Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2008/January

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Tart as a double entendre

Not exactly a copyright question but legal issue to do with the image Image:Tart as a double entendre.gif. In the article, Penny Arcade (webcomic) it says that the persons who created and distributed the image were threatened with legal action by the copyright holder of characters reproduced within the image (American Greetings) which lead to the removal of the image from the website, is it therefore sensible to host and display the image on the site? Also does using an exact copy of a webcomic that has the financial purpose of attracting viewers to a website to boost advertising income qualify under fair use. Although in this case as the image has been removed from the website I guess it isn't so much of an issue. Regards, [[Guest9999 (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)]]

I've flagged it as needing reducing in size (should be more thumbnail sized). Nothing wrong with us hosting the image as fair use - it never came to court. Megapixie (talk) 07:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
It never went to court because the creators of the image took it down from their website to avoid a legal battle. I would assume that Wikipedia would also want to avoid such a legal battle. [[Guest9999 (talk) 11:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)]]
I would say wait and see given the availability of the image. Running at the first hint of lawyers is dangerously close to self-censorship. If they don't like it they can send a letter or e-mail. Megapixie (talk) 12:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

John Adams (composer) image

I am wondering if I can use the images on John Adams' official site at the address http://earbox.com/press.html The image in question is [[1]] Macror (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy usually considers fair use images of living people that merely show what they look like to be replaceable by free-licensed images and unsuitable for the project. Although these are obviously publicity photos, the page doesn’t say they is licensed under a free license; indeed it says “all rights reserved.” So to use this image we need to request copyright permission as described at WP:COPYREQ. The copyright apparently belongs to photographer Deborah O'Grady. --teb728 t c 06:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Added fair use rational

Regarding [[2]], is the fair use rational I added sufficient and can I remove the disputed tag? - Xedaf (talk) 11:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:EiffellTower.JPG

I photographed it myself, but it's of the Eiffel Tower - do I therefore own the copyright?

Red Alert (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes --teb728 t c 22:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually - it's fairly complicated see Eiffel_Tower#Image_copyright_claims Megapixie (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

deleting uploaded images

Hi, how can I delete the images that I uploaded? thank you! (Habeascorpus01 (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC))

tag with {{db-author}}. Megapixie (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't understand how to tag the image appropriately. Harold Daniels was the photographer and owns the copyright but Karen Marie Moning has paid for web usage of it. I credited Harold in the images section. What do I need to to to prevent the image from being taken down?

Thank you,

Leiha —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolaha (talk • contribs) 01:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have copyright of the image (the photographer released the image to you for unlimited modification, redistribution, commercial use, then you may release the image under a free-license. Try using my prototype copyright flowchart here: User:Megapixie/CopyrightFlowChart it may be helpful. Megapixie (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Official photo of state legislator

Found photo of former Oregon state legislator on Oregon Congressman Earl Blumenauer's web-site Earl Blumenauer for Oregon. Legislator I'm interested in served in Oregon House of Reps from 1965-1977 and dead in 1984. Photo appears to be official photo probably from Oregon Blue Book (e.g. Members of Oregon House of Representatives) before Blue Books were published on-line. Blue Book is published by Oregon Secretary of State as part of the Oregon State Archives. What is status of state archive photos? Are they Public Domain like US Government photos? If not, can such photos be used in Wikipedia under Fair Use rule? It looks like they probably meet Fair Use criterion.--Orygun (talk) 02:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Complicated see User:Peteforsyth/leg Megapixie (talk) 03:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleting Uploaded Images - part 2

Sorry, I don't understand where to put the tag -- I don't know where to access the images I uploaded (I only uploaded them but I never made a Picture Gallery on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Kurtz, so they apparently don't exist on that page, unless I'm just missing where to find them?. Can you tell me WHERE I can access them to add the tag, OR - could you possibly just delete them for me?

Thank you!!

(Habeascorpus01 (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC))

Image:GenTerra01.jpg‎, Image:GenTerra02.jpg‎, and Image:GenTerra03.jpg‎. (You can get a list of all your contributions by clicking on my contributions at the top of the page.) --teb728 t c 06:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Replacable fair use process: constructive or disruptive?

Regarding removal of NF images for free replacements, as per this removal [3], all that seems to happen is a tag is placed on the uploaders talk page [4] and the image categorised as such.

The question is, does there not exist any other more positive group / process / project for this kind of work? If the uploader never returns, who else knows which article this image was deleted from? The image page loses the link to the articles it was used in, so even for people who routinely view the image replace categories and are not possibly involved directly in the subject matter, how are they supposed to know where it came from, even if they are able to find a free use version in the just 7 days allowed before it disappears completely?

Anyway, I was able to find a free use version already on WP in a matter of seconds, something the remover was seemingly unable or uninterested in doing. It seems to me from this, and past experience, that the whole image deletion policy is generally disruptive, rather than constructive, as there is no onus on the people who love to remove these images and just place tags to actually try and fix the situation, or more importantly inform other interested parties of the situation so they can fix it, or help the constructive but not necessary involved people to fix it either. I only found out as the article is on my watchlist, but it may well not have been, it is already too large as it is. Apologies if there are other processes or groups, or a more appropriate place for this question, but I am not aware of them, not for want of looking. MickMacNee (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Try raising it at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content‎ Megapixie (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
done, many thanks MickMacNee (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Audio Clip from Talk Radio

I have an 2-minute OGG clip from a talk radio show. It contains no music or copyrighted media, but rather a conversation between several people about a psychological topic. One of the speakers in a California licensed and practicing physician who is making a important point not often heard by the general public, and it is for the scientific merit of his statement that I want to upload this file. The show is broadcast all over the United States on FM Radio and by internet streaming, AND is made available free for download on their official website in MP3 format. The original file can be found here [5] but I fear that this link will be gone soon and it is much too long anyway (90 minutes long). The broadcast company is Westwood One. What license, if any, applies? And can this file be uploaded under fair use? Thank you Legitimus (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

There are two parts to fair use. Fair and use. 2 minutes may be too long for fair (by wikipedia standards) - it may be easier to summarise in text the point he is making i.e. "Dr.Phil stated in a January 2007 program that the problems of global warming were caused by Mexican food, and that the real solution was to stop eating Mexican food.". The use part - what article are you talking about? Megapixie (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleting accidentally uploaded image - Part 3

Hi, thank you, I understand how to add the tag { {db-author} } ...but WHERE? I found the images under My Contributions n THIS PAGE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GenTerra02.jpg (Correct?) ...and I do not see where I can EDIT anything to add the tag. --Thanks!! (Habeascorpus01 (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC))

 DoneMegapixie (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

SORRY - Re: Deleting accidentally uploaded image - Part 3

SORRY! I typed out the tag, and it added the delete notice to your page! -- I'm so sorry, I did not mean to do that! I hope it does not cause problems! I'm just trying to figure out WHERE I can edit this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GenTerra02.jpg to add the tag tot he image text asking it to be deleted. Thank you, (Habeascorpus01 (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC))

Hi there. Just go to the image page, click the "edit this page" tab above the image, and write {{db-author}}. Then save the page. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Roy Wood Correct Information

Dear Wikipedia. .... My name is Roy Wood. You have a section in Wikipedia describing myself .... formerly of The Move E.L.O and Wizzard. Some of this information is WRONG. Including my real name and date of birth etc. This has in the past caused me some embarrassment when it comes to radio and press coverage, as they usually consult your Wikipedia page. Now I have just reached the age of sixty. I feel it's about time to have this information corrected. Please advise how I can possibly have this sorted out. ... Thank you. .... ROY WOOD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Real roy wood (talk • contribs) 22:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note on your talk page giving you some advice. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Given permission, but being chased by a Bot

BetacommandBot sent me a message regarding Image:EdBrown JimCopp.jpg possibly not qualifying for "fair use." The story is this: I was gvien permission by the people who own the rights to the photo to use it in a Wikipedia article. The photo should be allowed to stay where it is. Under what stricture do I have to do this? Morganfitzp (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless the rightsholders licensed it under a free license, their permission is (from the perspective of Wikipedia policy) meaningless. The rationale that you've provided for fair use is therefore invalid - a valid fair use rationale would need to explain why it was critical to the article in which it was being used, why it couldn't be replaced by a free image, etc. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I see you've also tagged the image as having been released into the public domain. If this is indeed the case, you should simply remove all reference to fair use (there's currently a contradiction on the page, in that it's both stated to be copyrighted and in the public domain). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy replies. The image is of the two men that the corresponding article is about. Images and recordings of these men are licensed to Playhouse Records. I therefore contacted Playhouse Records about writing a Wikipedia article about these men and the label sent me the photo in question, along with permission to use it. What do I need to do to have the image be allowed to stay where it is? Morganfitzp (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
It needs to be released under a free license, which means anyone (not just wikipedia) must be able to use it for any purpose. See WP:COPYREQ for the process of getting the correct permission and mailing it to the wikimedia foundation. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I actually think that there is a fair use rationale for this one - I'll try to put one together if you give me a few minutes. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I've included a fair use rationale. I think it will pass muster (though I can't guarantee it), once somebody shrinks the image down to something lower resolution. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I reduced the image size. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Los Elefantes.ogg

The piece is indeed free as I have sent an e-mail to the owner of the website. I have since deleted the e-mail and no longer have it as there wasn't a problem. It adds to the article tremendously and I believe it should stay there. I also believe my rationale for it being free is legitimate. schyler (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You need a WP:FURG template. You may be confusing libre with gratis - unless the form of there email was close toWikipedia:COPYREQ#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries then it's probably not enough to change it to {{GFDL}}. The fact you are using the entire song, not just a clip is problematic from a fair use point of view (i.e. it's not fair use). You'll need to get explicit consent and follow the procedure at the COPYREQ page to be able to use the entire song. Megapixie (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Xbox_logo.png

As far as I know, I did give an adequate fair use rational for this image. However, I still got a bot notice about it. Could someone confirm whether I did provide a valid fair use rational? Thingg (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Look at WP:FURG (you didn't provide a rationale). Additionally fair use images should not be used in userspace per policy at Wikipedia:FU#Policy_2. I have removed the image from the userbox for now. If it's not being used in an article (i.e. Xbox which appears to be using Image:Microsoft XBOX.svg) then it will be deleted as an orphan. Megapixie (talk) 03:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I was not aware that that image existed (and I wasn't thinking about the policy you mentioned). Thanks for the help. Thingg (talk) 03:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Need help with explanation for commericial use

I have been emailing a certain not for profit organization and they are quite hostile to giving a creative commons allowing commercial use. They are ok with giving a creative commons license but forbidding commercial use. Here is a recent email I got:


Dear (name withheld)

I think that perhaps Wikipedia should be more open about its commercial aspirations, as I suspect that most contributors do so on the basis that they are volunteering at a 'not for profit'; Wikimedia is registered as such: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About#The_Wikimedia_Foundation . I had a good search but couldn't find what the rationale was for insisting on commercial use, except for something about distributing Wikipedia on DVD. For me putting Wikipedia on the '$100 laptop' for free is non commercial but selling up to Pearson is be commercial, I think most people have the idea that Wikipedia "is a multilingual, web-based, free content encyclopedia project" ... "written collaboratively by volunteers from all around the world" (lifted from about Wikipedia) and that the insistence on commercial use is out of sync with this.


As I said use in Wikipedia would be fine, eg perhaps using this licence: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/

You might find this policy helpful with respect to finding images: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules


Best wishes,

(name withheld)


Please could some people give me some solid reasons that I can communicate back to this organization that will allay their fears about commercial use. I would really appreciate that.

thanks

Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 16:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

In a way the situation may be worse than your correspondent imagines. When Wikipedia describes itself as a “free content encyclopedia project,” free means not free of cost but free of restriction. Although Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization, Wikipedia content may be reused by anyone subject only to GFDL—by anyone including profit-making companies. The fact that any reuse is subject to GFDL, however, makes it unattractive to commercial companies. --teb728 t c 19:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, a common misconception with companies about Wikipedia. It is not "Wikipedia wants to sell your image on DVDs tomorrow", but rather "Freedom is a greater good than non-commercial". We are building information for the future, and whatever the use may be, the information we collect is to be Free forever. You could point out to them, that it is for instance possible for them to license a "small-resolution" digital version of the image while they keep full "closed" licenses that allow them to sell the original in any way they want. That tactic has been successful for me once. However, it would really be a shame to make such a trade-off, so that is a rather "last-resort" type of thing. Watermarks are not allowed (another favorite with companies, but they will receive attribution on the image page of course and if they want, they can include the attribution in the EXIF tag as well for instance. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
So what can I say to them to allay their fears? Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 21:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
There is good page explaining why Wikipedia doesn't allow non-commercial at User:Fastfission/Noncommercial. Garion96 (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reference. I hope though that wikipedia can emphasize that it does not have 'secret commercial aspirations'. This organization is suspicious of this and it is hard to allay their fear. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 18:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
With respect, I'm not sure you're following what people have said. You cannot allay this org's fears, as they are in fact right to be "suspicious", as you put it, of our aspirations. It's a basic tenet of Jimmy Wales's ideology that entrepreneurs should be able to profit from the sweat of the brows of Wikipedia contributors if they can find a way to do so. Hence this is scrupulously reflected in our policies. 86.42.66.94 (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
They are suspicious of Wikipedia itself not of what entrepreneurs might in the future do with Wikipedia's material. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 05:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Egypt Pyramids

Image:All Gizah Pyramids.jpg Hi, I heard rumours that Egypt is supposed to copyright the pyramids. What does that mean in regards to photo's of the Egyptian pyrimids here on Wikipedia? --CyclePat (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Under American copyright law, they can't copyright the pyramids. So it shouldn't mean anything. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Is that the same thing for regular buildings? (architechture?) --CyclePat (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Most "regular" buildings aren't thousands of years old. Anything newer than about 140 years may be protected by copyright, excepting freedom of panorama. Megapixie (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. --CyclePat (talk) 07:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What is a copyright?

sorry this may seem foolish but what is the copyright and how can i get it ? i realy want to help wikipedia and i got alot of helpful things but i don't realy know how to get its license or its copyrights......................... sorry for bothering you but all what i need is help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gameel 50 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The copyright is basically who owns a particular work. In the case of images, it's usually whoever took them or drew them. For example, if you take a photograph of something, people can't just take that photograph and publish it without your permission (of course, if the website hired you to take the picture, then it would probably own the copyright). Wikipedia tries as much as possible to use only works that the copyright holder has released under a free license, meaning anybody can use them for any purpose. Does that answer your question? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have received an entry on the Humanist Movement talk page questioning the use of the image: Image:humanist_party_moebius_logo_-_white_on_orange.gif

I have filled in a template on the image screen that I think is what you are after. Please can you confirm if this is all ok now so that I can remove the query from the page. Thanks in advance tonyr68uk tonyr68uk (talk) 15:03 GMT 03 Jan 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 15:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've modified some of the info slightly - hope this is ok. Addhoc (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the image is copyrighted at all actually, but if what you've written is enough to chase off the image police then it's ok. tonyr68uk (talk) 23:02 GMT 03 Jan 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 23:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Caldorwards4

I just wanted to point out this user has contributed a very very large number of our good corporate logos. There are literally dozens tagged for the next couple of days and I dont know where to find sources, etc. Any help? MBisanz talk 19:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I glanced at a few of his warnings, and it looks like all he needs to do is provide a non-free use rationale for each use as described in non-free use rationale guideline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TEB728 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Natural Selection album cover.jpg

I'm not sure what the problem is. I used the same rationale as the Something Like Human cover, which has a higher resolution, mind you, and no one's said anything about it. Low resolution images of album covers are acceptable as per WP:NONFREE. What's going on with that? -- §HurricaneERICarchive 20:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to include a more detailed rationale than "This is an album cover". Even the template tag says as much. There is a guidance page somewhere, which may or may not be at WP:FUR. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
You need a non-free use rationale for each use as described in non-free use rationale guideline. --teb728 t c 21:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Kippi Brannon

The image of Kippi Brannon that has been submitted to Wikipedia is a photograph that is currently owned and licensed by her former record label, Curb Records. Curb used this photo for all public promotional purposes when she was actively with the record label. If this was an illegal procedure on my part, then I am sorry that I made the attempt at submitting it. Thank you Gotfemail (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

In general, Wikipedia only allows free images of living people, since non-free ones are considered replaceable. Although it doesn't appear that there has ever been a photograph of any kind in Kippi Brannon. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

My photo

How do I post a photo from our website? I don't understand what else I have to do —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.43.145.246 (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What's the photo of, and who owns the copyright for it? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Reaction to notification bots

Yesterday I received [a bot message on my talk page] about the book cover image for Chris Moore's novel The Lust Lizard of Melancholy Cove. As far as I can tell, the image is low-res; it is the very same image from the author's website. I added this as an illustration to the article more than a year ago, and included the book-cover template with the image as justification. The bot message refers to several lengthy, complicated, policy-ensconced web pages, but does not really make a resolution of the matter even reasonably worth my time to figure out. If low-res images of book-covers like this are not allowed, then one would expect that all of them should be removed. However, this matter does not seem to be enforced equitably on Wikipedia. The use of bots posting indirect notices (after an extraordinary delay in time) on my "talk" page, rather than e-mail from administrators or other human authorities, constitutes another annoying aspect of the way policy-notifications are handled. It is extremely alienating. Mademoiselle Fifi (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

A few points in response:
  • The issue isn't the resolution of the image, it's the lack of fair use rationale. Whenever you upload an image that has not been released under a free license, you must include an explanation for why it may be used under Wikipedia's fair use criteria, which you didn't do for this image. Give me a few minutes and I'll add one.
  • Accordingly, there isn't an issue of unequitable enforcement; likely any book cover you've seen that's stayed on Wikipedia for any length of time had a fair use rationale, which is why they weren't tagged like this one was.
  • The reason bots handle the notification is that bots are the ones that find the images withou said rationales. It would be very arduous for humans to check every single image that's uploaded, especially when there are so many things that can be checked for automatically, by bots.
  • I can see why you'd find the message slightly confusing. Unfortunately, this is because the entire area of intellectual property is very complicated (I don't come close to understanding it). I think the bot's message is as simple as it can be, really.
  • As you're probably aware, talk pages is how communication of all kinds is handled on Wikipedia. It would be very unusual for something like this to be dealt with via e-mail, even if it was being dealth with by human administrators (and for that matter, it's not just administrators who deal with improperly used images - it's any editor).
I hope this addresses many of your concerns. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I've added a fair use rationale and deleted the disputed notice. It should be okay now. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. In the future, if you are going to move a user's response to a new section, please do not attempt to read people's feelings as part of the new title. Did I write that I was irritated? No. Therefore, I have changed the title of this section from "irritation" to "reaction."

