Wikipedia talk:Public domain image resources/Archive 2

Commercial links allowed?
-since no one has replied, i will go ahead and post this. If it's an issue, just let me know and I'll remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.129.21 (talk) 14:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Collection of WWII Public Domain photos The author is making available a set of high quality public domain photos for sale on DVDs. Over 1500 can be purchased. Is this allowed to be posted here? I thought I'd ask before posting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.129.21 (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed Link
Link to a flickr account which, through random samplings, produced no Public Domain Photos, all were creative commons. Removed 69.138.74.116 (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Rainer Ebert Public Domain Photos

dubious part
the part about photo's of painings ISNT PUB DOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The people made the photo, holds it!!!! --84.82.190.130 20:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You are completely incorrect. Taking a photo of a two dimensional object in public domain doesn't give you a new copyright. See Public domain for more info. DreamGuy 08:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Recopyright of public domain works by scanning?
Is a copyright defensible on the basis that a PD image was rescanned? That is to say, I have seen image collections such as illuminated-books.com that claim copyright of their scans of old (PD) book pages. I suspect this copyright claim holds no water.

FCC?
Are images from the FCC public domain? They are an US government organisation, but I'm not sure and I can't find any information about this on their site. Michael Sch. 22:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Scanner available
I would like to help scan these images. I have two scanners, several computers and LOTS of spare time. Johnraphone

Artwork
Perhaps a silly question, but does this:


 * Accurate photographs of paintings lack expressive content and are automatically in the public domain once the painting's copyright has expired (95 years after initial publication). All other copyright notices can safely be ignored.

apply to sculpture and whatnot as well? - Montr&eacute;alais


 * If lighting, angle etc. are important, an argument for copyright could be made. Use your own judgment.  --Eloquence 22:22 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

Artist available
If anyone wants anything scientific drawn, ask me! - Zanimum howdoyoudotheremate@yahoo.com
 * You might want to list yourself here. You also might like this.  &mdash; mark &#9998; 12:10, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

New York Public Library Digital Collection
New York Public Library Digital Collection - this doesn't seem public domain. -- Taku 01:59 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)

Organizing images
Moved from Village pump

A general observation, folks. I think Wiki could do with a lot more images. It makes pages on wiki look much more attractive. In this image conscious age, endless pages of text is not overly user-friendly. Right now, it is up to each of us to track down images, and it isn't always easy to find if there is already an image elsewhere that might suit a particular page.

Is it possible for a group of people to take on the task of putting together a wiki image-bank, ie spend some time tracking down images that are not copyrighted or are available through GNU. This bank of images could be displayed not as an alkward list of jpegs but by name of the contents on a special browser button. For example I've just finished a page on the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It would have been wonderful if I could check on a list that tells me if we have any images of the UK parliament, listed simply as say and I could then easily pick an image for the page. You could have a long list subdivided, telling us if we have an image of Abraham Lincoln, Eamon de Valera (oh, we have that. I downloaded it), Sydney Opera House, Red Square, Jacques Chirac (stop the hissing, Americans! *grin*) etc etc. We could also include on the page a standard command that we could cut and paste to install the image in. It would make it easy then for people to know what we have and how to use it, rather than our rather haphazard way now, where if someone discovers we have a good image, we then have to think - ok which pages would that suit also? It would take a bit of work to get off the ground, but if we could even pull together a list of what we currently have, in simple name format saying what it isalphabetically rather than our current 'search through lists of Jpegs with variable and often useless names in the hope of just maybe finding something sometime. Any observations? STÓD/ÉÍRE 01:28 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)
 * UK Parliament (wideview)
 * UK parliament (House of Commons).

Mug shots
Are US mug shots by definition public domain? They would seem like an almost unlimited resource of portraits of current US-related persons. -- Egil 08:53 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC) (e.g. http://www.attrition.org/gallery/mugshots/tn/bill_gates.jpg.html)
 * Probably, since the photographs are made by the US government. But it would not be very NPOV to use such a mugshot as the main photo for an article. --Eloquence 22:21 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

ESA Web Portal
Are the images on the esa homepage also useable for wikipedia?

