories don't seem to fit...Any suggestions? Thanks. SigPig 06:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * In general? imagevio.  Their license statement doesn't allow commercial use, which is one of the things required for a license to be considered Wikipedia-compatible, and I doubt most of the images qualify under Fair use. --Carnildo 07:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Process?
Hello, I just had an image tagged for no source, I applied the source information, but someone came by (albeit new) and deleted the image from the page it was on without looking at the history seeing the source was applied. Ther reason I didn't remove it is that I figured since the tag doesn't say what happens, someone would verify the information I added. Previously, it worked that wasy, it was flagged for being orphaned, but I then added it to the appropriate wiki page. About a week later someone else came by and checked it. They saw it was no longer orphaned but then placed the no source tag. I applied the info within the day, but I wasn't sure who should remove the tag, again, I assumed that the people checking these things should be actually verifiying. I have a suggestion, could we place within the tag templates that are used to delete or remove information WHO is responsible for removing the tag? I think it would help as it isn't clear and people are doing it differently. -- dwxyzq|T 11:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I support this proposal. It's difficult for newbies to understand the usage of these templates, and I have frequently found not-orphaned images tagged as orphaned and sourced/licensed images tagged as "no source" or "no license". We could add something like: "please remove this template after providing the source". Mushroom (Talk) 15:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Passport images
I noticed a number of images of passports (of the cover, straight on) in Passport were tagged with PD-self or in the case Image:UK passport.jpg CrownCopyright. Does anyone know what the legal status of these is? From common sense, I would think it would be similar to Military-Insignia but IANAL. Otherwise, I would almost think that PD-ineligible could be applied. Thanks.  howch e  ng   {chat} 19:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * A photograph of the cover of an unmodified passport, with no creative lighting/angles/background, would fall under the same copyright as the cover itself under U.S. law. This means that U.S. passports should be PD-USGov, I suppose, with a note that this may not be applicable in other countries (see Bridgeman v. Corel).  British passports would be Crown copyright by the same logic. Military insignia can't be copyrighted due to international treaty, apparently.  I guess it would be sort of cheap if you prohibited the enemy from telling his troops what ranks your soldiers were.  :P &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Company logos
A sub-category of Category:Logos for logos of companies would be quite useful. It would also help de-populate Category:Logos, which is quite large. A new tag for company logos, such as Template:Company-logo, would offer a quick way to describe the use of logos of this specific subject on Wikipedia, and would offer a way to auto-categorize any logos tagged as such into solely Category:Company logos. Kurieeto 23:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Screenshots, when to use
I wish to know the rule on using screenshots. It seems standard practice to use a tv/film screenshot in an actor whenever an article mention a actors role in film/movie. Is that ok? Or does it have to actually discuss the specific scene in film? Jessica Simpson and Image:JSDD.jpg would be an example of the article disucssing the film in general, but not scene specifically. Also, I find it confusing how we auto-accept screen captures, but take a dim view of pages inside a magazine. In both cases, the copyright holder displays the cover publicly without charge, but hopes people to pay to see what's inside. If we give away what's inside, we've lessened (but not eleminated) the need for the purchase. I'm not so much interested in an arguement, as I would be, in an informed person, putting a clear expanation on this page and/or on the individual tags. --Rob 17:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Screenshots are acceptable only for purposes of review and critical commentary on the source they're drawn from, typically. Therefore, a screenshot in an article about the movie the screenshot is taken from is generally okay, provided there's some commentary on the content of the screenshot.  If there's not, you're on shaky ground, unless you provide it for identification instead of commentary (which could be plausible if someone is dressed very distinctively, perhaps, so that readers of the article could later recognize images from that movie, but that's still kind of unlikely). The usage of that image in Jessica Simpson seems quite shaky to me, since it's for identification of the subject rather than the image itself.  Some commentary should be added, or else the image removed, IMO (IANAL).  As for magazine scans: one shot from a movie doesn't impinge on the market of the movie itself, since movies are animated and one frame out of a hundred thousand doesn't compete with the full thing.  On the other hand, a single page of a magazine is a sizable fraction of that magazine, and in the case of a specific article of interest, being able to read the article via a screenshot would impinge on people's willingness to buy the magazine.  If the article were selected only to show the layout of the magazine, and the page itself was one that wouldn't reasonably impinge on the market (like an oldish editorial as opposed to a review of a new and hyped product, say), you'd have a perfectly reasonable fair-use case. &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Note that policy page Fair use criteria does not limit usage to "review and critical commentary", just says that it has to make a "significant contribution" of any sort. Stan 01:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I think that might be overbroad. I'm suspicious of whether it would ever be fair use to use a photo for identification of the photo's subject matter.  See Wikipedia talk:Fair use criteria. &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:PD-Bridgeman
I just created PD-Bridgeman in response to the question above. Does it seem useful/worth adding to the list? &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Unnecessary. PD-USGov-State for US Passport.  Foreign passports are on a case-by-case basis.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The point is, however, that in some non-US jurisdictions the photograph of the passport may have its own copyright, independent of the uncopyrightability of the subject matter. If the status of such images is uncertain in other jurisdictions, it would be a good idea to note that on the image page for ease of use by other Wikipedias or other places generally.  PD-US already exists, but it's better to be more specific (for instance, the Bridgeman v. Corel case suggested that the same logic would hold in the UK). &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

