Wikipedia:Image copyright help desk/Archive 1

Note. This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. To ask questions, or to make further comments, please go to Wikipedia:Image copyright help desk.

Eyeglaa Bi-Cross Wirelees Hearing Aids

Resolved

Where in the UK can I souce eyeglass bi-glass wireless hearing aid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.223.118 (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That will be something to ask your doctor. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Internet Imaging

Resolved

How do you upload images from different websites? --CPGACoast (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You go to Wikipedia:Upload, which is on the toolbar to the left side of the screen. You will see it linked as "Upload file." It will take you to a screen about where the image came from and instructions with each image. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

NCLC Logo

Resolved

I had uploaded a logo of the National Christian Life College several days ago and it was deleted. How can I make it acceptable in English Wikipedia without having risks of it being nominated for deletion? I want to have an identity of the school through its logo. I want the logo to appear in the National Christian Life College page just like in the University of Santo Tomas page. Thanks and Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Chitetskoy (talk) 10:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chitetstkoy, I've restored the logo and included a fair use rationale. Addhoc (talk) 13:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

disputed fair use

I keep getting aggravating messages on my poop page about disputed fair use rationales which tell me to go to something called the "image description page" to defend my upload against the Wikipedia Bureacrat Brigade. Where is that? Sorry if missed something but I don't really feel like reading ten pages of terribly-written and unhelpful instructions so that Wikipedia can keep a picture of someone kicking the Silver Surfer. --Halloween jack (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

First, please avoid using personal attacks in your edits, even in an edit summary such as this one or to a bot.

As for your images, the bot cited the exact problem that was wrong with them on the image page: WP:NFCC#10c requires that the exact name of the article that you are using the non-free image in be included with the fair-use rational. The two that have not been deleted lack this, and you simply need to add them (plain text or links, it doesn't matter, as long as you include any parenthesis disambiguation with it). Correct this in both images, and you can then remove the warning and satisfy the requirements. --MASEM 23:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I got one of those a couple of months ago for an album cover image I had uploaded for an article about the album. Upon seeing it, I went to the help pages it referred to and did everything it said I needed to do to bring the image and the fair use rationale up to speed.

The image got deleted anyway.

After that experience, I'm not going to waste any more of my time trying to satisfy the copyright bureaucrats on Wikipedia. If it's important to someone else, let them puzzle out the system. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I hear you on that one. Even if your image had passed muster at this point and not been deleted, someone would have come along later and created a whole new set of restrictions for you to overcome. That has happened me more than once, so I have given up fighting. It's too bad people spend so much time putting down other's efforts rather than working to improve Wikipedia.

Epolk (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Epolk, there is not "someone" - there are many, even hundreds of people who create these guidelines. The only someone who can unanimously enforce standards is Jimbo Wales. The rest come from consensus from verified and respected Wikipedians. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You guys just don't understand the complex legal principles at work here. If we don't replace those images, Marvel Comics will take a break from their busy schedule to sue the Wikimedia Foundation for having the audacity to give them free advertising. This is also why all professional-quality promotional pictures of movie stars have to be replaced with a shitty cameraphone pic of the same celebrity getting off a plane at 4am in Hoboken. --Halloween jack (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a common way of looking at things, and if the images were solely used on Wikipedia, then there wouldn't be any real problems, but we try to provide all the images on the project under a free licence so users can do anything they like with an image, such as putting it on a T-Shirt in their store and selling them for profit. If we don't use free images whenever possible, then people wouldn't be able to do stuff like that with our content, and that's what we're here to do. Nick (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I see your point; providing a content-rich encyclopedia should certainly take a backseat to supporting the industry of those guys who try to sell me ill-fitting Gildan t-shirts when I go to the outlet mall.--Halloween jack (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry guys, in 6 months someone will just decide to change all the rules again. Just worry about getting the words right; there'll be no images at all on Wikipedia before long. 23skidoo (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• You mean no *copyrighted* images, right? (Some Wikipedias ban all copyrighted images - that doesn't mean all images are banned - one can still upload GDFL and public domain stuff) - There are some new restrictions but I don't think that the English Wikipedia will completely do away with fair use images. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

- And then Some Wikipedias ban all images they don't like. And text. And links. And entire pages. For no other reasons than "it's copyright-infringement" (like any company even cares) or "this is nonsense" (because THEY think so) - and then the site is deleted, never to be retrieved again. Just like this post will be. Along with other posts stating the same issues.KnatLouie (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

User-made photographs of public art?

Resolved

Good lord, yet more copyright paranoia!

Exactly what is the copyright status if I take a photograph of public art, such as a mural, statue, or even a graffiti piece? Can I make the derivative image available under a free licence, like GNU? I used the fair-use copyright tag to be on the safe side, but am now being plagued by "inadequate fair use" tags. Basically, as I understand it, while the the artist holds copyright to the original artwork, in the case of derivative works, such as a photo of that work, the photographer has copyright and can release it under free license. Please let me know if this is the case, so I can change the copyright tags to my photos of public art and put an end to this nonsense.

The most egregious example is this: Image:Nerihorse.jpg. This was actually an illegal graffiti piece (though generally attributed to graffiti artist Reminisce), and hence, I don't think is at all copyrighted.

