Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2008/December

Use of Wiki information on a membership website

I have read and think I understand the terms of the license and copyleft provisions. However, I'd like to ask a clarifying question:

If the information from Wikipedia is used on a pay-access site, I would understand that information to be opaque and to be subject to the electronic distribution guidelines. Am I correct? Is a link back to the original article sufficient for attribution and transparent copy under the license?

Thanks so much

Vlntr85 (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The matter of charging for access isn't actually relevant; a transparent copy would be HTML source, wikitext, or perhaps a .txt copy of the file. Stifle (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia logo FUR

I was under the impression that the Wikipedia on Wikipedia did not require a fair-use rationale, but apparently I was wrong. I have undone the bot edit pending discussion here, but I have no idea what is going on. — neuro^(talk) 06:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

By the letter of the criteria, it does. I'm pretty sure there's a de facto exception for Wikipedia logos outside article space though. --NE2 06:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I realise that it should per the criteria, but I seem to remember some consensus a while back that a fair-use rationale was not required for the Wikipedia logo at least, due to the fact that it already existed on the page (at the top left). Hm. — neuro^(talk) 06:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The reason why a non-free use rationale is required for the Wikipedia logo is the same as for any other non-free content: Wikipedia has a goal of producing reuable content, and the fact that the copyright owner (in this case Wikimedia Foundation) does not license the content (in this case the logo) under a free license, hampers the reusability of any page where it is used. The requirement of a non-free use rationale assures that the content is used only where it is essential to the article. —teb728 t c 21:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

On the assumption that this means I was wrong, the image has been removed from the rotation until I can create one without the logo. — neuro^(talk) 13:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Wait, Commons accepts them without a rationale. Sorted. — neuro^(talk) 13:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

how to prepare Cu(1)Cl using Cu as a redusing agent.

how to prepare Cu(1)Cl using Cu as a redusing agent.i want exact procedure.and i want to prepare in the lab.

You may want to ask at the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. This page is for questions about copyright. (EhJJ)^TALK 12:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misevaluation, but it is our policy here to not do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn how to solve such problems. Please attempt to solve the problem yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. Thank you. Physchim62 (talk) 12:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Shaun Williamson Photograph

So I took a photograph. I own the copyright. It keeps getting deleted - why!? I own the copyright!! preceding comment added by Fatbobsufc, 19:59 2 December 2008

When you uploaded it did you go to Wikipedia:Upload and select "Entirely my own work". Did you then chose an appropriate license before uploading? Mfield (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The image was listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 November 16#Image:Shaunwilliamson.jpg for two weeks before it was deleted the first time, and no one replied. The nomination reason given there was, “Source website is all rights reserved, uploader implies that they are the copyright holder through the use of a tag, but not explicitly.” You were notified of the nomination on your user talk page. —teb728 t c 04:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Logo?

Can I iupload a Logo I made myself as part of the company? Like I created the comapny, and would like to upload the logo so people could see the logo and understand it...... How could I fill-in the correct information? - Thanks, Alec2011 (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Both Worlds Logo.PNG looks like it is just text; so you could tag it with {{PD-ineligible}}, admitting that it contains no creativity. Or you could tag it with a WP:ICT/FL, which would allow anyone to reuse it for anything, including commercial use and modification. Or you could tag it with {{non-free logo}} and provide a non-free use rationale for each use. —teb728 t c 05:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Image's new version and name

Hi, I want to know if we change the image's version to another version, how can we change the image name? I want to know because I want to change the Image:Fairwind.jpg to another version and I also want to change the image's name too. Thank You.

You can only rename an image by uploading a copy of the image under another name. You can "change" an image to a new version by uploading a new version of the image over the top of the existing image (see the link on the image description page). If you are trying to move the image aside to use the name for a different image - consider just uploading your image under a different name. For example: Image:Fairwind album cover.jpg or Image:Fairwind at port.jpg. Megapixie (talk) 11:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hersch_lauterpacht.jpg

Hey guys, I recently found a photo of Hersch Lauterpacht on a Cambridge site (exact site is listed on image page). Lauterpacht has been dead since the 1800s to I presume that the copyright to any photos has expired, but to err on the safe side, the image has been placed as fair use. Is the image public domain? Or should it stay fair use? Thanks and happy editing! Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 11:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about the dead since the 1800s the article says he died in 1960 so it may not be public domain. The source link shows a different image so you need to show the actual source of the image used. The fair use rationale would be reasonable if it was for use in the article Hersch Lauterpacht but in the Country article it really is being used for decoration which is probably not appropriate for a non-free image. I would suggest provide a source for the image and change the rationale to use it on the subjects article. MilborneOne (talk) 11:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh god I am so muddled up. Sorry for wasting your time. Just confusing several different website links and people's death dates. Happy editing! Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 13:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Batman222.jpg

User:Stifle has tagged Image:Batman222.jpg as a candidate for speedy deletion with the rationale that "Images of comic covers may only be used in the article about that comic". Could someone point me towards the policy page that declares this? Thanks. --Captain Infinity (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Start by looking at the {{non-free comic}} tag on the image. None of the uses listed in the tag applies to the usage. Then read WP:NFCC, particularly #1 and #8. The text gives all the explanation that is needed; no image is needed for readers to understand the text. —teb728 t c 18:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

What's Missing?

Loaded Image:Air Force Secretary Michael B. Donley 01.jpg with all necessary info including where the image came from (http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/080722-F-2270A-308.JPG -- which is image page inside Air Force Link web-site); who created it (i.e. U.S. Air Force), and fact the this image, like all U.S. Governement images, is Public Domain. Nevertheless, image-bot tagged it with notice that says those things are missing. If somethings missing I'll be glad to fix it, but everything needed to varify source/author/copyright status/etc is there. What's wrong?--Orygun (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The {{information}} template was not closed. Perhaps that prevented the bot from recognising the source and licensing. I have closed the template and removed the bot's tag. —teb728 t c 01:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!--Orygun (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Windows xp logo

Is it fine to license this image under the licenses its i released it under? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Asuseee.JPG

It has the designed for xp logo on it.--Thunderpenguin (talk) 02:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. See de minimis. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Best copyright tag for image from a theatrical performance

I've uploaded Image:Tennant and Tchaikowsky as Hamlet and Yorick.jpg for use in Yorick and Andrzej Czajkowski. (I think the use of a famous pianist's skull in a prominent production of Hamlet merits an image, and all images from this production will be copyrighted to the Royal Shakespeare Company.) At the moment, the image uses {{Non-free historic image}}, which was the closest fit I could find. I also considered {{Non-free promotional}}, but that says that it can be used only to illustrate "the person(s), product, event, or subject in question". Since neither of the two uses is for an article on this particular production of Hamlet, that didn't seem to fit. Or am I reading that too closely?

Is there a better copyright tag for this image? Do we need a copyright tag for "copyrighted image of live performance", for circumstances like this in which no free image should really exist? ("The taking of photographs during the performance is prohibited.") Do the copyright experts here agree that this is an appropriate case of fair use (given the commentary in Yorick and Andrzej Czajkowski about the use of this particular skull in this particular production)? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don’t believe its presence significantly increases readers’ understanding of the articles, as required by WP:NFCC#8. The associated text in the articles is perfectly understandable without it. The subject is adequately conveyed by that text without an image at all; so it fails also WP:NFCC#1. —teb728 t c 23:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not so sure about NFCC#!: the image is strikingly educational and I think it would survive IFD on those grounds. However it is quite possibly replaceable. It may be used when the play moves to London. Photos will be copyright to the photographer, not the theatre company (won't they?), so get a press pass to the preview in London and take some photos. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 23:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's correct. The same image is credited here to "Ellie Kurttz/RSC", suggesting that the photographer and the company share the copyright. As for taking a photograph during the London production, a) the production is completely sold out, b) I doubt that a press pass, even were one available, would grant any photographic rights, and c) according to this source, "it is yet to be decided if Mr Tennant will use the skull" in the London performances.

However, I agree with Hroðulf that the photograph is educational, and conveys information in a more striking fashion than the text does. (I wouldn't have uploaded it otherwise. And please note that I didn't attempt to add the image to David Tennant, since I don't think that its use in that article can be justified.)

And none of this answers my original question: assuming that this image does meet NFCC requirements, which copyright tag is the most appropriate?—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Part of the original question was "Do the copyright experts here agree that this is an appropriate case of fair use…?" It probably would be fair use, but Wikipedia's policy on non-free content is significantly more restrictive than fair use. Sorry for not pointing that out before. —teb728 t c 21:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

In Wikipedia's policy it’s not enough for the photo to be educational and “striking.” The standards are: “Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.” And: “Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?” These uses fail both. —teb728 t c 21:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I am fully aware that Wikipedia's NFCC is more restrictive than fair use; when I said "appropriate case of fair use" I was using an outdated locution, for which I apologize. (It's not that long ago that the non-free content criteria were called fair use criteria, and I used the old term by mistake.)

I took Hroðulf's "strikingly educational" as shorthand for "significantly increases readers' understanding", which I think this image does in these two articles. The image conveys how Czajkowski's skull was used in performance more clearly than text alone could. And I think that the image conveys more information than the text alone does, or could, because it shows Czajkowski's skull in particular (as opposed to any random skull, real or plastic) being used in a performance context. If people disagree, please take the image to IFD, where a wider consensus can be determined. For the purposes of this page, I'm still interested in finding the most appropriate copyright tag. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Indeed: I intended "strikingly educational" as shorthand for "significantly increases readers' understanding by a large margin". From my limited experience of IFD, your defence of the image meets the community's interpretation of NFCC#1. The image also conveys pose, facial expression and more.
• There may be other tags, but {{Non-free historic image}} seems suitable.
• I know nothing about press passes for theatrical performances/dress rehearsals/press previews, and accept your explanation.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 23:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Also...

While puttering around Andrzej Czajkowski, I discovered Image:Andrzej czajkowski.jpg, which has the copyright tag {{PD-Poland}}. Is this deprecated? Is the image in fact free, or would it need a different copyright tag and a non-free use rationale to be used in Andrzej Czajkowski? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Parts of covers

OKBot has just tagged Image:Authentic cover banners.jpg with {{Non-free reduce}}, which is fair as it has a fair-use rationale at the moment. However, is this in fact something that would be copyrighted? It doesn't show any of the actual cover images, only the style of the headings. Thanks for any help. Mike Christie (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to meet the threshold of originality that US law requires (I am not a lawyer.) Suggest move the image to Commons, as it is not fair use, it is free. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Will do. What would be the appropriate licensing tag? Mike Christie (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

If you move it to Commons, commons:Template:PD-textlogo would be the one that reflects my 'threshold of originality' proposal. There is a similar template here on English Wikipedia: {{PD-textlogo}} --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 23:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this Image okay to upload?

I am looking to upload two images scanned from Chevrolet Caprice brochures for the Chevrolet Caprice article. These images are cutaway drawings that were used for advertisment purposes and distributed freely by General Motors in brochures. Since the images are cutaway diagrams of cars, there are no free images available in there place. Do these images qualify under the fair use rationale?

Caprice 96 (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything that would prevent a talented artist from drawing a similar diagram and releasing it under a free license? Why do we have to use the copyrighted image? Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably not, they are very detailed drawings. If there was a free version of this image to use, then I'd use it. As far as I am aware there are no free versions of cutaway drawaings of the Chevrolet Caprice.

Caprice 96 (talk) 04:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The use in the article would have to include discussion such that seeing a cutaway diagram is essential to understanding the article. —teb728 t c 04:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe the diagram is essential to the article, but it would help to better understand the construction of the car. I would say the diagram would improve the article and the reader's understanding of the subject, but it is not essential.

Caprice 96 (talk) 11:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a goal of producing reusable content. Using non-free content interferes with the reusability of an article. So as a mater of policy Wikipedia strongly restricts the use of non-free images. It is not enough that the diagram would somewhat improve the article and the reader’s understanding of the subject. Its presence must significantly increase readers’ understanding of the topic, so that its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. (See WP:NFCC#8.) If the purpose of the image is to show the construction of the car, the article would have to include significant discussion of the construction of the car. And (as Calliopejen1 pointed out) we can’t use a non-free image if someone could create a free equivalent that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. (See WP:NFCC#1.) —teb728 t c 00:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair-use "low-resolution" vector graphics?