PolandGov
I just stumbled upon PolandGov, which appears to be a non-commercial license with about 100 images tagged with it. Some might qualify for fair use, but the group needs to be cleaned up. Dragons flight 23:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1 out of 120 has a source.... Listed on tfd.--nixie 00:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * All of them have the source quoted, just browse the galleries linked to. BTW, I contacted the portal to ask if we could use the pics for commercial use as well. Halibutt 12:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Do public domain images always need a source?
I have a question about public domain pictures. Even if images are by artists that died more than 100 years ago, images on Wikipedia as well as the Commons need to have the source of that image, am I correct or is it completely unnecessary? Because I keep on finding images that are listed as public domain, however that do not have a source. My concern is, where is this image file specifically coming from if it's not scanned by a user? Because it must come from some website in that case. For example this case Image:Uchwalenie Konstytucji 3 Maja.jpg, which is public domain, but has no source. Do images that are probably in the public domain need a source from where this file is from, same questions would apply for the Commons. My opinion is they do, but I am not sure. thanks alot! Gryffindor 13:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, all images on Wikipedia, including PD ones, need a source. If none is given, they are candidates and should go. At the very least, a URL if taken on-line is required. If scanned from a book, the book should be identified (with ISBN, preferrably). In the case of a painting, like in this case, I would also expect some statement as to who the painter was, when and where he lived, and when the painting was created. For photographs, I expect the same information. Otherwise, PD claims cannot be verified.


 * That said, in this particular case, the image may be contemporary (i.e. ~1800) and thus qualify for PD-old. But we don't know. It could also have been painted much later. Sometimes a quick Google search can rescue such "highly likely PD" images. This one told me that the image was painted by Kazimierz Wojniakowski (1772-1812)in 1806 (Oil on canvas, 123.5&times;179 cm) and is today at the National Museum in Warsaw. (Which I already suspected, given the identity of the uploader :-/) I'll go add this info to the image desc page. Lupo 13:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * To expand a little on what Lupo said, it is not strictly neccesary that we know who created the file or what website it came from, but there does need to be enough information that someone could find an original and verify that it is in the public domain. For photographs of artwork, which fall in the public domain if the original artwork is in the public domain, it is sufficient that the source information identify the original artwork and state why it is in the public domain, even if we don't know who took the photograph or when.  Dragons flight 13:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Right, I was just about to add this. In the case of this painting, I don't care from which web site it came. But I want verifiable info about the painter and the painting. A URL or ISBN to where such information can be found is also a good idea. When I was writing about photographs, I meant photographs copyrighted in their own right, not reproductions of 2D originals. Lupo 14:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Machine readable tags
I think we should implement the machine readable tags for creative commons licenses. These are rdf schemas for designating the tag that google, yahoo and other search engines use to identify creative commons content on the web. They are usually included in the html as sgml comments in the form below for cc-by-sa-2.5 for example Currently it's not possible to include sgml comments in the html output, I filed a bug report regarding this and it was closed because there are security problems with letting anyone comments like this. I didn't consider that, but Brion mentions the possibility of having these comments coded so that people could select them and have them included. The implementation of this is obviously a complex issue and I wanted to get some people's opinion on it. How to implement, if it's a good idea etc. My initial thought is to put the comments in the Mediawiki namespace and have them optionally included in templates, but I'm sure other will have better ideas.