Some clarification of these issues would be greatly appreciated. Peter G Werner (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a very subjective area, with one interpretation being that since graf is illegal, the artist is not afforded copyright protection. My interpretation is that pictures of graf are indeed copyrighted because of the hard work and creative elements involved in making the piece - please see Image:Phase2bubbler.gif for an example of a correctly written rationale. east.718 at 14:10, January 3, 2008

Oops, another user provided a valid rationale. east.718 at 14:15, January 3, 2008

Ah, thanks for doing that. However, what about the larger question of derivative images (eg, photos) of public art, where the original artist presumably holds copyright to the original art piece? Is that a "fair use" copyrighted image, or can that derivative image be placed under free license? I've never found a clear answer to this Wikipedia image guidelines. I'd love to get clarification on this question, since I'm considering going out and shooting a number of such images around the San Francisco Bay Area. Peter G Werner (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want more opinions, you should ask over at WT:F - an apt name for a discussion board concerning such an abstruse part of policy. east.718 at 16:35, January 3, 2008

Image:Jonahsperm.png

Resolved

This is a public domain art image of a lapsed trademark, uploaded in 2003 before these matters were as fussy as they are now. It was created as a part of a series of old labels I made, mostly as illustrations of old patent medicine advertising. Most of those are at the Commons now [1], and this could be in all likelihood. Sperm oil whaling was more or less moribund in the USA by 1910. The image is in use, in the History of whaling article.

At some point, long after it was uploaded, this was apparently given a "logo" template; and now has been tagged as an "unfree fair use" image for deletion. I did want to call it to someone's attention before simply removing all of these several tags and replacing them with a generic PD-US tag. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 07:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the tag. east.718 at 14:06, January 3, 2008

Gods own country.jpg

Resolved

This bot has tagged "Image:Gods own country.jpg" for deletion. I think the image should not be deleted as this is widely established image and has been using by many tourist related organizations in Kerala including the official website of KTDC. We should not make our policy so harsh, which may spoil the enhancement of articles. Thanks. --Avinesh Jose (talk) 07:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Another user has written a valid rationale for this image. east.718 at 14:06, January 3, 2008

Image:HMAS jervis bay crest.gif

I am not so sure that the deletion has been thoroughly looked at because it clearly states that the owner (RAN) allows the use of this image provided that it is not used for commercial use and not to be altered as the tag below states. Which Wikipedia permits. So what’s the problem ? please explain !

{{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|this material in unaltered form only (retaining this notice) for your personal, non-commercial use or use within your organisation. (extract from http://www.navy.gov.au/copyright.html)}} Mbruce1 (talk) 10:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If the image is not permitted for commercial use, then it isn't free for Wikipedia's purposes and may be deleted on sight. You will need to add a valid fair use rationale for the image. east.718 at 14:03, January 3, 2008

That is, Wikipedia must assert a claim of fair use that is consistent with our internal policies as well as US laws pertaining to fair use. In order to claim fair use on a copyrighted image, you must provide a rationale. Please check the image description page for an example. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop betacommandbot now, please!

Two more logos in articles in my watchlist were tagged for SD by this useless miserable confused and confusing bot. I have since removed the tags (on grounds that the copyright tag itself has a fair use rationale - that surely the bot is unaware of, as it's amere bot and can't read) but still it's giving us more job instead of doing things easier.

Destroy this bot now! --Sugaar (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(LOL) Sugaar, I agree with you. --Avinesh Jose (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The bot is operating correctly - please see WP:FURG for help on writing a fair use rationale. Don't hesitate to post on this noticeboard if you need help with anything else. east.718 at 14:05, January 3, 2008

Fair use tags themselves don't constitute a rationale. You need to write a separate one. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Totaly agree - this person "thing" has no original thought and should put his/her/its energy into making articles rather than trying to make wikipedia into a plain text toilet roll on the web. Ban betacommandbot now - one vote from meKrait (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand can't take criticism of his bot or his actions, even when it is harsh, so he is reverting it from the talk page. I will post in more detail below. Hu (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

sorry that I removed personal attacks and trolling by you, Please review WP:NFC β^_command 18:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:NFCC 10(c) The name of each article images that BCBot tags fail this. unless you can point to an example where this is not true please stop your personal attacks. β^_command 18:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

album cover images

Hi, I used an image of the Bay City Rollers album It's a Game on the wikipedia page for the album.

There is sufficient rationale listed on the talk page for use of this image. Please advise if I have done something wrong. Bawtyshouse (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to provide the exact name of the article that the image is being used on; specifically "It's a Game" does not appear in the language of the rationale. You should also include where you got the image from (did you scan it in, did you get it from a website and if so, which one) and who the copyright holder of the image is (in this case, the publisher of the album). --MASEM 20:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

BetacommandBot automatically removes album covers without fair-use rationales, even though the fair-use rationale is basically the same for every album. It undoes others' (particularly mine) work, when it could just as easily write the fair-use rationale or tag the article as needing it. It is ridiculous that it speedy-deletes images on technicalities. Ian Burnet (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyright Status

Resolved

I upload an image and it says I need to provide copyright status. I don't really know what copyright status is or how to provide it.--Kondrayus (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyright tags help to identify what the copyright status is of an image. A full list of tags can be found at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags, but more specifically for non-free images, you want Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Non-free, and most specifically, you want to include {{Non-free game screenshot}} for video game screenshots. --MASEM 22:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it alright to put an image you uploaded yourself on your userpage?--Kondrayus (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-free images cannot be placed on user pages; they can only be used within the Main namespace. You're free to place images from Wikipedia Commons on your userpage, however. --MASEM 20:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Or, indeed, any images which are under a free license; while those should probably be uploaded to the Commons, there is nothing stopping them from being uploaded and used here. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:STBotI

