Wikipedia talk:File copyright tags/Archive 9

CC 3.0
With Commons honoring 3.0, should we do so as well? Ral315 » 05:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Is this a rhetorical question? I don't see how it would make sense for us to have a stricter copyright policy than commons. nadav (talk) 06:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, would it be a good idea to create country-specific Creative Commons tags for Wikipedia? If I use any CC 3.0 licenses, I will not use the unported license, but I will consider using the United States version of the licenses. Jesse Viviano 17:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * They'll probably be created as needed. However, you can avoid the issue entirely by uploading to the Wikimedia Commons, which already has commons:Template:cc-by-sa-3.0-us. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Disputing an image's tag
How would one go about disputing an tag used on a image (aka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Safri_Duo.jpg ) when its very visible that its wrong? Peachey88 11:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If it's blatently wrong, I either strike it out and replace it with nld, or delete the image outright if it's clear the uploader is trying to do an end-run around the image use policy. --Carnildo 19:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Media vs Image
We need video and audio just as much as images. We should make sure to generalize the word "image" into "media" or something similar wherever possible to make people aware of this. — Omegatron 17:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cornel west lg.jpg
What copyright tag should I use for Image:Cornel west lg.jpg? Jelly Beanie


 * Hi, Jelly Beanie. A better place for that question would be Media copyright questions. However, since you've asked here, I'll take a shot at answering. (And by the way, please use heading sections &mdash; I've added one for you &mdash; please sign your posts by typing four tildes (~) at the end, and please link your images by using two square brackets at either side, and a colon before the word image, like this: Image:Cornel west lg.jpg .)


 * To answer your question, I'm afraid it's unlikely that we can use that image, as it seems to be an image of a living person. We don't accept non-free images of living people, except in the most unusual cases, as they are considered to be "replaceable". In other words, it's not unreasonable to think that some Wikipedian could go along to one of his lectures and take a photo and release it under a free license. Alternatively, it might be possible to persuade him to release a photo under a free license, allowing redistribution, modification, and commercial use (we don't recognise "permission for Wikipedia").


 * See Resolution:Licensing policy, especially no. 3, where it says that we may not use non-free material "where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals". See also Non-free content criteria, where no. 1 says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose."


 * Hope that helps. ElinorD (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I just dove in the deep end here. :) I just figured out the ~ ~ ~ ~ thing. Maybe I should wait a little before adding images. I mustn't forget my brackets! :) Jelly Beanie

Friendly Hostility
I've gotten permission to use images from K. Sandra Fuhr's comic Friendly Hostility on its wikipedia page - is there any possiblity of creating a tag I could use to tag all these? Roscelese 00:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately you need to ask for a bit more than permission to use the images in Wikipedia. You need to ask to make the images freely licensed so other people can use them too. GFDL is the main free license here, though images often use Creative Commons licences CC-BY and CC-BY-SA. The reason for this is that Wikipedia allows other people to use its content, so other people have to be able to use the images. User:Videmus Omnia/Requesting free content discusses this. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garion96 (talk • contribs)

TfD nomination of Template:PD-art-life-50-aus
Template:PD-art-life-50-aus has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Iamunknown 16:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

WMF Image
Images created by the Wikimedia Foundation, such as occur in Jimbo's new video, are not logos, but probably have similar usability as Non-free Wikimedia logo. Any idea how to tag Wikimedia content that are not logos or screenshots of our projects? Dragons flight 07:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Conflict?
The link for australian government work tag says: "For works published by the Australian government or held under Crown Copyright in Australia more than 50 years ago."

But the tag itself says:

So which is it?

work published by the Australian government AND 50 years old or work published by the Australian government OR 50 years old??? big difference.