  • The "Non-free use rationale", I gather, is a new kind of required template -- how long has it been required (the policy page was started in Dec. 2006)? From what I can tell, I included the book-cover template, and I did explain in my upload that the image came from the author's website. (In any case, your addition to the image page gives only a general link as a source; the current link is http://www.chrismoore.com/images/lustlizard_lg.jpg.)
  • Nevertheless, I'm not convinced that the enforcement is equitable. See, for instance, the book cover at Image:Vampire Lestat Original.jpg, which appears in the article The Vampire Lestat. (I'm not picking on a user or an author, but simply looked for an example which readily appeared). According to the user talk pages in the history of that image page, neither of the two users (one is apparently a bot) for that image (originally posted earlier than my Lizard one) have been sent a bot notice about this image, and yet the image file lacks the "Non-free use rationale" template that you added to my upload. (If I have misread the information cited here, I apologize in advance.) I recall that I might have uploaded one or two more images for Chris Moore's books under the same circumstances as Lizard -- shall I expect bot messages about those?
  • As far as notifications are concerned, I participate very little on Wikipedia any more, and therefore I do not keep up with my talk page (mainly because of the ease with which vandals can participate -- still), let alone with the new rules of Wikipedia. I understand what intellectual property is, as I have a stake in it myself. However, it should not have taken all these years now for Wikipedia administrators and editors and gurus and whoever else to settle on how visual images should be handled.
  • I do not agree that the bot's message is simple. Rather than simply including the non-free use template to cut and paste, the message leads me to another web page, through which I would have had to search for what the bot wanted me to find. It's just not worth my effort to keep up with the endless policy-tinkering that apparently is still going on in this regard. This experience leaves little encouragement for me to make any more substantial contributions to Wikipedia than I already have, at least on the English-language site. Mademoiselle Fifi (talk) 01:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing this file, it appears to me that BetacommandBot is adding to the confusion by using the incorrect warning tag. This image did not have any FUR yet the tag used by the bot states "This image or media has a non-free use rationale that is disputed because of the following concern: invalid rationale per WP:NFCC#10c" It is the use of the incorrect tag that adds to the confusion factor. see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Lustlizard_lg.jpg&oldid=181911984 Dbiel (Talk) 01:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Remove BetacommandBot warnings after Fair Use Rationale added?

After adding a rationale, is it acceptable to remove the big spammy BetacommandBot warning from the article's Talk page? Torc2 (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

More than acceptable, it is encouraged. Thanks ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Game screenshot/fair use rationale confusion - again

I posted a question about this here earlier, but I got it yet again. Now I've lost all my motive to contribute any screenshots here, even for games where none are in the article (and requested on the article's talk page), and I have some available that I could contribute. My talk page shows of the fair use of a game screenshot [[6]] being disputed and flagged on Dec 22, when I attempted to reupload the screenshot (just that one as the game its used for doesn't have any otherwise and I used the style/format of those that I have uploaded before and have survived (such as the one for Bubsy 3D, Jumping Flash, and probably some others)). The information I'm getting is contradicting and worse yet, I get no warning of this in any way outside of this website (and since I automatically get logged out after some some, I have no hints of it until I bother to log in again, usually months later when the images are all but gone). Either something is wrong with BetacommandBot, which is the one doing all this, or better clarification is needed. I'd like to contribute game screenshots, but if this is going to happen for almost every one where I get no warning, I have no motive to contribute anything in the way of screenshots. I get my screenshots by using GameBridge to record videos of my gameplay then taking one of the still frames, cropping it, and saving it as JPG. These are all non-free console games (except the Genesis since I can't get a usable picture). Ulillillia (talk) 10:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

All non-free images need both a copyright tag and non-free use rationale. On Image:Looney Tunes Back in Action Game Screenshot.jpg you provide a tag ({{non-free game screenshot}}) but no use rationale. There must be a use rationale for each use. See non-free use rationale guideline for how to create one.
The way to prevent surprises is to go back and provide use rationales for all your screenshots. The reason the bot hasn’t complained about some of your screenshots is that it hasn’t got around to them yet. --teb728 t c 19:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I've added the rationale to that image, but I'm not too sure if I did it right. Could you please check? What about the "warning" that is displayed - should that be removed since I've taken action, or should I leave it? Thanks. If I do get this set up properly, I'll make the appropriate changes to all currently uploaded images (and likely reupload the old ones with the related changes). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulillillia (talk • contribs) 15:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I added the non-free use rationale and very shortly after, that same robot is stating of the rationale being invalid. Previously, I didn't have one, but I've since added it, and the robot is still saying of something being wrong and I don't know what is wrong. Could you tell me what's wrong? I've provided both the copyright tag and the rationale (I tried to be as accurate as possible.) and that was all that was required. Yet, the robot is still stating of it being faulty. I've reuploaded most of the previously deleted screenshots (due to this problem, not those replaced by updated/better versions) and added the rationale where it's quite similar to the one I have for the image in question. What problems do I have? This is that image: [[7]]. Ulillillia (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
It is just another case of BetacommandBot being stupid and causing problems by tagging files that should not be tagged. I added a complaint to his talk page. Dbiel (Talk) 16:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
So that explains the contradicting information. Whether my uploaded screenshots had the rationale or not, they were deleted by that robot (due to it flagging the image as having an invalid rationale and the speedy deletion taking over as a result) and thus the cause to the contradicting information. Due to this confusion, I didn't know where to turn and without any warnings outside of Wikipedia (E-mail warnings), and due to the fact I come here in "bursts" where I go absent for several months (automatically getting logged out after some unknown amount of time, typically a few weeks as far as I can tell (annoying)), I was about to lose all motive for contributing any screenshots. If someone (human, not a robot) comes by and replaces one of them with something supposedly better, that's fine and not problematic (unless it was vandalism). However, a robot coming by and deleting nearly everything when otherwise valid does get on my nerves. Thanks for tidying up the rationale though. For a robot, it should only check to see if the rationale is present (checking to see if a certain string was present) and check to make sure the required fields have at least some content, nothing more. Ulillillia (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't see what the problem is either. I have added another tag to the image, disputing the dispute - have a look and improve the wording if possible. And I have made a couple of small improvements (I hope) to the rationale. Once again, improve them if you can. Patche99z (talk) 12:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Another user has removed the invalid tags. So this issue should be resolved, except for the misbehaving BetacommandBot issue. Dbiel (Talk) 16:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Dakshlogo.jpg

Betacommand Bot tagged my upload Image:Dakshlogo.JPG with a disputed fair-use rationale tag. I had a bit of difficulty finding the right rationale because the image in question is the logo of a non-profit EVENT and hence not corporate, governmental, or in any way related to any of the criteria set down at Category:Non-free use rationale templates.

But I think I've put in a suitable tag now; can an admin please check it out and drop a line at my talk page as to whether it's okay now? Thanks.Raghuvansh r (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Stifle (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:London Midland Network ZP.svg

The file history shows the original version of this file was created from an image taken from somewhere on [8]. The image is tagged as PD but also contains an NFC rationale. The only information I can gather from the discussion on the talk page boils down to "we fixed it", with no further explanation. When I queried this, I was told the same thing - "we fixed it, it's OK now", with a rider of "who do you think you are!?".

My initial assumption is that the image has simply had the LM branding elements removed and the colour changed, which would still make this a derivative work, and unusable on WP, even under fair-use provisions. Could someone clarify this both for my sake and that of User:Dewarw, please? 90.203.45.168 (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There are enough similarities to http://www.londonmidland.com/app/webroot/files/cache/FINAL%20LM%20MAP%20FOR%20TIMETABLE.pdf (and presumably an earlier version of the same map) that it is my opinion that it was probably traced (a lot of the curves are very similar, elements from both maps align vertically in ways that are unlikely if it wasn't traced). This is not a good thing. I will ask the user to comment here on how it was created. It's okay to use a map as the basis of another map, as long as it's not traced. Megapixie (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
As for the London Midland image, it is no longer in my hands. As far as I am concerned, it is ok, but the image is now in with the graphics lab. They are the ones who can improve it. I originally uploaded the copyrighted map, which I had no intention to be kept for long. The graphics lab told me they had dealt with all copyright problems.
Please put it through the lab again. They will sort it. Do not delete it until improvements have been made. Articles' quality will go down without it! Dewarw (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid that we can't wait for someone to fix it. It would appear to still have copyright issues (and has since Nov 2). It's better to delete the image now. I will list the image on images for deletion. Megapixie (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

English Heritage icon/flag

Image:EH icon.png has a tag asking for a non-free use rationale, but the same symbol at Image:Standard of the English Heritage.svg is described as a user-generated public domain image based on a World Flag Database image. Cannot this apply to both images? (BTW, I am amused that the tag says "please discuss the matter with the editor who placed this template on the image" when it was placed by a bot - can you have a discussion with a bot?) JonH (talk) 10:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

According to http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.1685 the mark is a trademark, we shouldn't be using it under a PD tag, should be {{Non-free logo}} Megapixie (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Trademarks aren't relevant to copyright status, see also Image:Coca-Cola_logo.svg —Random832 17:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

How can I tell if something has a copyright? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.16.28 (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much everything is copyright. See Copyright for a full discussion which is beyond the scope of this page (A bit like asking a philosopher "what is truth?"). Images that have been released under a free license (GFDL, creative commons) by their creators are good for use here. If you have questions about a specific image, they would be easier to discuss. Megapixie (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Pictures

00:19, 27 December 2007 East718 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Carpathian Ancestor.JPG" ‎ (CSD I7: Bad justification given for fair use: violates point 10c of the non-free content criteria

16:51, 29 December 2007 Maxim (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Noche Crist Carousel.JPG" ‎ (Deleted because "CSD I7 - Invalid fair use rationale; per WP:NFCC#10c, the rationale must include the name of the article, and preferably a link to it. Please don't hesitate to contact me with queries.". using TW)

These are the messages that I received when my uploaded images were deleted. I do not understand why they were deleted. I used the same fair use rationale as other contemporary artist's images on other pages. Please let me know what I am doing wrong. The page on the artist Noche Crist does not seem appropriate without an example of her work. Thank you.

You didn't include the name of the article where you were alleging that the images were fair use. This is mandatory. Stifle (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Scanning from book by defunct publisher

I'm struggling to work out whether I can scan and include a photo from the publication 'Wonders of World Engineering'. This was originally published in the UK as a part work by Amalgamated Press in 1937-38. I notice that someone has scanned the entire publication in veja vu format and published it as a website [9] which appears to have been on line for several years without challenge. I have an original paper copy so I would be scanning this rather than copying the website. The photo in question is not credited, so the copyright was presumably owned by AP. Pterre (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

As the photo is not credited, the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 says that the image is public domain 50 years after its creation. Therefore you should be all right to upload the image and tag it as {{PD-UK}}. Stifle (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it's 70 years (and I think Template:PD-UK may need to be revised) but if it was published in 1937 then you're still safe. Stifle (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about the matter I am slightly confused of the issue of the picture on Alpesh Vadher. I am sorry if I have done anything copyright. But could it possibly be explained to me just so I know for next time.--Thevardonrushes (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue seems to be that you used a non-free image. Non-free images (images that copyright holder has not released under a free license) are only usable on Wikipedia under specific criteria. One of those criteria is that the image must not be replaceable by a free alternative. Since Vadher is a living person, there's no reason that somebody couldn't take a picture of him and release it under a free license, so non-free images are no good. If you want to put an image on that page, you will need to find the owner of the image and convince them to release it under a free license (alternatively, you could take a picture yourself, if geography allows). I hope this clarifies things somewhat. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

What to do with a promotional photo?

I have several ORIGINAL photos for Oldsmobile concept cars pulled from an Oldsmobile fanclub website. These are offical. I just created an account with Wikipedia, so i am not exactily sure how this all works. This will be my first edit. I just want to get this right the first time. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.--Cdeboghorski (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You'll almost certainly need to get whoever owns the photos to release them under a free license (such as the GFDL). I think these images would be deemed replaceable, and therefore ineligible for fair use. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Indian uprising.jpg

The image above has been tagged with a disputed fair use rationale. Its a Sports Illustratd magazine cover. It currently links to Cleveland Indians and 1987 Cleveland Indians season. I did not upload the file, and I am not an expert with image copyright. Both articles reference the Sports Illustrated cover jinx and its application to the Indians in 1987. So while I believe if the image of two Indian players on the Cleveland Indians oage would be a violation, I think that the reference to the jinx would allow the cover to be used as there would be no free image available to illustrate the point. Montco (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone know how this could be handled? Do I have to lay out the rationale on the page or here?Montco (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone fix that weird tagging problem please ?

I shot this photo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kalousdian_Armenian_School_Building_5Jan2008.JPG myself, using my personal digital camera, to add it to my article talking about my school here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalousdian_Armenian_School I added 2 other pics also, but the ImageTaggingBot sent me message telling i have to add tag to this image specifically ! Any advice for best option ? Xhackeranywhere (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks good to me. I see the images were initially missing this information; does anyone know if User:ImageTaggingBot runs on a lag of some sort. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Royal Geological Society of Cornwall logo.jpg

Please could someone cast their eye over the above linked image page, and let me know if I have got the copyright and fair-use tags right? It is the first such image that I have uploaded, thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, it's good to know this page exists - I expect I shall need to use it again sometime! DuncanHill (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Love the show!!!

I was just wondering if TAPS has ever got a request to visit Key West Fl? My husband, myself and freinds visited there and went on what they called a Ghost tour. There was some intresting stories. So i was just wondering if anyone has ever asked them to visit. I myself, have never had an incounter so i do not know weather to believe or not. Agian, I love the show. Dee-Dee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.25.189.214 (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

A diet composed entirely of liver and onions would be rich in many vitamins and minerals, including Vitamins A, B2, B3, B6, B9, B12, and Iron, but would be deficient in other areas, especially Vitamin C. Scurvy would be a real concern. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Is Lorenzo Longoria a jew?

is he? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Action302 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

SVG version of an existing image.

I recently uploaded a SVG version of the Square Enix logo that we already have. It didn't state the rationale in the PNG version, and I don't know what rationale there would be... GaeMFreeK (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added a rationale, but I'd appreciate it if someone else could have a look over it; I'm not really a derivative work expert, which I gather is what this would be considered. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Public Domain/Copyright Question

I assume this is the right place to post my question: Is this --->[[10]] image free to use? Specifically, a portion of it would be used on another image, which would be used to, I guess indirectly, make money for a website. I know it says public domain, but the copyright statement confused me enough that I wanted to make sure.

Thanks in advance,

Pepperonibread (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Assuming the information in the tag is correct, then it's completely free to use for any purpose. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks again.Pepperonibread (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Very fustrated and confused.