''Copyrights

The contents of the ESA Web Portal are intended for the personal and non-commercial use of its users. ESA grants permission to users to visit the site, and to download and copy information, images, documents and materials from the website for users' personal non-commercial use. ESA does not grant the right to resell or redistribute any information, documents, images or material from its website or to compile or create derivative works from material on its website. Use of material on the website is subject to the terms and conditions outlined below.

All material published on the ESA Web Portal is protected by copyright and owned or controlled by ESA or the party credited as the provider of the content, software or other material.

Users may not modify, publish, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, display or in any way exploit any of the content, software, material or services, in whole or in part, without obtaining prior written authorisation. In order to obtain authorisation to display or use any content of the ESA Web Portal, please make a request for authorization by clicking on 'Contact us'.''

User:lbs6380 So, it would seem, no, we can't use ESA materials. NASA though, I believe has public domain space images.

http://www.esa.int/export/esaCP/SEMNXVZKQAD_index_0.html

Mueller picture source
Moved from Village pump.

A question (yet again!) on copyright. I've come across a site which would be a good source for pictures of all kinds but I can't decide if the pics are public domain. Any opinions, please? Go to http://wuarchive.wustl.edu/~aminet/pix/vehic/ then click on HELP, then on SECTION 8 (Copyright Status and Disclaimer). Thanks Adrian Pingstone 09:03 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * The collection copyright that Mueller claims does not concern us, since we do not intend to setup an AmiNet mirror. What does concern us, however, is the copyright status of the photos, which are described as "freely distributable". But that claim is without legal value if it is not made by the copyright holder, so you may want to contact umueller at aminet dot net and ask for the names and email addresses of the persons who created the photos you want to use. Just putting the stuff online and describing it as "freely distributable" would be fine with me, but Brion would probably disagree again .. --Eloquence 09:14 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

UN document full of a.o. beautiful sattelite imagery
I came across this 13 Mb PDF file with hundreds of great sattelite images of any on place on earth, including whole continents.

http://www.na.unep.net/publications/selected/Selected.pdf

I already extracted one image and used it in IJsselmeer.

"Copyright 2003, United Nations Environment Programme ISBN: 92-807-2272-5 This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit purposes without special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement of the source is made. UNEP and the authors would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this report as a source. No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission in writing from the United Nations Environment Programme."

I would say this qualifies for usage in the Wikipedia. Am I right? Erik Zachte 12:12 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * To be more precise: do they qualify for inclusion in a CD-ROM distribution? Clearly they can be published on a web site. I will do so for whole world and continent images. Erik Zachte 14:05 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

User:lbs6380 I would say no. Selling a CD-ROM or even a dead-tree version of high quality articles would be a nice thing to try sometime, but UNEP would prevent that.


 * The images are interesting, but I wold not say their resolution is very good. Is the current image at IJsselmeer from the UNEP publication?  It does not look like the same one to me.  Anyway it would be good to have the images for use on articles where we do not have others. We should ask UNEP to license them to WP without the commercial clause. -Pgan002 07:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Downloading US government photos
Moved from Village pump on Friday, August 22nd, 02003.

Can we legally download photos from members of the House and Senate at http://www.senate.gov/ and http://www.house.gov? RickK 02:16, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * The best answer I could find is here: http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/Photo_Collection_of_the_Senate_Historical_Office.htm &mdash; I believe photos or prints of anything older than the oldest possible copyright (pre-Mickey Mouse) is safe. I think official portraits of senators and congressmen are probably also safe, but we could always just ask.  Daniel Quinlan 03:43, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)


 * As I understood it -- the general rule was anything "state" -- with a .gov origin (unless explicitly states that its used by permission of a 3rd party) is fair game. - &#25140;&#30505sv 05:06, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)


 * It's not state, it's federal. Local and state governmental bodies are exempted from the law.  Only the federal government is forbidden from holding a copyright, and there are a couple loopholes/exceptions that allow it to hold a copyright or two. -- Ram-Man 11:07, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

Police mugshots
Are police mugshots PD? - user:zanimum

Webshots
A question about webshots, http://community.webshots.com, a big site with images donated by individuals. These are their terms: http://www.webshots.com/html/terms.html. Is this consistent with GNU/FDL? Ellywa 08:02, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

About openphoto: This site uses the CC-BY license. This allows distribution under other terms, such as the GFDL. So we can use them here. Just make sure proper attribution is used.