(the reference link at the end of the tag is broken, for the record.) --Viva43 03:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a working copy of the link through the internet archive.Dr.K. 04:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * To answer your question it is both: The work of the Aussie government and more than 50 years old. Dr.K. 04:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah damnit. Thanks. --Viva43 09:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

PD or...?
I've found a good image published in a book from 1898, and I would like to use it here. Unfortunately, it has a Google watermark in the corner. What could I do to bring it here? --Merovingian (T, C, E) 03:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If the book is in the public domain, you can simply remove the watermark (using GIMP, Kexi, Photoshop, whatever you like best) and upload it. Shinobu (talk) 11:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Battlefield 2 screenshot
Can someone add the following copyright tag: to the image: AIL_raider.pngin the Battlefield 2 talk page before the 23rd of November 2007? would be appreciated. Thanx.

--Hornet94 15:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

how can i tell the kind of liscence i need to copy an image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank polizzi (talk • contribs) 17:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

What is a tag
what is are templates and tags and how do i use them. If someone has copyright how can i use that image on wikipedia and how can i tell if something has copyright. Frank polizzi (talk) 17:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you read this one?
 * I've begun with it:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag --PLA y Grande Covián (talk) 13:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Help needed with ProFantasy license
Apparently none of the existing Wikipedia image copyright tags apply to the Image:Cc etrusca.gif image, even though the ProFantasy Software license clearly allows distribution even for commercial purposes. Do I need to create a new template? If so, could somebody suggest the proper language? (C.f. .) Thank you.&mdash;RJH (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

How about the following?&mdash;RJH

I have no problem with this - Simon Rogers, ProFantasy Software Ltd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.44.191 (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

GPL issues
Please see commons:Template talk:GPL for potential issues with GPL tagging on both projects. Superm401 - Talk 07:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Image: 12 Angry Men 1997 film poster.jpg
(I hope this is the right area) I had the image marked with but someone removed it saying the original image had the watermark but i do not believe the movie poster had that watermark. Peachey88 (Talk Page 10:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed license
I am considering adopting a new license for future images I create and also applying it to the existing images I have made. I would like people to comment here if they feel there would be any problem with the use of the following license conditions on Wikipedia:


 * This image may be freely used, reproduced, and distributed, if the following conditions are met


 * The image creator's name is associated with the image.
 * A reference or html link is made to the orignal source of the image:  http://foo.bar/wiki/Image:... 


 * And either:
 * The image is used solely for non-commercial purposes
 * OR
 * The text of all documents in which the image is incorporated is licensed under either the GFDL or CC-BY-SA.


 * In addition, you may modify the image and create new versions provided that those versions are made available under the same terms as listed above.

In case it is unclear, I am fine with attribution appearing on the image description page. Mostly, I want to guage reaction to the GFDL/CC-BY-SA clause. Dragons flight (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

For works that I have created I would like to have a tag similar to copy left which would allow free use for non-commercial uses. Attribution would be required and modification would require permission. This kind of tag would allow works that contributors own to be used without them loosing the potential commercial benefit or having them commercially abused. Saltysailor (talk) 02:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

proposed CopyLeft Non Comercial License
CopyLeft Non Commercial allows the work to be used without license from the author if: Not used for commercial purposes Not used for profit All reproductions include the CopyLeft logo and this license text Modification is allowed if the same CopyLeft Logo and this license text is applied Saltysailor (talk) 03:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Do pictures of fruits require copyright tags?
or not? 201.51.42.61 (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you took the photograph of fruit, you can release it into PD. However, if you found a photograph on the internet or elsewhere, there may be copyrights on it.  Retropunk (talk) 06:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding a copyright tag
how do I add a copyright tag to an image? I uploaded an image and it says it will be deleted soon unless I put a copyright tag. I want to put in this tag:


 * Click on the image or a link to it, click on "edit this page", and add the tag to the edit box. --Carnildo (talk) 03:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * thank you. I just realized that this was really obvious —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo777 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

about me
Im a really nice person and I get along with anyone. The things that get me mad is all of those fake ass people who try to act like they got something but really dont they need to get a life and grow up a lil. But anyways I like to play to play sports and get girls oh and I cant forget this I love shoes you no I got to stay fresh of course my favorite shoe's is jordan's, nikes,and forces. My best friend in this whole world beside god is my cousin Shamia shes always there for me love u cuz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrance hayes (talk • contribs) 23:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thats great. Get a blog, dont leave that crap here.Machete97 (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

propose tag for magazine pages
I uploaded a fair use image from a magazine, but could not find a tag that exactly fits. I propose adding a tag for magazine pages similar to the one for newspaper pages (or expanding the one for newspapers to include magazines). --Jtir (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for new CC tag
Would it be possible to create a new tag for images licensed under Creative Commons by-nd 3.0? For example, Image:Bottlerack.jpg. It can be shared but can't be modified and needs attribution, thus it doesn't really fit under any of the current tags.-- TBC !?!  09:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't fit because it's an unfree tag. All images on wikipedia need to allow for derivative works and commercial use. /Lokal_Profil 17:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's only true for Wikimedia Commons. Wikipedia uses copyrighted images under fair use, but only on the condition that there are no other public domain alternatives available. Anyhow, back on topic, we have copyright tags for images that are copyrighted, that need attribution, and that are licensed under Creative Commons by-sa, but not one for Creative Commons by-su. As such, would't a new tag be appropriate?-- TBC  !?!  23:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The only time Wikipedia allows these images (i.e. non-commercial, non-deriv) is under WP:Fair use, and for this there are already a lot of tags. Since for fair use the copyright is being disregarded anyway it doesn't matter much which the original license was. /Lokal_Profil 00:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I see we have a similar tag for non-commercial images, so I made a new tag called FairusewithND for these selective situations. It uses the exact same wording as the other tag, but of course replacing "non-commercial use" with "no derivative works". ViperSnake151 18:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Schools images tags
I have been recently uploading images for schools' articles, and I have not found a tag for them, and i have been using tag, so can some one create a tag for school images. ~ LegoKontribsTalkM 01:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Images of schools are generaly replaceable (someone could go to the school and take a pic) thus you should not be uploading unfree images of schools.Geni 02:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

How to create a new copyright tag
I'm following the directions that suggested that I post on here for how to create a new copyright tag. I will be posting multiple photos from the same source and possibly in multiple articles. What do I need to do to get a tag? It would be for the North Carolina Aquarium at Pine Knoll Shores. The only images that we would like to use as non-free fair use are those that were professionally taken and posed and cannot be reproduced by anyone. All others we fully intend to make free use.

Also, in the directions, it says to ask for assistance in creating templates and adding images to categories. Can you explain this as well? Thank you. NC Aquarium PKS (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Claire Aubel


 * First, you need to make sure that no existing tag will do the job, and for non-free images, you need to make sure that images covered by the tag will meet the non-free content criteria. It sounds like your images won't: just because an image is professionally posed does not mean that it is irreplaceable. --Carnildo (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

When I go to the uploading area though, I'm clicking on the promotional photo section as all of my photos come from our press kit and brochures. So, that said, it automatically puts me into the non-free/fair use area. Is this incorrect? However, when I looked through the list of licensing options, none met that same category of promotional material. So, either I'm picking the wrong category or not filling in the correct information in the summary area. My apologies for not understanding all of this....I'm a newbie. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. NC Aquarium PKS (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Claire Aubel —Preceding unsigned comment added by NC Aquarium PKS (talk • contribs) 20:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Page from a book?
Image:Stripped Book.JPG What would the copyright status of a page from a book be? The image does not have any content, but is still part of the book. Ğavin Ťing 16:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to me the Wikipedia copyright issue concerns that of the photographer who created the image, as the photographer has not been identified and no license has been defined. If the uploader is the photographer then he needs to specify a license for the photograph.  There already seems to be a fair use explanation about the content of the photo.  -- SEWilco (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm abit confused though. Can I release the photo into PD? But the photo itself can't be PD because it's contents are copyright. Ğavin Ťing  19:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In the USA the copyright on a photo is separate from the content. But I don't know how strong the copyright is on book description data.  At any rate, the Wikipedia challenge on your photo is based on there being no license notice.  Put the license/PD notice which you select on the photo; if there is a copyvio challenge then deal with that.  -- SEWilco (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've placed a PD-self tag on it. Thank you very much for your help. This is probably the first time someone has had to put a copyright notice on a photo about a copyright notice =D Ğavin Ťing  22:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Converting to svg
There is a png image that i want to convert to svg, the resulting image will look nearly identical to the original however because of the conversion process not a byte of the original will be present in the svg version.The question is: Does the conversion process mentioned above count as making a derivate work?