I uploaded an image and it seemed to work. I was asked to include the copyright information. I didn't quite understand how, so I just let the picture upload. Afterwards I was told to edit the page and include a reationale. For starters, just how are you supposed to edit it? It tried everything I could, I couldn't even edit the summary. I then procceeded to upload the same picture three times more, with no triumph. All I wanted to do was to put an image next to the text on the Yautja page. It isn't that easy to help people now, is it? I was also un-able to delete the pictures. Can somebody offer some help? — LordJesseD (talk) 03:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help. Is at least one of the pictures still uploaded? — Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I only uploaded the images today, and they have dissapeared. A week hasn't past. At least I don't think it has... Just kidding. I did try that {{db author}} thing, if that's how it's spelt. Maybe that deleted my pictures, but I only put it on one image. Should I upload it again? I have no clue how to do anything, though. I really just want to put a few pictures up to show what an article is explaining. In reality, this is probbably a simple task, but my mind is very thick. Also if I can get an image properly uploaded, will it stay there? I know that a free image might replace it, but that's unlikly.LordJesseD (talk) 04:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The good news is that you're not that thick, since it really isn't that simple a task. The bad news is that it isn't that simple a task. When you uploaded, were you able to select the appropriate option from the dropdown list? If so, once that's done click "edit this page" (at the top of the image page) and insert a fair use rationale (you can find a template for one here). Let me know if you have any additional problems. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:2004-07-31 Nena at the opening of the Berliner Olympiastadion.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

When I uploaded this image, I provided relevant copyright information, but not via the multiple-choice form I was presented, since none of the choices fit. All the information should be there. Is some further response needed to prevent the deletion threat from being carried out? Michael Hardy (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The tag you added after the fact should do the trick. But the file really should be transferred to the Commons, especially since it's already being used on multiple Wikipedias. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I have moved the file to the Commons. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It has been suggested that there may be legal problems with two of my uploaded photos because I have not declared that parental consent was obtained for public release of the photos. Obviously, I could quickly and simply resolve this issue by declaring that consent was obtained. I wondered, though, whether parental consent is required at all in this case. I have researched this issue and, based on my findings, concluded that there is no such requirement.

I captured both photos at dance competitions that expressly permitted unrestricted (except for the use of flash) photography by the audience. Audience admission was free and open to the general public. The performers--who were all minors--and their parents understood that the performances were taking place in a public venue and they would be photographed.

In one photo (Image:CompetitiveDanceGroup.jpg), all of the subjects are members of my studio and thus covered by a broad, previously executed agreement that permits their images to be used for any purpose. So, the question is reduced to this: does the other photo (Image:CompetitiveDanceAwards.jpg)--which includes minors from other, unknown dance schools--require parental consent in order to be legally posted to wikipedia?

Parental consent laws require that parents consent to or be notified before their minor child can legally engage in certain activities that might be harmful to them (e.g., obtaining abortions, undergoing body piercing). Such laws are concerned with protecting minors from potentially harmful, self-initiated actions, and thus do not in any way define the legality of online publishing by third parties. Absent a specific citation of law that addresses this case, I must conclude that parental consent is not required here.

I am not a lawyer, but I have made a good faith effort to determine whether there are other legal problems with these images and found no evidence of such problems. For example, coppa (children's online privacy protection act) does not apply here because no personal information is collected by wikipedia or exposed by the photographs. A model release is required when an image is sold and used for commercial purposes, but these images are not being sold, nor does publishing them to wikipedia constitute commercial use. From yet another perspective, case law supports the theory that the choreography copyright is not infringed by still photography.

Is there a lawyer out there who can validate my analysis? Lambtron (talk) 06:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

In general I would be very cautious posting identifiable pictures of other peoples children on the internet, especially those taken inside "private" venues. Be aware that you should only be posting images to wikipedia that you feel would be allowed to be used commercially. TBH - I wouldn't be comfortable posting either picture. Megapixie (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the concerns about possible legal issues here, but I have yet to hear a concrete explanation of exactly what the problem is. Please clarify: is this a parental consent issue or a commercial use issue, or some combination thereof, or something else entirely? Is there really a legal problem here, or just unfounded fears? If there truly is a legal problem, can someone please explain the legal theory that is believed to apply here?
As I mentioned earlier, the venue was public in that it was open and free to the general public and there were no restrictions on photography. Furthermore, the locale where the photos were taken has no law that requires parental consent for capturing photos of minors, or adults for that matter, in situations (such as this) in which one lacks a reasonable expectation of privacy. In fact, to say that the subjects lack a reasonable expectation of privacy is an understatement: the subjects are performing before what they expect, and in fact, hope, will be a large, public audience. Also, with the exception of pornographic images, the locale has no statutes that differentiate between minors and adults with respect to image distribution and publishing. The photos do not contain any personal information that would enable someone to identify the subjects, so the term identifiable pictures used by Megapixie only applies in the context of viewers who are personally acquainted with the subjects. Unless I have overlooked some subtle aspect of this case, the fact that children are subjects in these images is irrelevant.
To summarize: the photos show unknown people in a public setting where they have no expectation of privacy. As far as I can tell, there is no difference between my photos and others posted to wikipedia that portray unnamed people in public.
I am reluctant to delete my posts simply because others have concerns about the mere possibility of legal problems; this would amount to self-censorship. On the other hand, I will immediately delete my posts if it becomes clear that they are illegal, or even if a subjects' parent asked me to, although I believe there would be no legal requirement to do so. Lambtron (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:12 Angry Men 1997 film poster.jpg

I had the image marked with {{imagewatermark}} but someone removed it saying the original image had the watermark but i do not believe the movie poster had that watermark. Peachey88 (Talk Page | Contribs) 11:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That would appear to be a New Zealand film board rating mark and would have been on the original New Zealand poster. Megapixie (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm talking about the White "e" in the right corner that appears to be a ezydvd watermark, eg: http://www.ezydvd.com.au/item.zml/786715 and http://www.ezydvd.com.au/item.zml/797962. Peachey88 (Talk Page | Contribs) 04:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

saving a page

how to save wikipedia text page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.2.221.139 (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify your question? Are you seeking to create a new Wikipedia page? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

What else is needed?

I added a picture Image:Soseaua Kiseleff.jpg, taking it from ro:Imagine:Soseaua Kiseleff.jpg. I gave all the details about the pic that could be found on the other wiki. What else can I say, or do I need to say -- can't the copyright notice be checked from there? I've had that problem in the past, and I still don;t understand how can one get a picture which is one of the other wikis (but not on the commons) and use it on en.wiki, without a ton of fuss and muss, especially when the copyright clearly expired (see the problems I had with Image:Gavril Muzicescu.jpg-- a pic of someone who died in 1903!), or is explicitly waved by the author of the pic (as is the case with this one)? I would like to get more pics from the other wikis, but this process, where I get bots putting scary messages on my talk page, is too spooky. Can something be done to make it run more smoothly, and/or in a more user-friendly way? I thank you in advance for any feedback you could provide. Turgidson (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Albert Richter (German Track Cyclist, 1912-1940).jpg

Hi, immediately after uploading that pic, I got an "incompatibility" (or however you call it)-message from User:STBotI. Is there anything / WHAT-IS wrong with my claim for "Fair Use" in the Albert Richter article ??? -- WeHaWoe (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It needs an Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Try my experimental flow chart - it may guide you to the right one. Megapixie (talk) 14:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, we're talking about "Non.Free.Media.Rrationale", right? I am not interested in TRYin anything, but I asked a question about a very specific topic, i.e. "IS.FAIR.USE.still.applicable to WP content", YES-OR-NO, AND-IF-YES, why not in THIS case. Best, WeHaWoe (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Your rationale seems okay to me, but, as Megapixie said, you need an image copyright tag. I've added one. You might also give WP:CIVIL a read. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
@Sarcasticidealist: TX, but there still seems to be something wrong ( I personally believe, with the BOT-edit ;]] ) -- I tried to copy, as closely as possible, the rationale of Image:Caesar Cardini (Cesare Cardini) 1896-1956.jpg which I found by chance and which seems to be accepted in enWP, and which dates to same period (=1930s).
As, in the "Richter"-case. I had no WWW-source, but a direct contact with the owner of one print (althought not the owner of rights, which is unknown, as e.g. in the "Cardini"-case), I did not mention any wwww-link. There is one, to a lower-resolution-image, which I will add soon to the rationale. I however STILL want to know (=would appreciate to hear=read) WHAT IS/WAS "WRONG" with my upload, compared to that "Cardini"-portrait. Best, -- WeHaWoe (talk) 10:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Both your upload and the Cardini upload lacked copyright status. The bot just never seems to have stumbled across the Cardini one, but if it did the uploader of that one would have received the same message as you did. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
ACK. So,_MY_very_probaby_German Friend, what can I do to make this attribution "acceptable" to enWP (as "FAIR USE" is not to others)??? -- WeHaWoe (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Just add this tag: {{Non-free fair use in | Caesar Cardini}} to the Cardini image page. I've already fixed the Richter one. Alos, I'm not sure what gave you the idea that I was German; I've never lived outside of Canada (by coincidence, my girlfriend is German, but I've only visited the country a couple of times and don't speak the language). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
NB, on "copyright status": TX to "*.ca" cContributor. Thr reason of assuming such was the time.

I'll do my best. WeHaWoe (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

How would I?

So I've finally managed to upload an image and dispute the non-free stuff. The only thing is, how do I remove that template with the red border? My picture has good reasons, so I think it deserves to be on here. And not be deleted.LordJesseD (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to the image? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AVP_Chopper-Arm_Blades_Extended.pngLordJesseD (talk) 09:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the warning, since there is a fair use rationale present. For future reference, the template here is more likely than a free-form rationale to be recognized by bots. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't make sense of that one, it confuses me even more. But since this seems to have worked, shouldn't I just stick to this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LordJesseD (talk • contribs) 12:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You can if you like. I'm just concerned that the bots might not recognize the non-standard format, which could be why they gave you grief this time. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. Let's just hope the bots do recognize it. But if not there isn't a way for standard users like me to remove it, is there? I suppose I could come here and ask every time, but that'd make me a pain in the neck, and I don't want to give anyone too much trouble.LordJesseD (talk) 12:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There sure is (I'm just a "standard user" myself): just edit the image page and delete the bit at the top that's enclosed within {{}} and begins with "di-disputed fair use rationale". Here's an illustration of me doing so. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that you were of a higher power. Thank you so much for all your help, I would not have been able to do any of this myself. I haven't slept in all this time you've been helping me, so at least now I can rest easy. On the little box that says who uploaded it and what day, there's not a way to edit it, is there? If not,than that's no drama. Thanks again for all your help.LordJesseD (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I don't believe there is any way to edit the file history (why would you want to, out of curiosity?).
If I offer some advice, don't worry so much: media copyright is taken seriously at Wikipedia, but it's certainly nothing to (literally) lose sleep over. Finally, as for me being of a "higher power"...well, I guess we all have our religious views.
Happy editing, and please let me know if there's ever anything I can help you with. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

By higher power, I meant an administrator, or something along those lines. I just wasn't going to sleep until this got all sorted out, mainly for the sake of following something through. The only reason I'd want to edit the file history is that in the little "comment" part, I accidently put some copyright write up, and I'd just want the page to look nice and consistent. I'm strange, I know. Thanks for being there and helping me along.LordJesseD (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleting Image

Help! I hit upload button for Image:NCO Map.png before I was finished entering input info. Tried to fix it, but it just adds new entry and incomplete tag remains. Can someone tell me how to delete imgage so I can start again. Image is map I created myself using background from another map already in Wiki Commons.--Orygun (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

&^%$#*! Did it again! Was uploading postcard Image:Reno NCO Station.jpg printed sometime between 1880-1918--which is clearly Pubic Domain image, but didn't select "Prior to 1923" tag from pull-down screen before I hit upload button. Would be really helpful if keeper of Upload software could add warning notice that reminds people input is incomplete before accepting upload.--Orygun (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If you add {{db-author}} to the images in question, they'll be deleted fairly quickly by administrators. In the alternative, you can simply edit the input info in the pages by clicking "edit this page" at the top, just like for an article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!--Orygun (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

how can i prove that the material i have posted on line is my copyright and how can it be hacker - free? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.208.74 (talk) 09:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the second part of your question ("hacker free"). As to the first part, all we ask is that you assert on the image page that you hold the copyright (and, of course, that you be telling the truth). There's no particular burden on you to prove this. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleting image

Greetings, I have uploaded the logo of our company, but the first time I didn't add the copyright information, so I uploaded the file again with the correct info (LDWlogo.jpg). Now, though, I don't know how to delete the first one.

Thanks for any help you can provide.

Carla —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carla72 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Carla - if you add {{db-author}} to the image in question, it will be deleted fairly quickly by administrators. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added two photo's that I took myself to the Barrow AFC article, but I keep encountering a copyright notice. I hold the copyright to both picss, but I'm happy to share them. How do I go about making sure they're not deleted please?

ChubbD —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChubbD (talk • contribs) 21:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You'll need to release them under a free license, which will grant non-revocable permission for anyone to copy and use them for any purpose. If you're comfortable doing that, add {{GFDL-self}} to the image pages (if you want to release them under the GFDL - other free licenses have different tags). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Freedom of Information image, taken by the Pueblo County Coroner

I need a picture for the article American mutilation of Japanese war dead. I would have preferred to use this "picture of the week" from May 1944 but somehow I think Life Magazine would not agree to it.

This image would also be ok, but I suppose the copyright can be owned by an individual.

Therefore my hope lies with the image in this article:

The photos are "COURTESY PHOTOS/ OFFICE OF PUEBLO COUNTY CORONER". the relevant quote is "The signatures on the skull are quite legible in photographs released to The Chieftain by Pueblo County Coroner James Kramer after the newspaper submitted a formal Freedom of Information Act request." Does this mean they are free for anyone to use? Or do you need to ask permission from the Pueblo Chieftain, and/or the Pueblo County Coroner? --Stor stark7 Talk 22:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

My suspicion - and hopefully User:Megapixie will stop by to spread a little of his/her mega pixie dust of knowing the answer to everything - is that those images are still the intellectual property of the Pueblo County Coroner, and that the newspaper was making fair use of them. My further suspicion is that a fair use rationale for use of the photo the Wikipedia article you mentioned wouldn't pass muster, but I don't pretend to be certain about any of this. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
All three images are not free enough to be free (for one reason or another), however because you discuss the image and its impact, you actually have an excellent case for using the Time Life image as fair-use. Find a low resolution unwatermarked version if possible (no larger than 300 pixels in any one dimension). Make sure you credit the source fully - i.e. Time Life, photographer, etc. Tag with {{Non-free historic image}} and add a WP:FURG. Same principle as Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, in that the image itself is famous, and we are commenting on the impact of the image. The other images would fail fair use, as they are not directly discussed. Megapixie (talk) 06:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:101_JPG.jpg

I was told to provide a source for this image, which I did. I I believe the rest of the information provided along with the image is sufficient, please correct me if i'm wrong. Pk-user (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The information is sufficient, except that I think it may be inaccurate. I can't imagine that the Pakistani armed forces released this photo for use by anyone for any purpose. What's your basis for saying so? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It is published by the Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR). Therefore, I assumed it is for public use and the current tag seems appropriate. Which tag in your opinion is suitable for this image? Pk-user (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this one would likely be more appropriate: {{Non-free promotional}}, but I can't be sure about that. If that was the right one, there would need to be a fair use rationale for every article on which the photo appears. Perhaps somebody better-informed than I am will be able to offer some comments, though. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Need Fair Use review of photo

Have uplaoded (Image:Sam Johnson.jpg) and need senior editors review for Fair Use tag. Rationale is included in upload notes. Prior to uploading photo I discussed rationale with Megapixie on this page and was referred to Peteforsyth who said: "...I don't think there would be any problem using the photo under fair use in the subject's article..." Senior editor review and tag would be appriciated.--Orygun (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the most senior editor in this area (as a rule of thumb, if User:Megapixie says one thing and I say another, I'm definitely wrong), but I would say that your fair use rationale is definitely okay. The only question is whether or not it's even needed, given that it may be in the public domain. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

How do I replace current "see senior editor" tag with approp tag--to be conservative, lets say Fair Use tag?--Orygun (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, think I fixed it. Would you check Image:Sam Johnson.jpg to see if I got it right?--Orygun (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As the license being used calls for a fair use rationale, I changed the information template to a fair use template Dbiel (Talk) 04:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!--Orygun (talk) 02:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:MikeWilks.jpg

I have emailed Mike Wilks to request permission to use Image:MikeWilks.jpg on Wikipedia, but as it is listed for deletion by tomorrow, I put a note on the image description page requesting an extension of a week. Is there anything else I should do? --Slashme (talk) 07:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not actually a huge deal if the image is deleted, since it's easy to re-add. But please note that you must get more than just the subject's permission to use it on Wikipedia; you must get his (assuming he's the photo's copyright holder) permission to release it under a free license of some kind, which would allow anybody to use it for any purpose. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Mike was kind enough to email me an alternative photo which is (in his words) "copyright free" which I interpreted as public domain. I uploaded it over the earlier photo. --Slashme (talk) 05:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Aircrafts images from websites

Realy there is a lot to read about copyrights help, but as a direct question, may I upload images of aircrafts from websites like globalsecurity.org & fas.org and if yes under which copyright tag it should be? --AZER QIBLAWI (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Those would be non-free images, which means that they can only be used if they're not replacable by free images. Unless these are pictures of aircraft which no longer exist anywhere in the world, it should always be possible (at least in theory) to get a free image instead. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

image: Double-wing2

I inadvertently uploaded the file Double-wing2 without selecting "self-made." After correcting the copyright info and linking to the image from Single-wing formation, I notice that the image is still being quaratined.--Bill Spencer (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to the image in question? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:KevinRoberts.jpg

I have read the message "Thanks for uploading Image:KevinRoberts.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. ..."