Using GNU FDL images from fr:wikipedia and is gallica.bnf.fr PD?
How should I best use GNU FDL images from other wikipedia, such as this nice annotated photo of Lake Annecy over on ? Can I link it directly or must I save as and upload to the english wiki?
 * I just found it was discussed on Wikipedia_talk:Interlanguage_links by User:Anthere, but is not possible, yet. Wikibob 23:27, 2004 Mar 7 (UTC)
 * I've now copied them from the french wiki, as it seems not possible to link directly.-Wikibob 21:22, 2004 Mar 16 (UTC)

Secondly the PD page lists http://gallica.bnf.fr/ under general collections, but is it Ok to use pictures found there, or must I request their permission?

I found some nice historical photos of Annecy, France, here but I see they are marked copyright Caisse nationale des Monuments historiques:

Type : image fixe, recueil de pièces

Auteur(s) :  Seeberger frères. Photographe Titre(s) :  [Chamonix, Haute-Savoie, et région Rhône-Alpes, 1900-1925] [Image fixe numérisée] / Frères Séeberger, photogr. Publication : [St Cyr] : [Direction du Patrimoine. Archives du patrimoine photographique], [1900-1925] Description matérielle : 28 photogr. pos. sur film (internégatifs) et 4 photogr. neg. sur verre : n. et b. ; 13 x 18 cm Note(s) :  Acq. : Archives photographiques (Médiathèque du Patrimoine) (c) Caisse nationale des Monuments historiques Tournage : 19000000-19250000 Sujet(s) :  Grande Chartreuse Logement rural Randonnée pédestre Tramways Marchés Vie religieuse et monastique Ponts Gares Annecy (Haute-Savoie) -- Scènes Annecy, Lac de (France) Chamonix-Mont-Blanc (Haute-Savoie) Mer de Glace (France) Grenoble (Isère) Chambéry (Savoie) Domaine(s) :  Société ; Tourisme ;

Notice n° : FRBNF38497067

I first searched Images for the town of Annecy itself but found none. Wikibob 22:15, 2004 Mar 7 (UTC)

geekphilosopher.com PD?
I wanted to use images from but their notice seems to preclude their use in wikipedia, has this been discussed before? Here's the (long) notice:

About Our Free Stock Photo Collection, Public Domain, and Copyright Law

It is a good idea to question the origin of "Free" stock photos. You or your company could be held liable for publishing copyright protected content. The GeekPhilosopher stock photo collection is assembled from our own studio, public domain, and expired copyright photos. Several photos have been altered with cropping, creative filters, color corrections, or general repairs. Note that photographs including people have an important restriction. If a person is recognizable in the photo, you cannot legally use the image for commercial purposes, even though the photo is in the public domain. The GeekPhilosopher has made a good-faith effort to ensure that this photograph selection is free of all copyright restrictions. However, we do not guarantee the collection to be copyright-free and assume no liability or responsibility for any copyright infringement errors. The following description of our collection will help you make an informed decision concerning its use.

1.  	GeekPhilosopher photography studio: These photos are labeled "Photo courtesy of GeekPhilosopher.com - your premier source for free stock photos." We took these photos and we own the copyright. You are free to do whatever you want with these photos except redistribute them.

2.  	Federal Government:  Although there are exceptions, works of the federal government are in the public domain (see item 8 in Copyright law. Who needs it?). Each site from which we obtained these photos explicitly stated that they are public information. The list below links to the pages which identifies the content as public information. The verbiage at each site is similar to this notice from the Air Force, "Information presented on Air Force Link is considered public information and may be distributed or copied. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested." These photos are labeled as follows:

"Bureau of Land Management photo courtesy of GeekPhilosopher.com" - Bureau of Land Management