If there are any questions about the benefits of tagging this way, briefly it allows search engines to locate the content (see the advanced search in google for example under usage rights) - cohesion  t 09:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this is a great idea, but I'd like to see it as isolated from the end user as possible. Ideally, it would be transparent... few people would understand these tags and use them properly. &#126;MDD4696 22:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

GermanGov
I have removed the section on this template as the template has been deleted. Hairy Dude 17:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Colorado state copyright
I've removed PD-COGov and listed it on TfD. I'm not aware of any state law that places works of state employees in the public domain. --Carnildo 07:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * California I believe. Many states may do, but never actually say so... I wonder if there's scope for a please-clarify-the-law letter to be sent? Also, we have a PD-OHGov. This is a bit confusingly worded... and no citation given. It's certainly not PD if it's as it says! Shimgray | talk | 21:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Tag for copies of images already on Wikipedia or Commons
Is there an appropriate tag for images that were just copied/re-uploaded from Wikipedia/Commons?

Ideally one should link to the original image to be able to check the history/copyright status there. In addition, that other page should probably link back to the re-upload.

Samples: -- User:Docu
 * Image:Carte France Département 15.png (from Commons)
 * Image:Treimann.summi pontifices in hac basilica sepulti.jpg (from de.wikipedia.org)
 * The copyright status doesn't really change just because it was taken from some other wikipedia site. It's best to look at that site and see what the license is and use the same license. I don't know how important it is to link both ways. If you find an image, say on the German wikipedia you want to use on English, and it's gfdl the best thing would be to upload it to the commons under the German name, then link to that from English. This also has the benefit of saving time for the French wikipedian who comes along next to just link directly. - cohesion  t 08:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The convention is to apply the same tag as is on the original version, and note that the image was originally uploaded on the other wiki. Applying an interwiki link is also usually done. --Carnildo 08:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the original image may get deleted for some reason. Maybe one should just note that on (date) that image is mareked there with (tag). -- User:Docu


 * If the original is deleted, it's usually a good sign that copies on other Wikipedias should be deleted. --Carnildo 09:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed. How can we make sure that this happens and subsequent users dont refer to a license tag of the re-upload? -- User:Docu

We could update the software to allow image redirects (for such applications as making the image name conform to a template's code) and avoid the need for duplicates of this kind. This might not happen soon, but it would be pay off in the long run. — Mar. 12, '06 [12:09] 

Courtesy photos on U.S. military web sites
Pretty much all U.S. public military web sites state material on them is in the public domain, as works of the U.S. government. However, there are obviously exceptions. I beleive if an image says its a "courtesy photo", that means you have to assume its not in the public domain (e.g. somebody gave the image as a courtesy, and hence its not a work of the US government). A disputed example is Image:Nick Lachey Jessica Simpson USO 210405.jpg. I would love us to be able to use this image (it's high quality), but I don't think it's public domain. I've listed this on PUI, so I'm posting the question here, more to find out how to handle the general case (not just this one image). I think I asked this before, but can't find the question/answer (sorry). --Rob 15:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

PD-PakistanGov
PD-PakistanGov states that images are in the public domain "as defined by the Freedom of Information Ordinance of Pakistan". Does anyone know if this law is an actual public-domain dedication, or is it similar to the Freedom of Information Act? --Carnildo 02:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The Ordinance doesn't mention copyright status at all - very few FOI laws do, and I say this with the confidence of someone who's read almost all of them. Shimgray | talk | 19:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Tag needed for non-copyrighted publications?
Specifically, high school yearbooks. Today it may be different, but in the recent past, yearbooks were published without copyright notices. Working in a newsroom, I know that student photos are public domain -- we use them many times to illustrate biographical stories.