This is a press release/publicity photo and I have done everything as per the website request, "Downloaded content can be used for print and web publications, in each case the photographer and www.saatchikevin.com must be credited. Left click on links to open each image then right click to download."

Can someone help me remove that copyright violation message generated by that #$%@! bot. sorry for being not pleased because I am busy with other work and I noticed the bot was going to delete a perfectly ok publicity photo. And I have provided the credit!

Thanks for your help and attention. – Kempton "Ideas are the currency of the future." - a quote by Kevin Roberts 00:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You may have done what the source website requires, but you have not done what Wikipedia requires. Wikipedia requires a use rationale for each use of a non-free image. See WP:NFURG. --teb728 t c 00:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict - some additional information) :The problem is that the image is a non-free image that doesn't have a fair use rationale for each article in which it's used. I think it may also be too high-res for a fair use image, although I'm not very good at that technical shiznat. Anyway, to create a fair use rationale, see WP:FURG#Template. Let me know if you have any other questions. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

What tag applies?

Found image I want to use in wiki article. Copyright holder has following use policy: "Images may be used free of charge without permission provided photo credit shown below is given. Use of the photos implies agreement to following terms and conditions: copyright holder retains custody of photos and sets conditions of use; photos may be used in web-sites and other personal or commercial activities; however, user may not sell or transfer rights to use photos to other parties." What tag would apply?--Orygun (talk) 04:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Not free enough for wikipedia the final condition kills it : "however, user may not sell or transfer rights to use photos to other parties." This is designed to prevent other stock photo companies hosting the image, and also catches us out. Megapixie (talk) 06:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This wouldn't prevent individual photos from being used under Fair Uses rules would it?--Orygun (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Not provided they meet the fair use criteria, no. What is the image of, and in which article(s) do you wish to use it? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Images is welcome sign to specific city to be use in article about that city. Second, is photo of specific geographic feature in artile about that geographic feature.--Orygun (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Those are both no-gos, since they would be deemed replaceable by free images (there's nothing stopping somebody from going and taking pictures of the sign and geographic features themselves, and then releasing them under free licenses). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Too bad. Now theoretical question--what if sign was torn down so new free-license photo could not be take? As is case with many historic photos.-Orygun (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Even there, you'd need to justify why it's important to have a picture of that sign in the article. Presumably, a photo of a new sign, or a different old sign that's still standing, would do just as well. But if, for some reason, Wikipedia had an article about the sign itself, and then the sign was torn down, then yes, a fair use picture of it could be used if no free one was known to exist (by the same principle, we can never use fair use images of living people, but we can do so for the deceased if no free image is known to exist). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting--thanks!--Orygun (talk) 04:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

uploading music album's cover art

What are the proceedings to evaluate if this [11] is or is not copyrighted or leased to the website, label, artists, and so forth?

And if it may be copyrighted, what are the steps to ask for permission to use it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evlogiaandchari (talk • contribs) 14:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much every music album is copyrighted, unless the artist has specifically released it under a free license. If you wanted to get the image released under a free license, you'd have to contact the record label, but that would probably be fruitless. Depending on which article you want to use the image in though, it may be usable under fair use. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Century Bank Direct, who has added a new article on your site, has sent me a file to upload their logo. I am not sure how to upload it. I have been given permission to upload their bank logo. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Century bank direct (talk • contribs) 16:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This is what you'll need to use. That said, here are some caveats:

Satellite imagery?

What license would satellite imagery taken from places like Google Earth or TerraServer be under? If its from NASA wouldn't it be in the public domain? Noah¢s (Talk) 00:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

NASA WorldWind imagery is public domain ({{PD-USGov-NASA}}, I believe), images from Google Earth and TerraServer are {{copyvio}}. --Carnildo (talk) 03:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh nevermind i figured it out

nvm i figured it out!! ty!!! PinkXjellocreature (talk) 06:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


If I take a picture of a basketball jersey but do not take the picture with the companys logo like the nike check can I use the picture as a sellers tool?

What do you mean by "sellers tool"? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Old game original box scan - what license to use and max size

Seeing that Zeliard doesn't have an image for the box and that I have the original box in 4.5-star condition (the edges are a little frayed, but the main image is otherwise in its original state). I'm not sure what license it needs to be under for using it on Wikipedia (obviously not GFDL) or what the maximum allowed size is (is 232x254 acceptable or is that too big?). It is my first such image. Thanks. Ulillillia (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You'll want to tag it with {{Non-free game cover}} and attach a fair use rationale, but that resolution should be fine. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I've uploaded it as you specified I should, but could you check to make sure I did it right? Image:Zeliard box cover.jpg Ulillillia (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Perfect. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

My image used, but not credited

I have just noticed the following Image, which is used on the Grange, County Sligo article and on the Ben Bulben article. This is licensed as a public domain image, but I wish to dispute that, as it is in fact, a copy of an image I took and placed on flickr with a cc-by-sa 2.0 licence. I don't think there's any point asking the user who uploaded it to change the licence, if you look at their talk page, you'll see there are many problems with images they've uploaded, and it may be a sockpuppet.

The image I uploaded to flickr is here, at [12] or snow on Benbulben. I have no problem having this image used on wikipedia, but the correct licence should be used (as it was on another of my images Image:Benbulben3.jpg which someone else posted with the correct licence.

Where should I go or what can I do to sort this out? Thanks. --The.Q(t)(c) 16:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that your story appears to be true, I've simply switched the tags. In any event, in the event of dispute over an image's copyright, we should use the more restrictive of the alleged copyrights - in this case, the creative commons license. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I've added a link to the Flickr source. (very important!) Pagrashtak 17:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I suppose attribution would be tough without that. Duh. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in replying, I'm only an irregular contributor at present, so thanks for helping out there, guys. I wasn't aware that anyone could go in and change a licence on an image, or I would have done that myself. Thanks again. --The.Q(t)(c) 09:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Revert Image:FREE ENTERPRISE.JPG on Ad Astra (magazine)

Image:FREE ENTERPRISE.JPG Ad Astra, Spring 2006 issue. (ON THE COVER: "FREE ENTERPRISE: NASA's Next Mission?") Cover image and all-granted rights provided via expressed written permission of Anthony Duignan-Cabrera, editorial director, consumer media division for Imaginova, publishers of Ad Astra magazine. WSpaceport (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't understand what you're asking. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia requires that any non-free image such as Image:FREE ENTERPRISE.JPG and Image:AdAstraSpring2005China.jpg must have a use rationale for each use as described in WP:NFURG. Permission of the copyright owner is irrelevant for non-free images. --teb728 t c 08:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Port of Bristol

Who knows the history of Copper-Bottom boats please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.17.113.120 (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Photos

To Whom It May Concern: We are sending a group to Fatima and Lourdes. We were wondering if there was a chance for you could send us a few photos. We will be using these photos in a slide show, which will be presenting to the group. Otherwise, we were also wondering if we could use a few pictures off of your website, and but accreditation of the photos for you.

Thank you, 206.51.203.104 (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia the free encyclopedia; from your question I am not sure you realized that. Wikipedia does not send photos.
However, you may be able to use some images from Wikipedia, but it depends on which images you are talking about and the licenses that they are released under. Click on an image you are interested in, and you will see the image description page. Look for a copyright tag on that page.
  • Those images that are here under "fair-use" (or which have no tag) cannot be used at all.
  • Those that require "attribution" must be attributed to the person who created the image (not to Wikipedia).
  • Some images are completely in the public domain and can be reused freely.
  • Reusing content outside Wikimedia is a good link to start with as well as Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content.
--teb728 t c 00:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:PD-UK

I believe that {{PD-UK}} is incorrect - the information we have on the subject at Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988#Duration of copyright states that the relevant periods should be seventy years, and Commons:Template:PD-UK-unknown gives some additional restrictions, which should probably appear on the PD-UK template here. Fortunately, it's little used at present, but if my doubts are correct, it will need correcting pretty quickly. Warofdreams talk 16:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

please delete never meant to post

I never meant to post Image:1022071749-1-.jpg. Can you please delete it???? "talk" —Preceding comment was added at 04:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. Garion96 (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:AnastasiaDobromyslova.jpg

Sorry, just struggling to get my head around things on here. With this one (which I took from the stream) I thought I could use in her biography, I guess not but what if I alter the layout of Anastasia Dobromyslova so as to include a section on the 2008 Championship she won and use it as a picture within that paragraph? (Stuey 182 (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC))

That image is unlikely to be usable anywhere on Wikipedia, since it's a non-free image of a living person, and therefore replaceable. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have uploaded two images, and a robot has complained that I haven't tagged them right. I have tried to read the page on selecting a tag, but there's a limit to the amount of time I am willing to spend on it. So I am hoping that someone can advise me.

I created both images by editing images I found here on wikipedia. The first image is derived from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LSarms.JPG, which is public domain. The second image is derived from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WestfalenKgr.jpg, which is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. I have no wish (and probably no right) to reserve any rights in my derived versions of them. So what licence tags should I use? Maproom (talk) 01:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

What do I need to do?

I am unsure what to do. I received the below message:

Thanks for uploading Image:GD Headshot.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Batman1963" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Batman1963 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem was that you put the licensing tag inside the description box; I've removed it. It should be fine now, provided that Brent Denbo really does hold the copyright to that image, and that he really did release it under CC1.0. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

How many songs jothipala sang

   hi,please can you tell me around how many songs did mr jothipala sing in his active life   time? 
thanks

wajira —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wajira2 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Comic cover art

Hello, I understand that people who read this page may be able to provide advice on the following topic.

Whilst I have been on Wikipedia for some time I have only just uploaded my first image (having been previously deterred by the numerous complicated rules that there are to follow). The image is of cover art from the first issue of a comic book title and as no explicit permission from the publisher has been granted, I need to rely on the fair use rationale.

Could you have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gemini_blood_01.jpg and advise me whether or not I have complied with all of the rules? I note that I have endeavoured to replicate the information which appears on other usages of comic book cover art such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mansteel1.png and which appear to have been validated for fair use. Kind regards--Calabraxthis 12:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have the permission to use images

OK, i have the permissions to use copyrighted images. The organization has info on their billboard that people are welcome to use their images on educational sites like Wikipedia. how should i tag the image? 83.131.80.223 (talk) 13:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That, unfortunately, is not enough. Images have to be released under a free license, such as GFDL for use commercially also. See User:Videmus Omnia/Requesting free content for some guidance on getting the right permission. Tyrenius (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Depending on the nature of the image and where you intend to use it, the image may be usable under fair use guidelines. Can you tell me more about the image and its intended use? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Tagging an uploaded image

I just uploaded a copyright image for which I have permission. On [[13]] it says:-

"If you upload a file here to which you do not hold the copyright but you have the author's permission, please quote it and forward it to permissions-en at wikimedia.org as evidence".

It was not clear to me whether it is just the permission I am to quote and forward, or also (instead?) the image itself. So I attached the image to an email which I then sent to permissions-en, as well as detailing and quoting the author's permission.

Not long afterwards I got a message on my talk page telling me to add a tag. I can't find the one I am supposed to use. Hope I have done the right thing and that you can help. Thanks. AnOpenMedium (talk) 12:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I assume this is a copyrighted image, or permission wouldn't be necessary. Given that it's a copyrighted image, did you get the copyright holder to release it under a free license of some kind, or just grant permission to use it on Wikipedia? The latter has no effect on the image's status, as it's still a non-free image requiring a fair use rationale. Also, which image is it? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Apologies for my lack of clarity (I have never dealt with an image on Wikipedia before). Also apologies for not stating what the image is (I mistakenly thought this would be obvious as I have only ever uploaded one image and referred to it as being listed on my talk page, where it can be found). Anyway the image is Image:After_Dark_11th_June_1988.jpg
In answer to your question "did you get the copyright holder to release it under a free license of some kind, or just grant permission to use it on Wikipedia?" - I explicitly got permission from the copyright holder to release the image for all purposes, not just Wikipedia, and I made this clear in my email to permissions-en, as well as (as I write above) detailing and quoting the author's permission to permissions-en. I am unclear about how to express this in tag form - you use the term "free license", which is no doubt correct but it is not known to me (nor to the copyright owner) and therefore I was simply asking a beginner's question about which tag to use in this case. I am sure the information is online somewhere, but any quick guide would be very welcome. Many thanks. AnOpenMedium (talk) 11:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
If the copyright holder is willing to see it released for all purposes, you just need to get him/her to release it under a specific free license ("free license" is a generic term describing a number of different licenses), and then use that tag. The GNU Free Documentation License the one most frequently-used around here, but there are others (I'm frankly not an expert on the differences between the free licenses - whenever I ask somebody to release an image under a free license, I just use GFDL). If she/he agrees to license it under the GFDL, just tag the file with {{GFDL}}, and you should be fine. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
That's great. Will do. Many thanks. AnOpenMedium (talk) 11:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Image issues

HOw can I put an image for my article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mizzle 77 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, first of all you need to find one that's either free or meets the fair use criteria. What article is this for? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello.

I tried to post several images for the painter, Sarkis Antikajian, but Wikipedia deleted them because the copyright information was incomplete or lacking. The artist has given me permission to post the images of his paintings on Wikipedia, but I don't know technically what information I need to obtain from him to add to the postings, to prove that the copyright is not an issue.

Please refer me to a step-by-step of how to do this, so I can proceed to do it myself.

Thank you.

Karen Reid vacpacker Vacpacker (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Vacpacker - unfortunately, permission from the artist is insufficient for Wikipedia's purposes. He would need to release the image under a free license, which would allow anybody to use it for whatever they wanted. I'm guessing he's not prepared to do that. However, depending on which article(s) you want to use the image(s) in, there's an excellent chance that they'd qualify for fair use. Can you give me more detail about the images and where you want to use them? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Meraloma

I have added an image I created years ago to Meraloma and it is constantly being deleted. I credited myself as the creator in Photoshop. Why is this happening.

Also:

I built www.meraloma.com as well as writing the history section. It is my writing. Why can't I use the text at wiki. Meraloma (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

For the photo, did you attach a licensing tag that indicated under what free license you were releasing it? As for the text, where are you trying to use it, and have you given any indication that you were the author of it? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
According to the deletion discussion Meraloma Club was deleted because it did not assert notability and because of your conflict of interest in writing about it. --teb728 t c 20:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

hu

sdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.121.115.23 (talk) 09:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:ESF EN1.JPG

I have, on the discussion page of the image, documented why this image has a creative commons licence. Now this image just has been deleted (and together with it, my comment has been deleted as well). Is this "fair behaviour" of a bot? --Tillmo (talk) 15:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Although a bot tagged this image for deletion, it was User:Rettetast using the Wikipedia:TW automated editing program who actually deleted it. (deletion log) You might try asking this user what he/she thought about your comment. Jecowa (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

NFCC#8 - the test of significance

Without regard to the specific image at hand, would anyone else feel that this is a fair summary?

If you have to make contrived edits, such as roundabout narrative or creative captioning, in order to try and make a case for including non-free images, it's generally a pretty good sign that the criterion of significance hasn't been met.

It seems to me that we should be choosing suitable images for articles, rather than changing articles to make them suitable for images. Thoughts? 90.203.45.168 (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but for general discussion try posting at WT:NONFREE instead. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Uamh-jb.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Uamh-jb.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


I used the exact same coding as was used for : Image:Shelovesyou-us2.gif, which has been on wikipedia since 14 March 2005.