"EPA photo courtesy of GeekPhilosopher.com" - Environmental Protection Agency

"NASA photo courtesy of GeekPhilosopher.com" - NASA Image Exchange

"U.S. Air Force photo courtesy of GeekPhilosopher.com" - Air Force Link

"U.S. Army photo courtesy of GeekPhilosopher.com" - Army Link

"U.S. Centcom photo courtesy of GeekPhilosopher.com" - Centcom

"U.S. Defend America photo courtesy of GeekPhilosopher.com" - Defend America

"U.S. DOD photo courtesy of GeekPhilosopher.com" - Defense Link

"US Fish and Wildlife photo courtesy of GeekPhilosopher.com" - USFW National Image Library

"US Geological Survey photo courtesy of GeekPhilosopher.com" - U.S. Geological Survey

"U.S. Marines photo courtesy of GeekPhilosopher.com" - Marines

"U.S. Navy photo courtesy of GeekPhilosopher.com" - Navy Newstand

"National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration photo courtesy of GeekPhilosopher.com" - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

"National Park Service photo courtesy of GeekPhilosopher.com" - National Park Service

"USACE photo courtesy of GeekPhilosopher.com" - US Army Corps of Engineers

"USDA photo courtesy of GeekPhilosopher.com" - USDA - additional USDA photos - USDA

"USDA NRCS photo courtesy of GeekPhilosopher.com" - NRCS

"NASA STScI photo courtesy of GeekPhilosopher.com" - Space Telescope Science Institute

"Mineral Management Service photo courtesy of GeekPhilosopher.com" - Mineral Management Service

"USBR photo courtesy of GeekPhilosopher.com" - US Bureau of Reclamation

"US Customs & Border Protection photo courtesy of GeekPhilosopher.com" - US Customs & Border Protection

"Ben's Guide photo courtesy of GeekPhilosopher.com" - Ben's Guide to U.S.Government

"OSHA photo courtesy of GeekPhilosopher.com" - U.S. Dept of Labor OSHA

"ARM photo courtesy of GeekPhilosopher.com" - Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program

"Administration on Aging photo courtesy of GeekPhilosopher.com" - Administration on Aging

"cancer.gov photo courtesy of GeekPhilosopher.com" - cancer.gov

"National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health photo courtesy of GeekPhilosopher.com" - National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health

3.  	Public Domain: These photos are labeled as follows: "Jon Sullivan photo courtesy of GeekPhilosopher.com" - Jon Sullivan:   Jon Sullivan is a rare breed, a true Renaissance guy, who takes excellent photos and has released them into the public domain.

"Teaching Politics photo courtesy of GeekPhilosopher.com" - Teaching Politics

2.  	Expired copyright:  Generally, the copyright has expired on materials created before 1923 (see item 8 in Copyright law. Who needs it?). Images which we obtained from the Library of Congress have expired copyrights.

Expired works of art have an additional caveat. When someone produces a photo that is indistinguishable from other photographs of the same work, the photo is not considered an original art creation. Therefore, the photographer does not hold any copyright on the photo itself (see WebMuseum, Paris Copyright laws around the world ). That said, the GeekPhilosopher art images are obtained from ibiblio, "a diverse and expansive collection of information on the Internet, created and maintained by the public, for the public.":

"Nicolas Pioch photo courtesy of GeekPhilosopher.com" - Nicolas Pioch

Most photo sources request a photo credit. This professional courtesy should be extended. The credit does not have to appear on the same page as the photo, but your web site should have an active page that acknowledges the source of its photos. We appreciate links to GeekPhilosopher as well:)

It is not permitted to offer downloads of the GeekPhilosopher images.

Does that last line, and the earlier injunction against redistribution, prevent their use here? Wikibob 22:51, 2004 Mar 7 (UTC)

Do we need two National Park sections?
There is currently two National Park sections in this article. I'd like to combine them into the one under Nature/Science. Comments? - Bevo 18:31, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Microsoft Office Cliparts - public domain or not?
Does anyone know whether the clipart images that come with Microsoft Office are public domain or not? If yes, we'd have another good image and multimedia source for Wikipedia (there are not only cliparts but also good quality photos). -- 195.33.105.17 13:29, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Here is an excerpt from Microsoft's terms of use:
 * You may copy and modify the Media Elements, and license, display and distribute them, along with your modifications as part of your software products and services, including your web sites, but you are not licensed to do any of the following:


 * 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.
 * You may not grant customers of your product or service any rights to license or distribute the Media Elements.
 * You may not license or distribute any of the Media Elements that include representations of identifiable individuals, governments, logos, initials, emblems, trademarks, or entities for any commercial purposes or to express or imply any endorsement or association with any product, service, entity, or activity.
 * You may not create obscene or scandalous works, as defined by federal law at the time the work is created, using the Media Elements.