I've often seen fair use justifications like this one for Image:UPS logo.svg:

"The logo is a size and resolution sufficient to maintain the quality intended by the company or organization, without being unnecessarily high resolution."

No part of this statement is remotely accurate, because an SVG cannot have a "resolution" in any meaningful sense. Anyone can scale it down to ten pixels or up to ten thousand. If a low level of detail is truly a fair use requirement, then this image fails it. Can we just write "not applicable" in that field, instead of lying to ourselves? ~ Booya ^Bazooka 08:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the template {{SVG-logo}} already says that you're not supposed to render it any larger than absolutely necessary. If you feel like hacking around with {{logo fur}} then feel free. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Prophet Mohammed

Dear Sir/Madam

Could you please take off the picture posted on your website  representing prophet Mohammed.

Islam prohibts its display and Muslim all over world will be highly obilged and thankfull if you remove it as soon as possible. So that our faith in wiki pedia reamins fine

Thanks Dr Shah Hobart Australia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.130.110 (talk) 12:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia is not censored. You can add your input at Talk:Muhammad/images, but realize that this has been discussed before and that the community has decided to keep the respectful, historical images in the article. This page contains instructions for you to set up your computer so that the images do not show when you personally view the article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

electric motor

the principle of conversation of electrical energy into mechanical energy by electromagnetic means was demonstrted by the brithish scientist named MICHAEL FARADAY....

[[ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.172.183 (talk) 13:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If you have any general knowledge questions, you should ask at our reference desk. Have you read our articles Michael Faraday and Electric motor? Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

moogles with sqauare enix & their copyright

hi my name is julian, I wonder if you can help me, i would like to get permission from square enix in order to be able to legally use the name moogle and similar images to a moogle on my new web site, thier use would only be a tiny part of the site. Could you please tell me how i can legally do this so that i do not breach thier copyright terms.

with thanks julian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.153.226 (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

moogles & copyright with square enix

hi it's julian again, if i need to make arrangements for this to happen with square enix themselves could you also tell who i who i should get in touch with since thier site is enormous & i'm very confused using it.

with thanks again,julian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.153.226 (talk) 14:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

We're sorry, but we cannot help you with issues you may have with another web site. howcheng {chat} 17:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mauzan-Sublimes .jpg

Hey you all, what's wrong with Image:Mauzan-Sublimes .jpg , why was it removed from Poster if it has a fair use rationale, its being used non-commercially and for informative purpose in order to enhance article and Wikipedias encyclopedic content so as to enrich this magnificent medium, furthermore, if you look at the Poster article, it visually lacks the real essence of what a poster really is, in order for Wikipedia to be encyclopedic it must be broad in scope and content, it is a reference tool and graphic representation in this day and age cannot be overlooked, moreover, doesn't the up loader need be notified to review and refute file in question! cordially Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason to have a non-free poster when we have plenty of free ones that can serve the same purpose. Usage of non-free images is strictly controlled by the Non-free content policy; for images this usually means that some sort of critical commentary on the image itself is required (which you failed to provide, since it was just one item in the gallery). I suggest you look at Commons:Category:Posters for a suitable free replacement. howcheng {chat} 17:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Images in Morelia

I see that there are images in Morelia and they are not in commons. I would like to use them in the es.wiki. There is some possibility to move them to commons? Thanks, --Marsilio (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You can move images to commons using CommonsHelper. Thanks, Anonymous101 (talk) 18:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Citygroup

Please copyright my Citigroup Image —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomoresachi (talk • contribs) 19:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

All the images you have uploaded are copyright of their appropriate corporations and you cannot copyright those images. You need to provide the sources and because they are company logos they are non-free images and likely a {{non-free logo}} tag will be acceptable as the licence. But because they is a non-free images you will have to provide a completed Fair-use rationale like {{logo fur}}. ww2censor (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Informal gift of a photograph

If an individual gives a photograph to a non-profit, community history organization, informally, with no written agreement, but with the understanding that it would be used in a public display, is that organization in a position to release a copy of that photograph under a creative commons license? I guess the question comes down to is, does a gift convey the power to release rights. (I know, it would be best to get something in writing, but the organization in question has received scores of such photos over the years, and has lost track of who gave what.) -- Mwanner | Talk 21:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Some countries have an exemption for an anonymous photographer if reasonable efforts have been made to find out who the author is.

As for the powers conveyed with a gift, I imagine it would depend on the jurisdiction in question : you may need a test case in court!

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 23:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Somali_people.jpg

Hi,

I'm not sure what specific tags to use for this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Somali_people.jpg. All I can say is that this is my image that I took and is free for anyone to use.

Thanks

Faisal (Fdama (talk · contribs))

There's a variety of licenses you can freely release the image under. A main list is here. I believe Wikipedia recommends {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}, but the choice is up to you. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 04:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

There are other licences here for image makers that you may find even better because you want the image to be free for everyone and perhaps {{PD-self}} will be the best to use. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

What did I do wrong?

I loaded this picture up, but a bot said I didn't include information like where the image came from or who owned the copyright. I'd a ppreciate any help.

This is what I put in for the tag: {{2005 Primaria Petrila & Asociatia pentru Dezvoltare Alias|User:Jjensen1|text=Required attribution text: by Jjensen1, available from http://www.jiuvalley.com/romana/orase/petrila/content/Hunedoara1.jpg.}} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjensen1 (talk • contribs)

You did not leave a link to the image you uploaded, so I just looked at the original which shows up as this link above. This image is copyright of the City of Petrila, so it is non-free and is easily replaceable by someone drawing something similar. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 04:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hunedoara1.jpg (EhJJ)^TALK 04:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. What I wrote above still applies and it will be deleted because you cannot give it a suitable licence. Sorry. ww2censor (talk) 04:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

1955 India maps by the U.S. Army

I just want to know if the maps at [this URL http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/ams/india/] are in public domain . Thanks-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 13:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep. I'd say the best copyright tag we have is {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}}, as we don't appear to have a tag for the NGIA division of the Map Service. Similar images have been uplaoded as well. Hope that helps. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 04:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot :-) -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 06:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No time limit?

Am I right in understanding that "will be replaceable in future" counts as "replaceable" rather than "not replaceable"? Relevant images are Image:Ldn Ovrgrd Train.jpg and Image:Ldn Ovrgrd Train Internal.JPG. 217.33.218.200 (talk) 12:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• How it works is, once a product is out or in service in this case, the image can be speedily deleted once a free-content image is found or created. ViperSnake151 02:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• I think this is a very strange rule, considering our treatment of photos of living people and that sort of thing. (That is, we'll get one eventually.) This is the same issue with mockups of buildings to be constructed, which I also think are inconsistent with our general policies. Perhaps this should be discussed at WP:NONFREE. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• I think that ViperSnake151 may be confused, since the words are along the lines of "can be found or created", and not "is found or created". I read somewhere that "replaceable" doesn't necessarily mean that we can replace it here and now, it means that we are or will be able to replace it. The exception would be if there were any doubt of the product coming out, in which case we would not be certain that we could ever find a replacement. 217.33.218.200 (talk) 09:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

But, you gotta think this through, of course its not possible to get free images of a product that isn't even out yet (unless you're lucky enough to have a camera with you and just so happen to run into it at a convention or something). NFCC 1 says "where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". ViperSnake151 22:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

We should not get too worked up about it: non-free images don't appear on answers.com or other mirrors, so they ruin the experience of the article for many readers. But it seems to me the spirit of the policy is that we keep the image, but only keep it until the product is on public release (or the building is constructed - in a freedom of panorama jurisdiction.) In modern society, designers and architects drawings are not free, and indeed when the product is completed, it may look quite different. I don't think 'no time limit' was intended to restrict drawings of items that don't yet exist (and might never exist.) This is quite different from a living person: the living person actually exists. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 23:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you will find that the product in this case does exist. People have already been taking pictures of it. 217.33.218.200 (talk) 09:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Government of Maharashtra

The website of the Indian state of Maharashtra states:

Copyright

Material featured on this site may be reproduced free of charge in any format or media without requiring specific permission. This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context. Where the material is being published or issued to others, the source must be prominently acknowledge. However, the permission to reproduce this material does not extend to any material on this site which is identified as being the copyright of the third party. Authorisation to reproduce such material be obtained from the copyright holders concerned.

Source: http://www.maharashtra.gov.in/tou.html

Does this imply that we can use it on under a free licence Wikipedia? CC-BY-3.0 is pretty similar (ethical use etc). =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I would say it is not allowed on WP as the clause requiring it is "reproduced accurately" sounds very much like a no derivatives clause to me, which is not permitted by Wikimedia. However, I may be wrong. Thanks, Anonymous101 (talk) 18:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The condition specified about is that it should not be misleading in any way; the above specifications does not really prevent you from cropping or say making a collage of say all ministers in the government which is derivative use as long as attribution is there. The restricted clause mentioned above is very similar to the Creative Commons licence condition: You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode). Thoughts? =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, possible someone could contact the government of Maharashtra, as in my opinion we can not be 100% sure either way. Anonymous101 (talk)

I just emailed all the officials in the government. I doubt if I would get an official response though, but keeping my fingers crossed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Enhancing and changing image format of existing GFDL image

The tagging options somewhat overwhelming - could someone please check I've done right thing :-)

Original image of Image:Cycloxygenase.gif released by its creator under GFDL, and I've both enhanced it a little and changed to png format at Image:Cycloxygenase.png. Obviously I can't claim to release the .png as my own original work (as it is derivative and original copyright presumably resides with the .gif creator), yet it is equally available for use as per GFDL - none of the uploading page options therefore seemed to cover this at the time - ImageTaggingBot now pointed me to Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/All... so is {{GFDL-retouched}} the correct option ? David Ruben ^Talk 23:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes; {{GFDL}} with an appropriate explanation in text and a credit for the user who created the image originally would do too. Stifle (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :-) David Ruben ^Talk 04:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Detroit School Of Art Image

I'm not sure if I used the correct copyright for this image Image:Stairs_to_hall_p.jpg. It's a screencap of a image of the detroit school of art I obtained it from aaliyah.com

Pitbullcp (talk) 03:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You indeed used the correct copyright tag, and the image will be deleted shortly. We do not accept non-free images of buildings that are still standing, as someone could go and take a photograph of that building and release it undere a free license. Stifle (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding Licensing

I know how to upload an image. And I know how to give it a license. But I've uploaded about 5 images, but I've forgot to give a licensing for each one of them. I don't know how to give them a licensing now that I've already uploaded them. Could someone please tell me how to insert a license for the images now, so they won't get deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Rogue Leader (talk • contribs) 06:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Go to your image contributions, open each page in turn, and add an appropriate copyright tag from the list. If you add a fair use tag, you must also add a fair use rationale. Stifle (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

LIFE magazine images

Google came out with a trove of millions(!) of images from LIFE magazine.[1] Time inc. retains the copyright, but they are free to use for private and research purposes. These are amazing high-rez images that can dramatically enhance hundreds of Wiki entries. Can we please, please use them? according to this site [2] the copyright issue is still murky. Can an official from Wikimedia approach them and find out exactly what their definition of Fair use is? --Valleyofdawn (talk) 07:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Valleyofdawn (talk • contribs) 07:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC) 