Please can the "welcome" message be reworded into a more helpful and less aggressive form? As it stands, it fails to assume good faith, is needlessly complicated and off-putting, lacks easily followed helplinks for editors trying to rectify any problems, and generally seems to be trying to upset as many people as possible. It would also be nice to have more than a few seconds to finish fixing copyright tags before getting a bot message threatening deletion when one has uploaded an image. Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I've had the same problem.--Kondrayus (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This conversation should probably take place at User_talk:ST47#User_talk:STBotI. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have posted there also, however it is profoundly unclear from the bot's page, this page and indeed the bot-operator's page where such discussions should take place. DuncanHill (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, the bot's talk page seems set up for maximum obfuscation and bizarre redundancy. I can't find a link to the template used by the bot when informing you, but it appears to be based on {{Di-no license-notice}}. One way to go about changing it would be to propose new wording on that template's talk page and ask ST47 to adjust the bot's message accordingly. Clarity and conciseness are the goal, so if you can think of any polite simplifications, you are more than welcome to try to implement them. As for the bot's scheduling, that again is a matter for the operator. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much the template it put on my talk page (apart from the timing), but when one goes to the bot's talk page to try to work out what is going on one is confronted with what is virtually a diatribe against those editors it has messaged. A "how to fix the problem" message would be a much better welcome on the talk page - and would save the good people at this help-desk a lot of time too! DuncanHill (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Double check

Did I fix this image correctly? [2] the new date sort category is throwing me a bit. MBisanz ^talk 21:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Please add a wikilink to the [[Bank of Ghana]] article, see WP:NFCC#10c for more info. There's also an easier alternative to tagging logos if you use them in an article about the company. Simply add {{subst:logo+rationale|article name|copyright holder}} when uploading an image and a fair use rationale will be generated automatically. Thanks, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, I didn't upload it, I'm going through the backlog and wanted to make sure I'm handling the new by-day category correctly. MBisanz ^talk 00:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Who owns an X-ray or MRI image?

I recently had an MRI done and the doctor gave me a CD with the images from the MRI. I was thinking that they could be used here but I'm not sure about the legality of this. So, who owns those images? Me? My doctor? The hospital where the MRI scanner is? Please note, I'm not asking a factual question that belongs on the Ref Desk. I'm not seeking legal advice for a personal concern. I'm just trying to find out if I'm allowed to use the MRI images on Wikipedia. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 14:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The best thing to do would be to ask the doctor or the facility which supplied the MRI. Some may have different rules regarding this than others, and it may also be specified in any forms you signed prior to having it taken. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 18:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

.SVG

Resolved

How can I save the images (.SGV format)? I want to save in my computer so I could review it and let my children also view it at home. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpiangs (talk • contribs) 06:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Just click on the image, right click and click 'save as' or whatever. You'll need a program such as Inkscape or the GIMP that will be able to read the SVG images (or you could open them in your web browser) ----Seans Potato Business 01:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Images from a 1937 Russian film

Resolved

Hi, I uploaded Image:Bezhinmeadow.jpg as fair use, but in hindsight I'm wondering if it would actually be public domain. It's from a 1937 Russian film that was never actually completed or released. Lawrence Cohen 07:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

See the text of Template:PD-Russia for the details. The authors of the film need to die before 1954 (maybe 1950, if we knew at least one person is a veteran of the Second World War). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm in the clear to tag it as PD-Russian, then. The film was never actually released anywhere officially, and Eisenstein died in 1948. Thanks! Lawrence Cohen 14:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

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) 01:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If an image is taken by a NASA employee or any other US Gov't worker during the course of their official duties, it is a public domain image. This applies to those taken by NASA equipment such as satellites and telescopes as well. Please double-check the photos though as some are actually high-altitude areal photos and not actually satellite.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 19:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Plus, Google Earth image shots are under a license to where we are not able to use them on Wikipedia. I am not sure about TerraServer. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Public domain vs GFDL

Is there any point in me trying to promote the use of GFDL and CC BY SA over (instead of) releasing to public domain (on the premise that public domain images can be modified and then copyrighted whereas GFDL/CC BY SA remain open for use after modification? ----Seans Potato Business 01:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by "promote". If you find a PD image and want to modify it and release it as CC-BY-SA (or your choice of other license), there's nothing stopping you. Stifle (talk) 09:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Which is of most benefit to humanity? ----Seans Potato Business 07:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Local Council requests accreditation for use of an out-of-copyright image.

Resolved

I've been in contact with Hull City Council [3] regarding use of images from their database of historic photographs [4]. It's a collection of images scanned from old postcards of the city. Initially, they refused permission to use the images. However, after some investigation, I pointed out that the images I want to use are out of copyright. They now accept that the images are out of copyright but have asked that this sentence be included in any article in which the images are used:

The images in this article are used with the kind permission of Kingston upon Hull City Council. However in supplying these images, Kingston upon Hull City Council does not necessarily approve or condone the contents of this article.

This request is based upon their concern that "Hull City Council might become implicitly associated with sentiments, opinions or errors of fact which could damage our public image."

My questions are 1. Can they insist that the sentence is included? 2. Should the sentence be included?

I'm no lawyer but my understanding is that, as the image is out of copyright, it can be used freely without attribution.