 * In addition, you must (a) indemnify and defend Microsoft from and against any claims or lawsuits, including attorneys' fees that arise from or result from the licensing, use or distribution of Media Elements as modified by you, and (b) include a valid copyright notice on your products and services that include the Media Elements.

Does this say the cliparts are not public domain? -- 195.33.105.17 13:43, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * "You may not grant customers of your product ... any rights to ... distribute the Media Elements" - No GFDL then. &rarr;Raul654 16:45, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

Public Domain Photo resource
I recently stumbled across this site which offers royalty-free public domain photos. The ones I looked at were nice high quality and of a decent size. Is anyone else aware of this resource? Rossumcapek 16:10, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * This is my site. Over the years I've watched with much pride as Wikipedia has used more and more of my photos. In fact the wide use of pdphoto.org is one of the best things that has ever happened to me. I've been puttering around the Wikipedia commons area and found the list of requested photos. I'll be going after some of those. Also - My one year self-imposed exile from the world is over, so I'll actually be answering email now if people need to contact me. --y6y6y6 00:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Soviet pre-1973
If   is true (please make it a link), it should be added to the article.

Above was posted on 17:57, 2004 Aug 30 by User:80.58.3.174; I've made the link to Template:Sovietpd (Template talk:Sovietpd) and subst'd the template sans category, but no idea if it is true or not. -Wikibob | Talk 16:23, 2004 Sep 25 (UTC)
 * I seriously doubt that it applies worldwide. If I published a book both here and in the Soviet Union in 1970, I don't think the Soviets can invalidate my copyright here in the United States, or anywhere outside the former SU, for that matter. 'Worldwide' would only apply to materials only copyrighted in the Soviet Union, and not anywhere else. (IANACL, so take that last bit with salt.) grendel|khan 23:51, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)

http://www.olympic.org/uk/athletes/heroes/bio_uk.asp?PAR_I_ID=58689

Are all images there public domain?


 * Hard to say without knowing who took the photos; the website marks each photo with
 * Credit: IOC Olympic Museum Collections
 * but also states:
 * Photos: if no other mentions : © Getty Images news and sport and/or © IOC/Olympic Museum Collections.
 * -Wikibob | Talk 14:00, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)

John Leech Archive
I notice that someone has listed the John Leech Archive (which is one of my sites). Although I haven't said so on the site I have an email from Punch confirming that John Leech's work is completely public domain (he died in 1864 and 70 years was up in 1934). I have got another 1500 or so images of his on paper (title indexed) so if anyone is looking for anything special from that period I don't mind trying to help --BozMo|talk 15:00, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Question about fair use
I was very excited when I saw the link to the Louvre's collection listed as public domain, since I'd like to add a lot more images into the Art history category. But just to make sure: does that mean that all of these images are public domain and can be uploaded onto Wikipedia? What about these? --&#913;&#955;&#949;&#958; &#931; 16:47, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

marxists.org
Is http://www.marxists.org/glossary/ actually PD? See. --Iustinus 23:46, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Having corresponded with the editor in charge of the marxists.com gallery, it seems that only TEXTS on that site are guaranteed to be free. The images are from various sources, some of which MAY be PD. This being the case, I removed the site from this page. --Iustinus 08:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Public domain?
I just noticed that a lot of these links aren't to public domain resources. Some of them are to copyrighted image resources which allow very broad use. This isn't so bad, but maybe it'd be better to include these links on a different page. Some of them link to copyright image resources with licenses which only allow non-commercial use, images which we aren't supposed to be using on Wikipedia at all! anthony 13:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I whole-heartedly agree. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 19:17, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Images that are not 100% Public domain, i.e., Copyleft images are still worthwhile and links to them are important, especially for teachers. We get much higher quality images from Museums, historical databases, etc and can use them as long as we don't sell them or include in a commerical product. I propose having a Copyleft image database page to augment the 'strict' Public Domain image resource page.