What's the difference between that image, which has been online for almost 3 years, and the one I loaded.? Bwmoll3 (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No difference - the difference is between Wikipedia's fair use policy now and its fair use policy then. Then it looks like all you had to do was assert that the image wasn't replaceable by a free one, but now it's a little more complicated: you have to state why it's usable in each article in which you're using it, assert that it's a low resolution shot, explain why it's not replaceable, etc. WP:FURG#Template this is likely to be helpful to you in creating the necessary rationale. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


OK, I have updated the article with the following:

Non-free media information and use rationale true for Up Against My Heart
Description

Image of the 45RPM record, "Jealous Bone", recorded by Patty Loveless, which was a single release recording from the article in which the image appears.

Source

MCA Records, Record MCAS-54371 (Personal scan of self-owned item)

Article

Up Against My Heart

Portion used

All

Low resolution?

It is a low resolution image, and thus not suitable for production of counterfeit goods. It is greater than 300x300 to illustrate the detail on the record label.

Purpose of use

It illustrates the article about the record it represents.

Replaceable?

It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image as none probably exists.

Other information

The image is used as the primary means of visual identification of the record. The origional purpose of the item was to play recorded music and was copyrighted for the music which is recorded on the record. It is not suitable for that purpopse in the article as no copyrighted music is playable from an image of the reording

Fair useFair use of copyrighted material in the context of Up Against My Heart//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2008/Januarytrue

Please remove the disputed tag if this is sufficient, or explain what else is necessary for using this image. Thank you !! Bwmoll3 (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the tag. Good work. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-free use rationale templates with appropriate wording have been placed on the following images:

Image:Uamh-csmfly.jpg Uamh-hmbiargw.jpg

Please remove the disputed tag placed on them. Thank you !! Bwmoll3 (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Done on the first one - you seem to have done the second yourself (which is good). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia summary for Bill Rancic

I just noticed that Wikipedia has recently updated its summary description of Bill Rancic with the following remark about his current endeavor:

Today Rancic is a co-host of the struggling daytime TV talk show, In the Loop with iVillage.

Struggling? This subjective opinion is unwarranted and frankly, unfair.

Can this summary merely include reference and link to the TV show without your contributor's opinion?

I have always viewed Wikipedia as a valuable resource... please don't cause me to lose confidence!

Thank you,

Andrew Hayes Andrew Hayes PR & Communications 120 S. LaSalle, Suite 2000 Chicago, IL 60603 andrewhayespr@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewHayesPR (talk • contribs) 18:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the word "struggling"; in the future, bring this sort of issue to WP:BLPN. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

can i use D&pwe.jpg

can i use Image:D&pwe.jpg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilwaynefan08 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Likely not, since it's a non-free image of living people which would therefore be considered replaceable. If you do use them (which, again, probably contravenes Wikipedia copyright policy) you need to include a fair use rationale for each article in which the image is used; see WP:FURG#Template for assistance with that. But again, chances are that the image will be deleted no matter what you do. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I uploaded several images taken from a federal government web site believing them to be in the public domain based on the site's security/privacy policy. Recently, the web site began placing a copyright notice on the images. I contacted the web master, who said that I was free to use them on any web site "as long as any information associated with them is correct, factual, and does not portray the government in any bad light." If the images now have a copyright notice, they can't be public domain—true? Are the GFDL, Creative Commons, (or any free license) compatible with the stated restriction? To me, the "correct" and "factual" parts are implied, but the "bad light" part is pretty subjective. The image on Wiki is located here. Thanks! Skeet Shooter (talk) 02:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If the image was created by the federal government the webmaster is either mistaken or misleading you. I don't know exactly what the ACSC Gathering of Eagles Foundation is, but if it is a government group then it cannot claim copyright on images. If this is true, then they have no say in whether you burn the image or use it to criticize the military or whatever. If instead the image was created by some sort of private organization (either commercial or nonprofit) that just happens to support the base, that group would own the copyright and they may be allowing the military host the image on its website. In this case, the image probably is not appropriate for wikipedia per our nonfree image policy. I would try to obtain more information about the image creator. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The web master checked with their legal department and reports that the image is, in fact, in the public domain and the copyright watermark should not have been placed on the image. He asked that I refrain from using the watermarked image until a new image (with no watermark) can be provided. May I replace the watermarked image with a "new image coming" picture, or do I need to go through the image deletion process? Thanks for your help! Skeet Shooter (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and requested the image be deleted to make sure the watermarked version is purged from Wiki. I'll upload the non-watermarked version when the web master provides it. Thanks. Skeet Shooter (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I just went ahead and removed the watermark for you. I suppose it would probably be better quality if we had the original image without a watermark rather than photoshopping the watermark out, so just keep an eye on if a new image is posted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much! Skeet Shooter (talk) 03:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted photo - how do I write the copyright tag

Hi - I uploaded a photo, that I took to my boyfriend's page [14]. I don't know how to properly put a copyright tag on it to prevent deletion. Can you help me? --S7o7b7 (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)s7o7b7

If you took the photo, you are the copyright holder (assuming you weren't doing so as work for hire for somebody else). However, for it to be usable on Wikipedia you need to release it under a free license, such as the WP:GFDL. If you decide to release it under this license (which means that anybody else can use the image for any purpose), put {{GFDLself}} on the page, and you should be laughing. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I think I've got it right now. (Why should I be laughing?) --S7o7b7 (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)s7o7b7
Figure of speech, meaning "all is well" - I try to avoid using those on Wikipedia, given the wide variety of versions of the English language in use here, but I slipeed up that time. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for explaning. And thanks for your help! All is indeed well now. --S7o7b7 (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)s7o7b7

Xbox Live Gamertags

I do not know what these fall under, and I have been trying to place one in my profile with little success. The only way I could think of doing such a thing is to upload a copy of the image, but I don't know what it falls under. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daedalus969 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to explain this a little more clearly to me, since I don't know anything about Xbox. What is this image, where does it come from, and who made it? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Kiss filmography

Are unfree images in this list answer WP:NFCC? ~ kintup 06:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That is a subjective question. Better to ask on the talk page of WP:NFCC]. Personally I would say not, but I don't speak for everybody. Megapixie (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

uploading picture ?

i have upload 3 images of singers

i found the image on the internet

i just want to know if its ok to upload more or not .... iam just trying to help

also how can i know if the image is accepted or not ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by B 52 (talk • contribs) 10:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Images found randomly on the internet are likely to be copyright, and are therefore not usable here. Best to read up on copyright before posting any images, and if you don't have time to do that - probably best not to post. Megapixie (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

wrestlers pictures

i found a picture of an indy wrestler from one of his promotion and was wondering if that could be uploaded

§pat21539Pat21539 (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Not if he's still a living person, unless it's been released under a free license (which I assume it hasn't). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

pictures on flickr

i've seen wrestler pictures on wikipedia from flickr and was wondering if they are alright to use. I've linked the picture below File:Colin Olsen.jpg

Umm, this image doesn't exist and hasn't been deleted either. And we don't have an article on Colin Olsen. howcheng {chat} 19:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Nevertheless, if you want to upload an image from Flickr, it must have one of the following licenses:
  1. Attribution Creative Commons
  2. Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons
Also, I would recommend uploading it to http://commons.wikimedia.org which allows the photo to be used on any Wikipedia language site.↔NMajdan•talk 19:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

how do you get the licenses Pat21539 (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It's listed under the "Additional Information" section on the right side, at the bottom of the text. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

where do i find the copyright license to an image? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvk41 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Where did you get the image? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

a free photo partially depicting something non-free

A free photo of a turntable and record, the label of the latter prominently displaying a record company logo. Free or not free? 86.42.66.94 (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be okay, since the main focus of the image is the turntable itself, not what's on it. Incidental inclusion is okay....in most countries ViperSnake151 15:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Site Location for Building Project

I am attempting to kickstart the wikipedia page on the planned Great Mall of Las Vegas and would like to attach an image. Thus far, the best image I've found is an overhead shot of the planned building along with it's location within the Las Vegas Valley, located at http://www.finehomeslv.com/blog/great-mall-of-las-vegas-includes-las-vegas-condos/. Is this usable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Visual77 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No the image is protected by copyright.Geni 18:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The 39 Steps

I've only been able to find one poster of this play, opening on Broadway next week. Jordan (talk) 08:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sierra Leone Currency image

On Sengbe Pieh page I would like to include an image of 5000 leone bill which features his likeness. Is it never allowed to include an image of currency? Jimbaum (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I responded in the user talk page referring Wikipedia:Free image resources#Banknotes and coins. Btw, this section seems a bit hard to find, maybe there should be a link somewhere (perhaps Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Comprehensive should have at least a line concerning coins and banknotes, linking to this section). Waldir talk 22:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:RBOC map.png

When I first saw this image it had a fair-use logo tag and another notice saying that the copyright holder had "rrevocably released all rights" [15], I added a no fair-use rational tag [16] and informed the original uploader of the image [17]. The user subsequently remove both the copyright notice and no fair-use rationale notice from the page [18]. I am not an expert in copyright law but it seems to me that the images used within the image are logos of major corportaions which are unlikely to have "irrevocably released all rights" to [them], allowing [them] to be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified, built upon, or otherwise exploited in any way by anyone for any purpose". As it stands the notice says I could "modify" the image by cropping around one of the logos and then use it for "any purpose" (such as the logo for my - fictional - telecommunications buisness). Again I do not know the copy-right laws pertaining to logos but to me it seems unlikely that this would be the case. If the logos which make up part of the image are indeed non-free content surely a fair use rational is required per WP:NFCC? I have informed the original uploader of this discussion [19]. [[Guest9999 (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)]]

I would agree with you. Because it is a composite of multiple images, some of which are not free, the current license is invalid. Dbiel (Talk) 04:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I would think that each image used in the master image would have to be identified with it own fair use rationale and then each use of the master image would also need a fair use rationale due to the embedded logos. The use itself appears to quailify for fair use. Dbiel (Talk)-

when will the uploaded information be approved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluegreen naren (talk • contribs) 06:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have no idea what you are asking. There is nothing that needs to be "approved". It is simply a question of proper licensing.

So the next question is: What is the correct license to use for a composite image that consists of multiple non-free logos and a user created map that the user is willing to release for free use, noting that the use is actually restricted due to the embeded non-free images? Dbiel (Talk) 20:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Request repeated: What is the correct license to use for a composite image that consists of multiple non-free images embedded within a user created image that he is willing to be licensed as a free image? see: Image:RBOC map.png

Dbiel (Talk) 03:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have an E-Mail giving Wikipedia CC permission, and will tag the pictures accordingly. What do I do with the E-Mail? That is, I can tag them, but I am sure that you need some back up to prove that the tags are legitimate.

dmelliott 01:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Does the permission include reuse by anyone for anything. Nothing less is acceptable to Wikipedia. WP:COPYREQ tells what permission is needed, how to get it, and how to submit it. --teb728 t c 07:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

old photograph

I have obtaind a an old photo of Llandderfel railway station and would like to add it to the artical about the station.

as I have no idear who took the photo origanaly, what is the copyright situation? and what tags do I use? Martinwoodchef (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinwoodchef (talk • contribs) 14:21, 17 January 2008Martinwoodchef (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC) (UTC)

Do you know how old the photograph is? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

he photo has to be older than 1964 as this is when the line closed, but looking at the clothes of the pepol on the platform it cood be aprox the 1940's but this wuld be just an estimation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinwoodchef (talk • contribs) 21:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The bad news is that it's probably not old enough to be in the public domain, so somebody still holds the copyright. The good news is that it may be possible to use under Wikipedia's fair use rules. If the station no longer exists, you can upload it and tag it with {{nonfree}}, and then attach and fill out a fair use template (see WP:FURG#Template). If the station does still exist, however, the photo would probably be considered replaceable and therefore not okay to use. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm new to editing Wikipedia articles so please excuse me. On the subject of the uploaded Air Age Media logo I have permission to upload it and I'm not sure which rationale I should choose. I'd appreciate the help, Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EMM1984 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Since it's a non-free image, you'll need to tag it with {{Non-free logo}}. Then you'll need to include a fair use rationale (Here's a template that will help) for each article in which you wish to use it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

You want to delete Image:Dudunobre.jpg, but how come Image:Castor_de_Andrade.jpg‎ is left unbothered? --Nadir D Steinmetz 19:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

All right, I understand. Thanks. But why do you remove it from the article Dudu Nobre when it is not even deleted? --Nadir D Steinmetz 20:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, than why not remove the tag saying the picture is orphaned? It just doesnt make sense. Of course its orphaned, because you cant put it in any articles! --Nadir D Steinmetz 21:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but you cant put this picture in any article, so why put a tag thats it is orphaned? I mean, I tried to help by putting the picture in an article, but you erased it from there. How about putting a tag saying that you cannot put this picture in any article until the picture is provided with a reliable licence (if there is a tag like this)? --Nadir D Steinmetz 21:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Filmposter Swingers (2002)

I am the creator, producer and director of the Dutch film Swingers (not the Doug Liman one) I uploaded the poster of my film for fair use. I am the rightful owner of all rights to this film, including artwork. Swingers (2002 film)

Image:Swingers 2002 poster.jpg

How do I change the tag so it won't be removed?

ThanksBrenn 04:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to add a WP:FURG template to the page to explain how it is fair use. (p.s. you can sign your name by typing ~~~~) Megapixie (talk) 04:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

EU owned images

The copyright description at [20] says "Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged, save where otherwise stated" Is this permissible in Wikipedia, and what would the appropriate tag be? Thanks. MikeHobday (talk) 10:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Only reproduction is mentioned, there is no mention of derivative works. Therefore it is not permissable in Wikipedia. Garion96 (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

information request

I am trying to add Count Dimitri Tolstoi's biography to Wikipedia. I am having problems building the page correctly and uploading a self portrait or him.

cordially, Ivdia Velazquez —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artrouge (talk • contribs) 19:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on the nature of the problem's you're having? I would be happy to help. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

An album cover

I uploaded a pic for an album cover that i scanned and im not sure how to tag the image could some help me out thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrtreats (talk • contribs) 19:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Since that would be a copyrighted image, you'll need to tag it with {{Non-free album cover}} and then add a fair use rationale (template here). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Old Image

I found an uploaded image on Wikipedia of an old sports program for the Waterloo Hawks. I updated the fair use rationale for that and added one for Don Boven (the subject of the cover). My question is whether copyright still applies if the team and the league of which it was a part have been defunct for almost 60 years? Any thoughts on whether this picture can be in the public domain yet?--Eva bd 22:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. Two things you need to do. Assuming you have the original program looks for anything on it that says "copyright". If there is no copyright notice at all and it was published before 1978 in the US (and not published abroad) then it is in the public domain see Hirtle and the tag {{PD-Pre1978}}. Megapixie (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't have the program. I wasn't the original uploader, but I'll ask him if he knows. Thanks for the help.--Eva bd 03:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleting an image I uploaded

Hello. I uploaded Image:Robert Brustein.jpg in the belief that it fulfilled Wikipedia fair use rationales. The image was labeled by a bot as deletable, and in further going though Wikipedia's policies I now believe that it does not meet the established criteria -- but I can't find any methodology for me to actually delete it. I've removed the link to it from the article, but other than that, I don't quite know how to proceed. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 23:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Simply tag with {{db-author}} and a admin will delete it a couple of hours. Megapixie (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Great, simple -- thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 00:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been using Template:PD-USGov-Military-Army-USAIOH to tag images from the Institute of Heraldry, but ImageTaggingBot is telling me that I need to provide sources for the images still. Does the template not properly identify the source and creators? -Ed! (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Please mark the URL where you found this on the internet. If you create the image yourself (such as in Photoshop) and it is not a derivative image, please state so exactly on the page. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ronald Kessler photo and autobiography

In response to your question about the copyright status of the photo of me for use with my entry Ronald Kessler, it is free content. Also, since the material in my entry consists of barebones listings, could you remove the autobiographical warning at the top? Thank you for your help.--Ronald Kessler —Preceding unsigned comment added by KesslerRonald (talk • contribs) 13:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have marked the file as GFDL. Please read up on WP:GFDL in order to make sure that this license to make sure it is sufficient according to your purposes, and that you are OK with its distribution clauses. If you disagree, please mark the file with {{db-author}}, and it will be deleted. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

1969 cougar

Hello, I am trying to find out how many 1969 cougar convertibles , with 351 windsor engine,in the 4 speed transmission were produced, can you help me? Thank you for your time, Norm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.30.235 (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Try asking that at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. This page is monitored by people who only know about copyright questions. --teb728 t c 00:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

?