The Wikipedia link to copyright information at http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/Hirtle_Public_Domain.htm says:

1923 through 1977   Published without a copyright notice     In the public domain

for the particular piece of art that prompted this query, "Image:JoeSinnot_1947yearbook.jpg", I conducted a U.S. Copyright Office search at http://www.copyright.gov/rb.html for "Saugerties High School" and variations on those words, and turned up no copyright.

It would seem, then, that this image is in the public domain. I could not find an appropriate tag at Image_copyright_tags. Is a new template needed for "Public Domain: Published 1923-1977 without a copyright notice"? Where do we go from here? With thanks, Tenebrae 05:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you have a copy of the original yearbook? My understanding is that the copyright notice means published with the work, notin a register... Shimgray | talk | 19:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I don't have; the checking I did was US gov database. The article can certainly go without running this piece of art.
 * Still, query open to all, should there be a "Published without a copyright notice" template, subject to the years/conditions/etc.? Is this something an editor can create, or an admin only?
 * Sorry for all the questions/confusion, and thanks for taking the time to respond above. — Tenebrae 22:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You can make a template yourself. Just go to Template:No copyright notice or whatever and edit something in.  Make sure you understand the relevant laws properly first, though (re Shimgray). &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

SocEur
I've removed this from the list per discussion on User talk:Soccer-europe.com. The template should be specifically reserved for use by uploads from this user. Having it in the list only encourages people to go to his site and reuse his images, which he does not want.  Brown Cow • (how now?) 17:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not just have him use norightsreserved or cc-by-2.5? Or add a template for himself in userspace. I don't like the idea of having a template that only one person can use. I don't know who the owner of this site is, so how could I verify if a claim is true that I stumble upon? What if the website owner changes at some time. It just seems like a lot of problems. - cohesion  t 19:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, historically speaking, we had misinterpreted the site owner's intent. See Category talk:Soccer-europe images for his original permission email. It was then interpreted to mean that any image from the web site would be OK to use and thus this template was created. However, he only wants it for images that he himself uploads (or has reviewed and given permission), which was clarified in this edit. So there are a number of images tagged with this that were not uploaded by User:Soccer-europe.com prior to March 10, 2006. Most of those are being kept, but pretty much any uploaded since then are being deleted. I could add a note to the template to say something like, "If this template is applied an image uploaded after March 10, 2006 by someone other than User:Soccer-europe.com it should be treated as a copyright violation." Otherwise, we could probably userfy it and change all existing ones to.

Various national tags
There's a proliferation of copyright tags which apply only to one nation, or to one specific case in one nation. I've a list at User:Shimgray/tags, with the ones I'm concerned about for one reason or another - not citing the law in question, making weird claims, &c - in bold. Thoughts on how to go from here? Shimgray | talk | 21:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You might want to check what work on this has been done at Commons to avoid duplicating effort. Jkelly 23:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Passport photos?
Anyone know where International Passport photos fall in regards to tagging? --WillDarlock 15:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Passport photo as in a 1" headshot, or as in a photo of the passport? Cover or inside pages?