National Portrait Gallery
The British National Portrait Gallery (http://www.npg.org.uk/live/index.asp) contains a wealth of images that could be used to illustrate UK bio articles. Most of them are photos of paintings or drawings. However, the gallery itself places restrictions on the re-use of its pictures on a website, requiring a signed license and a payment that the gallery determines. If these pictures had been subject to U.S. jurisdiction, many of them would be public domain (see the template). Of course U.S. law does not apply within the U.K., but can anyone say for certain what is the legal status of NPG portraits whose artist died more than 100 years ago? David Brooks 01:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The copyrights of the portraits, and that of the pictures of those portraits, are strongly separable under UK law - IANAL, but I looked into this a while back on wikien-l, and am reasonably confident of this. If we could scan them ourselves we'd be fine, but as there's no Bridgeman v. Corel equivalent (nor is there likely to be one), the existing NPG pictures are legally protected under British law. It's a pity, but... Shimgray 12:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Sports
Not exactly swimming in sports image resources, are we? Ben davison 01:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

screen grab?
Does a screen grab from a broadcast talk show qualify as a fair use image? I don't see how that might be a copyrighted image. Could someone please let me know about this since I'd like to use such an image for an article. Hulleye 11:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Online archives and their disclaimers
The Brown University Archive of African American Sheet Music would be a wonderful addition to the list. However, on each image page, they include this disclaimer: "This object is available for public use. Individuals interested in reproducing this object in a publication, web site or for any commercial purpose must first receive written permission from the Brown University Library." The images in question are very old, and should easily fall within public domain. I've seen similar disclaimers at other online archives of PD material. Can they do this? (Incidentally, I haven't contacted them, and they might be very nice about letting Wikipedia use their images. I just want some ideas on whether they have the right to make such a demand in the first place.) Amcaja 14:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Free image resource review site
I found a pretty interesting site with reviews of free image resources here. -- Jugalator 00:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Public domain map generator
The article claims:
 * http://www.aquarius.geomar.de/omc/ Public domain map generator

OMC appears to use the GNU GPL GMT suite of tools, and the gmt website states: ''GMT is developed and maintained by Paul Wessel and Walter H. F. Smith with help from a global set of volunteers, and is supported by the National Science Foundation. It is released under the GNU General Public License.'' I'm assuming this means the software itself is GPL, but that the maps produced are PD. I saw nothing restricting use of the maps on either the OMC nor the GMT site.

However, www.aquarius.geomar.de also has a link to a so-called free map site: but that has a cc-by license with an additional restriction (I've munged the address):
 * http://www.planiglobe.com/omc_set.html

''Welcome and thanks for reading this document! Please feel free to contact us, if you have any questions regarding the license: info (at) planiglobe (dot) com Section 1: No Navigation

You may not use the maps for navigational purposes or in navigation systems of any kind. Section 2: Other Usages

For all other usages the following license applies: Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License. Section 3: Attribution

You may not conceal or obscure the copyright tag and the origin of the maps from www.planiglobe.com. Section 4: Comply to Terms of Use

By accessing www.planiglobe.com you also agree to the regulations as defined under terms of use.''

So it seems to be that Section 1 makes the maps nonfree for commons purposes. Does this seem correct? -Wikibob 19:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Free image resources
I understand that some sites on here offer both free and public domain images. However, sites that only offer only free images should not be here. Thus, I am creating Free image resources and moving appropriate sites to that page. Superm401 - Talk 18:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've also completely removed the whole paragraph bout US stamps after 1978, as they are neither PD nor free. Superm401 - Talk 18:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm removing some that aren't even freely licensed. Superm401 - Talk 19:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

National Security Archive
If the NSA archives only work created by the U.S. Government, can I take it for granted that, say, photographs in the Archive are in the public domain and can thus be freely uploaded to Commons? Angr (t • c) 08:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Problem uploading new version of a map + request help with colours
I try to replace with User:Daanschr/ Maptest, but it can't be replaced anymore by the new map.