At present, pictures from LIFE magazine are not in public domain as only permissions for non-commercial use are available. Yeah, I too feel the same as you do.:-( Hope, stuff from Life Magazine are made public domain. I have a vast collection of Life magazines from 1947 to 1963 and I would love to use some of them in my articles-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 10:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this is not precisely true. Copyright rules apply to these photos just as they do to any other photos - simply digitizing a photo does not give the digitizer any rights over the photo, where the photo is public domain. And there are certainly plenty of public domain photos in that archive. (This photo, for example, we already have as a featured image here, and the Library of Congress confirms that it is public domain.) The problem with the archive is that they say some of the photos have never before been published, so you can't just say that if the date on the photo is 1923 or before it is PD. (Because it may have been created on a certain date, but LIFE/google aren't telling us when it was published.) If a photo is marked 1923 or after, it is pretty much for sure copyrighted and we cannot use it. If marked before 1923, the situation is a little more complicated. If you can figure out where it was first published by some sort of evidence outside of the archive (they aren't doing us any favors by explaining where works come from), and it was published before 1923, you can upload it with a {{PD-US}} tag. If it is from before 1923, and you can't figure out whether it was published before 1923, (and this should be the normal outcome, because who knows where most of these come from), then it is PD if the author died at least 70 years ago. The author would have to have died before 1938, so say photos from probably 1850 or earlier should be safe. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

moogles & legal & copyright with square enix

hi it's julian

I just wondered if you have answered my Q for me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.153.226 (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, we don't know which question is yours. Perhaps you can use the history of this page to find it? Stifle (talk) 14:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, just found it above. The section above explains that we cannot help you with copyright issues related to another site. Stifle (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This was previously answered above at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#moogles .26 copyright with square enix. We cannot help you with other web site issues. ww2censor (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:John_Gorman_WMMS.jpg

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eclectic_hippie#License_tagging_for_Image:John_Gorman_WMMS.jpg

Hi I was asked to add a license tag to my photo. Just want to make sure I did it correctly. I don't think I did. It was taken with my camera and asked the subjects for permission to put their photo on Wiki.Can you please check? Thank you Eclectic hippie ^{talk to me} 16:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:MOMAK.jpg

The image description data was construed as inadequate by ImageTaggingBot. I have made changes which clarify, but I have no idea how to address whatever ImageTaggingBot found objectionable. It is as likely that I've failed as succeeded in resolving whatever is supposed to have been problematic. Perhaps if someone checks this out, it can be settled easily? --Tenmei (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I added a {{GFDL}} tag to it. That should be easier for the bot to recognise. —teb728 t c 22:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I moved the Japanese image from there to Commons. It's available at Image:NationalMuseumOfModernArtKyoto.jpg. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

SVG Based on Animated DVD Frames?

I have created some SVGs of cartoon characters. I based these off multiple frames captured from a DVD. They are partially traced from these captures, and partly my own creative work. Can I post these as my own work, or do these fall under the copyright of the DVD from which I captured these original frames? Thanks. Steaphan Greene (talk) 05:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

They would be a derivative work, and only usable here under a claim of fair use. See WP:NFCC for more information. Megapixie (talk) 10:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems this can then not be uploaded to the Wiki Commons, but only to Wikipedia itself, or am I missing something? Steaphan Greene (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Reclaim rights to images?

I put three images on my user page, but now want to see if it is possible to reclaim the rights to them:

• Image:Vase1r_800.jpg
• Image:Vase2r 800.jpg
• Image:Vase3r_800.jpg

I would appreciate your help. Thank you. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If you asking whether you can revoke the CC licenses, no, you can't. —teb728 t c 22:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

What can be done? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing - you license them, and the license stays that way. If you didn't want them to be publicly available, you shouldn't have uploaded them here. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 13:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Can the images be removed from Wikimedia ? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Not unless they have questionable licensing (which they don't) or meet one of the Criteria for speedy deletion. You could maybe get them deleted via WP:IFD, but it's questionable. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 13:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

BLP violation

Image:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg

This image seems to be a clear WP:BLP violation. It has been removed from the Alan Dershowitz article more that once. Perhaps deleting it would prevent a re-occurance. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The image is not hosted on Wikipedia, but by Wikimedia Commons. While this is a sister project we don't have the power to delete images there. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If it has been posted enough to be disruptive, it might qualify for the Bad image list. —teb728 t c 20:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Image

I allowed Wikipedia to use a picture that I took for Alex McLeish, Birmingham City F.C. manager. However; I reserve the right to remove the picture at any given time if I feel that my picture is being misused. Is this ACCEPTABLE? Since I did not actually sign anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damien22 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia does not accept revocable permissions. You have already given anyone in the world permission to use the image for any purpose as long as they credit you and comply with some legal terms; that can't be withdrawn. Stifle (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the license you use. If you use, for example, CCL by-sa 3.0, you would be allowed some options for disallowing use, at least for a specific use. Based on your question of "misuse" the cited, and acceptable for Wikipedia use, license states: " 7. Termination This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically upon any breach by You of the terms of this License. Individuals or entities who have received Derivative Works or Collective Works from You under this License, however, will not have their licenses terminated provided such individuals or entities remain in full compliance with those licenses. Sections 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8 will survive any termination of this License.". This allows section 4. Restrictions to be enforced. Section c says, in part, "For the avoidance of doubt, You may only use the credit required by this Section for the purpose of attribution in the manner set out above and, by exercising Your rights under this License, You may not implicitly or explicitly assert or imply any connection with, sponsorship or endorsement by the Original Author, Licensor and/or Attribution Parties, as appropriate, of You or Your use of the Work, without the separate, express prior written permission of the Original Author, Licensor and/or Attribution Parties." and section d says, in part, "Except as otherwise agreed in writing by the Licensor or as may be otherwise permitted by applicable law, if You Reproduce, Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work either by itself or as part of any Adaptations or Collections, You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation." I like to use the example of an image of a certain nationality that an end user might make part of a hate campaign. If that were being done and the author objected than Section 4. Restrictions, subsection d., would kick in and the licensee could be terminated. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

This particular image, Image:P1000085.JPG, was uploaded by User:Damien22 with a {{Multilicense replacing placeholder}} tag. This tag grants {{GFDL}} and {{cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}} licenses. It seems to me, however, that it is a horribly nondescript name for an image copyright tag. It seems to me that an uploader who used that tag could justly claim, “I did not intend to say I created the image” and/or “I did not intend to release the image under a free license.” —teb728 t c 21:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

But to select that license he would have had to see this page, which clearly explains the license release, and then select the free license from the drop-down box. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Using text from PLoS Biology

Hello, I've found an article at PLoS Biol. that has parts ideally fitting to the Chandelier cell article. It is under Creative Commons Attribution License. Can I copy some paragraphs wholesale to Wikipedia? Cheers. --CopperKettle (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No, the GFDL and CC licenses are not compatible. The GFDL requires attribution of only five principal authors, there is no guarantee that the author of the PLoS article will be among those five if someone reuses the content -- and this would violate the CC-BY license. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

O.K., thanks for the answer. But uploading the images from the same PLoS article to the Commons is O.K., as I understand? --CopperKettle (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

General Copyright Question?

If a copyrighted media is incorrectly labeled, such as calling a copyrighted illustration in a book, a book cover, what should be done?-DanSand (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Mislabeling might indicate that the image is not actually compliant with our non-free content policy. If this is the case, it should be nominated for deletion. (Or speedy-deleted if applicable.) If the image is compliant with policy, it should probably just be retagged. {{Non-free fair use in}} might be a good tag for an illustration from inside a book, or maybe {{non-free character}} is relevant. Note that (as a general matter) illustrations from inside books are less likely to be acceptable on wikipedia than illustrations on the covers of books. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

We could give a more specific answer if you link to the image, like this: [[:Image:Replacethisimagetitle.jpg]] Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

will on leased property

Whether as per Indian laws a will made on a leased property (particularly land) held on long term, say 90 years, from Government is maintainable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misra1960 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

If you are looking for general information, try asking at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. If you are looking for legal advice, Wikipedia cannot and will not give legal advice. In any case this forum is only for Media copyright questions. —teb728 t c 07:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Question on this Hong Kong Police photo

I plan to put some photos for the Special Duties Unit page as it lacks some photos of the unit in action. And I found this HKPD photo of the SDU.

Do I classify that under fair use? Thanks. Ominae (talk) 09:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that qualifies under wikipedia's fair use standards. There's no reason someone couldn't take a picture of the SDU, and release it under a free license. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 09:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image: My Lady D'Arbanville

I received a note from a bot that there was no information about the source, etc. It says clearly in the notes next to the image that it is a cover for a song, found on Google, shrunken down so nobody can use it, it's from 1970, can't be replaced and I think it should easily be categorized as fair use for copyrighted material. Who do I need to discuss this with?! --leahtwosaints (talk) 10:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I presume you mean Image:My Lady d'Arbanville.jpg. Just go to the image page and provide the information needed. It seems you comments, which were incomplete, were not properly done. You need to use both of these two templates {{Non-free album cover}} and {{Non-free media rationale}} and fill in the details in the rationale completely. You could also use this {{album rationale}} template. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

AP photos

Hi,

I've uploaded two AP images: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lincoln_signs_for_Galatasaray.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Milan_signs_for_Galatasaray.jpg

I have stated the sources and authors of the images. How can I get copyright info for them?

Thanks

CassioLincoln (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless they were specifically released from copyright (which is not the case at all if you simply downloaded them off the sites mentioned) then they remain copyrighted to the photographer or the Associated Press so unless you are claiming fair use then they need to be speedily deleted for copyvio. Mfield (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

PD-lawscourt_-_Public_Court_Records

Looking for an IP expert here: (still!) discussion.--Elvey (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I work in this field; I'll check it out. --MCB (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you follow up? I can't find where you did so.--Elvey (talk) 00:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

University of Tampa page images

Hello ... I am new to Wikipedia and I'm having a hard time understanding all the rules about images. I uploaded some new images last week to the page University of Tampa. I am employed by the University and was tasked with applying their new logo to the Wikipedia page. I also added some photos of the campus to the article to give a more accurate visual depiction of the way the campus looks. The campus images I used came from the University's online image gallery at http://www.ut.edu/gallery/facilities/index.html

Since the University makes these images freely available, I can't imagine their use on Wikipedia should be problematic. Can someone explain to me exactly what information I need to put into the descriptions for the images I uploaded? I am concerned that if I wait too long to apply a source to the images, they will be deleted. Thank you. UTdan06 (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I provided a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale for Image:UT logo notag small web.gif. That should be all you need for that image.

I also provided sources for Image:Vaughn Center.jpg and Image:Sykes College.jpg. Are there other images? You still need to identify the copyright owner of the two photos. Is it the photographer (if so, who) or the university? You also need to say what free license Wikipedia has to use the images. The gallery you link to doesn’t say anything about reuse of the photos. —teb728 t c 21:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with the logo. As far as the other two images, the University is the copyright owner, since the images come from the UT Web site. Their legal disclaimer is here: http://www.ut.edu/detail.aspx?id=822 Will it be enough to post the information from the "Authorized Use" portion of the disclaimer under the "Permission" section of each photo? UTdan06 (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

That link says, "Users may not print, reproduce, retrieve, or use the information and images contained in these University of Tampa Web pages for non-commercial, personal, or educational purposes unless they (1) do not modify such information, and (2) include both this notice and any copyright notice originally included with such information. If materials are used for other purposes, permission must be obtained from The University of Tampa to use the copyrighted material prior to its use." Sorry, but that is not acceptable to Wikipedia. Wikipedia requires a free licence, meaning a license that allows reuse by anyone for anything, including commercial use and modification. If you think the university will give a free license on these photos, see WP:COPYREQ. Otherwise, I am sorry to say that the photos cannot be used or hosted on Wikipedia. —teb728 t c 22:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

What would be far easier would be for you to take your own camera and make your own photo of the buildings. Then you could upload and license your photos under a free license. —teb728 t c 23:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ain't got no camera. UTdan06 (talk) 14:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Please save my pictures!

The barbarian robot (ImageTaggingBot) want to delete my free pictures (Image:Hun corv1.jpg and Image:Hunedoara castle towers.jpg ) What can I do? Can you stop these deletions ? User:Stears56 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stears56 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

With regard to Image:Hunedoara castle towers.jpg I am confused: You claim it is your own picture, but User:Roamata uploaded an identical image as Image:Hunedoara castle towers.JPG also claiming it as his own.

In any case you need to provide a license tag, indicating what right Wikipedia has to use the photos. With out such a tag Wikipedia cannot tell if it has any right to use them. As the bot informed you, there is a list of tags at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/All. —teb728 t c 17:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

upload photo's

If I upload, will it be secure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikalalee (talk • contribs) 16:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "secure"? —teb728 t c 17:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

How Do I Proceed?