What's "International"? US passport photos are PD-USGov-State. British are likely CrownCopyright. Other nations vary. &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes...just the actual headshot photo on a passport, not the passport itself. This particular passport photo is from WWII era issued by Japan I believe --WillDarlock 14:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That would probably be a no-go. The copyright, in theory, belongs to the Japanese government.  Frankly I think that it's kind of ridiculous to enforce stuff like that when the government won't care even if it knew, but there you have it. &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Drawings of Photos
What would be the copyright status of a simple line drawing, done by myself, which is based on one or more copyrighted photos? - Xed 16:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be a derivative work of the original photograph. Copyright limitations apply. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I believe that this depends highly on the works in question, and the resemblence of the drawing to the originals. If the drawing is close enough to the photo that you can tell the photo was used as a source, then the derivative work limitations apply. However, if you only used it as a reference, then there's no worries. &#126;MDD4696 22:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I would love to see examples of what people consider problematic or OK in this regard. - Xed 22:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * A sketch of a photo of the outside of Grand Central Station, which has no distinguishing artistic merit and is pretty much just an architectural image - you're fine. A sketch of that photo of the shaft of light in the Grand Central concourse? Definitely a derivative work. Shimgray | talk | 23:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What if someone makes a drawing (this kind of quality) based on a copyrighted photo of an object in a museum. Say the object is an old Native American Totem pole, with a unique pattern and shape. The photo is the only one that exists of the totem pole, so there are no other sources. Is that drawing problematic? - Xed 23:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd argue the copyright was fine - the artwork is PD, and the photo isn't likely to be inherently artistic - but it'd be advisable to note you made it from that specific photo, so that errors can be traced. (It's really just a matter of citing your sources, now) Shimgray | talk | 23:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Are there any examples of this kind of situation (drawing of a photo being PD) on wikipedia somewhere? - Xed 23:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Good question. I can't offhand think of any, but there's quite probably a few on archaeological articles. Shimgray | talk | 23:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Photos released by the FBI of terrorists, most wanted fugitives, etc.
OrphanBot came by the Khalid al-Mihdhar article and removed the Image:KAlmihdhar.JPG image, which currently has the tag. This photo was released by the FBI on September 27, 2001, as part of a press release. Now, I'm not sure where the FBI got this photo from? The FBI likely did not take the photo themselves, so not sure the tag applies here. And it's not exactly a. The photo is probably from a passport, INS, or drivers license photo. If nothing else, this photo certainly meets fair use criteria, but not sure which fair use tag to choose.

The same issues would apply to photos of FBI most wanted fugitives such as http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/topten/fugitives/gerena.htm. What tag should we be using for such photos? --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 17:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I expect that it's probably not supposed to be against copyright law to circulate copyrighted images of wanted criminals (or wanted people, anyway). I think this is a case where it may technically be illegal, but if it ever came to court Congress would pass a quickie amendment to clarify things.  Once the guy is no longer wanted, though, you lose that line of reasoning. &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * But which tag do you recommend we use? The FBI tag, even though the photos are probably drivers license, passport, immigration, airport security video, ATM security camera, etc.?  Or maybe we should add a new tag, similar to the mugshot tag, to cover these cases of photos released by the FBI.  In the case of Khalid al-Mihdhar, of course, he died as part of the 9/11 attacks and isn't a "wanted criminal".  But if someone has information about him, surely the FBI would be interested and thus the press release. --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 16:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

http://arglist.com/photos/
I notice we have a few site spesific copyright tags already and I think this one might be worth adding (not sure if we have any kind of policy on those kinds of things). Lots of nice photos there and the photographer goes out of his way to release all rights to the pictures. We have quite a few pictures taken from there already, tagged with the depreciated "copyrightedfreeuse" tag (and a few PD). Any objections to creating a tag for that site? --Sherool (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate license tags
I'm not very well-educated when it comes to things like image licensing. However, the tag at Image:Shaunsnide.png is almost certainly wrong: what would the government of Belarus have to do with a picture of Shaun Ryder? Could somebody do something about this: I'm not sure what to do here. --RFBailey 23:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Uploaded by user with a number of test tags. Tagged image as nosource.  Jkelly 23:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

My little "essay"
After trying to explain basic copyright stuff to a number of users and tagging and deleting thousands upon thousands of mistaged images I was inspired to write this. Basicaly I would like it to be a non-intimidating bare bones, easy to read primer to copyright issues (with focus on images) that sum up all the relevant stuff without getting too "heavy". Some help mercilesly fine tuning it would be greatly apreciated. Hopefully we can make it good enough to be worth linking to from the upload page or as part of the welcome template or something like that. --Sherool (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

NFLPA and NFL License Tag
There's pictures og NFL players on trading cards on the internet, and there needs to be an image tag for them.
 * At a first guess, I'd say that imagevio would cover most of them. --Carnildo 03:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Company that no longer exists?
What is the status of files that are copyrighted by a company that no longer exists? Example: Featured_picture_candidates/Woolworth_Building -Ravedave 03:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * In general, if a corporation ceases to exist it auctions off all its assets (including intellectual property such as copyright) to pay any debts it may have, and gives any leftover money to its shareholders. Somebody usually still owns the rights.  In the case in question, however, the image is out of copyright. &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