--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If the result looks identical then yes. Even if it doesn't look identical but you have still used it as a guideline then you have in fact derived the new work from it and as such it inherits the copyright of the original. /Lokal_Profil 23:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Similar SVG and creative commons question
Moved my question to WP:Media copyright questions. Dcmacnut (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Licensing by proxy?
I have located the photographer of some rare images that would be a great addition to a Wikipedia article. The creator has agreed to allow the images to be released into the public domain, but he is not familiar with Wikipedia, uploading images or attaching the correct license. Can I do that for him if he sends me the images and gives me permission to post them with a GFDL? Or does the image creator have to personally upload and license the images?--Edgewise (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, you can upload them. Be sure to forward the email to permissions @ wikimedia.org so there's a record of the photographer granting permission.  If he's releasing the photos into the public domain, the license you want to use is PD-release. --Carnildo (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Attribution in Image captions
Should attribution be given in photo captions for CC licenses, i.e. "Photo by John Doe?" A proposal at the Village Pump wants your opinion: Village_pump_%28proposals%29 (Mind meal (talk) 14:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

"Image Required" tag
Why is there no tag to placce on an article whick lacks an image at all ?


 * reqphoto can be used for the article talk page.  howcheng  {chat} 05:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Tag for vehicle registration plates
What's the appropriate copyright tag for pictures of license plates uploaded by me, but owned by vendors of license plates? Kevzspeare (talk) 11:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * For license plates that are just alphanumeric, PD-font, but if they have any graphic design to them, then the copyright is owned by the issuing state and your photo of it is simply a reproduction of a copyrighted work. In those cases, you can only use non-free fair use in.  howcheng  {chat} 05:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright tags
Please see Village_pump_%28proposals%29 for a centralized discussion on bringing our copyright tag names into compliance.  MBisanz  talk 03:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright makes my head spin [image copyright question]
As a graphist for the graphics lab, I've been dealing with copyright issues for a while, and I've got to say, some of it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Especially the concept of making images in the style of others and whether copyright law counts there (i.e. I had a problem with one of my ads because it used the pattern from the italian flag without sourcing it, even though I had created the pattern myself without actually using the flag). So I figured I'd come here with this question.

I have a picture that I've been using on forums as my avatar that I really like and would like to put on my user page- it's an illustration of me. I made it using a free flash app at South Park Studios and the animation is unmistakably similar in the style of the television show South Park- which is the point. The app is designed for this purpose, to create avatars and it says you can use them as such.

My question is, can South Park Studios copyright the images that their app creates, or only the app itself? The creators of the show have been quoted as saying that they don't care about copyright law, is this akin to releasing their stuff into public domain? Does the media company that broadcasts the show then have the right to supersede the wishes of the creators and impose copyright restrictions? Furthermore, can you copyright a style of animation, or only the individual characters? In other words, could I go in and, with photoshop, create an illustration of myself in that particular animation style and it would still technically belong to Comedy Central?

I'm so confused! Any advice, or is this a pandora's box that I should not be trying to open?