How do I tag the copyright status of: Campus map 2008.jpg

It was created by the college's Public Information office, for use on their website and in print. I'm allowed to use it for illustrating a Wikipedia page devoted to the college, but I don't know how to proceed - what category to select. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcwebeditor (talk • contribs) 19:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello - unfortunately, permission for use in Wikipedia is (counter-intuitively) not sufficient for use in Wikipedia. To be used in Wikipedia, an image must be free to re-use or modify by any person for any purpose. Unless the college is willing to release it under these terms, we can't use it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

If the college is willing to grant such a free license, see WP:COPYREQ for how to handle it. —teb728 t c 20:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Innocents_abroad.jpg due to be deleted December 9, 2008 ... Gutenberg project images, as replacement?

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3176/3176-h/3176-h.htm

Will an image form the gutenberg project serve asa viable replacement for the image that is scheduled for deletion today?

Yes, the cover at http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3176/3176-h/images/cover.jpg appears to be in the public domain. But the present image looks like an old cover; if it is from a 1923 or earlier edition, it would also be public domain in the US. —teb728 t c 05:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

General question

I have a host of old pictures, all other people's, taken from 1925 backwards. I notice that other contributors have marked similar pictures "PD, copyright expired". I can't find that on the list of options, however. The nearest I can find is that the picture was published in the USA more than 70-odd years ago. Of course, I can't confirm whether that's so or not. They're French or British pictures. What do you advise, please? (p.s. I think on the inquiry page it says the "click here to ask" button is below; didn't I see it above? Can't remember now.) Les woodland (talk) 09:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)les woodland

To use them, you'll need to be sure that they were first published somewhere prior to January 1, 1923. If that's the case, you should be able to tag them with {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. In the alternative, if you can establish either that the author died more than 70 years ago or that the picture was taken more than 120 years ago and it's not ascertainable when the author died, you can use {{PD-US}}. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ann-scott10.jpg

Hi, Image:Ann-scott10.jpg over at wikipedia states "own work by uploader" and then states "Copy from a picture on en: wiki". So that can't quite be. Obviously page is deleted here. Can someone check what it said & either let me know on Commons or add it in the image? Thanks. Deadstar (talk) 11:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I left Deadstar a link to this log on their Commons user talk page. —teb728 t c 20:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help - that's what I needed. So all seems well with image & source. Deadstar (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

A Logo, Re-done by me

What would a logo, redone by me in Photoshop, fit under? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Connormah (talk • contribs) 23:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm interpreting your question to mean that you took a logo that somebody else created and made your own version of it in Photoshop. If this is indeed the case, then the copyright of the original logo would persist on to your logo, and it would not be usable on Wikipedia (unless the copyright holder of the original logo agreed to release it under a free license). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If you recreated the logo with the intention of evading the copyright, that doesn’t work. If it is a faithful reproduction of the original, it is under the same copyright as the original. If it is noticeably different, it is probably a copyright violation and maybe a trademark violation; and in any case the difference makes it unsuitable for use in Wikipedia.

But there is no need to evade the copyright. The original logo probably could be tagged {{non-free logo}} and {{logo fur}} and used for identification in the infobox in an article about the entity that the logo represents. —teb728 t c 05:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Thorncourtapmts2.JPG

Yes I took this photo, but I find that Wikipedia is very hard to understand regarding the copyright issues and how to get them. The site needs to be made easier to understand and remove the jargon! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yisraelee (talk • contribs) 03:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, intellectual property—especially when there are international dimensions—is a complicated subject, and it's difficult to make it user-friendly. It's why we have this page. With regards to your photo, you've established that you took it and that you own the copyright. That's good, and it's the first step. The next question, though, is are you willing to license it under a free license that allows for it to be reused by anybody for any purpose? Alternatively, are you prepared to release it into the public domain? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

OTRS Permission Emails

Hi. Presently at Images for Upload the owners of images that are copyrighted are instructed to either email a reviewer or the OTRS permissions address with the permission declaration. Is it possible for permission to be accepted on-wiki (eg. a link to a diff) so that this step can be removed? Regards, Matt (Talk) 03:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, OTRS e-mailing isn't required for images where the copyright is owned by the uploader; it's generally only for situations where the uploader has obtained off-wiki permission from the copyright holder, and in that case the e-mail to OTRS usually comes from an e-mail address that is clearly linkable to the person or organization who holds the copyright. So I'm not really sure in what circumstances OTRS would be replaceable by anything on-wiki. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:IFU is for IPs and new users (who aren't autoconfirmed) to submit images for upload meaning the actual uploader (a registered Wikipedian) won't own the copyright to the image. Matt (Talk) 04:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I totally missed that, sorry. Yeah, we could probably make a tag that's the equivalent of {{GFDL-self}} that linked to the assertion of ownership by the non-autoconfirmed user ({{[[Template:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]}}? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Most templates already provide a parameter to supply the authors name. Permission is only really needed if the website they link to doesn't provide proof that the image is/has been released under the license they say it has. Would it be possible to include a link to the diff where permission is given on-wiki in the image description instead of using the OTRS pending template (and having to get the user to email forms around)? Matt (Talk) 05:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

class c power amplifier

How to Derive expression for efficiency, maximum efficiency for a class c power amplifier —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeep.mishra.sam (talk • contribs) 16:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This page is for copyright questions only. For any general knowledge questions, you should ask the reference desk. ww2censor (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

what is reality about electromagnetic waves?

I am a physics student,and i have some questions concerning the theory of electromagnetic waves,the first question is that.IS THERE ANY THEORETICAL OR PRACTICAL EVIDENCE THAT ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES ARE TRAVELLING WITH ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS(ELECTRICITY)? The second question is that,IF THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS TRUE,THEN,WHY ELECTRICITY OF SUCH HIGH FREQUENCY DOES NOT COURSE AN ELECTROCUTION? SINCE AN ELECTRICITY WITH A FREQUENCY AS LOW AS 50-60HZ CAN CAUSE ELECTROCUTION. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masnigeria (talk • contribs) 19:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

See response to above question. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Photographs from British/U.N. Controlled Palestine

Does anyone know if photographs taken in British and/or U.N. Controlled Palestine in the late 1940s fall under British, Israeli or some other copyright law? Thanks, IronGargoyle (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

According to this commons template, 50-years from the date of creation seems to be the law for the British Mandate. There is no mention of the UN controlled territory but the commons UN template may apply. ww2censor (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Text-book of paleontology

May I use images from this book?

Karl Alfred von Zittel (1839-1904) & Charles Rochester Eastman (ed.) (1868-1918) 1913. Text-book of paleontology. London.

There are written many collaborants at title page and at page. And there are also written collaborants for the first edition (1900) at the page Should I count collaborants for both editions as authors? (There is for example Henry Augustus Pilsbry among collaborants.) May I use any texts from the book as public domain?

There is written at preface that some images made Robert Tracy Jackson (1861-1948) but there is written that collaborants made some images too. There is no able to identify authors of certain images in the book. May I use any images from the book as free images? May I use them under {{PD-old-70}} or under {{anonymous-EU}} or under {{PD-UK-unknown}} [3] license? --Snek01 (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

If you don't know, who is really author, you must consider listed people as co-authors (Robert Tracy Jackson and collaborants). Image will be free, when all its copyrights expire. If Robert Tracy Jackson died in 1948, copyright will expire first at the end of 2018. --Beren (talk) 13:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

publishing of images by other web sites

The following pictures of mine uploaded to wikipedia have been used by http://www.tutorgig.com/ed/Chandigarh and http://citybeautifulchandigarh.blogspot.com/ without attribution:

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

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

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

Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.242.141 (talk) 04:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This might answer most of your questions. I'd suggest that the simplest thing in the first instance would be to just send the website(s) an e-mail saying something along the lines of "Hello, I'm the copyright holder of this image, and, while I've licensed it under a Creative Commons license, one condition of that license is that I be credited as the photographer, which you don't seem to have done." Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I could sign in with my id this time. I feel there should be a 'report abuse' link available here on wiki to enable wiki to take up such issues with the offending blogger or at least with the site that's used by the blogger. Chandigarh guy (talk) 10:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

At the present time, the Wikimedia Foundation won't devote legal resources to resolving its contributors content disputes. Moreover, the Foundation would have no standing to intervene legally in a case where somebody was misusing your copyrighted material. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyright question

Hi! For the articles Jesuit Missions of Chiquitos and Concepción I would like to use this picture which is found here. The picture caption (German: "in einer historischen Aufnahme vom Beginn des 20. Jahunderts (Bild: E. Kühne)") reads in English: "in a historic photo from the beginning of the 20th century (Picture: E. Kühne)". Can I upload this picture on wikimedia (or en-wikipedia) and, if yes, under which license? E. Kühne = Eckart Kühne (!?) was born in 1954, and is not the author of the original picture. bamse (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

If the image was published before 1923, {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} will do. That template's not accepted at Commons, so you'll have to upload the image here. Stifle (talk) 10:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Watermark images, general procedure on handling

I've come across a series of images in the user created PD category (File:001-remedioscircle.jpg, File:001-pacoparkrizal.jpg, File:001-quiapochurch.jpg) and others, all uploaded by User:Adinemb. It appears to be a valid match to the user and not be a copyright violation, but when a user has uploaded images with watermarks on them what is the general procedure for images with watermarks on them by a wikipedia user. If the user was active I would lean towards contacting them on their talk page, but this user hasn't edited regularly in several months. Is IFD the next step? -Optigan13 (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

IfD should not be necessary at least for the 3 files you cite. You could just crop off the watermarks. —teb728 t c 03:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable to move the images to commons, and then crop and reupload once there? -Optigan13 (talk) 03:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Tarzan[2003 T V]

Why was this series cancelled.????? Where can I find a DVD of that particular TV series.??? thank you in advance.!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.209.66.162 (talk) 17:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, this page is for copyright-related questions about media (usually images) uploaded to Wikipedia. For answers to your question, try asking at the Reference Desk. -- Hux (talk) 19:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Ananse Ntontan Adinkra symbol.gif

In uploading this image I indicated the source. What sort of copyright tag should it have, or is it an inadmissable image?--Annielogue (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but Wikipedia does not accept permission for non-commercial use because limits the commercial reusability of articles. —teb728 t c 23:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Help on adding pics. with copyrights.

I need help adding pictures to some Wikipedia pages with no picture. When I added all the pictures they almost automatically took them off but two of them still stayed on. I don't know where to find the copyright info. and where they say that the picture has a copyright for it. Thanks and I hope you can help me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brittflick 1994 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

How do you know if the picture is good for putting on a page. I found my pics. on google but some of them were fine to put on the pages and I want to know how you would know if they are safe to add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brittflick 1994 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Most of the pictures I added were taken off due to copyright and only 2 of them stayed on so I was wondering why they did? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brittflick 1994 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

On my talk page it says "thanks for uploading .... but you didn't say where the image came from, who made it, and what the copyright status is." I was wondering how you could put that information on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brittflick 1994 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

First, you have not given any links to the images you are talking about.

Secondly, you have found out that copyright is treated very seriously.

So, most images you will find online are copyright of someone else and mostly may not be uploaded by you but some may be tagged as Fair-use, but in general if you familiarise yourself with the image use policy, most of your questions will be answered. You MUST provide an acceptable copyright licence and you MUST state the source of any image you upload. You likely did not do that, so that is why the images were deleted. ww2censor (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Verify This Please

I've uploaded the This Week in NASCAR logo and have know Idea of knowing the correct license.

This Week in NASCAR logo --InvisibleYouth1 (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

{{non-free logo}}. Remember to include a fair-use rationale. -Seidenstud (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

In the future please add questions to the bottom of the page. Ordinarily the top of the page contains old questions that have been answered already. You are lucky that anyone answered it here. —teb728 t c 01:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

AAA State

What is an AAA State

Ask general knowledge questions at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. —teb728 t c 01:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Please Help!