As regards the second question, I lean towards saying that it shouldn't be included. To my knowledge that type of disclaimer is not typically used in articles. And, if there is no accreditation, then there is no possibility of their public image being damaged. Perhaps a "kindly supplied by" accreditation associated with the image itself would be the best solution. Are there any Wikipedia policies that would provide direction in this area?

Always state the source of the images, even if they are out of copyright. However, we cannot include that disclaimer on the articles itself. It is a policy of ours not to include disclaimers on articles for content. There will not be a way the City Council will be held responsible for edits to pages. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Once an image meets free-content or fair use guidelines, the only policy that needs to be (and the only one that should be) followed is Wikipedia's image policy. On the image page you should include the source, but no more. If they hold no copyright over the images, they have no authority regarding whether or not we acknowledge their permission or lack thereof.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 19:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If they're in the public domain, then any previous copyright holder has no right to insist on anything being attached to the images. We certainly wouldn't include anything about "by the kind permission", we're able to use PD images whether they permit us or not. And while we could include the sentence about not endorsing anything, it would violate Wikipedia:No disclaimers.

I think it should be limited to "supplied by" or "obtained from" KuH City Council, with a link to the source URL. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. That's pretty much how I saw it. I'll relay the info and links back to them.

Although I agree with the conclusions reached here, could the council claim that although they don't own the copyright to the images, they own the copyright to the scans of those images? Are scans really any different to photographs? Talltim (talk) 12:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Photos

Resolved

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. 206.51.203.104 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Any pictures on Wikipedia can be saved directly from their image page. The image page also contains any copyright information that will indicate whether or not you may use the image for personal or other uses, and whether or not credit must be given. You may view this information by clicking on any picture in an article you wish to view in more detail. Wikipedia (with a few exceptions for oversight duties) does not send information out to users via email.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 21:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Any legal action taken against Wikipedia over images?

It's possible I just haven't been looking in the right places, but having checked a number of pages relating to image copyright, fair use, etc., I have yet to see any reference to Wikipedia ever actually facing a legal challenge over the use of an image (referring specifically to images uploaded in good faith as fair use, but for which legal action was taken for their removal or against Wikipedia for damages). Can anyone provide any links to either Wikipedia articles or third-party media to indicate this has ever happened? I'm aware that there may well have been "private" communication regarding such challenges (i.e. Jimbo Wales receiving a lawyer visit at his office or something) which would not necessarily be written out online, but surely given how important this has been deemed by the powers that be, there must be some coverage of Wikipedia either facing a threat or actually being taken to court. (Such information might also aid those who are trying to convince people of the value of things like Betacommandbot.) 68.146.41.232 (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It happens, but things are usually handled quietly by somebody like Cary Bass. east.718 at 14:46, January 12, 2008

We receive a number of complaints through the m:OTRS system every week, though it is very unusual to receive complaints about images with suitable fair use rationales and such, images without such information do cause us a little more trouble. The biggest problem I've found is incorrectly licenced work, uploaders accidentally or wilfully misrepresenting copyright policies on websites in order to upload material. Nick (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Taking Photograph of Artwork

If I take a photograph of a painter's artwork would that be allowed to upload? And what copyright would it fall under? Thanks! Zachiroth (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the painting - can you provide the artist or painting's name? east.718 at 14:46, January 12, 2008

Speedy deletion of images with an *incomplete* fair use rationale?

Suppose there was an image that had an incomplete fur. What I mean by incomplete is that description, source, and article are filled out in the {{Non-free use rationale}} template, but not the important things like Portion used, Low resolution, replaceability, etc. Can such images be speedied under CSD I6 (no rationale) or another criterion, if at all? Thanks. NF24^{(radio me!)} 19:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like CSD I7 could cover it, since it mentions any fair use image that fails any of the criteria can be deleted under I7. However, they will mostly do it for replaceability issues. Portion used various, but usually is 100 percent of a photo and we can fix the resolution any time. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

brandsoftheworld.com

What our position on images from Brandsoftheworld.com Image:Intel Pentium II Processor Logo.svg Category:Brands of the World Do they need a full fairuse rationale, or just an article backlink only for appropriate articles? MBisanz ^talk 03:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mbisanz, I think it still requires a rationale. Addhoc (talk) 04:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Drat!. Thanks, I was hoping for an easy NFCC fix for once. MBisanz ^talk 04:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Depends on what image comes from that website. I have found a few public domain images on there before. Anyways, for that image you linked to, I suggest putting a rationale on that logo image. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Confusion about fair-use

I have been countlessly trying to help out the site by providing relevent images where they are needed in various articles. However, I have received copyright warnings on various occasions, and to my confusion, all seem to dissprove my fair-use claims.

How is it that other users can upload a copyrighted theatrical poster, but when I try, using the same exact templates and guidelines, and with the same intentions of providing helpful information, do I always get the boot?

I'm very confused. I followed the guidelines to the best of my knowledge, made sure I gave credit where credit was due, and still I get shunned by the website and accused of copyright infringement. Am I to believe the countless other film posters and screencaps gathered about the site don't infringe copyright either? I just don't get it, frankly.

All I'm trying to do is help by expanding short, incomplete article stubs, but my efforts are constantly shattered by these confusing image laws.

Please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyswitchblade (talk • contribs)

Hi! Looking at the only image you have left, there's a couple things wrong - you need to link to the article that the image is being used on, and while the rationale itself is a little weak, it's nothing I'd delete it over. Hope this helps! east.718 at 18:58, January 13, 2008

Index & Links

How to create an index, internal & external links in an article in wikipedia? How to insert picture in the article? prof_sapovadia@yahoo.co.in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.196.235 (talk) 12:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Indexes are automatically created as long as section titles within articles are proceeded and succeeded by two equals signs, e.g. == Demography of China ==.