 L'Aquatique [ talk ] 05:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm also going to post this at the village pump, not because I'm forum shopping, but because I'm not sure how often this page is checked.  L'Aquatique [ talk ] 06:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is definitely a toughie. First of all, the opinions of the creators of South Park are completely irrelevant since the copyright for the show is held by Comedy Central, not Trey Parker and Matt Stone, and I can assure you that Comedy Central cares about copyrights. Users of the South Park character creator don't create the individual pieces that are being used; South Park Studios did, probably having licensed the trademark from Comedy Central. Thus, while you are the creator of your avatar, you have only created a derivative work and therefore you don't really own the copyright on your South Park character. So that takes care of the application. What if you were to create your own South Park style character freehand or in Illustrator? Well, you would own the copyright, but you would likely be violating trademark laws by using your self-created icon, especially commercially (using it for parody would be an exception). Copyright and trademark are two completely separate issues: the former prevents exact duplication, and the latter prevents trademark holders from misrepesentation by others. I hope that explanation makes sense.  howcheng  {chat} 05:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Brenda Song.jpg
What template should I use for this image? Tucson Arizona Mexico (talk) 04:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding {PD-Ineligible}
I found a simple picture on wikipedia that ought to be in svg, so I made a new version in Inkscape. This image isn't on the commons, so I can't use derivateFX. I've taken the code that derivativeFX generates, and modified to say what I need to. I'm just not sure about the license; the raster image had the deprecated license {PD}. Does that mean I should use {PD-ineligible} for my vector image? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timeroot (talk • contribs) 23:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Chundrigar_and_Mirza_and_Nixon.jpg
this image is a violation of a copyright its from a book: 'From Plassey to Pakistan' by Humayun Mirza the photographer is Pakistani from PTV

Speedy Delete

Humayun Mirza jr user:HumayunMirzajr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.49.120 (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible changes to PD-Art on Commons
On the Commons, there is currently a debate going on about whether or not to make the use of PD-Art less restrictive (and thus closer to how it is used on the English Wikipedia). Right now on Commons, PD-Art can only be used for images that are public domain both in the U.S. and the country of origin. On the English Wikipedia, we only care about the public domain status in the U.S. This is why we have templates like do not move to Commons for old British portraits and the like. (In Britain and many other European countries, every photograph of a painting gets a brand new copyright.) If you are interested in this issue, please join the debate or vote in the Straw Poll. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

PD-PubMed
This template is empty and it is listed as a copyright tag. It should be created or removed from the list.--Sdrtirs (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Crown Copyright in Canada tag proposal
I propose a new non-free use tag for crown copyrighted images from Canada. Here's what I have in my sandbox -- Cavenba (talk • contribs) 02:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC):

A Little Help
I was wondering if anyone would mind helping me put together my company's Wikipedia page. We are Kabillion, a multi-platform network for kids. Any help would be greatly appreciated. User:uopenguino -- uopenguino (talk • contribs) 02:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC):

A copyright quiz!
Which of the following choices is the correct copyright status for these images:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/smithsonian/sets/72157607580371997/

1. They were shot in 1925, but unpublished until 2008, so they are copyrighted until 2103 (date of publication + 95 years).

2. The photographer, Watson Davis, died in 1967, so they are copyrighted until 2037 (life of author + 70 years).

3. The photographs were shot in 1925, but not published or registered before 1978, therefore they are in the public domain.

4. The photographs were neither public domain nor copyrighted prior to 1978, thus they were grandfathered into automatic copyright protection in 1978 and are copyrighted until 2037 (life of author + 70 years).

5. The owner of the original photographs, The Smithsonian Institute, uploaded the images to The Commons on Flickr under the "no known copyright restrictions" usage notice, which authorizes others to use the work without restrictions. Thus the images are in the public domain.

Good luck! Kaldari (talk) 01:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct answer is 6: The copyright holder, Science Service, released the material to the public domain when they donated it to the Smithsonian.  howcheng  {chat} 02:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Some help needed
I have a drawing from a book published in 1918 in a Romanian territory under German occupation, a territory under Central Powers condominium or a Bulgarian territory (depending on the month of publishing), and the author of the drawing died in 1934. Romania, Germany, Bulgaria and all other former Central Powers (or their legal successors) have copyright limit extending to 70 years after the author's death. This seems to me to be PD. However, the license drop-down list in the image upload wizard doesn't have an adequate option, since this isn't published in the US before 1923, and 100 years haven't yet passed since the author's death (as two of the options in that drop-down list are). What license should I use?Baltaci (talk) 02:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * PD-old-70, and please consider uploading them to Wikimedia Commons. Cheers.  howcheng  {chat} 04:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