Please help, I don't know what Im doing wrong. Im trying to upload this image[4] with this formatting:

Source filename: http://togo.usembassy.gov/ambhoffman.html

Destination filename: KWhoffman.jpg

Summary:{{Information |Description= Ambassador to Togo Karl W. Hofmann |Source=http://togo.usembassy.gov/ambhoffman.html |Date=00:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC) |Author=US government |Permission=Public Domain |other_versions=none }}

{{PD-USGov-State}}

I think it has something to do with the summary. I used [5] also. It is under US Federal Government Public Domain and is Licesned under that, but when I hit Upload file nothing happens at all. Do I have to wait a while or is something wrong?

Please help ASAP; contact me by hitting 'mate1'. Thanks RoyalMate1 00:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC) Partly Resolved. I get this message:

The file is corrupt or has an incorrect extension. Please check the file and upload again.

What does this mean? RoyalMate1 02:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It could mean a lot of things, depending on what you were trying to do. For example, it could mean you were uploading a file with a .jpg extension, but it was not a jpg file. Or it could mean you were uploading a jpg file but you did not give it a .jpg or .JPG extension. Were you perhaps trying to upload a whole .html page instead of a .jpg file? —teb728 t c 22:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Hi there. You're trying to upload a HTML file. You need to link directly to the image in the 'Source Filename' box, which is probably http://togo.usembassy.gov/uploads/images/T0q__c4u9wNUfBiUE6YRtA/AmbHofmann.jpg. Good luck, Matt (Talk) 22:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Can he upload it directly from the internet? Doesn't he need to download the jpg to his harddrive first? —teb728 t c 22:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

True, my mistake. Royalmate1, right click the image you wish to upload and save it to your computer, then click browse by the Source Filename box and select the image. Matt (Talk) 01:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

In some browsers you can enter the URL in the 'file upload' box and it will download it into cache and select the local copy for upload. --NE2 13:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

old paintings?

hello

i'd like to upload my own photos of some paintings that were created in the 1910s-1930s. the artist died in 1955, and has no estate or surviving heirs which manage his work. how should i categorize these photos?

Peahix (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this in the United States? If so, and they were published before 1923, they're public domain now, and can be tagged {{PD-US}} --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 12:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how or if publication applies to paintings that are simply displayed. --NE2 12:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding a Copyright after adding an image

How do you add a copyright for an image after it has been created? Do I need to write where I got the image from? TwinTitans (talk) 11:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

If you go to the top of this page, just underneath the boxes, it tells you how to do it. Yes, you do have to write where the image came from; see WP:IUP --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 12:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

File: Meet the Press with David Gregory "Title Card"

I recently uploaded the new title card of Meet the Press with the newest permanent moderator David Gregory. I really do want to give credit where credit is due, and make sure this new title card stay permanently on the Meet the Press wikipedia article.

I am having problems however trying to figure out how to do the right thing, and follow copyright procedures. First of all, this is my first time uploading a file. So I’m not familiar with the whole process to being with. Secondly, I cannot find the names of the creator or creators of the latest “Meet the Press with David Gregory” title card. I tried looking at the official Meet the Press website @ msnbc.com. I also try looking at the end credits of the last Meet the Press telecast on Sunday. Both of these sources yield no names of the title card creators.

This title card is the same one used in the actual telecast on NBC, and on the official Meet the Press website. Assistance to this particular matter would be greatly appreciated because I would hate to see this title card deleted. Thank you for your help. S3884h (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean File:Meet the Press.jpg? You can tag it with {{non-free logo}} and {{logo fur}} and also provide the URL of the original file's location in a similar way to the original Tim Russert logo. ww2censor (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Clarification please

Hi, I looked at the image on the right and there is a statement therein that:

• WGA has given permission for use of images on Wikipedia.

Do I understand that to apply to all images on the entire WGA [6] site? If so, can we use those images in Wikipedia after download? Thank you. History2007 (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

That statement that WGA has given permission for use of images on Wikipedia makes no sense at all. Apparently all their artwork is from 1850 and before; so probably it is all in the public domain. But if it is in the public domain, then WGA cannot prevent anyone from using it. If on the other hand a work is not in the public domain, then I would think they would have no right to license it (and perhaps no right to use it them selves). If somehow they had a work that was still under copyright and which they had a right to license, Wikipedia does not accept permission for use only on Wikipedia.

In summary, if, like that Madonna and Child, a work is in the public domain, we can use it. —teb728 t c 00:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe if they had a photo of a sculpture which was not under freedom of panorama, they could have a copyright on the photo and license it for use on Wikipedia. Ironicly we could not use it because Wikipedia does not accept such a license. —teb728 t c 01:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will start using them. History2007 (talk) 04:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Photos I uploaded now PD -- Question

I uploaded two photos that I took on the article about Francis Henney Smith. I allow them to be public domain and made statements to this effect. Yet I am prompted to to write whatever so that they will be known as public domain. The old commands I once knew apparently have changed or I am not remembering the correct command. So, what do I place for the two images to state that they are public domain photos that I myself took? Brother Officer (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you're thinking of the {{PD-self}} tag. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 00:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

British Library image

My apologies if this has been asked before. Would this painting from the British Library[7] be in the public domain, since it was painted over 100 years ago? What if I removed the "British Library" logo on the lower right of the image, or found another source for it? Thank you. First Light (talk) 04:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

According to {{PD-Art|PD-old-100}}, even though it is from the U.K., where copyright law make say otherwise, it is PD as far as WMF is concerned. It would probably be a good idea to remove the logo or find another source. -Seidenstud (talk) 05:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that makes sense, and will do. First Light (talk) 05:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sandra Roelofs photo?

I'm trying to find a suitable photo to include in the article on Sandra Roelofs (wife of Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili). Some photos previously uploaded as File:Sandra Roelofs.jpg were deleted for copyright violation or invalid fair use rationale.

A large photo gallery of Roelofs exists on the official "President of Georgia" web site. Since these photos depict specific events, identified in their captions — see here for an example — it seems to me that they would fall under provision 1(c) of {{PD-GE-exempt}}, which says that Georgia's copyright law does not apply to "information of events and facts", and that these photos should therefore be freely usable in Wikipedia articles. Do others agree? (And if not, what do people feel I am misunderstanding or misinterpreting here?)

I would be grateful for copies of any comments on this question to be posted to my talk page if possible. Thanks. Richwales (talk) 04:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. I'm no expert, but your reading of template:PD-GE-exempt seems a bit broad. The way I read it seems to imply that it is referring to verbal descriptions of events and facts. Otherwise, almost every photo could be claimed as information of a fact ("the cat is sitting on the rug" is a fact, after all) - if not an event. -Seidenstud (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand — as best I could tell from a cursory look — the events being depicted in these photos are all more-or-less official state events, and not merely mundane generic facts. That would seem, to me, to put the photos into the kind of official category that the Georgian copyright exemption was presumably designed for. Richwales (talk) 07:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I really don't see it. That's a big presumption that this is what the exemption was designed for. Especially since 1a. and 1b. refer specifically to official documents and symbols of state, whereas 1c. does not mention the state of official things at all. If it referred to state events, why wouldn't it say it like the other clauses? In fact, I would even suggest that it's the opposite of what you suggest, that the exception is for "mundane generic facts," and not for events - official state or otherwise. That makes a lot more sense to me. But, in the end, it's so vaguely worded that it's really difficult to say at all what it was designed for. -Seidenstud (talk) 08:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Understood. (Not sure yet if I agree with you, but I understand what you're saying.) Any additional thoughts on this from others out there? Richwales (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Legal document

The article concerns a criminal trial for fraud and other charges. Among the key items of evidence at the main trial were promissory notes, in this case plain typewritten documents with no artwork. Would a scan of one of the promissory notes that was entered into evidence be considered copyrighted, and if so would it be usable as historically significant fair use? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to see it to know if it was copyright. If there is no background artwork (i.e. no creative content), then it's probably {{PD-ineligible}}. Megapixie (talk) 09:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Even if there is no copyright problem, what you are talking about does not sound encyclopedic to me. Wikipedia generally does not include primary sources. —teb728 t c 10:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, on further reflection I'm thinking it may be better at Wikisource with a link. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

That's not quite what I was suggesting. If there are reliable secondary sources that discuss the evidence, you should reference them. —teb728 t c 22:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Royal Society awards

I've redone a pair of lists (Sylvester Medal and Royal Medal) and they are now up for Featured status. A concern raised is the iffy copyright/fair use status of the images used in the lists; would somebody more knowledgeable about such matters be able to take a look and clear them? Ironholds (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Dame Mary Lucy Cartwright.jpg is definitely a problem - there's no source, it's almost certainly copyrighted, and I see no reason to assume the uploader created it himself. The permission statement on File:Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin.jpg is too vague; the message from Pugwash Conferences needs to be forwarded to OTRS for confirmation. Those two look like the biggest problems. Some of the other unsourced ones are the kind of old photograph that, if we're very strict, are questionable, but they often slip under the radar. For example, File:James Joseph Sylvester.jpg lacks a source, and it is possible for works from the 1890s to still be copyrighted, depending on who created it and when & where it was published (and besides copyright, there's no source to even support the claim that it really is a photo of James Joseph Sylvester).

On the fair-use side, my impression is that File:FrancisHarryComptonCrick.jpg is not likely to be allowed in a list article; at the very least, it would need a separate fair-use-rationale. --dave pape (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty; I haven't really worked with images that much, so I'm not quite sure what to do at this stage. Should I remove the images until such time as someone more experienced with such matters can sort them out? Ironholds (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Dame Mary Lucy Cartwright.jpg is now tagged non-free. I removed it from Sylvester Medal because it does not qualify for use in that article under Wikipedia policy. —teb728 t c 22:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Can I use a school's logo on a page about the school?

I am updating the Australian International School of Singapore's entry and I want to include the school logo. An example of the logo can be found at www.ais.com.sg (logo in the top left).

I believe that the fair use rational might be applicable because the LOGO appears on numerous publically available documents such as newsletters, school uniforms. I also doubt that the logo will ever be available under any type of public license.

Any advice would be welcome.

MiklosGaal (talk) 04:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you should be able to do it. Use a {{non-free logo}} copyright tag. And use {{logo fur}} to provide a non-free use rationale. See Template:Logo fur/doc for the rationale parameters. The Article and Use parameters are required. Set the Source parameter too. —teb728 t c 05:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC) Click on Upload file in the sidebar; click on The logo of an Organization; and select Logo from the Licensing dropdown. —teb728 t c 05:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Recording

I have a recording of Joe Falcon playing "Allons a Lafayette" which was recorded in 1928. One performer in the recording (Joe Falcon) died in 1965 and the other performer died in 1941. The recording was done by Columbia Records. What is the copyright availability for this? Thanks, --Michael miceli (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, according to Wikipedia:Public domain#Sound recordings, the recording is most likely protected by copyright, and therefore would not be in the public domain. So, in order for it to be suitable for non-fair-use inclusion here, it would have to have been released under a free license which extremely unlikely, since the major record labels are absolutely not in the habit of doing so. -Seidenstud (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

What is the limiting factor the year of death for the musicians or the year of the recording? For instance, when will this recording be in public domain?--Michael miceli (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Editing fair use images

Would it be a copyright violation if I flip/rotate, crop or otherwise enhance a fair-use image by editing it? -Unpopular Opinion (talk · contribs) 22:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Usually (though not always), if you can make a reasonable argument that using an image is fair use then a version of the image with minor edits is also likely to be fair use. Please note any changes on the image description. Dragons flight (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks -Unpopular Opinion (talk · contribs) 14:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

re copyright problem on a photo of a painting

hi sorry to trouble you, but I'm having a bit of a problem getting the right copyright designation for the following image, there will be a few more with the same provenance