I like to make the links to Wikipedia articles in white if that is possible. Could the lines under the words be deleted?--Daanschr 20:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Iran et al.
Can somebody please check and, if necessary, amend the public domain arguments of this page regarding works made in countries without copyright treaties with the United States vis-à-vis and the corresponding section of WP:PD? —xyzzyn 01:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I was just going to post something about that. —Bkell (talk) 01:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I removed the whole section. If I was too bold, we can have a pleasant chat here. —Bkell (talk) 02:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think it was too much. A note that such sources are inappropriate for Wikipedia could be in order (do we have a template for that sort of notice?), and I wouldn't be opposed to shortening the list, but I feel it is a worthwhile section. If nothing else, it calls attention to the fact that the copyright nonreciprocity exists. CRGreathouse (talk • contribs) 07:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The copyright nonreciprocity apparently does exist legally, but as far as Wikipedia's concerned it doesn't. This list was in the Wikipedia namespace. If you think it's valuable to mention the copyright nonreciprocity, the appropriate place to do so would be in an article about international copyright relations. (It's probably already mentioned somewhere.) —Bkell (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I didn't even realize the namespace change. In that case I have no problem with its removal. CRGreathouse (talk • contribs) 23:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

LOC American Memory donor restrictions
The article instructs "Library of Congress American Memory site (Check copyright information for the separate items before deciding to use them!)" Problem is, I don't find identification of donors in the catalog, much less donor restrictions. The example of the moment is the | (Talk) "First Nine" lithograph of the Cincinnati Red Stockings (referenced by links [2] and [3] near the bottom of the stub). About Restrictions, LOC says "While the Library is unaware of any U.S. copyright protection (see Title 17, U.S.C.) or any other restrictions on the materials reproduced in the By Popular Demand: Jackie Robinson and Other Baseball Highlights 1860s-1960s (except where indicated in the information that accompanies certain items), there may be content protected by copyright or neighboring-rights laws of other nations. Additionally there may be restrictions placed by donors on the use of materials. [emphasis mine]" OK, who is the donor of this item? Is there some comprehensive implication I am missing? Eg, do donor restrictions pertain only to unpublished items? --P64 02:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

restored content
Since 14 Sept there have been a steady stream of spammers replacing content and their additions being deleted rather than the page restored. I have put back in most of the missing sections from the 14 Sept version I am sorry if anyone had improved some of them before they got deleted but I cannot go through every version. Please could everyone REVERT not delete spam. Thanks --BozMo talk 11:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Legal advice?
Regarding reproduction of visual arts made prior to 1923, we say "All other copyright notices can safely be ignored." This has been here for years, since almost the earliest page revision. Is this a good thing to say? Are we certain that this is widely applicable? Does this potentially constitute legal advice? (So asserted here.) How confident are we that Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. is a sweeping, permanent precedent, or do we rely on some other authoritative opinion for that? --Dhartung | Talk 18:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Flickr
You can filter flickr search for copyright free images. http://flickr.com/search/advanced/?q=conan Joerite 04:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Liability
Who is liable for copyrighted images being reproduced on wikipedia? Wikipedia or the uploader?--Moonlight Mile 23:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia says that the uploader is responsible. But I think if somone wanted to make an issue of it they could try to go after Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nut-meg (talk • contribs) 18:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

Tore:"Typical...I went  to one  of  these  public domain clip art pages...and lowest row had copyright statement.

!!!"

Removed link
To the national gallery, per the statment on the website:

National Gallery London: Copyright Notice

Website Copyright

The contents of this site, including all images and text, are protected by copyright. All material is provided for browsing and viewing purposes only. No copies of the digital images or text may be made except for personal use.

'Personal use' means non-commercial, domestic use by an individual involving the making of only single copies of each digital image.

Per WP:ICT, "For an image to be considered "free" under Wikipedia's Image use policy, the license must permit both commercial reuse and derivative works."

A!=B. Alas. I'll check out the others, as well, as I have time, and post results here. I think this is a pretty important inventory insofar as preventing good-faith-but-potentially-vio uploads usages. Anyone who wants to pitch in by checking out the provided links and their copyright notices, as well, it'd be much appreciated.