To place links to internal pages surround the name of the page with double braces, e.g. [[Wikipedia:Image copyright help desk (section)]] or [[Roman Empire]].

To place links to external pages surround the URL with single braces, e.g. [http://www.google.com/]. To make a line of text link to the external page, do it like this [http://www.google.com/ Google search].

The code [[Image:Wiki.png|thumb|200px|CAPTION]] will place an image in an article. Replace "Wiki.png" with the name of any image located on Wikipedia. Replace "200" with the any number representing how much space you wish this picture to consume on the page (measured in pixels).

Jecowa (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Insignia and flags

If a user draws a stylized picture of a rank insignia, would this user be able to use the GFDL tag on this image or would the original designer of the insignia own the rights to all derivited works of the design?

What about photographs of rank insignia? Does the photographer or the crafter of the insignia own the copyrights a photograph of the insignia? It seems that photographs of insignia might fall under the same status as photographs of three-dimensional statues.

See Starfleet ranks and insignia for examples of both photographs and drawings of insignia.

Also, what about drawings and photographs of flags? It seems tricky because all though flag designs are two-dimensional, actual flags are three-dimensional objects that are often found hanging or waving from poles. Would drawings/photographs of flat flags be treated differently than drawings/photographs of flags that show some indication of depth?

See Flag for some photographs of three-dimensional flags and some drawings of two-dimensional flags.

Thank you. Jecowa (talk) 07:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd personally go with the idea that anything to do with Star Trek is going to be a derivative work, with very few exceptions, but there's such a wide range of possibilities, I wouldn't like to comment further without image specific queries. Nick (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, all Star Trek insignia are copyrighted and considered fair use. As for other military insignia, it depends from country to country. Same with flags, so if there is a specific image you mentioned, we could help further. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use of sports team logos in article about series or league.

Is there a conclusion about using non-free logos of sports teams in the article about a league? Example: Image:Birminghammagicians.jpg. I just wrote a fair use rationale for the article Birmingham Magicians (the team itself) which seems fine. But how about the use in Blue Conference? --Apoc2400 (talk) 09:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of the logo in the article on the league appears to fail WP:NFCC#8. Since you can identify the individual teams by name and wiki article, using a logo is not absolutely necessary. If any reader wishes to learn more about any specific team, they could see that team's logo at the linked article. If you wish to gather more input on the topic, it might be a good idea to do so at WT:NFC. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

sharing photos

If a friend takes pictures and send them to other friends and then someone puts the pictures on their website, what is the legal ramifications? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.143.69 (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There are no legal ramifications, your friend retains his or her copyright on these pictures. For Wikipedia purposes, these pics are non-free content unless your friend explicitly releases them under a free license. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

There also may be issues of personality rights. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Uploading images of cigarette cards.

Hi.I would like to upload a cigarette card image, but I'm not sure of the copyright.Here is a link to the card I would like to use. [5].Thanks for the help.Northmetpit (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Half-Life 2 screenshots

Hello.

Recently BetacommandBot went on "tagging spree" against Half-Life 2 computer game related screenshots.

All of the screenshots are under "Non-free game screenshot" copyright tag and are used in articles about the subjects of the screenshots.

Therefore I suggest removing the "di-disputed fair use rationale" tag since it is irrelevant.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's the thing. An image that is fair-use needs to have a rationale posted for EACH AND EVERY article that it appears on seperately. The best way to do this is with {{Non-free use rationale}}--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 13:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Image:750px-Hl2 lostcoast menu.jpg for an example rationale or follow the guidelines at WP:FURG to create your own. The BetacommandBot tagging likely dealt with those rationales failing WP:NFCC#10c, which requires a wikilink to the article an image is used in. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 13:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Image description page

Hi, how can i edit the image i have uploaded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sysconwiki (talk • contribs) 08:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You can edit the description but if you wish to edit the image you need to download a copy, edit the copy of the image, and upload it using the same name. If it was uploaded to commons you need to re-upload it to commons to avoid duplication. The new image will replace the old one and be immediately available. 199.125.109.89 (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Image of a character?

What is the rule for using a screenshot of a character on the article of an actor? I would think that on the character page, the image is okay, because there is no free-use image of a copyrighted character, but on an actor page, there should be a free-use image, right? The image I'm talking about is Image:D419.jpg, which depicts the character Marco Del Rossi and is used on that article, but also on the article for Adamo Ruggiero, the actor.

Can someone please let me know if this is okay, and how to tag it/fix it/etc. -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 00:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Fairuse overuse

Since by definition, corproate trademarks are used under fairuse, it appears this page is an example of fairuse overuse List of outsourcing companies. I'm not that good with redoing tables, could a more experienced user take a pass to pull out the overused logos? MBisanz ^talk 07:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Older photos for use

I was thinking of adding some photos to a couple of articles that I'm working on. The thing is that the photos are can be scanned or are available online as an archive. Many of the photos are older than 1950, the majority are pre-1930. I have read somewhere that Public Domain applies after a certain age of the photo, but I can't seem to find it on here, can someone enlighten me so I can enhance my articles? Thank you.--Hourick (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

old photo from 1956 (and also from 1973)

I have an studio photo of Charles Geoffrey Vickers taken in 1956 in Cananda that I would like to upload to his article in place of the current photo from when he was young. I also have a photo of him taken by Professor Melvin Webber in 1973 in the USA, Melvin died in 2006. Can I use either of these photos on CGV's article. PeterIto (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have just noticed a reply to a similar question on the media page and will follow the guidance given:- "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}}" My 1973 US photo has no copyright message so it is ok PeterIto (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

How do I add a picture?