AndrewKendall.com
I've seen several images from his website uploaded here, since on his image usage page it says "You have permission to upload any images to Wikipedia providing you credit and link back to me." However, he has his images licensed for non-commercial use only. I've been going through and marking them as unfree. Anyway, I just want to make sure these images are still considered unfree.--Fallout boy 10:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * We should probably contact him as his statement re:Wikipedia says that he wants us to use his work. Secretlondon 16:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * We really want to discourage Wikipedia-only images. I think there is a Linux distribution that will be including a copy of Wikipedia with its install, and there may be some point in the future that printed copies of Wikipedia are produced. Whether or not images that have been specified as Wikipedia-only could be included is a gray area, and it would be nice to proactively avoid that kind of ambiguity.


 * Fortunately he's specified the exact license he's using, but unfortunately that means his images should not be uploaded to Wikipedia (see WP:Image copyright tags). The by-nc-sa Creative Commons license is a non-free license. &#126;MDD4696 17:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Big Brother
Someone has adapted the copyright tag for Image:Bb Derek-Laud.jpg. Could you please take a look and see if this is a good thing. The JPS 19:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Tag for images which are in public domain from German country
I am unable to see any tag which suits for tagging German photograph in public domain. See an image for example: Image:NikolausGross.jpg


 * I'm not sure it's in the public domain. As I recall, German law protects photographs with no creative effort (basically, things like passport photos) for 50 years, and photographs with creative effort for life+70.  A portrait is in the "creative effort" group. --Carnildo 23:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

In the European Union all photographic works are protected 70 years pma. It is a common misunderstanding that most photos are simple Lichtbilder (Germany, Austria) but only simple snapshots can be treated so. In Switzerland (non EU-country) there is a high level   but unfortunately all Switzerland photographers can sue at courts of EU countries according the small EU level --Historiograf 19:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Sports Cards
How does a tag like this sound if we want to post sports cards? I've already uploaded a few, and I'm wondering if this tag would be a good one to use. Thanks:

 This is a sports card of a certain player related to sports, and is protected by copyright and/or trademark. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of sports carsd qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. Certain commercial use of this image may also be trademark infringement. See Fair use. —This unsigned comment was added by Alexsautographs (talk • contribs).
 * to illustrate the athlete in question
 * on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,
 * Reasons for cards not being fair use to illustrate the athlete were discussed recently at Wikipedia talk:Fair use. If you an have an argument for their use as portraits, that would be the best place to raise it. ×Meegs 16:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Sample Gaming Material?
Hi!

I recently recieved an indication to revise the terms by which I have uploaded an image for the Star Fleet Battle Force game from Amarillo Design Bureau, Inc., namely the sample image of a Base Station and Planet card for said game - as seen at Image:Sampleplanetbats.jpg.

The closest option I can see in this list is the Template:Promotional option - although I would be grateful for any assistance regarding whether there is a more appropriate option for this particular image.

--Nerroth 15:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * See if you can get the copyright owners to permit use of this image under a free license. If you cannot, this particular image probably cannot be hosted on Wikipedia. &#126;MDD4696 05:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Image tag for photos of schools