I am not sure I understand. When I upload images, Wikipedia asks me for the status of the image, and I always chose the one that asserts that those were my own works available for common use. I then attached the images to certain articles. What is wrong with this process, and why were they removed from the Duck Mountain Provincial Park article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldgate (talk • contribs) 02:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I have restored the images, as they were removed without comment, and there was no reason to do so. However, I'm looking through your contributions, and you need to give each image a license. Please go back and mark each image with a proper license: I suggest {{PD-self}}, {{GFDL-self}}, or {{self|cc-by-2.5}}, depending on which license you choose. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

License

What license can I put on the Image:Dudu_nobre.jpg, if the source site does not cite any copyright and does not limit a person's reproduction of anything contained in the site? --Nadir D Steinmetz 15:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but unless you can show that the image is licensed to be reused by anyone for anything, Wikipedia policy doesn’t permit using it. --teb728 t c 18:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mona-weblogo-plain-200px.jpg

Hello,

I received a message re: Fair use rationale for Image:Mona-weblogo-plain-200px.jpg. I am unclear what I need to put on the image description page. This logo was created by Mona Foundation for Mona Foundation - what do I need to do so that I can keep the image in the Wikipedia article on the Mona Foundation????

THank you, Sarah —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorgnati (talk • contribs) 00:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Please take a note, I have fixed up the image. In the future, please use the template format situated at Wikipedia:Fair_use_rationale_guideline#Template for all fair use images, and the problems should be resolved. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

cocktail- where was the bar in jamaica where it was filmed name and location

where is the bar used in cocktail in jamaica where tom cruise worked and met elizabeth shue. what location is it still there ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.93.189 (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Please address this type of question to the reference desk. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Old image OK?

Would it be OK for me to upload the next-to-last image here to include it in World Chess Championship 1948? These are the five participants in the 1948 tournament, an important historic event and the photo can't be replaced. Bubba73 (talk), 02:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This would probably be fair-use irreplaceable, so yes. You might want to read up at WP:FU and make sure to provide the proper template. However, there is also a good chance that this is a free image, depending on where it was first published. If it was published in 1948 in Russia, and the author is unknown, you can give a tag of {{PD-Russia}}, but you will have to upload it to commons for legal reasons (see the bottom of the template link for an explanation of why it's not PD in the US). However, you will probably have to try to find information on where it was first published, and author information. There is also a fairly heavy chance that you will be able to mark it with {{PD-US-not renewed}}. However, all of this will require finding information on its first publishing. If not, you can probably just go with fair use. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately I have no idea about the original photographer or where it was published. I'll read up as you suggested. Bubba73 (talk), 20:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

General pemission found on website

General permission to use image below is found at http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/mkt/katy.html

I have complied with the site's requirement that the copyright holder and photographer are given credit. I have included the link in the image's caption.


How do I keep this image from being deleted?

Lownen (talk) 05:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC) image:mkt153ags.jpg

The problem is you didn't place a license on the image; each image needs a proper license tag. In this instance, please take note of the change I've made: [21]. It would also help if you could revise the page to give a more precise location for the image, as there appear to be a few subpages. The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm also concerned that the general permission may not be sufficiently all-encompassing for the tag used (and for use on Wikipedia). For example, it's far from clear that derivative uses are covered. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

question

I found some photographs of the first edition of the Die tote Stadt score from web which were published in 1920 in Mainz of Germany and in 1924 in Chicago (near close to pd-us).[22][23][24]

http://thompsonian.info/korngold.html

I don't have much experience of uploading that kind of images here except copy free images. Can someone tell me whether it is usable for the article or not? And do I need to get a permission from the website owner if the book falls under 3d object? Thanks--Appletrees (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Would like to uplad image but not sure if I have suficient permission.

I noticed that there is no photo of Chandra Wickramasinghe attached to the article about him so I emailed him asking for such a photo. Dr. Wickramasinghe was gracious enough to send me such an image but when I sought to upload same I found that the process was a bit more complicated than I had realized. The photo is no doubt his personal property but probably not taken by himself.

Here is a copy of the email interchange regarding said image.



Dear John

Attached is a recent photo you can use. Please do the needful for Wikepedia. I can send an autographed copy to your mailing address.

Thanks

Chandra

>>> "John Green" <ulao@blablabla.net> 19/01/08 4:11 AM >>> Dr. Wickramasinghe,

I have for many years followed your work along with that of Fred Hoyle. While at times controversial I have always found your work fascinating. I am currently involved in beta testing a face recognition product named Polar Rose. while involved with that work I visited the page at Wikipedia for yourself and noted that there is no image of you on that page. I can only suppose that because the author could find no public domain picture of your likeness none was included. If you could send me a public domain digital photo I would like to rectify that situation. Alternatively you might submit one yourself.

One more alternative; You could send an autographed photo which would be most treasured to;

John Green 229 Shepherds Bluff Dr.

Somewhere, NC 28xxx USA


Respectfully yours

John Green


My question is; What permission (and from whom) do I need to meet requirements to upload it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulao (talk • contribs) 21:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The person from whom you'd need permission is the copyright holder. By default, this is the person who took the photo. However, if the photographer was taking the photo on hire for somebody else, then the copyright holder is likely to be whoever hired the photographer. The type of permission you need is a free license release (the free license most commonly used on Wikipedia is the WP:GFDL). This means that the person releasing it agrees that it may be re-used for any purpose. Given that the subject is alive, a free license release is essential.
I know this can be frustrating to people simply looking to improve Wikipedia. Thank you for checking up on this here rather than just proceeding unilaterally with something you didn't yet understand; I wish more editors followed your example in this regard. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Sarcasticidealist. I suspect from the way the subject is posed that was self taken. I shall however email Dr. wickramasinghe requesting the needed permissions.

Ulao (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If I have the photographer return the folowing statement would that be considered suficient?

I, (insert name of copyright holder) the copyright holder of this work, hereby grant the permission to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.


Ulao (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Fiar use sufficiently justifiied?

Is my statement claiming fair use at Image:ReubenFine.jpg sufficient? It is a historical figure (Reuben Fine who is dead, and it is used in the article about him. Bubba73 (talk), 01:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Borderline. I've added in a templated fair use rationale (available at WP:FURG#Template) just to be on the safe side. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, I noticed that. Bubba73 (talk), 01:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Where to go from here...

Two of my uploaded pictures' fair use:

Image:Twmposter3.gif Image:PokeCenter.jpg

Has been disputed citing WP:NFCC#10c. I am not sure where to go because I believe both rationale are legitimate and correct. I don't know what to do at this point but it seems to be clear cut that both pictures will be removed for little to no reason at all. It would be nice if I can get some council. --Raderick (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a fair use rationale on either image. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Would you care to explain to me how to make one? --Raderick (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure - the easiest way is just to get the template from here and fill it in as appropriate. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Video question?

Can non-free video files be uploaded to Wikipedia as long as they meet the criteria for non-free content and have a detailed fair use rationale, just like any image would? Or is there another policy for dealing with video? Noah¢s (Talk) 21:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I believe you can upload that video under the said reasons. However, Wikimedia only accepts files in the ogg format. For more help, see Commons:Help:Converting video. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
If you can't convert or don't have time to, then upload anyway and come back and let us know the file needs to be converted. We'll need the location of the file to work with it. Someone will be able to help get it in the right format. Guroadrunner (talk) 05:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Proper image tags for Swerve (Transformers)

I just posted 2 pictures on the article Swerve (Transformers). This article covers 5 different Transformers named Swerve that have been made in the last 20+ years, so I decided to add pictures of a few of the major ones. Can anyone tell me if I did the non-free tags properly? Thanks Mathewignash (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

They appear to be pretty good with two caveats. If you could provide a more specific source for the URL (see {{bsr}}), and if you could provide a short explanation of why it's not replaceable fair use under the proper section (even though it already is fairly obvious as is). The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The hasbro web site no longer hosts these images, as it's changed and deleted their pages on Universe and Cybertron toys, so I can't give a better URL. Mathewignash (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I added a couple more like on the pages for Clocker (Transformers) and Skyblast. Any problems with those pictures? Mathewignash (talk) 02:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:PetClark.jpg

I question if the use of Image:PetClark.jpg qualifies for fair use. It is an ad scanned from a copy of TV Guide and used in two articles.

  • Petula Clark where it is used in connection with a discussion of the program being advertised but without any reference to TV Guide or any discussion of the ad itself, rather the discussion relates to the program being advertised.
  • 1968 in television where it is used in such a way that it does not add anything to the discussion at all, which is primarily about interracial contact, that is not even indicated in the add. Additionally there is no FUR for this usage of the image.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but this seems to be a clear copyright violation to me. Dbiel (Talk) 03:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: 1968 in television -- Pet Clark is white and Harry Belafonte is not white, which I would assume is why it is on that article. Guroadrunner (talk) 05:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
And how would you say that is be represented by an image that has a black and white line drawing of only one of two individuals. Dbiel (Talk) 05:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Which fair use rationale for a non-commericial non-profit organization's logo?

I uploaded Image:WCIC Logo.png a while back. Recently, someone added {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} to the page. I don't understand why a rationale is needed since I was given the image by a station employee. I also don't understand which tag to use: {{Commercial logo rationale}}, {{Logo fur}}, or {{Logo rationale}}. Will (Talk - contribs) 07:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Your tag is fine. What's missing is a fair use rationale. The easiest way to get one on there is to fill out this template. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, any of the templates to which you linked will do nicely too. Pick whichever of those or the one to which I linked strikes your fancy, I suppose. As for why a rationale is required, it doesn't matter who provided you with the logo: it's still a non-free image, and accordingly still needs to abide by Wikipedia's policy on non-free material. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

important question

hi my name is hanan am 24 from saudia arabia i want to use some information from wikipedia in my book is it ok or not ?? plus am going to but this site name as a referanse so plz i need answer thank i —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceeuinheaven (talk • contribs) 09:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

As long as it's properly attributed, material from Wikipedia can be used by any one for any purpose - see the GNU Free Documentation License for more information. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Email Permission to use an Image

Dear Friend,

I have received an email from the manager of Mark Selby (snooker player), to use an image from Mark Selby's website: http://www.markselby.info/ on his Wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Selby

Can an administrator contact me re forwarding that message and to let me know how it can be tied into uploading a copy of the image in question?

Thanks, bigpad (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Has he explicitly said which free license to use? A simple "You can use this image" is not enough, unfortunately. Commons:Email templates gives some insight about how to get the proper permission from the author.
The usual procedure is usually one of two: the copyright owner of the image sends an email like the one I pointed at to the address point there, with the image attached, and a OTRS guy will upload it after certifying the mail. Or you can upload the image yourself, and then forward the email you got to the OTRS (the email address found there) stating the image you have uploaded (both the name of the image in the site and the link to the image you have uploaded), and a OTRS guy will slap a tag verifying the image is indeed free. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

License status

Hi, I took some photo by my mobile phone (Image:TwoKamal_1.jpeg, Image:TwoKamal_2.jpeg, Image:TwoKamal_3.jpeg, Image:TwoKamal_4.jpeg, Image:TwoKamal_5.jpeg, Image:TwoKamal_6.jpeg), and published them on wikipedia, but i don;t know what should i do for their license, what is the license status of these kind of photo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talizadeh (talk • contribs) 20:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to use them on Wikipedia, you'll need to release them under a free license, such as the GNU Free Documentation License. Which license you decide on determines which license tag you'll attach - in the case of the GFDL, you'd use {{GFDL-self}}. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Upload a logo?

I am writing an article for the Hudson Valley Federal Credit Union and would like to upload its logo. Am I permitted to use the logo found on their website homepage [www.hvfcu.com] or would I need to acquire the company's permission?

Thanks! Crispy1995 (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey thats my credit union, never thought I'd see it in the news! yes you can upload it under the Logo fairuse license on the [25] page. Drop me User talk:MBisanz a line once its up and I'll go in and tidy up the templates and stuff. MBisanz talk 01:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Screenshot of a Java-constructed image?

Page in question is here[26]. Graph would be used to demonstrate connections. -Kallahan (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No, since that's a result of possibly copyrighted code. ViperSnake151 19:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Commons image

How is this Image:HR Block logo.png on commons? I know many people believe simple geometric shapes aren't copyrightable, but considering they've got the little trademark sign and commons is only supposed ot be for totally free images aren't we pushing it? If this is teh case, then we have a ton of non-free logos that are simple geometry and should be pulled out of that cat. MBisanz talk 02:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyrights and trademarks are different things. The trademark character “®” is just another text character, which is not subject to copyright. As the Commons:Template:Trademark shows, it is a trademark. (The Microsoft logo is another trademark which is not subject to copyright.) --teb728 t c 00:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio images

For some time, I noticed that copyright violation images have only been determined by judgement from a Wikipedia user and never by complaint from the copyright holder him/her self. I really wonder, has there ever been a time where the copyright holder actually complained? Wubzy (talk) 04:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a vast online encyclopedia; so an owner cannot easily recognize whether their works have been used without prior permission. To save Wiki from such, several editors identify possible imagevio and throw them to the hands of admins who will later decide whether to delete or not. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 04:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't tell you with what frequency, but I seem to recall seeing a couple of things disappearing due to ORTS tickets being filed by the copyright holder. These things are normally done without leaving a lot of breadcrumbs. The vast majority of images are deleted before the copyright holder notices. Dozens of images are speedily deleted on commons shortly after they are uploaded. Unlike google wikipedia doesn't have such deep pockets, and would be hard pressed to fight a lawsuit like YouTube's upcoming one: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1536695/20060719/index.jhtml?headlines=true Megapixie (talk) 04:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The copyright holder ,whose work is being featured on YouTube, seems to be taking the matter way too seriously. Rather than applying such drastic measures on the video website, he could at least tell them to stop airing what his off and everything will be alright. Wubzy (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, as the copyright holder, that is their choice/right. By being strict about removing suspect material we reduce Wikipedia's (and any re-users) chances of being exposed to such litigation in addition to trying to achieve the goal of being a free encyclopaedia. Megapixie (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Fairuse overuse

Someone care to take a hammer to Image:Bo Schembechler promo.jpg, its well outside its FUR. MBisanz talk 08:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed from offending pages - thanks for bringing this to our attention. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Grand River Hospital

I would like to use the banner images on http://www.grandriverhospital.on.ca/. I'm not sure what, if any, license should be used. As this is a Canadian hospital, they are owned by the Government of Ontario. I understand logos can be used, but what about these types of images? Are they suitable to be used as they're government owned, or does that only apply to United States based public facilities. tyx (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Which banner image? The picture of the hospital? That would be a definite no-go, on the grounds of replaceability. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Oops. Yeh that's the one I meant. Thanks for the clarification. tyx (talk) 03:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Screenshot of a Java-constructed image?

Page in question is here[27]. Graph would be used to demonstrate connections. -Kallahan (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

What is it that you want to know about media copyright? --teb728 t c 19:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Is it copyrighted, and if so, how should I list it in terms of the image's details? Website screenshot? Kallahan (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is copyrighted. The tag would be {{Non-free web screenshot}}, but it would require also a use rationale. And I cannot imagine any possible use that would conform to Wikipedia’s non-free content criteria: It could be used only to illustrate comment on the website (not on the relationships to Soros). And the resolution requirements would make the details illegible. --teb728 t c 23:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

is amazon....

are amazon books covers ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miamicatlavender (talk • contribs) 03:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes with the required rationale and {{bookcover}}. Stifle (talk) 11:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Image of a unique parade float

Regarding this image [28]

An image of a unique parade float taken by an anonymous person who emailed it to a blogger who then posted it (according to blogger Shmarya Rosenberg. This important and illustrative image relevant to a number of articles including Chabad and Chabad messianism. Can one make a fair use argument that it constitutes a Template:Non-free historic image as no free images exist and the event will not be repeated?

Would it be necessary to reduce the resolution of the image before it was used? Lobojo (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That kind of argument seems reasonable. The image would need to be low-resolution to conform with the WP:NFCC. Stifle (talk) 11:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice. Lobojo (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of Image or part of image of a painting in Wiki article

Am I able to legally use an image or part of image of a painting that was produced by a Julius Scholz sometime between 1825 and 1893. Ezza —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezza61 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that can be uploaded as {{PD-US}}. Stifle (talk) 11:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this image okay?

It is of Guitarist Shane Gibson

http://www.shaneguitar.com/news_images/20080108_SiriusRadio_002_sm.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kornography (talk • contribs) 21:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, that's a copyrighted image of a living person, so it would fail WP:NFCC because a free alternative is obtainable. Stifle (talk) 11:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Is an image with a watermark of the source OK?