New image copyright tag for 'old files' with no satisfying copyright status.
Hi everyone I have an idea for a new Image copyright tag; There are lots of files on different wikimedia projects that they don't have a satisfying copyright status but they were on wikipedia for more than two or one years, for example a file which was uploaded to wikipedia in 2006 and since that time no one has claimed its copyright, no one deleted it and no one is willing to delete it also no one completed the copyright status and we don't have access to original uploder;

The idea is to give these files a temporary 'Fair use' / 'Non-free' copyright tag until someone can verify the copyright, the policies should be nearly same to Non-free content Policy, meanwhile if any one claimed the copyright or any user verified the copyright the file should be removed or we may be able to continue using it as 'Fair use' or Free.


 * We can say: Every image is free until proven that it is not free!

Please consider that If we make this new tag we are actually giving permission to use (possible) non-free content on wikipedia almost freely and this may make legal problem for Wikimedia Foundation so we should discusse it carefuly with someone who now about copyright laws in US and other countries.  ■ MMXX  talk  14:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No. Hardly the first legacy issue we've had to deal with. Standard practice is freeze uploads (has been done) and then after a time delete.Geni 15:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The template you're describing, Template:Fairuseunknownsource, was deleted three years ago. --Carnildo (talk) 03:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

How can images of people be CC, commercial use?
I'm curious how a picture I took of a band can be uploaded to wikimedia commons for use on wikipedia without violating the band's rights? Under the CC-Share Alike license, someone could take that picture and use it to endorse a product, right? Or are we assuming that every person/band picture that's been uploaded has also had the proper model releases signed? Zokuga (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We deal with copyright. Personality rights are a seperate issue.Geni 21:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Commercial use" is a vague term and can refer to any venture that generates revenue, even running ads alongside the content. So for photos of living people, a news agency or a for-profit blog could conceivably use our content without violating the subject's personality rights, if they were to use the photo in an article that person or band or whatever.  howcheng  {chat} 17:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

More Straightforward?
I added a little part about the example. This process needs to be WAY more straightforward to the user who just wants to upload an image. It's much less straightforward than referencing text. It should be obvious in some way to the user, similar to how there is a toolbox above all edit page things, with a button for "Reference". Maybe I missed something, but this happened to me when I tried to do something before I really got involved in Wikipedia, and to a friend as well. NittyG (talk) 09:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Parts of covers
I asked here about this image and was told it's probably free; is PD-ineligible the right tag? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think PD-ineligible is right. Most likely PD-US-not renewed or something along those lines. Some of those could be PD-textlogo, but only if it's just the logo (e.g., the yellow-on-black one in the middle).  howcheng  {chat} 00:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Another editor added PD-text-logo, and it seems a reasonable choice to me. It's not PD-US-not-renewed as it was not published in the US; it was published in the UK.  If I have to I can reinstate the FUR, but it doesn't look very copyrightable to me. Mike Christie (talk) 12:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * PD-textlogo would be applicable to only the logo portion. You are still including the cover artwork that's behind the logo. You have to remember that the threshold of originality required for copyright protection is rather low. Perhaps you could try wiping out the backgrounds in an image editor?  howcheng  {chat} 17:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

USPTO: suggestion for new tag
There is a Department of Commerce (DOC) tag with several subheadings, such as Census. But there is none for the US Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO), a part of the DOC. Drawings from printed US patents are frequently helpful to illustrate points involved in litigation about the patent. The patents are government documents in which no copyright can exist. It would therefore be useful to have a tag for patent drawings, or more generally USPTO images. Could I please get some help in crfeating such a USPTO tag? PraeceptorIP (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We already have PD-US-patent.  howcheng  {chat} 00:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I mistakenly used the DofC tag but now changed it to PD-US-patent on the uploaded image. --PraeceptorIP (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)