 * I've recently uploaded two photographs of school buildings (with the intent to upload more); however, I was informed that the copyright tags that I've selected for the photographs are incorrect. I thought I'd leave a comment here to ask what the best course of action to take would be. I'd also like to suggest a new copyright tag for photographs of schools. I'm not sure how to go about doing that, but I'm sure someone with more experience would be able to help me out and give me guidance. Thanks! Wlmaltby3 22:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Copyright tags are generally only created for unique legal categories (there are some instances in which tags which have massive amounts of images of the same legal category are subcategorized by topic, but those are relatively rare exceptions). Images of schools are no different from any other images -- images taken from school websites are not, to my knowledge, to be assumed to be in the public domain (works of the federal government are in the public domain, but works of local governments are not necessarily). This image of yours, for example, is incorrectly tagged as inelligible for copyright: a photograph of a school is no more inelligible for copyright than a picture of the Empire State Building. If you are trying to say that you do not think it is copyrighted for some reason by virture of it being a picture taken by a school employee, that would use a different tag, but would first need a good legal justification. --Fastfission 22:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand where you're coming from, and I appreciate your help. I wasn't sure which tag to use, so I sort of picked one at random that I thought would fit the image best. Obviously, I was wrong. If someone could help me pick a more precise tag, or a better tag, that would be much appreciated. Of course, my next course of action would be to simply take photos of the schools myself, as that would make this much easier. But for now, and future reference, what tag would be the best to use in the situation? Thanks again. :) Wlmaltby3 04:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The best course of action, as you yourself suggested, would be to take a photo yourself and release it under a free license. If that is not possible, you might be able to claim this image as fair use (since you are the uploader, you should be the one to make the claim). That's the only way Wikipedia can host copyrighted material without permission. Some of the key points in claiming fair use are that the image is of low resolution, that it's supporting some sort of criticism of the photo itself or its subject, that it's not being sold (or otherwise having an effect on the image's actual or potential economic value), and that no free alternative is available.
 * If you plan on asking for permission, make sure it is permission to use the image under a free license, and not just on Wikipedia! Otherwise, this will hinder potential distribution of the image in the future. And always remember to state your source for images on Wikipedia. Hope this helps! &#126;MDD4696 04:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for your help. I do believe that I'm simply going to take the photos myself, as that's going to be the best and easiest course of action for me in writing the articles that I'm wanting to write. Thanks again for your help. I appreciate it a lot. Wlmaltby3 06:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If you do take photos yourself, please consider uploading them to Wikimedia Commons. The category structure makes it easier to organize photographs.  For example, with commons:Category:Schools in the United States, we can have subcategories such as commons:Category:Schools in Ohio.  However, keep in mind that commons does not accept fair use images, like English Wikipedia does.  All images uploaded to commons must have free licensing. --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 17:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Image legality questions
There is a new page from a discussion at Untagged images to help answer questions from people who have had their images tagged as no source/no license and we need your help :D The page is linked from image source and image copyright as well as Orphanbot's messages. If you want to answer mostly easy questions about copyright and sourcing policy please feel free to help :) - cohesion  t 06:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Nazi Germany Images
An admin on commons is deleting several images related to Nazi Germany. I always thought these were PD; anybody know whath their exact status is? Seems a shame, as Image:1936NurembergRally.jpg was a featured pic, and I cant imagine there is still copyright on it. Cheers, The Minist   e   r of War   (Peace) 17:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * See Template talk:PD-Germany. The copyright status of these images is an open question. --Carnildo 19:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there anybody in Germany or anywhere else who would want to claim ownership of Nazi-originated images? : -)  —Tenebrae 19:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Haha! Sure, I'll take 'em! :-) Thanks for the link! The Minist   e   r of War   (Peace) 19:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no known LEGAL exception regarding Nazi photographs. Please read Public Domain and stop talking NONSENSE. These photographs have to be detelted at Commons and also here if they could'nt tagged fair use --Historiograf 19:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

mistake tag?
Sorry if this is previously suggested, already done, or already rejected. I propose a new image tag mistake. It would be prominently shown on this page, and on the upload page. Users would be told to use it on the image description page, after an upload, if for any reason they think they made a mistake, so it could be speedied by an admin. The mistake would normally be realizing (after the fact) that the image isn't useable after all for copyright/source issues. Often, somebody uploads a bunch of pics, gets warnings about some, and realizes the rest are probably bad. OrphanBot should also mention mistake. Currently, OrphanBot tells people they should check source/license for other pictures they've uploaded, but doesn't tell what to do for images that aren't "fixable". I realize this doesn't let people do anything they can't already, but hopefully it gives a more obvious/clear means of doing so. I know, way back, when I started, I was completely lost when I read about image deletion procedures. Obviously, if this tag were used on an image that is clearly useable and valuable, and admin could disregard it, remove the tag, and keep the image. Also, the tag could only be used by the uploader. --Rob 23:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * We already have this: db-author.  howch e  ng   {chat} 06:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Templates for deletion
I've listed Template:N9jig-il-shield for deletion: I don't think we need a fair-use template for drawings of highway markers from one specific website. --Carnildo 04:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)