File:Sunrise On Cythera 2002 wk.jpg

the image is a photo by the artist of an original artwork, to be used as an example on a page about the artist, copyright is owned by the artist and he's approved the use of the images

could you please advise correct designation & procedure, I have tried to edit the permissions to an acceptable state, but am a total newbie to wikipedia & nothing seems to work though I endeavor to follow the advice of the help docs

thanks david —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cr37s3y (talk • contribs) 04:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The {{GFDL-self}} tag you are trying the put on the image and saying "self-made," both imply that you, the uploader, are the copyright owner; if I understand correctly, you are not. Also, from what you say above, it may be the artist's intention to license the image only for use on Wikipedia. Understand that Wikipedia does not accept images on that basis; Wikipedia requires a license that allows reuse by anyone for anything, including commercial use and modification. {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} and {{GFDL}} are two good license tags. When you decide on a license tag, do not enclose it in nowiki. If I am right that you are not the artist, see also WP:COPYREQ. —teb728 t c 05:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

hi, thanks for the info, I've changed to the GFDL tag, rgds david —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cr37s3y (talk • contribs) 01:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure if this has been resolved properly. The GFDL tag asserts that the artist has explicitly licensed his work under that license. This typically requires some documentation if the uploader is not the artist - which Cr37s3y does not seem to be. The specific procedure for correctly going about the process of recording licensing can be found at WP:CONSENT. -Seidenstud (talk) 04:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

JAHFA

A picture Commons:Image:JAHFA2007.JPG has been deleted from the JAHFA article. Please put it back in, as I am tired of going round in circles looking at 'help' pages trying to figure out how to stop a 'bot' needlessly destroying the article, which I have tried to contact without any success. There are no copyright problems, as I took the image, and the reason for several file names is because of the difficulty in downloading/retrieving images - the process is overly complicated and this array of filenames for the same image (picked up by your 'bot' as it happens) simply reflects several attempts at trying to get the thing to stick, and to then have this work reversed with a 'welcome' note attached is a bit beyond a joke... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.26.139.71 (talk) 07:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Assuming you are Brian Long, the attributed author of the image, and you are explicitly releasing the image into the public domain (which means anyone can do anything to it and use it anywhere without giving you credit), as your selected licensing tag says, then you should not have a problem any more. I reinserted into the article, where it should stay, assuming there are no other problems than the licensing tags. -Seidenstud (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am Brian Long, aka WheelsFan. Thanks very much for your help... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.26.139.71 (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Can I submit my original research if I release it to the public as public domain?

If I conduct private research and make my own discoveries, there is also a risk that someone else has already made the same discovery and staked a claim to it. First of all, can I submit my original work if I give up all claims to it and release it as public domain? Secondly, if some of my work turns out to be a reinvention of the wheel, how should this be handled?--JNLII (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Original research is not allowed; only verifiable information backed by reliable sources is allowed. ww2censor (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Unsure about copyright.

I recently uploaded this image File:Tornado intercept vehicle2.jpg and here is the site it came from: [8] I have no idea of the copyright or licensing status of the image and the site's legal page wasn't much help. Could somebody help me with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Splew (talk • contribs) 05:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The author of a photograph reserves all rights to a photo unless he/she specifically gives up any by licensing the photos under certain licenses. As far as I can tell, the photographer in this case has not done so; therefore, the photo is most likely un-free and therefore not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. I will tag the photo appropriately. -Seidenstud (talk) 05:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

And a fair-use rationale would not be an option because it is clearly possible to make a similar image. ww2censor (talk) 05:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

So how should it be tagged, actually. I'm thinking CSD I9? -Seidenstud (talk) 05:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The current "no licence" tag it has is basically fine as that gives the uploader a week to get permission or find a replacement, but otherwise CSD I9 would be the appropriate speedy tag to use. ww2censor (talk) 06:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Flow charts.png

The license is Creative Commons 2.5, but I couldn't find the option. Could someone tag it appropriately?Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The license is Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License. Which is not free thus not useable on wikipedia.Geni 10:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Since when is Wikipedia a commercial thing?Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 10:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't but some of our reusers are. Wikipedia is free as in speach and as in beer to use the standard quote. Content on wikipedia has to be free to use for any purpose. That includes commercial use.Geni 10:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

An image from List of Boston Latin School alumni

Does File:SamuelAdamsSmall.jpeg meet WP:IUP? More specifically, does it need a source to verify that it was created before 1923? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC) P.S. If someone has the time, can they make sure that other images at List of Boston Latin School alumni are properly licensed/tagged? I am image stupid. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It has a source; it is cropped from File:SamuelAdamsLarge.jpeg. According to that the artist died in 1815. That makes it PD everywhere. —teb728 t c 01:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Dolores zombie.jpg

I received a message from the Stifle wizard about this image (from article Zombie (song)), concerning Fails WP:NFCC#8 as the image doesn't add significantly to readers' understanding of the article and its omission wouldn't be detrimental to that understanding. I believe I have addressed this, adding to the purpose line on the image page by stating to identify music video in article only; elements in screenshot, in this case the appearance of the lead singer, is specifically discussed in the article, in the Music video section. Image clearly illustrates the subject under discussion. Other users had written the section, I just added the pic. Is this sufficient to remove the del tag? Thanks. Kresock (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the image should be deleted. The text is perfectly clear without the image; using the image adds nothing to it. Just because there happens to be an image that shows what the text discusses, that doesn't justify using a non-free image. Use of a non-free image must add significantly to readers' understanding of the article. —teb728 t c 01:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Kresock (talk) 01:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Anniejohnchapman1869.jpg

Apologies, this image is proving problematic at Annie Chapman. The issue was visited and revisited on that talk page; and on wikicommons in July 2008. It has now been raised again - by the same editor. Mediation was refused on the subject and incivility is breaking out. The original image is of an 1869 murder victim, and would therefore normally be free. One editor has claimed that this particular version was not published until sometime in the past ten years, and is therefore subject to copyright.

It would be helpful if someone versed in Florida law could provide chapter and verse on the use of this image on Wikipedia and Wikicommons. Thanks Kbthompson (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

FLORIDA law? Copyright is not at all based upon state laws. And it was an 1888 murder victim, not 1869. DreamGuy (talk) 15:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Okey trying to address issues on article talk page.Geni 21:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Kbthompson (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This image has been discussed on the commons at deletion page and back in August was kept but has been commented on this week. However no current formal deletion request has been made and it just seems one editor does not like the decision, but you should follow up there on the commons image talk page. It is not an issue for us here because it is a commons image. Florida law has nothing to do with this. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 04:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The decision was made in error, and also before the image even had a license tag... the tag that was added clearly shows that the image cannot be used, as it spells out that publication right over rules other concerns, and that argument was never brought up under previous discussion. Previous reasons to not use it were sufficient, but new info makes it completely undeniable. DreamGuy (talk) 15:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Actualy it does because potentially the image could stay on en even if deleted from commons.Geni 09:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but as long as it stays on commons, any discussions here are moot. -Seidenstud (talk) 13:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Geni can delete from both locations, and clearly should, as it's a violation multiple ways. DreamGuy (talk) 15:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stop discussing this here. This image is currently on the commons. We should not be dealing with it here until it is only available on this wiki and has been deleted from the commons which looks unlikely. Please deal with it in one place - over on the commons. ww2censor (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

How does pointing out that Geni CAN delete from both locations, proving that it can be discussed on Wikipedia, mean that we shouldn't discuss the fact that we can discuss it here?? And, actually, if you followed the discussion, I have proven that both Wikipedia and Wikimedia cannot use it, as Geni agrees, so so much for your "unlikely" -- Plus people who did post here and didn't bother to follow the exact discussion should know in future situations like this that old items can and do get new copyrights in certain circumstances... That's vitally important to know. Now that you know you should be more careful in what you state is in the public domain and what isn't. DreamGuy (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Organic Chemistry

Whatis the reaction between Sodium bi Sulphite & ( Bromine , Sodium Hypo Chloride ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.181.126.8 (talk) 09:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

This forum is only for media copyright questions. They answer general knowledge questions at the Wikipedia:Reference desk, but they will not do your homework for you. —teb728 t c 09:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Filmfare.jpg

The picture File:Filmfare.jpg appears to have been copied directly from this site, however I'm not sure if logos fall under fair use in this case. However, it is probably not public domain as its current license states. Copana2002 (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it is certainly not PD, not quite sure if it is a logo, exactly. But, either way, if it is PD, it can be speedied under I9; if it's fair use, it qualifies for I5. I'll go ahead with logo and tag it for I5. -Seidenstud (talk) 04:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, upon further investigation, it seems the uploader has been uploading a lot of apparently fair-use stuff using the {{PD-self}} tag. I left a message on the user's talk page, and I will go through and try to tag them correctly. -Seidenstud (talk) 04:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Free Image

Image:Gov Jeb Bush.jpg is released freely under the Florida Government, the problem is the website is no longer available because of the new governor. Rockyobody (talk) 05:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

That's not a problem. If an image is released into the Public Domain (which this one apparently was, according to Florida law) then it cannot be taken back. It doesn't matter if the original source from which it was taken is no longer available. -- Hux (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyright tags

How do I add copyright tags to my images? File:Poker Face -Remixes-.jpg

-bookblade19

Go to WP:TAGS and you will find lists of copyright tags, organized by different types. In the case of this image, which appears to be an album cover, which is neither a free image, nor an image you personally created, you would use the list called "Copyrighted non-free / fair use." Again, for this image, the appropriate tag would be {{Non-free album cover}}. Then, you simply put that text onto the description page of the file.

Please note that for non-free images, you need to also include a fair-use rationale that explains why the image needs to be used for a specific article, and can't be replaced by a free one. For this purpose, you can use the following template, filling in the appropriate values:

	{{album cover fur
	| Article           = 
	| Use               = <!-- Choose: Infobox / Header / Section / Artist / other (specify Purpose) --> 
	<!-- ADDITIONAL INFORMATION -->
	| Name              = 
	| Artist            = 
	| Label             = 
	| Graphic Artist    = 
	| Item              = 
	| Type              = 
	| Website           = 
	| Owner             = 
	| Commentary        = 
	<!--OVERRIDE FIELDS -->
	| Description       = 
	| Source            = 
	| Portion           = 
	| Low_resolution    = 
	| Purpose           = <!-- Must be specified if Use is not Infobox / Header / Section / Artist -->
	| Replaceability    = 
	| other_information = 
	}}

After you have filled in the appropriate values that you know, you paste that under the copyright tag. I hope this helps. Of course, if anything isn't clear, mention it here. -Seidenstud (talk) 06:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bill Black hams it up.jpg

I used to be able to do this, but the "new" formattting baffles me. I just added copyright and title info, but it looks ugly. Where can I find guidance to make it look like it's supposed to? It's in the Bill Black article, if I didn't get the caps, etc right in the file name. Thanks Steve Pastor (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I closed the template for you. Is that what you wanted? —teb728 t c 22:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Question?