I want to add a pic. to an article but I dont know how to get it on the page.

If the name of your picture is foo.jpg, then add [[image:foo.jpg|thumb|right|and put a descriptive caption here]] 199.125.109.89 (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)×

How do I add a picture?

I want to add a pic. to an article but I dont know how to get it on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MNM 20098 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Getting BetacommandBot to copy an image over to commons

I notice that the image Image:Wind turbine 1941.jpg was approved to be copied over to the Commons, but BetacommandBot couldn't find any category for it on the commons, so it flagged it as no category given. 1) How do I tell BetacommandBot which category to use, and 2) How does one avoid this problem? There is a wind generators category on commons, and a wind turbine category could be created on commons for this and all the other images of wind turbines. 199.125.109.89 (talk) 08:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:MTC β^_command 15:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

help with restoring image history

Sorry, when I updated Image:Arabic speaking world.png, I deleted the page history. I don't see any way to restore it. Can someone revert the mess I made? Just delete my image if you need to; I can update it properly later. kwami (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It is OK, you didn't delete anything! The image you tried to update is actually from Wikimedia Commons here. You can create an account in Commons and update the image there. Bláthnaid 19:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a relief. However, I don't see any way to update the Commons image, just to upload a new one. Or is that how it's done in Commons? kwami (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you have to log in to the Commons to upload new revisions of that image. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It won't allow me to do that because my account "is too new". Thanks. I'll wait the 4 days. kwami (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, then you have two options: you can wait a few days or you can upload the new revision under a different name (Image:Arab speaking world temp.png) and I can upload it to the Commons for you. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, it's already up, a candidate for deletion at Image:Arabic speaking world.png. I'd appreciate it if you could move it. kwami (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:WKDbottles.png & Image:WKDlogo.png

A bot (?) has tagged both of these images as possible invalid rationale. It does not explain what exactly is wrong with the rationale. I've looked over the guidelines and I cannot find how the rationale is invalid for these images, other than specifying the article the images were to be used in. I've added this to both images - does this now comply with the guidelines? --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 14:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:WKDlogo.png needed a detailed rationale, which I've added. Unfortunately Image:WKDbottles.png will have to be deleted, because it is a copyrighted image that could be replaced by a free image. Bláthnaid 18:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use on templates

According to WP:FUC #9, fair use images should only be used in article space. How should it be handled if a template uses a fair use image (or in this case, a whole load of them)? The example I encountered is {{Yugoslav wars}}. What should a user do when encountering that situation? Is there anything an admin should additionally do when encountering that circumstance? Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Just remove it from the template. β^_command 15:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Invalid licenses

How should images with invalid licenses be handled? The examples I encountered are: Image:Armija BiH.svg, Image:Vojska znak.jpg and Image:HVO.jpg. These images obviously are ineligible for GFDL licensing as the work of the uploader. Vassyana (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:CSD#G12 β^_command 16:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Technically, WP:CSD#I9. Although if there's a viable use for the image, it's best to replace the GFDL tags with an appropriate fair use tag. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyright status concern

There is an image on Wikipedia that I feel the uploader has lied about the copyright status of it. The image says that the uploader is the copyright holder and he or she releases it into the public domain, but I don't think that the uploader is the actual photographer. What can I do about this? Noah¢s (Talk) 17:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You can list the image at Possibly unfree images, giving your reasons why you think the uploader is not the photographer. Bláthnaid 18:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Starblazer covers

Hi, you left a notice on my talk page about two images on the Starblazer article. I believe I have amended them. Is this to your satisfaction. I have been out of touch with Wiki for a wee while, so I might be a bit rusty, if so, just let me know and I will amend it. I have not removed the notification tags. Douglasnicol (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It is almost correct :-) You just need to note the copyright holder of the comic, and state that the image is not replaceable because the comic is under copyright. You can take the deletion notice off the images when you add the rationales. Bláthnaid 18:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The publisher is, as mentioned in the article, DC Thomson, I assume this would be the copyright holder? Douglasnicol (talk) 01:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, mention DC Thomson in the "description" part of the rationale, and you should be OK. Bláthnaid 11:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

safc.gif

Image:Safc.gif has been listed for deletion. I don't understand what the problem is here, there is already a explanation for it given on the image page- its just there for informational purposes and is a identifying logo. --Him and a dog 21:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The name of the article the image is used in needs to be part of the rationale. I've added it in. Bláthnaid 11:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of images of characters

What is the rule for using a screenshot of a character on the article of the actor who plays said character? I would think that on the character page, the image is okay, because there is usually no free-use image of a copyrighted character available, but on an actor page there should be a free-use image, right? The image I'm talking about is Image:D419.jpg, which depicts the character Marco Del Rossi and is used on that article, but also on the article for Adamo Ruggiero the actor who plays Marco.

Can someone please let me know if this is okay, and how to tag it/fix it/etc. -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 01:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. A non-free image cannot be used to identify the actor Adamo Ruggiero, because it could be replaced by a free-use image of that person (the relevant policy is here). Bláthnaid 12:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

permission with use?