Best wishes, Wikipedians!

Wysdom 22:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

National portrait gallery removed, as above.

From the site:

COPYRIGHT

Permissions and prohibitions

The National      Portrait Gallery's website is here for your enjoyment. Without      further permission, you may:


 * access, download        and/or print contents for non-commercial private research and         study purposes
 * print forms to        enable you to order products and services from the NPG.

Louvre removed, as above. From the site:

Information may only be used for personal, associative, or professional reasons; all use for commercial or advertising purposes is strictly forbidden.

Web Gallery of Art removed, as per above. From the site:

The Web Gallery of Art is copyrighted as a database. Images and documents downloaded from this database can only be used for educational and personal purposes. Distribution of the images in any form is prohibited without the authorization of their legal owner.

Rijksmuseum removed, as per above. From the site:

Use of pictures and text found on the Rijksmuseum website

Copyright on this website is held by the Rijksmuseum. Some of the art works shown on the website are protected by copyright. Permission from the copyright owner or his or her legal representative is needed if these works are to be used in any other way than viewing them on the Internet.

With the exception of storing one single temporary copy in the memory of one single computer and making one permanent copy for the end user, the information on this site may be used only after receiving written permission from the Rijksmuseum. This applies in particular to the multiplication and distribution of pictures and texts and to the framing of pictures and texts in other websites.

For the commercial use of pictures, material suitable for reproduction can be ordered (against payment) from the Rijksmusem's Photo Archive.

arglist.com
My website has approximately 1000 photos, http://arglist.com/photos/, although I'm not sure if it meets the criteria for inclusion in this list. Photographer's copyright is waived, but I don't make any guarantees about third party rights. In most cases there won't be any. Ghouston 13:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Are photos of stained glass from a church considered published or unpublished?
I took an unexpressive photo from a stained glass image in a church. The cornerstone said 1907, and I believe the stained glass is about the same age. Is this photo in the public domain? Does it belong to the church? Does it belong to the unknown artist? Is it considered published or unpublished? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Epiphyllumlover (talk • contribs) 02:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Pictures of tall ships
This page states

"For a selection of royalty free high resolution downloads click here. Please photo credit Sail Training International unless otherwise stated." Perhaps worth checking with the organisation for inclusion on wiki. Deadstar 09:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible site? State Library of NSW
I originally phrased this question at Wikipedia talk:Public domain. Basically, the state library has a website. It incorporates scanned images of photographs. The photos themselves would qualify for PD-Australia but the State Library claims copyright of the scanned image.

After a week on that talk page with no reply I'm asking here: are they entitled to claim copyright where no artistic effort has been made - I am assuming by looking at the resulting images that no touching up etc has been done, the photos seem to have been bulk scanned potentially by machine.

Is this an example of copyfraud, or a fair claim to copyright?

Thanks,Garrie 21:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this statement sufficient to declare an image free?
John Carter 18:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Any word on this? Aepoutre 21:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The FAQ page says: "Are clip art images free? YES. You have permission to use images on the Clip Art page. The clip art files can be used for web sites, church bulletins, newsletters, fliers, and much more!" Is this sufficient? Anyone? Is posting here a waste of time? Aepoutre 14:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use vs. Public Domain
http://content.lib.washington.edu/costumehistweb/index.html - pulled up this site in a search of some old-style PD images - it is one of the listed links on image resources page. Did not find anything in the public domain. All images are released under fair use and anything more than personal use of these images requires permission from the site owner. I do not feel it should remain on the site link listing as it is not a PD site.--71.60.32.191 (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything that would make the images copyrighted. They were published before 1923, and the scanning process was done without any creative effort. --Carnildo (talk) 06:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

YouTube
Can an article link to YouTube clips? Fainites barley 22:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It's time to reconcile this with the version at META
Obviously, it's forked and diverged. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  17:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

LA County Sheriff's Department - public domain?
I'm not American, so would prefer confirmation of what I think is true (based on the use of mugshots on WP).

I've just authored William Queen, and article about the author and former ATF agent. The NYT review of his book includes two photos of him, and one of them is credited to "The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department". Is this public domain, and can I therefore filch it for the article? Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)