There are several images here which have been tagged with an image copyright problem... however, the page claims that permission was received from the copyright holder to use them. What would be the proper course of action here? Thanks. —Celtic Minstrel (talk • contribs) 05:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

All those images only have a wikipedia use permission and we cannot use that. The images may not even originally be from the website, so I would try to find out if they drew the images or is there is another source, perhaps from an old book. They could be old enough and actually PD, but you need to do more research. If the website is indeed the copyright holder then you need to get a better licence from them, such as [[GFDL}]] or one of the image licences listed here. ww2censor (talk) 06:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image:GraphiteReactor.jpg

I uploaded this image here some time ago, and it was deleted in April 2008 when it was moved to Commons. Now, although I believe it is a U.S. government photo, it has been deleted from Commons due to an interpretation that its license does not allow commercial use (see this Commons diff). I would like for the deleted image to be restored here, since there is no question that the image can be freely used for noncommercial purposes. --Orlady (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not accept noncommercial licensing either, as a general matter. To be kept, it must follow our non-free content criteria. Where do you want to use the image, and why? Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I originally uploaded the image to illustrate X-10 Graphite Reactor, and it was also used to illustrate List of National Historic Landmarks in Tennessee. The image was downloaded from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory online historical photo library[9]. The current version of the "rights" notice for the entire ORNL website (which was cited as the basis for removing the image from Commons) says:[10] "Documents provided from the web server were sponsored by a contractor of the U.S. Government under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725. Accordingly, the U.S. Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free license to publish or reproduce these documents, or to allow others to do so, for U.S. Government purposes. These documents may be freely distributed and used for non-commercial, scientific and educational purposes." This image is somewhere between 40 and 65 years old, so it definitely was not produced under the contract cited in that disclaimer; in fact, I believe the photo was by a federal government employee and is now merely being made available on that webserver. Further, since the U.S. government (not the contractor) claims the copyright, I would think that the image qualifies as a free U.S. government image, the same as any other U.S. government image. --Orlady (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand: If the photo were by a federal government employee, it would be in the public domain, and the U.S. government would not claim copyright. So, if as you say the U.S. government claims copyright, then it could not be by a federal government employee. —teb728 t c 00:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

That copyright statement is a blanket statement allegedly applicable to an entire very large website. It is not specific to this image. The fact that a lawyer slapped that statement on the website does not prove that every item on every page of the website is actually subject to that statement. In any event, doesn't "may be freely distributed and used for non-commercial, scientific and educational purposes" allow use in Wikipedia? --Orlady (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You are right that the blanket copyright statement may not apply to every image on the site. If you think this image is in the public domain or licensed under a free license, you need to show proof—not just state your belief. As a matter of policy Wikipedia does not accept noncommercial-only licensing. The reason for this policy is that Wikipedia has a goal of producing reusable content, including reuse on commercial mirror sites. Non-free content must conform to Wikipedia’s non-free content policy. So you need either proof that the image is free content or a rationale of how proposed use would conform to the non-free content policy. —teb728 t c 22:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The photographer who produced this image is Ed Westcott, who was employed by the US Army Manhattan Project and later by the Atomic Energy Commission, and was for many years the sole photographer authorized to photograph the then-secret installations in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, including the X-10 Graphite Reactor. Although I apparently downloaded it from ORNL, a lower-resolution version of the image that I uploaded here and that recently was deleted from Commons is also on the Internet in this gallery of some of Westcott's photos -- specifically it is this image (or a very similar one -- there are several similar images in the same series). Although Mr. Westcott is still living, because all of his work was done as a government employee, there is no copyright protection on it. --Orlady (talk) 03:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The image has been restored at my request. It should be clear (for example, because one of the same people is shown, in the same clothing at the same location) that this image is in the same series as this image by Westcott, who is well-documented to have been a federal government employee. --Orlady (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. —teb728 t c 23:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

File:ICATBURGKING.jpg

I have noticed that GreyMatterEchoUKfan (talk · contribs) has been cautious and uploaded this self-made image with a fair use claim, rather than under a free license (perhaps because he isn't the author of the iCat design - is it even copyrightable?), while the rest of i-animal images are under free licenses and some have been uploaded to the Commons. I am planning to contact the user and ask him to re-license the file; am I right? - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

We don't allow self-made images as fair use, but is the design of the depicted... um... thing copyrighted? The image has no copyright tag as things stand so it's going to get deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Unclesamhumor.jpg

I've just emailed Says-it.com, the website mentioned in File:Unclesamhumor.jpg to query its copyright status.

Hey,

I just saw an image someone made with your generator on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Unclesamhumor.jpg) and I would like to enquire as to whether this is a copyright violation.

IANAL but can someone elect to change the licence of this image to GFDL? Do you maintain copyright over images generated with your website (IANAL, so I'm asking you).

I expect all this confusion could be quickly rectified if you simply give permission for this generation to be licensed under the GFDL, but I would just like to check it isn't a copyright violation.

Also, is the picture of Uncle Sam from a US government/military source (just to ensure the picture isn't copyrighted, as works of the Federal government are not).

Thanks,

Joe Anderson

Your thoughts on the status of the image? Computerjoe's talk 14:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The Uncle Sam image isn't copyrighted; if it's not the work of the federal government (which I think it is), it'd be PD anyway by virtue of failing to include a copyright notice. I doubt that the website can maintain copyright over images generated with it, but I'm not a lawyer either. Stifle (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The owner of the website takes the same view as you (not a lawyer!). At any rate, the image is a copyvio as it's tagged as GFDL. I will send a message to the maker. Computerjoe's talk 18:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair use for public buildings

The image Alabama_Supreme_Court_Building.jpg was deleted without any chance to discuss or defend it. This image of a public, government building comes from the uncopyrighted web site of the Alabama Supreme Court. It is my understanding that photos of public buildings cannot be copyrighted. There is a justification listed by Wikidpedia for a fair use of a public building, which is the one I gave. What is the standard for using a photo of a public building taken from an uncopyrighted govenment web site? How did this one fail to meet that standard? What more justification has to be entered upon upload to use a photo like that to meet that standard?

Springfieldohio (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Most non-U.S. government works are copyrighted. This includes the Alabama Supreme Court, which explicitly claims "©1999 - 2008 Alabama Judicial System Online". --NE2 15:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I missed that. However, the last time I ran into this issue for a plaque in a public park, the consensus was that things on public display cannot be copyrighted and they allowed it. Is there anything to that?

Springfieldohio (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That's correct (to a point) but the photograph is still copyrighted. If you went to that building yourself and took a photograph of it, there would be no problem in you releasing that photograph for us to use. Stifle (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

OTRS details

I requested permission from a website owner to use a picture that he owns, suggesting if he were willing to release it, that he post a notice on his page stating his intentions. He replied to me by email, saying "I hereby release the photo in question into the public domain." I'm going to copy the picture from his website, upload the picture to Commons, and forward the email to the OTRS (I'll post the link to the picture as soon as I upload it) as soon as I finish this post. My question: am I doing right to forward this email to OTRS? It clearly explains which picture is released. My confusion, however, is the basic method: every other time that I've posted someone else's pictures, they've emailed OTRS their permission directly. Therefore, I'm not sure if this is the right course of action; someone please tell me I'm doing right or tell me what I should do. Nyttend (talk) 03:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The picture is File:Ladora Savings Bank.jpg. Nyttend (talk) 03:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, according to commons:OTRS, you are doing things right. I guess the important thing is that you forward to OTRS the full correspondence between the two of you with full email headers. So, the only other thing to do would be to put the {{OTRS pending}} tag on the image - which I went ahead and did for you. -Seidenstud (talk) 04:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I've forwarded to OTRS the full correspondence, which includes the image's original URL. Thanks for resolving my confusion! Nyttend (talk) 04:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

File:NortherDancerBookcover.jpg

This non-free image claims fair use as a book cover, but it is not being used in an article about the book, so the rationale does not apply. What is the correct way to flag a file for deletion in these circumstances? Ajhodd (talk) 05:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The tag is {{Di-replaceable fair use}} and the further procedures can be viewed there. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 06:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think one could reasonably argue that a free photo could be created of a horse that horse died nearly twenty years ago! As such, I don't think that the above template is appropriate. If the image were cropped so that all you can see is the horse then I think the fair use claim would stand. -- Hux (talk) 07:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I was mislead by the previous rationale stating that the horse is still alive. It certainly makes it a lot less likely to get a free image, but not absolutely impossible. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 09:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Canning Dam

File:Canning-Dam-Map.gif--- I think it is copyrighted, but I couldn't find a boilerplate tag for copyrighted maps. So I just put a fair use rationale and a "unknown copyright status" boilerplate. I'm not rally sure what to do. Please fix it and reply ASAP.Cssiitcic (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You won't find one, because maps can be redrawn from their source information and released under a free license, avoiding the need to use one under fair use. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 23:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Uncle Sam

I believe I read somewhere that a copyright is required when using Uncle Sam in a flyer for non-governmental recruiting. I would like to know if this is correct. Thanks --ConcernedDLNWemployee (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

commons:File:Uncle Sam (pointing finger).jpg, on the commons, is in the public domain and can be used for anything you want. ww2censor (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Unlimited unfree images in Wikia

I don't understand why there are many unfree image in Wikia. In addition, it had no rationale. Many images of Yu-Gi-Oh! cards were upload in Yu-Gi-Oh wikia. Many screenshots were uploaded like in Wookieepedia. Aquitania (talk) 06:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This forum is for media copyright questions on Wikipedia. Wikipedia and Wikia have no connection (except that they both happened to be founded by Jimmy Wales). Wikia and Wookieepedia are not owned by Wikimedia Foundation the owner of Wikipedia. —teb728 t c 06:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Titanic

What year did the Titanic sink? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mushrow (talk • contribs) 01:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Erm...Is this serious? 1912, it's right in the article on it, RMS Titanic. – Joe Nutter 02:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Are photos put up on Indian Government (central & state) and other political institutions considered free to use? How about official websites of political parties?

Being new to Wikipedia, I am just getting familiar with the Copyright rules followed by Wikipedia.

There are many Indian politicians who do not have their images in Wikipedia (or atleast I have not been able to find them). I have noticed that most of the official websites of Indian government & other political institutions (such as Lok Sabha, President of India and other websites setup by the National Informatics Centre do not display any copyright notice. Does this mean that photos of MPs/MLAs taken from such websites can be uploaded freely onto Wikipedia?

Also, I have seen that some of the political parties' official sites do not display a copyright. For example, the website of the Communist Party of India (Marxist). Are images of members from such websites considered free to use on Wikipedia? If this is true, can I then understand that as long as a website displays a Copyright notice, such as the one on the Indian National Congress' website, images from that website cannot be used on Wikipedia?

Apologies if this has already been asked in the past, or if this is not the right forum to ask such questions. Appreciate any guidance.

List of external pages referenced above:

Aditya.krishnan.82 (talk, contribs) 06:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is the Commons page on Indian copyright law. Government works enter the public domain 60 years after publication, so government works published prior to 1 Jan 1948 are in the public domain. I think the same rule would apply to the stuff published by the political parties. Kelly ^hi! 05:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

And just because a website does not display a copyright notice does not mean that the site and its contents are not copyright. The site would have to display a specific free licence for you to know the images were free to use. Lack of a notice it does not imply anything. ww2censor (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks folks.
Aditya.krishnan.82 (talk, contribs) 06:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

WMLPimage.JPG

I believe that this image is not complying with the terms of fair use, as it is quite obviously an image taken from Google Earth. I am not sure about how to proceed/what to do about fixing this.allanlw (talk) 06:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

All google maps are copyright and cannot be used here. the image was put up for deletion and is now gone. ww2censor (talk) 06:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sydney Olympic Logos

[11]

No Copyright i have the logo from [No Copyright i have the logo from [12]]

No Copyright i have the logo from [13]

I'm assuming that you are the uploader of the above images. Just so you know, those images are copyrighted and therefore they cannot be used on Wikipedia unless their use is consistent with the non-free content criteria. If they are not tagged appropriately, with a non-free use rationale, then they will have to be deleted. Sorry. -- Hux (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Image Copyright?

I would like to put some of the images from the following website into the corresponding wikipedia article:

childmusiconline.com Child Music article

Specifically, the cd artwork. What would these be classified as? What do I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HiTechPR (talk • contribs) 16:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the images on that site are copyrighted, the only way they can be used on Wikipedia is if your proposed use is consistent with the non-free content criteria. If it is, then you can upload images, tag them as {{Non-free fair use in|articlename}} and add an appropriate non-free use rationale. -- Hux (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Portable.jpg copied from site without authorization?

It seems like the file File:Portable.jpg was just added to Wikipedia with a random license tag associated with it. The user that uploaded it has only ever uploaded that picture and added it to the Slacker page. A search of Slacker's page doesn't show anything for "Creative Commons", and wouldn't the picture shown on the screen need at least a fair-use rationale associated with it? I have a valid picture of Slacker's G2, so I am going to add my picture to the Slacker (music service) page in place of the G1 picture. That would make the Portable.jpg picture an orphan as well, leading to its deletion from Wikipedia, right? Hustvedt (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I've tagged File:Portable.jpg as a copyright violation and it should be deleted later. ww2censor (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Image for Wiki entry on Radha, the Hindu Goddess

Hi, I'm a literary publisher putting together a collection of poetry by an Indian American poet, Reetika Vazirani. The title of the collection is "Radha Says". We are looking for an image of Radha for the book's cover. The image with the Wiki entry for Radha is beautiful. is there any way I can find out where it comes from and if we might be able to use it? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.30.64 (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean one of the images used in Radha? The two painting images are PD, so you could use them but from a publishing point of view, the quality is too low for any print usage. The first one was made from a painting by the uploader so you should contact him directly, preferably on the commons where he is more active than here, to see if he has another larger file that he would release to PD. The second image indicates it source as a website, but is also PD. However the image has some strange articfacts in it. ww2censor (talk) 06:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Question on Portraits

Hi!