Hi,

I'm trying to use a few photos that are TISL property, to make them a page (with permission). How do I list those pictures? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahayes1 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You would need to get TISL, whoever that is, to release the images under a free license (like {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}) and to forward this release to permissions-en@wikimedia.org or indicate on the source website that they are so released. Alternatively, if you can fulfill all the non-free content criteria, then you can upload it under fair use. If you need help figuring out which tags to use, please visit Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Stifle (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

request for permission to republish

How do I request permission to republish a photograph in a text I am writing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forshier (talk • contribs) 00:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're asking. Do you want to reuse a photograph from Wikipedia in something you will publish elsewhere, or do you want to use a photograph from elsewhere in a Wikipedia article? Stifle (talk) 11:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I uploaded two images and I am trying to correct any problems

I uploaded the album art for 2 albums from the Norwegian rock band Kaizers Orchestra. The images are Gul_EP.jpg and Maskineri_Art.jpg. I am trying to resolve any problems, I think I did, but I do not know, please help, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwightevan7 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Each image page needs this sort of information in it. Template:Non-free use rationale. MBisanz ^talk 01:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

can I safely reference a wikipedia image?

If I copied an image from wikipedia and referenced it to wikipedia, can I safely reference it in a publication? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.142.29.45 (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It would depend on the image. As there are many possible answers depending on the image license, please specify what image you want to copy by quoting the image's title or URL here and then we can help you further. Stifle (talk) 11:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Old postcard

Hi. I own an old postcard (1911), which has on the reverse the publisher's name. As the owner of the postcard, do I hold the copyright? Due to the age, does copyright apply? Basically, I'd like to know if I can upload the image, and if so, how I need to register it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imaginativename (talk • contribs) 20:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If it was first published in the USA before 1923, then upload it with {{PD-US}}. You can also see WP:IT for other copyright tag options. Stifle (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Rhapsody Rabbit fair use disputed

The image bot has disputed the fair use of Image:Rhapsody Rabbit.png. I had followed generally accepted practices when I uploaded the image and gave the rationale for fair use. it is exactly as I describe it, an image from the short used to illustrate the short. because the short is still under copyright, there is no way to find a public domain screenshot from the short to illustrate the short. Please advise. DarkAudit (talk) 05:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to include and wikilink the title of the article so that the bot can ensure the rationale is valid. I've done so. Stifle (talk) 11:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

BetaCommandBot screwup: Image:Silverbranchcover.jpg

BetacommandBot just put one of its tags on Image:Silverbranchcover.jpg, which had all the proper fair-use templates in place. The problem is that the article linked, The Silver Branch, had been changed by another editor to a disambiguation page, while the article was moved to The Silver Branch (Sutcliff novel). BetacommandBot apparently doesn't understand how to parse a dab page or the article move history.

Betacommandbot needs to be smarter about this. If ordinary operations like moves and disambiguation pages set this thing off, it needs work. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 05:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Straight redirects from moves don't throw it off, but disambigs do, since it can't tell which of the disambig'd links is the one the FUR should refer to. MBisanz ^talk 06:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and that's a bug. The move history information is available to 'bots. If an image was tagged as pointing to article A, and the article is moved to B, the 'bot should understand that, even if A is no longer a redirect to B. It could even fix the link in a fair use template. The original uploader of the image (who may no longer be on Wikipedia) only has the obligation to get the fair use link right once, not to track it forever against changes by others. Someone needs to go back through all BetacommandBot actions and check them against move histories to recover any images lost through this bug. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 06:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with that :( Stifle (talk) 11:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If only DaB pages were that simple. When a DaB page is created, the person who changes the redirect needs to clean up afer themselfs, changing all incoming links to their proper targets and taking care of the images too. β^_command 15:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed Fair Use Logo on Saint Francis House (Boston) article

The low-resolution image of the Saint Francis House logo was modified by me and edited and it was done with permission of the organisation. I wish that this challenge be lifted to the logo on the Saint Francis House (Boston) article. Please advise. Thanks. -- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This issue appears to have been resolved now, but please post here again if not. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. It was indeed resolved amicably. Best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Betacommandbot suggestion: Images used in only one article

Suggest that Betacommandbot be amended to not require an article-specific fair use image when an image is used in one and only one article. As long as an image is used in one and only one article, the boilerplate fair use image should be presumed to apply to the article involved, and moving the article shouldn't affect this. An issue of a need for article-specific fair use image rationales should only arise, and Betacommandbot should only tag for them, when an image is actually used in more than one article. This would save a lot of red tape and annoyed editors with no loss of legal rigor. To be even more helpful, whenever an image belongs to a single article and the article name wasn't included in the fair use rationale, Betacommandbot could actually help out by automatically adding the article name to the image file to produce an automatic default article-specific rationale based on the boilerplate. Editors would have to do it themselvess only when the image is added to a second article and article-specific rationales become relevant. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

very very bad idea. as there are no general non-free rationale, as each rationale should be unique to each use. β^_command 18:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The idea behind the proposal is that when an image is used in a single article but the user forgot to mention the article in the fair use rationale, we can treat this ommission as a simple clerical error that can be rectified behind the scenes without requiring intervention or threats to delete the image. When an image is used in only one article, then the fair use rationale IS unique to one article. The rationale becomes non-unique to a single article only when the use actually involves more than one article -- otherwise, the use really, truly is "unique" to one article by the simple definition of "unique". One doesn't have to justify something that isn't happening. As long as the image is actually being used in only one place, if there is a rationale provided it is a rationale for use in one article. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like that rationale applied to this image (Image:Queen Yun Returns.jpg) also, please, since that is used only for the article on Queen Yun, and otherwise fits the criteria for fair use as outlined on the image page. Betacommandbot seems to be suggesting that I cut-and-paste my fair use criteria from the image page to the article, which seems excessively bureaucratic and CYA to me. --Dan (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd support Shirahadasha proposal. The "robot's" one line offhanded response is to be expected from such an anal retentive who gets a kick out of reverting others' good faith efforts. The amount of time wasted in subverting the silly automated tags is horrendous especially in the circumstances described by S. The benefit to Wp from their addition: zero.The effort expend by the pathetic people or persons in building the bot would have been far better spent in developing a better upload image form Albatross2147 (talk) 06:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Rhodesia Currency