Can I post an image with a water mark clearly showing the website from which it came from (it was posted on the original website with the watermark) or can I only post a link to it at best?

http://www.bcfc.co.uk/javaImages/2a/fb/0,,10327~3537706,00.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by XanderBingo (talk • contribs) 12:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's preferred that such images are not watermarked, but if it is the best available image to illustrate the article and it meets all the criteria, it's not forbidden. Stifle (talk) 11:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The little Bighorn picture

Who painted this picture and when?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennykeyman (talk • contribs) 23:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

X-33630.jpg‎ (640 × 418 pixels, file size: 48 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg) WHO PAINTED THE Little Bighorn Picture< and when? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennykeyman (talk • contribs) 23:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't know, please address this to the reference desk. Stifle (talk) 11:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Meraloma diamond M

I created an image of our logo Diamond M and uploaded several times. I credited myself as the creator and yet it was deleted. Why? Meraloma (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect you didn't attach a copyright tag and/or a fair use rationale. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
User-created content must be licensed as free content. Which license tag did you use? --teb728 t c 00:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Image in question is Image:Diamondm.jpg, also uploaded as Image:DmndM.png. Stifle (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Swimming Pool on the V O I.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Swimming Pool on the V O I.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 08:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

    • I have given as much information as I have about this image as I have. I don’t know what more this annoying BOT needs, As I have explained this is a scanned image of a postcard I have of this ships swimming pool and that the card has no copyright information on it. Also the ship was torpedoed during the second world war which as I understood qualifies an image for fair use. Can anyone help with this issue. Stavros1 (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I've changed it to a non-free tag with a fair use rationale (although if it is indeed non-free, the resolution will need to be reduced), since I didn't see any evidence that it was released under the GFDL. It may be public domain, though I'm not an authority on that at all; if it is, the resolution can stay as is. Either way, the bot should be satisfied. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The resolution will need to be reduced though. Stifle (talk) 11:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

John Logan Campbell license

What type of license should a image of John Loagn Campbell that has been authourized to go on a article but not to be used for any other commercial use. I uploaded it and then it got deleted before I had a chance to do anything. Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 02:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, we need to figure out whether anybody does, in fact, still hold the copyright. I presume that it's a New Zealand photo, and if the photographer died more than fifty years ago (which seems likely, although not certain, given that the subject died in 1912), tag it with {{PD-NZ}} and be done with it. If you can't be sure that it's in the public domain, tag it with {{Non-free fair use in | John Logan Campbell}}, and attach a fair use rationale (a template for this is available at WP:FURG#Template). Note that if you go the latter route, the resolution of the picture needs to be at most 0.1 megapixels. If it's in the public domain, there's no restriction on resolution. I hope this was helpful. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Note also that if it is in the public domain then the person providing it can't stop you using it commercially. Stifle (talk) 10:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Maps produced by the city of San Diego

Image:NortheastSanDiego.gif comes from the San Diego website. That site's disclaimer includes the following seemingly contradictory statements:

  • Except for the third party materials described below, the materials and information on this site were generated, compiled, or assembled at public expense and are freely available for non-commercial, non-profit making use, provided the user keeps intact all associated copyright, trademark, and other proprietary notices.
  • Unless a copyright is indicated, information on the City of San Diego Web site is in the public domain and may be reproduced, published or otherwise used with the City of San Diego's permission. We request only that the City of San Diego be cited as the source of the information and that any photo credits, graphics or byline be similarly credited to the photographer, author or City of San Diego, as appropriate.
  • Copyrighted © 2002-2005 City of San Diego. All rights reserved.

(emphasis mine)

So it's saying that non-third party stuff on the site is all of the following:

  • Public domain
  • May be used with permission
  • May be used for non-commercial uses
  • All rights reserved

What should be done here? --NE2 09:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think their use of "public domain" is inconsistent with ours. As such I would say that anything from that site would need to be claimed as fair use and WP:NFCC complied with. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Sh-tltomm-cd.jpg

I went though this with you a few days ago. I have the fair use justification on the graphic that I was told was fine. What's the problem with it now? Bwmoll3 (talk) 11:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that the rationale is for the image's use in Strong Heart, but the image is actually being used in The Last Thing on My Mind (Patty Loveless song). I'll fix it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Video clips of races

My question was not answered when it was posted at Wikipedia:Requested copyright examinations. For some reason it was not copied here even though it was not answered, so I'm asking it again. That page was not cleaned up properly: the unanswered requests were left hanging on the talk pages of all of the articles at that former link. Royalbroil 14:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Talk:Wisconsin International Raceway I was considering uploading two short (less than 1 minute) video clips of a few laps at stockcar races at two notable tracks, one of which is Wisconsin International Raceway. Is there any copyright concerns with uploading small portion of races at stockcar tracks since the product that they sell is what I taped? I would of course use a free copyright license for my contribution (as far as I am concerned it is acceptable for my contribution to be freely licensed). Royalbroil 02:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • If you taped it yourself, you can upload it here with no problem. Sometimes sporting and entertainment events print on the tickets that you cannot release anything you record while you are there, but Wikipedia basically has a history of overlooking those clauses. I think the basic idea is we figure that unless the copyright holder venue complains that's a contract between you and the venue that we aren't going to concern ourselves with. And in defense of my cleanup, all questions over two months old were moved to the archives linked above, where old questions on this page also go. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Ok, and thanks for the reply. The event tickets are extremely generic and have no legal wording on them. Only the name of the track. It's probably worth it to spend some time visiting those questions and removing the notices off of the talk pages. I didn't know the answer to the ones that had been left. Royalbroil 15:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Rabbi_Adin_Steinsaltz.jpg

Betacommandbot left a standard message claiming this image was non-free and lacked an article-specific fair use description. User:Historian2 replied stating that he has records proving this image's transfer to the public domain and asking where he should send them. Where should he send them? How can Betacommandbot's presumption that television capture images are non-public domain be rebutted? Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Same issue for Image:Sanhedrin in session.jpg. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The user should send these records to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org", making sure that the links to the pictures are in the e-mail. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"Then I'll do it my self," said the Little Red Hen, and she did.

First a statement of frustration - (which probably some bot will read?) and then a question. I have posted hundreds of pictures on wikipedia - pretty much all taken by me - many of them before the current templates were available. My way of dealing with a bot's threat of removing one - this one in Einar Jonsson, is to go to the page, remove the picture myself, along with all my other pictures at that page. That is my intention here and now. Actually, no question. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If this is intended as a protest against Wikipedia's rules on non-free content and fair use, Wikipedia talk:NONFREE might be a better target for it. I'd note, though, that going through your contributions the issues with your fair use rationales go substantially deeper than just that they're not based on the current templates - "My wife took it, she said okay", for example, is not a fair use rationale, no matter how it's formatted. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time and effort to point out a better venue for me to post on (this is enough, it's where the links led me.) and for looking at my history here. Probably my wife took the picture of me on my user page. But I'll pull that too. Life is supposed to be interesting and it always is. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC) No, must be another one, but she took my user page too. Feel free to remove the other one that you found. Carptrash (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


Whitestar image

i need thhis picture from this picture, [29]

copy and paste it. I tried and could not find the websites publishers email, what should i do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wsllover (talk • contribs) 21:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Image: SunburnCover.jpg

This is ridiculous. This the second perfectly good image of mine that's been tagged. Like I said with Natural Selection, I provided fair use rationale. I provided no less information than the Something Like Human cover, which no one seems to have a problem with. Could someone please point out a difference, because I don't see one? What the heck else am I supposed to do, recite War and Peace in Latin? Obviously I'm so incredibly stupid and not worth anybody's time. Natural Selection was a perfectly good picture with citations and everything, but apparently those blundering geeks have nothing better to do than nitpick perfectly good images. I have a lot better to do with my time than wage a legal battle over a damn picture on Wikipedia with people who would prefer to split nonexistant hairs. Tell me exactly what I need to put in and I'll do it. I don't know what Sunburn could possibly be lacking that Something Like Human is not. There was nothing wrong with Natural Selection and there's nothing wrong with Sunburn. Please respond on my talk page, not here. -- §HurricaneERICarchive 23:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Replied. Megapixie (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding album cover for Raw Material

I'm curious as to why the image (Image:Rawmaterial-uprock.jpg)I uploaded for Raw Material does not fall into the category of fair use -- it is, after all, an album cover image that's being used to identify the page for that particular album. I'd love an explanation. Thank you. Wardomatic (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to add a WP:FURG the template on the image itself explains this. Megapixie (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Salvation_Army.svg

BetacommandBot just alerted me to the fact that Image:Salvation_Army.svg doesn't have a valid fair-use rationale. When I uploaded the image, I wasn't aware of the fact that a rationale was required.

Anyway, the file description says that the image is not even used on the Salvation Army article anymore. Is it worth keeping?

Thanks, — Jeremy 13:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You didn't do anything wrong at the time, as {{logo}} used to be a sufficient tag on its own. However, the non-free content criteria have become more stringent since then.
The image is used on three tangentially-related pages and shouldn't be. If you do nothing, it'll be deleted. If you want it deleted quicker just remove it from the three pages it's on and put {{db-author}} on it. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Stefan_Engels.jpg

This image was tagged for non-free-usage violation - perhaps someone could explain this to me a little more clearly. The articles in which this picture is used are listed at the bottom of the page, and an explanation has been given in the summary for the single article in which this picture has been used. As far as I can tell, it is not in violation of any policy - again, though, a clear explanation would be welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Random Pipings (talk • contribs) 14:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The first problem is that the copyright tag you selected is for album covers, which this does not appear to be (in any event, it's not being used as an album cover, but rather as a picture of the artist). The second problem is that that your fair use rationale, while reasonably complete, isn't in a form that would be recognized by the bot (see WP:FURG#Template for future reference). The third, and most insurmountable, problem is that this is a non-free image used to illustrate a living person. On Wikipedia, all non-free images used to illustrate living people are considered to be replaceable by free images (since somebody could theoretically take a picture of the person and release it under a free license) and therefore unusable. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I have deleted the image per CSD #I7, "non-free images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag (such as a {{logo}} tag on a photograph of a mascot) may be deleted at any time" as the tag was an album cover and the photo was a publicity photo or back page of a magazine, or something that's not an album cover. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Post Toasties

Does Post still make this cereal? We cannot find it in our area any more..Thanks...Jerry in Texas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.102.252 (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your question and for visiting this website. Unfortunately, this is the website for Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, and not for Kraft Foods, who make post Toasties. Please try asking Kraft Foods your question at www.kraft.com. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

cc sa by

I'm soliciting photographers for images for articles I've been working on. Obviously the issue is getting them to change their copyright.


Non-commercial and No Derivative Works are stated as definitively non-free. Let's say I convince them to remove these restrictions but they still want Attribute, or Share alike by CC. If used will these images violate wikipedia policy as well? - Steve3849 talk 15:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No, that's fine. Creative Commons SA images are free for Wikipedia's purposes. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Back to the Future timeline

Is Back to the Future timeline a derivative work? Is this timeline of the Back to the Future universe a copyright violation?

The Transhumanist 01:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It's reporting about the series, in a form too much summarized to make any sense seen as a derivative work. If this it were, nobody could write anything about the plot of a fiction at all. I see this as an attempt to ask the other parent, after repeated deletion attempts have been almost unanimously defeated, and a deletion review [30] closing as almost unanimous support of the keep result.DGG (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a "derivative work," if it's original research. It IS original research and, in this case, it's original research derived from copyrighted material, and therefore violates copyright law. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 06:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not a derivative work. It's a plot summary. Original research isn't a copyright violation, therefore your assertion is baseless. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 06:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Presumably someone owns the rights to the plot and characters of the movies - I don't imagine that anyone could legally make a movie with the same plot, characters etc. The article currently uses that plot and characters to create an original piece of work - the timeline. It is not reporting or summarising the plot, it is creating a new work based around the plot. That's just my opinion and even if it is correct I have no idea what it means from a legal perspective. (I do think it is a violation of WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:OR but that's not relevent here). Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 06:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd more than agree with the article issues, but as you said, irrelevant. This timeline, while arguably useless, isn't much different from a plot summary in bulleted form. I do not see how a variation on summary can be copyvio without direct plagiarism in some form. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 07:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Facts cannot be copyrighted, not even facts about fictional works. This is something that has been affirmed by the courts many times, in the case of "fan" encyclopedias etc. I would question the usefulness of that article, though.--Pharos (talk) 07:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

We actually have an article (ableit not a very good one) that deals with a similar subject - Legal issues with fan fiction. I think it is the copyright status of the work as a whole (the article) rather than the facts within it that is being questioned. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 12:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Fan fiction is a whole different issue from fan encyclopedias, quite a large number of which have been put out by very establishment publishers without serious legal challenge..--Pharos (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Logo use for a company entry

Hi, I have 2 questions: I am working to add a page for a company that has been in the news a lot recently, and cannot get the logo to upload. (1) what do I need to put in for liscensing permission to use the logo (I am so confused by this), and (2) it is a jpeg, and I am getting a notice that the file is corrupt. Not sure what I am doing wrong....thanks! [I've been at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload trying to do this to no avail!] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Llcavall (talk • contribs) 05:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello. First of all, if it's a company logo, it's a non-free image, meaning that you can't upload it to the commons. Upload it directly to Wikipedia instead, here. When you're uploading it, under "Licensing", scroll down until you get to "Logo" (it's under "Fair use / copyrighted"). Once you've uploaded it, you'll need to insert a fair use rationale; this template is a good start.
I can't help you with the fact that the file is corrupted. Does it open for you on your computer? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Since I am new to this, I want to make sure I am doing it correctly - I think I followed your instructions and uploaded SVM_logo.jpg with the rationale. Is it possible for you to see if indeed I have done this correctly? Many thanks. Llcavall (talk) 06:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks generally good. The only thing is that it's not currently in use in any articles, meaning that it's "orphaned" (also, the rationale says that it's going to be used in SVM, which is a disambiguation page - you should replace that with the article in which it's actually going to be used). Because it's orphaned, it may be deleted at any time. If this happens before you have a chance to put it into the article, let me know and I'll undelete it (but then you'll need to put it in the article right away, or it may get deleted again). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use box ok?

I recently had a notification that an image I had uploaded, Image:SEUCK.PNG required a fair use rationale. I copied a box from some other game screenshot and edited it to fit. (It was btw not so simple to actually find a screenshot with such an explanation :)) I also removed the warning notification from the image's info. Can someone advise me if it is ok now? -- D64 (talk) 10:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks okay. The only thing is that the "portion used" field is supposed to be used to indicate how much of the image is used (we don't use entire fair use images if a portion would suffice), not the portion that is copyrighted. I've fixed it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I use this picture?

The picture is located at http://english.unak.is/?d=3&m=forsida. The picture in question is the one of the school campus. I do not know the copyright information, and I would like to use the picture in an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Claytonguy20 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably not. Unless it says somewhere on the website that the content (including images) is released under a free license then it is unlikely that the image meets non free use criteria number 1 - assuming that the University is still there in that state the image could be replaced by a free image (even if none currently exists it would just be a case of a nearby Wikipedian going and taking a photo). Guest9999 (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What does this qualify as?

On the Tampa Bay Rays talk page, we were notified that the "Image:Rays_trio.jpg"‎ image was about to be deleted if a free use description wasn't included with it. The notification described the need of a boilerplate fair use template, and after being redirected to it's page, I was confused as to what criteria that the image in question qualified under. So my question is, what special template would I need to use to save the image from being deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tampabay721 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think that image is under fair use, unless you actually discuss the poster itself. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The image is used under a section of the article entitled "2004: Rise of Crawford, Baldelli and Kazmir," but although Kazmir is not included in the picture, the section briefly mentions all 3 players that do appear in the picture. Tampabay721 (talk) 03:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I saw that. The trouble is that you're basically using the image to illustrate the people in it, all of whom are living. Wikipedia does not use fair-use images to illustrate living people, since they are all theoretically replaceable by free pictures. If you were using the image to illustrate the poster itself, because the poster was somehow notable, then that would be a different matter, but I don't think its current use is within the confines of Wikipedia policy. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I understand. So should I just leave it alone until it gets deleted on Jan. 31, or is there a quicker way, to get it over with? Tampabay721 (talk) 03:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
If you want to remove it from the article, I can delete it right now. Your call. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Go ahead. You know more than I do about this "free-use" stuff, so if you think there's no way to keep it there under free-use, then it might as well be taken off now. Tampabay721 (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding page description and tag AFTER upload

Please, how do I Add the page description and tag AFTER upload/ Thank you in advance. Lginley (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

To add the tag, just click "edit this page" and insert the tag you want (see WP:ICT). To add the description, just click "edit this page" and have at 'er. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Iraqi News Agency image

I just came across this image Image:Republicanguard.jpg which was tagged the other day for lacking a fair-use rationale. Anyway, the image itself is watermarked AFP/INA, and although the original source is not given variations can be found on google images. INA is the Iraqi News Agency, which was government run under Saddam Hussein. Iraqi copyright law was modified after the invasion by the CPA [31]. The question seems to be 1) Since the government of Hussein ceases to exist, does the copyright cease to exist as well 2) was Iraqi copyright recognized by the US before the invasion 3) Would the AFP have any claim on this copyright? That of course doesn't even take into account whether it could be plausibly used as fair-use, assuming the copyright still is held somewhere. Joshdboz (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Which tag is appropriate?