My question pertains to portrait of a person who died in 1944. His name was Walter Oesau. There are very few photos that are free. At this time there is a photograph in the article that is by Heinrich Hoffmann. Its Public Domain in USA but not in Germany. I am in touch with a person who's writing a book on Oesau at this time. They offered me a portrait of Oesau they made on their own. They are willing to filling out Wiki Copyright release. My first question is, can I use this portrait ? If yes, what steps exactly do I need to do ? Last time I tried to do something like this, the process didn't go through. So I'd apprecite if someone could let me know what steps I need to follow to use this image. Thanks Perseus71 (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

An image that is public domain in the USA only would be okay here, but not on Commons. For copyright release, see WP:COPYREQ. THe most common mistake is not realizing that the image has to be usable by anyone for any purpose, not just on wikis. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. What I was referring to is that Portrait. Its not a photo. Can I still use it in the article along with the photo ? Thanks Perseus71 (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The answer Rat at WikiFur gave you didn't depend on whether the image was a photo or not. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Belgian government copyright?

I recently uploaded two images, File:Belgian residence permit (verso).jpg and File:Belgian residence permit (recto).jpg, each depicting one side of a sample of a typical Belgian residence permit. The images are used under a fair-use claim on the National identity card (United Kingdom) article to illustrate the striking similarity between the British and Belgian cards. I was a bit unsure over which copyright tag to add, though. In the end I went for {{Non-free with ND}}. This is because the webpage for PRADO (which contains identical albeit lower-res copies of these two images) features the copyright notice "Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged, unless otherwise stated."

Any help? Should I have tagged the images otherwise? —Gabbe (talk) 23:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the tag says "This tag must only be used in conjunction with a fair use tag and a valid fair use rationale", so I suggest adding a fair use tag. Stifle (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Benin

Anyone aware of the copyright status of benin government photos? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know as much French as I used to, but this page might be a start for someone who is fluent. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Title II Chapter III Section I Article 9 of Loi n° 2005-30 du 5 avril 2006 covers areas that the law does not protect. Clause 1 states "aux textes officiels de nature législative, administrative ou judiciaire, ni à leurs traductions officielles". I'm not the best French speaker, but I believe this says "the official works of the legislative, administrative or judicial branches, or their official translations [are not protected by this act]". Could someone review, though? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 12:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It says that the protection contemplated by that law does not extend to official texts of legislative, administrative, or judicial nature, nor of their official translations, nor to the news of the day. The key word is textes (texts), so I don't think photos are exempted by that article. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Buck O'Neil.jpg at Buck O'Neil Deletion Question

I was looking at the Baseball Hall of Fame page on the Profile of Buck O'Neil at http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers/oneil.jsp The image of Buck on that page is in Public Domain. The image at File:Buck O'Neil.jpg was deleted as part of the BetacommandBot rampage by User:Maxim. Since I don't have access to the deleted work I don't know if the image Deleted was the one on that page that is listed as Public Domain. If it is I would like it restored and I need to know which templates I need to use to prevent redeletion as there so many people out there that would delete this image again even though it was declared PD. Sawblade05 ^{(talk to me | my wiki life)} 10:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That image was tagged as {{Non-free promotional}} and its only other information was a source. It is not the image on that page you linked to. Stifle (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I uploaded the image to Commons. Since I am so confused on the tags I need you to double check em to make sure I got it right. Sawblade05 ^{(talk to me | my wiki life)} 06:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyright question

Is a still from a film released in 1931 considered a free image? If not, under what circumstances (if any) can such an image be uploaded and added to an article about the film? Thank you. LiteraryMaven (talk) 15:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This would depend on what country it was released in, and (perhaps) whether its copyright was renewed or when the copyright holder died. Stifle (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

As for using it if you can't find it to be free, {{non-free film screenshot}} and an appropriate rationale should be fine. Stifle (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, I might add that many film trailers (and therefore screenshots from those trailers) from between the years 1923 and 1977 are in the public domain. You might want to look through commons:Category:Film trailer screenshots and see if you can find anything. -Seidenstud (talk) 03:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Screen shots..?

i thought i'd added the appropriate copyright tags, but i'm getting messages telling me that i haven't. the images i'm using are from a program on microsoft, for use on our internal wiki. where am i going wrong!?

[14] [15] [16]

Pipmas 16:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipmas (talk • contribs)

Now that you have added the {{Non-free software screenshot}} tags, you can remove the {{di-no fair use rationale}} tags. But the images still need a non-free use rationale for each article the image is used on. —teb728 t c 19:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyright question

File:PHP-Fusion-v7-logo.png
Hi,

I've uploaded this image today, but first I forgot to select a copyright type. I didn't find any page where I could change the copyright. Then I uploaded the file again, but then I selected a copyright (Logo or what was that). Finally I found a better image (without blank left side), so I uploaded it, and I selected Logo from the copyright list. But I still get notifications from the missing copyright. Is that caused by the first image? Or I misunderstand something? What and how should I do/change?

(It's the PHP-Fusion's logo, and I want use it in the PHP-Fusion wiki)

Thanks,
Korcsii

Edit File:PHP-Fusion-v7-logo.png and replace the {{no copyright information}} tag with a copyright tag. The tag you want is {{non-free logo}} right? If so you also need to provide a [[WP:NFURG|non-free use rationale for use on the article, and you can use a {{logo fur}} template for that. —teb728 t c 19:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! - Korcsii

question about copyright law

can you take a copyright photo and change it in to a painting or is that still copyright? can you make a porfit from the painting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.56.43 (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Typically a painting of a photo is considered a derivative work, and therefore, the photo's author will still hold the copyright. I recall there being a bunch of "paintings" from photos on here trying to serve as free images of celebrities. I believe these were deleted. As for making a profit from the painting, that is between you and the copyright holder. -Seidenstud (talk) 01:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

About the copyright licensing for the graphic that goes with the eSignal article (File:10 2 with Forex window.jpg)

I'm trying to tag the graphic 10 2 with Forex window.jpg that is posted in the eSignal article in Wikipedia. I can NEVER find and / or remember the exact copyright designation that won't end up with the screen shot being tagged for deletion by you Bot. PLEASE HELP.

Here is what it is:

It's a screen shot of the eSignal software (release 10.2), which is available in the Press Room section of the eSignal website.

The screen shot was created by Marketing at eSignal and is available for use for press releases and for other PR functions (such as the Wikipedia article) in conjunction with text that describes the product.

It has no license no.

This is very annoying and time-consuming. I keep trying to post the screen shot with each new release, and, each time, I can never remember what I designated it as the previous time, and / or Wikipedia keeps updating (changing) the rules.

PLEASE, WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE DESIGNATION, SO THE SCREEN SHOT DOES NOT GET DELETED AGAIN?

Daniellegs (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You've got the copyright tag just right ({{Non-free software screenshot}}), but as with any non-free image you need to provide a fair use rationale - this can be as simple as a short statement telling users why the use of this image is permissible on Wikipedia under our guidelines. A good guide to writing these can be found at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. Let us know if you have any questions about that. ~ mazca ^t|c 22:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Stamps

Fair use postage stamp images may only be used in articles about the stamp itself and not the subject of the stamp per non-free content criteria. ww2censor (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC) (discussion continued from File talk:StampMiddelgrunden.jpg)

Image:Harry potter stamps.jpg

Most pictures in Category:Fair use stamp images are used in the article related to the subject. Some post offices permit educational use [17]. German postage stamps are "official works" and thus in the public domain [18]. A certain cultural value is attached to subjects which are displayed on stamps. I therefore believe that non-free content criteria should be reviewed before deleting the images. Inwind (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The stamp image you uploaded, File:StampMiddelgrunden.jpg, fails the criteria for postage stamps and must be deleted unless you can get the fair use criteria changed. Actually, just a few days ago, I was reviewing the stamps listed in the Fair use stamp images category and most of them, about 300, are being used improperly, in subject articles not stamp articles, and that is in contravention of the fair use criteria for stamps. They will all be put up for deletion soon. Your argument about stamps in the public domain bears no weight because stamps in the public domain can be used from any purpose, but that is not the case for fair-use stamps. The burden of proof to provide a suitable rationale that complies with the criteria is on the editors who wish to retain the image and not on the editor nominating an image for deletion. ww2censor (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'd just like to point something out relating to Inwind's comment. Even though the USPS allows usage for educational use without permission, that is not good enough for inclusion in Wikipedia without fair-use restrictions. Since Wikipedia's content is licensed under the GFDL, re-use of it is permitted for other reasons including commercial, non-educational uses. So education-use-only content does not comply with that license. -Seidenstud (talk) 08:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible copyvio at Comparison between Roman and Han Empires

Could someone please take a look at the discussion here: [19] - and note that the editor has now rewritten the possible copyvio in the article (ie changed the words around a bit). Thanks. dougweller (talk) 06:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I have chimed in of the talk page. Hopefully that will get the ball rolling. I am done being awake for the day, and tomorrow is NYE, but, if progress hasn't been made by Jan 1st, in my sleep-deprived day-off, I can start giving the article itself due attention. -Seidenstud (talk) 08:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I feel that the editor Teeninvestor has, on this and other matters, tended to ignore the advice he is given. He seems to think that just changing a few words makes it right. I'm considering ANI but I'd like to avoid that.

If you havent noticed, its hardly a few words; its a massive rewrite. keep in mind its still in progress. If you have so much ideas why don't you assist me yourself, rather than commenting on the sidelines.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Wrong venue for that question, but since I think we need sources that actually compare the two articles, and I don't have those sources, I don't have much to contribute. You are using sources that don't do the comparison (and a source that isn't even published). Let's see one change you made. The copyright material (that you say isn't copyright) says
"Rome achieved a staggering transformation of scale in the production of agricultural, manufactured, and mined goods in the Mediterranean basin. The Romans also built an unprecedented number of roads and drew up complex land maps on which all major roads and the distances between towns were specified. They also coordinated the road network with sea routes to support the flow of commerce. Coinage was produced in massive quantities to facilitate the exchange of commodities and services. Large-scale commercial plantation agriculture emerged on estates called latifundia. Specializing in cash crops for urban markets, these estates required large numbers of slave laborers. These economic developments were supported by a firm belief in private property, which was codified into Roman law."
Your major rewrite says

"Rome achieved a revolution of production in the production of agricultural, manufactured, and mined goods in the Mediterranean sea. The Romans also built an extensive road system and drew up complex land maps on which all major roads and the distances between towns were specified. They built their road networks to coordinate with sea routes so to improve the flow of commerce. Coinage was produced by the Roman government in massive quantities to facilitate the exchange of commodities and services, and to support the growing economy. Large-scale commercial plantation agriculture emerged on estates called latifundia. Specializing in cash crops for the urban markets of the empire, these estates employed large numbers of slave laborers. These economic developments were supported by a firm belief in private property, which was codified into Roman law." They say essentially the same thing. Just paraphrasing isn't enough. dougweller (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

deleting images

hello, there is now a way to upload pictures directly to our internal wiki. how do i delete the images i have uploaded on wikipedia?

[20] [21] [22]

Pipmas 09:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipmas (talk • contribs)

As their copyright status is claimed as fair use and they are not used in any articles, they will be deleted in a week or so. -Seidenstud (talk) 13:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Stéphane Paré.jpg

I uploaded this photo for use in the article Quo Vadis (band), but I have been informed that it does not have a tag. I took the picture myself and would like to know what tag is befitting to it. Also, some help would be appreciated in uploading the image onto said article.

Thank You. Hari iyer44 (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

See WP:ICTIC for tags you can add to images you created yourself, and Wikipedia:Picture_tutorial for information on how to add it to articles. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)