When the 'Rhodesia Embassy' gave me permission to place the images of those bills in Wikipedia, I didn't expect you to come along and say - to all intents and purposes - "your pics not wanted". You are actually doing more to kill my contributing to Wikipedia. so why don't you just go ahead and wipe them off? I just don't care any more. Expatkiwi 13:03, 24 January 2008 (PST)

No one is saying that your images are not wanted, your efforts in obtaining them are much appreciated. You received a series of notices because the images you uploaded were tagged for deletion by a bot. To keep them on wikipedia, simply add a fair use rationale to each one. Thanks, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyright Tag

Hi. I am a new user to Wikipedia. I have added a picture to my editorial. However, it was removed due to it not having a copyright tag. It was a picture taken by myself. I don't know how to add the tag so please could you help me carry this out so the image can be published as soon as possible. My account is 'shelim786'. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelim786 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You have to release your photograph under a free license in order to use it on Wikipedia. Edit the image page and add one of the license tags listed at WP:ICT/FL. Please note, however, that it is inappropriate to add photographs of minor local sports teams to articles on their home city. You should discuss the merits of using this photograph at the relevant talk page before adding it to the article. Thanks, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Image

I have found this image on the internet. It is not copyrighted in any way. Can I upload it to Wikipedia. If so,what image template can I use? Btline (talk) 11:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No, all photographs are covered under copyright. Check the disclaimer on the website that hosts this image, it states:

You are welcome to download any information and retain it for your own use but please act responsibly and respect the rights of the various copyright owners. Where copyright is held by the MIAC we will gladly consider requests for the use of our photographs but please ask for permission first. Similarly if you have any material that you wish to see on this site or wish to donate we'd be delighted to hear from you.[6]

You could send them an e-mail requesting that they release this photograph under a free license and then forward the permission to WP:OTRS. There's a great guide for how to do this at U:RFC. If they give you permission to upload this image under an acceptable free license, it may be used on Wikipedia. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Photo image of out of copyright artwork

I'm having some difficulty finding any sort of case law for this(specific case) so I figured I could ask it here, how does copyright apply to a photographic image of an out of copyright painting/engraving? this would have been created prior to 1752(along with everything Parrocel's ever painted/engraved as that was his year of death) am I correct to assume that that could safely be uploaded as a PD image? Also is there any links anyone has with various info on this, say a painting is not out of copyright, would a picture of it be copyright the original author(I believe this is true) or the photographer. Dureo (talk) 06:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you are looking for Template:PD-art or commons:Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag. But perhaps someone else can provide a better answer, as I don't fully understand the rules here. Kingdon (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Perfect, second link is just what I was looking for, thanks. Dureo (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Reporting images with questionable copyright tags

For instance Image:Jon Bon Jovi-Foo Fighters.jpg. I assume that the editor composed it from two screenshots (derivative work) and I doubt that the editor has the authority to relinquish NBC's copyright. What's the correct process? Thanks. Otto4711 (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Tag the image with {{PUIdisputed}} (or just {{PUI}}) and follow the instructions on the tag to list the image. Stifle (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This collage comprises two commercially produced and watermarked images yet it was tagged with {{GFDL}} by the uploader. It qualifies for speedy deletion as a blatant infringement of copyright. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩

Discography in The Bluetones

I think it's conflict with WP:NFCC. ~ kintup 12:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Might well be. The images don't have a valid fair use rationale so I'm going to tag them as such for the moment. Stifle (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Help with fair use on Image:Rezko.jpg

Can someone far more familiar with Wikipedia's fair use policy take a look at Image:Rezko.jpg and tell me if it is a proper fair use on Tony Rezko? There's a slow edit war over the image on Tony Rezko and whether or not the image can be used on Wikipedia or not. The problem with the image is that the true source (who took it and when) is currently unknown.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added a tag to dispute the given rationale. Current usage on Wikipedia violates WP:NFCC 1,2,&8. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It could also probably take a {{subst:nsd}}. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, that's the more important issue. The rationale concerns have been addressed at Image talk:Rezko.jpg. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

How Can I Delete An Image I Uploaded

how can i delete an image i uploaded? ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoshipupdude (talk • contribs) 22:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Add {{db-author}} to the image description page. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of Images

Hi,

I uploaded the image htni.jpg. The image was that of the cover of a music album. This was sourced from a fan site http://www.ilaiyaraja.com/Raja/Album_How_To_Name_It.asp I am not sure of the copyright issues. Hence, I am not using it in wikipage of the album. You can proceed to delete the image!

Cheers Balaji —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebigbee (talk • contribs) 06:45, 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)

---

---

---

---

Note. This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. To ask questions, or to make further comments, please go to Wikipedia:Image copyright help desk.