I recently uploaded a photo entitled Open Mouth.jpg. It is a photo that I took of myself with my digital camera. Therefore, there really is no copyright status. Could you tell me which tag is appropriate in this situation? Thank you, Jessica DeVoto (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is a copyright status: the copyright is held by you. If you want to use it on Wikipedia, however, we'll need you to either release it into the public domain (which would basically be you relinquishing the copyright completely) or under a free license (which means, basically, that people can do whatever they want with the image but that they have to credit you). The most commonly-used free license on Wikipedia is the GNU Free Documentation License.
As for the tag, if you want to release it into the public domain, use {{PD-self}}. If you want to license it under the GFDL, use {{GFDL-self}}. If you want to license it under a different free license, there's a list here. I hope this was helpful. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I would like to tag it as {{PD-self}}, but I am not sure how to add a tag, now that it is already uploaded. Can you fix it for me or tell me how to fix it. Thanks again, Jessica DeVoto (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Just go to the image's page and click the "edit" tab on top, then add the tag just as you did on this page. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I found a possible copyright infringment: the page at http://www.essential-architecture.com/ROME/RO-HIST.htm is probably copied by the article History of Rome (less probably the other way around).

Where is the proper place to signal this fact?--151.50.32.189 (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The GNU Free Documentation License, under which all Wikipedia content is licensed under, allows the material to be re-used by anybody for any purpose, although I admit that I can't find any evidence of proper attribution. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

GFDL only allows use if the requirements of the GFDL licence are followed. One of these requirements is to reproduce the GFDL licence. Another is to acknowledge the main article authors. If the requirements are not met, then usage is a copyright infringement (of the authors' copyright). These two conditions are not met, so the site is infringing copyright. You can post on Wikipedia:GFDL Compliance. You can also contact the offending site directly. If you are one of the authors, you could submit your invoice to them for use of copyright material. Tyrenius (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Saurabh Kalia

Captain Saurabh Kalia was one of the martyrs of the Kargil War. I can see his photo on http://www.geocities.com/siafdu/kalia.html. I am not sure how should I go ahead to get his photo published on his article on wiki.. Anshuk (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Make sure no free (non-copyrighted) image of this person is available.
2. Download the image to your hard drive.
3. Go to Special:Upload and upload the picture.
4. Tag it as {{Non-free fair use in | Saurabh Kalia}}
5. Add a fair use rationale (see here for a template).
6. Add the image to the Saurabh Kalia article, but no other articles.
Please let me know if you have any further questions. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. This was helpful Anshuk (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Disney 5 bg 033003.jpg

I realise that this image is from Wikipedia Commons however I have some concerns. Currently it says on the page that however the source [32] given states "License: Not public domain, My Use Only - This picture is for *my* personal use. Due to copyright or privacy issues you may not use it." and then gives a link to a further page explaining this [33]. Also does the creator of the picture actually have the right to release it into the public domain or would the permission of the copyright holder of the image of Buzz Lightyear be required? Has Disney released this image? Guest9999 (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the answer to the second part of the question, but the first part's enough to require the image's deletion. I'll head over and tag it, once I figure out how tags work at the Commons. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. Guest9999 (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


Image:UBCS mark.PNG

I know that this image may have concerns but it is useful for having it in this article - why CAN'T I use this? I don't think this is copyright... LOTRrules (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The copyright of the logo is likely held by the company who created the game (Capcom), it is not a free image. As it is not a free image it has to meet with the criteria layed out in WP:NFCC. At the moment the image does not have a fair-use rationale for each usage - this is a requirement. Examples of fair use rationales can be found at WP:FURE. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, so I should delete it then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LOTRrules (talk • contribs) 00:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
As you are not an administartor (I assume) you cannot delete content. At the moment the image is set to be deleted after the 28th January 2008 (today). If you want the image to stay in the articles you should first read through WP:NFCC to make sure it would be possible for the image to comply with all 10 criteria. If you think it could you should add a fair use rationale for each article the image is used in. For examples of fair use rationales see WP:FURE or alternatively you could fill in a copy of {{Non-free use rationale}} for each use. I hope this helps, regards Guest9999 (talk) 02:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

need to use some photos

I am about to build my final site for level 3 diploma, using dreamweaver. The theme I want to use is my view of Jordan, as I have spent the best part of the last 4 years living there with my husband and son. I have taken many photos but at the present time they are in Jordan whereas I am in UK. Is it possible to use any of the photos on this website in my website so that I can get my diploma? If so, what are the rules? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zahra65 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is, as long as the images are free (which you will be able to tell by them not mentioning "non-free") and you follow the requirements linked on the image. If you specify the URL or title of the image or images that you want to use we can give you a more specific answer. Stifle (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

re: question 62

I asked a question before about using some photos for my final site. The answer was quite helpful. All the photos and images I have located so far seem to be from the Commons. I have tried to understand the licence but still don't know what information I should put into my pages to show where the photos/images have come from. Some of them state that they are completely free to be used as desired but others I'm not so sure about. Short of putting all the images here, I don't know what else to do. Please can someone help me?--Zahra65 (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia might help a bit.Geni 19:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-free promo claiming fair

Here's a question about Image:KosherLamp.gif. As far as I know, a free version cannot be reasonably found. So, that leaves the question of whether it can be created. Right? So, what are the expectations about creating such an image? Would I be expected to either buy the product or somehow find such a product? This is a speciality item purchased by a narrow market. I'm wondering if the expectation on editors should be relaxed in such cases. Thanks. HG | Talk 17:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Images are pretty much considered replaceable if the subject they depict still exists. I'd say this one counts as replaceable, even if it might be quite difficult to replace in practice (images of individual living people are considered replaceable, and only one copy of each of them exists). Sorry. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd have to agree - as long as at least one of the items still exists it's very unlikely that a fair use claim can be made out. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Image from Heroes

I'd like to upload this image of Eric Roberts, May I? http://www.heroestheseries.com/eric-roberts-sides-with-hrg-on-heroes/Dirbydal (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Dirbydal

I can't open that page but unless the image is released under a free license like the {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}, then it may not be used. Mr. Roberts is still alive, so a non-free image of him is not permissible since a photograph could be taken and used. Stifle (talk) 09:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

May I use a cropped image from an album for a past, foreign recording artist?

I would like to add an image of Kumi Miyasato to her article. She's a Japanese recording artist from the 1980s that had seemingly been out of public view since 1990. It's unlikely that a free image of her could be found. May I use an image of her from one of her albums?Tuxedo Mark (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If she is still alive, then a photograph of her could be taken and uploaded, therefore it is extremely unlikely a non-free image is usable. Stifle (talk) 09:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

FUR

I just tried adding fair use rationales to two images, Image:Vaux-beyond.jpg and Image:Thornsmiths.gif. Could somebody look over them and point out any mistakes please? Thanks. Puchiko (Talk-email) 11:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

They look fine to me. Stifle (talk) 12:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Screenshots of subliminal screens (Article : Ghostwatch)

In the article "Ghostwatch" about the BBC show, they make a reference to seven or so subliminal appearances by the ghost. By their nature, they are difficult to see, although within the article there is a reasonable text description of when these appearances are.

I wanted to upload one or two screenshots of the most difficult to see 'subliminals' so that readers/viewers can see where the FX were done, or where the actor appears for the few frames he is in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JFinnan (talk • contribs) 12:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that this falls definitely within fair use guidelines. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Signatures

Hello, at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve#Ian Smith we have some doubts about copyright. A user request that we extract a signature from Image:Smithy.jpg, and vectorise it. Questions:

1.Are we allowed to extract content from a Non-free image ?
2.If so, does the user who did it, become the copyright holder for the part he extracted ?
3.Are signatures copyrightable ?
4.If not, how come a commons user owns the copyright to Image:Signature of Robert Mugabe.jpg for example ? (note that this is very common over there, for example Image:Flag of Canada.svg was copyrighted by a user, the description page says I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. this may seem surprising because the flag is older than the internet, but apparently that's how it works on the commons)
5.Do all images visible in wikipedia articles need to comply with wikipedia policy, even if they are hosted on the commons ?
Thanks in advance, hopefully if anyone answers you could use the numbers please when appropriate to help us understand. Jackaranga (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
1. Sure - but the result doesn't magically become free. Running images through a special "make it free" filter in photoshop doesn't unbind that copyright magic. Instead it becomes a Derivative work.
2. Partially see Derivative work.
3. Skip this for now. Possibly, depends. I'll come back in a bit on it.
4. If they are copyrightable then Robert Mugabe.
5. Commons policy should be a subset of wikipedia policy, so yes. There are some cases (Swastikas for example) where this might not be the case in particular wikipedias.
Megapixie (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks someone at the graphics lab, managed to answer all my questions, turns out signatures can't be copyrighted, thanks for your answers. Jackaranga (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there.. I am responsible for maintaining Del Zamora's wiki page. He gave me the headshot (which he paid a photographer to do) to place on his page. He and I thought we cleared this with your admin, but I guess not. What is the next step? Thanks, Jeni jeni_323@yahoo.com Dragonfly213 (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any problem with the image currently on the page. Could you be more specific with what you're looking for?
(Also note that nobody is responsible for maintaining a given Wikipedia article; maintenance of all pages is the responsibility of the community as a whole.) Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Author of Photo Please Do Not Delete

I received A message stating that a photo i posted would be deleted if copyright info was not provided-I am the Author of the photo and own the rights-please do not delete thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bad Brotha (talk • contribs) 02:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to either release it into the public domain or under a free license (such as the GNU free documentation license), and then attach the appropriate image copyright tag. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

help needed for image conflict

hello all,the image at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Eichmann.jpg has been debated for deletion because editor User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) claims that it's not free(without providing proof of his/her claims) even though it clearly says under the photo at its original location that this image is from NARA's archives.are User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s "claims" valid??thanksGrandia01 (talk) 08:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that this image in the NARA archives does not show that it is PD: As it says in the NARA article, “Most of the documents in the care of NARA are in the public domain, as works of the federal government are excluded from copyright protection. However, some documents that have come into the care of NARA from other sources may still be protected by copyright or donor agreements.” Most likely this image was taken by a Nazi photographer—surely not by a US government photographer. It is PD only if the copyright has expired. --teb728 t c 09:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The real question is if the image counts as being confiscated by the Alien property custodian and a German government work. If so it would be Public domain in the US but not elsewhere (Unregistered copyright, no renewal, copyright not reinstated by URAA). The problem is that the image doesn't give any background, so it's impossible to verify the status of the image. Megapixie (talk) 09:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
in that case,would a license template of {{Non-free unsure}} be ok??by the way,that's the very first time in my life that i hear that it is possible that images from federal sources can be doubtful.that's pathetic!!Grandia01 (talk) 10:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe. Given the age of the image. The poor quality of the image. The fact that NARA seem inclined to say it's copyright free. The reasonable probability that the image is a German government work. I would say it's a reasonable (although not overly strong) case for fair use... Megapixie (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
i agree with you.i highly doubt that there are any complications here myself!!!i don't mind following your opinion.but i just want to be 100% sure of what license to use before i do any other changes just to avoid the trouble of having some nothing-to-do-in-life people tag such imagesGrandia01 (talk) 13:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Miltonparksmall.gif‎

What's wrong with the information on its copyright status? It does say it's a non-free image? It does have a fair use rationale? I'm confused as to why this has been tagged... -- Ratarsed (talk) 12:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The image had no WP:ICT image copyright tag. I added the {{Non-free logo}} tag. I can't see any other problems with it as it stands. Megapixie (talk) 12:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, Ok then -- I would suggest that the lovely wizard type affair that led me through the upload (and gave me the {{logo fur}}) could also add that as well? Not sure where to take that suggestion, though... -- Ratarsed (talk) 12:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
i'm not really involved in this one here but i can't help but say that's it's just sad that anyone(even non-admins)can tag an image for deletion just because venerable f*()& face he/she feels like itGrandia01 (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I am attempting to properly qualify fair use of a software screenshot here, but am having trouble determining what the qualifications are.

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

Pschmitz (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've attached a non-free tag that should solve that problem, although I think you'll have to reduce the resolution. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan Woodgate

Hi, I reuploaded the file with what I believe to be the correct tags. Is that alright? Xkingoftheworldx (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you link to the photo in question? The only image on the Jonathan Woodgate page is one that was uploaded to the Commons by somebody other than you. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Photo is here http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/7218667.stm. Number 10 in the list Xkingoftheworldx (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, we cannot accept the files you have uploaded because they are copyrighted and do not comply with our nonfree content policies, which are very strict. Since WP's goal is to create a free resource, we do not use copyrighted content as a general rule. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The pilots have died during the airplane crash in 1933: are they passport photos public domain?

I need help in determining the copyright status of the images Image:Steponas darius.jpg Image:Stasys girenas.jpg which I uploaded myself some time ago.

The rationale was that more than 70 years have passed since the clearly documented death of the pilots. As the pilot was an owner of his image, the simple passport photo (this is likely not a kind of art) should be public domain in Europe (this is where the photos are currently stored).

The photos are, however, is exposed in the known museum, so formally the museum may claim they have the copyright.

The photos were marked as "likely public domain", just to keep on a safe side: I think they are public domain but please be careful. As this tag is no longer available, I likely need some consultation from a better specialist than myself. If the photos are not public domain they should likely cannot be used at all - please delete.

Audriusa (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not clear about copyright issues for American stuff this old (I heard somewhere that, for the older stuff, it's not copyrighted unless there's a specific copyright claim), but I'm curious as to why you want them deleted if they're not free; there seems to be an open and shut case for their fair use, if you felt inclined to put in a rationale. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand why you think the museum would claim the copyright to the images. Jaysbro (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Reading festival 1970's promotional stickers

I have some promotional stickers for the Reading festival from the 1970s. There is no logo. Just a sticker with dates "Rock festival" and the word "Reading" across the middle at an angle. Can I upload these images?David Thrale (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably the answer is yes, but it's not all together clear why it's yes. If these words aren't stylized or anything, then chances are it's not possible to copyright the graphic, and it should be in the public domain. If they are, then it would still be copyrighted, but would probably be usable under fair use in an article about the festival. Other opinions? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the words are stylised. Let me know if it needs to be uploaded to help make the right decision. David Thrale (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Go ahead and upload it and then post back here so we can see the actual image. It's hard to know without the photo, and if it turns out to be copyrighted we can just delete it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Here it is thumb|Reading festival promotional sticker from 1976
It's definitely copyrighted, but I think the fair use rationale you've provided is sufficient and it's appropriate for use in that article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Screen captures from Google Maps

Can screen captures from Google Maps be incorporated into company presentations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.130.215 (talk) 01:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No, they cannot, except if fair use applies. They are copyrighted. There are other places you can find freely available equivalents, however. For street maps that are freely licensed http://www.openstreetmap.org/ is a good resource. There also are many public domain USGS satellite images . Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
And UK OS maps pre 1958 are also fine to use.Geni 18:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Does the Google Maps copyright restriction apply to presentations that are made internally within a company. The Terms of Use for Google Maps seem a bit vague to me in that I would not be using the presenation commercially. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.130.215 (talk) 03:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyright law is clear -- an item that is copyrighted CANNOT BE REDISTRIBUTED, REPUBLISHED, OR DISPLAYED without the copyright holder's consent, unless a fair use exemption applies. Doing a presentation in your own company is NOT a fair use exemption. Now the odds are that Google won't sue you, but you technically would be breaking the law. Jaysbro (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The terms of service are also clear: "You may not use the imagery in any commercial or business environment." Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

culture and development

how can culture be used to foster development —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kawboy (talk • contribs) 10:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be a question for the Wikipedia:Reference desk, not the media copyright questions page. Even so, Wikipedia does not do your homework for you. • Anakin (contribs • complaints) 17:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Simpsons still used to illustrate a non-Simpsons article

The image Image:Kingsizehomeranykey.PNG is being used to illustrate the article Any key. The image submitter has listed a bunch of reasons which I don't believe are an acceptable justification of fair use. Also it's fairly high resolution. Looking for some suggestions. Jaysbro (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

In context, it does seem to illustrate the portrayal of the any key quite well, which is what the article is about. It would need a drastic size reduction though, to about 250 to 300px wide. • Anakin (contribs • complaints) 17:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2008/January&oldid=1138542335"