Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2008/June

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


InterlockingPentagons

Concerning: Image:InterlockingPentagons.svg and its use on mini-mental state examination.

Cross-posting from WP:ANI. Two anons (155.41.160.31 (talk · contribs) and 24.60.18.243 (talk · contribs)) have raised the concern that a simple image (drawn by myself) of two interlocking pentagons is somehow "plagiarism" or a copyright violation. The image is part of a larger test of mental capability. This test was initially released in 1975 without copyright restrictions, but in 2001 a company based in Florida acquired the rights and started enforcing copyright on it. We used to list all the questions from the test, which were removed after we were made aware of the fact that the test was copyrighted.[1]

The anons now claim that:

Comments invited with regards to the status of the image, as well as the claim that we might be breaking the law. JFW | T@lk 06:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If by "released in 1975 without copyright restrictions", you mean it was first published without a copyright notice, it is now irrevocably in the public domain; see {{PD-pre1978}}. Second, a very simple shape like two pentagons is likely ineligible for copyright as in {{PD-ineligible}}. I'm not a lawyer but I think the uploader would win for those reasons if if ever came to a legal battle, but it's up to the uploader if they want to take that risk. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks RaWF. The problem is that a medical journal is not public domain. But your second point is well taken and I will wait for my friends to return and argue their point. JFW | T@lk 09:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Australian Government images

What would images from Australian Government websites be classed under? I've always thought they have been in public domain.

Hothguard11 (talk) 06:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that works of the Australian government typically are copyrighted and restricted to non-commercial non-derivative use. See the post a couple of sections up from here. With such restrictions they are non-free and may be used only in accordance with Wikipedia’s restrictive non-free content criteria. —teb728 t c 07:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Plymouth Blitz

{{helpme}}Can I upload this image onto Wikipedia (I'd prefer onto commons, though). If so what license should I give it? http://www.bbc.co.uk/devon/content/image_galleries/it_came_to_our_door_book_gallery.shtml?6 }}

But it's used as the front cover of the book It Came To Our Door and on the gallery on BBC, which put together a collabaration of World War Two photos that were "lost" for a long time. I doubt that the authoer of the book or the BBC have the author's direct permission. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Under the other info section for buying this book it says "Illustrations & Other Content Notes: 400 b&w photographs, many previously unseen". http://www.whsmith.co.uk/CatalogAndSearch/ProductDetails-It+Came+to+Our+Door+-9780954348038.html#
You would need to see the book to see what they say about ownership of copyright. The BBC can claim fair use where we cannot. They are also quite likely to have explicit permission. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems a little odd that these images from World War Two were put into a book and sold for money and now Wikipedia, a non profit organisation, cannot use the images to display the Plymouth Bliz. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe you were actually reviewing the wrong image here. Try try the link at the top of the section again. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I saw that. Unfortunately no one can comment on selling the book for money until you know more about the ownership of copyright. Perhaps the author of the book paid the author of the photo a shedload of cash and now you're proposing to give it away for free. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

How about these bad boys? Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Creator: Devon Library and Information Services

Title: World War 2 : German military intelligence documents

Imprint: : Devon Library Services

Date: 2003

Format: Web page : HTML

Series: Devon's heritage ; D941

Ref. no.: WEB NAZI

Coverage: Westcountry . World War 2 . Military intelligence . 1939-1945

Last Updated: 06/05/2005

I see no evidence that these are in the public domain (the works are credited so you may be able to check further). Also see Wikipedia:Public_domain#German_World_War_II_images and possibly ask at WP:MCQ. You should try looking for photos by US service personnel as they are usually in the public domain, or perhaps ask at one of the WikiProjects. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Eugh, EU proving as useful as ever in intergrating europe there! Anyway at the bottom of the section it says "However, fair use cases can be made in many cases". I need some help on how to upload a fair use image though... Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Blair_Witch_Project.jpg

why was this image removed, and where is the notification that it was up for deletion in the first place? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The image was deleted for not having a fair use rationale. See deletion log following the above redlink. Megapixie (talk) 07:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Now, how to go about seeing the image, so as to be able to verify that a user utilizing a bot did not make an error (Maxim was apparently using the bot to remove images beginning with the letter 'B') - in other words, how to see the deleted image? The image was apparently removed w/out discussion (ie, I couldn't find a note of it). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It indeed had no rationale (admins can see it, other users unfortunately can't), so the deletion was formally correct. However, since it's a movie poster of a notable film, I don't see why there should be a problem once a standard rationale is added. If you want to provide one, I can undelete it for you, I don't think anybody would object. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
(e/c)Images are tagged as questionable by bots, but they are deleted only by admins. And once deleted they can be viewed only by admins.
The bot posted a warning on the uploader’s talk page, User talk:Brandon.Weight. —teb728 t c 17:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, FutPerf, please undelete it, and I will provide a rationale. Clearly, the wisdom of watchlisting all the images of an article I am working on is apparent. Is there a reason why notice wasn't given in the article? It would seem (to me, at least) to be a no-brainer to post a notice int he article discussion page, since the uploader might be long gone, and the people working the article would have more interest in the deletion of an image being used in the article. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Done, undeleted. About notifications, there is a notification template that can be added to the article page itself, and I'd guess the bots are configured to do that routinely, but perhaps they have technical difficulties pasting the template if the image is being used in an infobox. You're right, it would be a good idea in such cases to post something on the talk page instead. Perhaps you could make that suggestion to the bot owners? It's not really for this page here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the undelete and the info. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

hello sir,

how can i link my images to other page. if i want to put my image to other pages is it possible..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratikppf (talk • contribs) 07:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

NFCC#8

Can anyone confirm that images used for purely decorative purposes in galleries fail this criterion? Thanks. 81.110.106.169 (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Images used for purely decorative purposes fail this criterion, galleries or no. WilyD 20:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • ...and galleries fail, decorative or not. "Decorative" isn't a very useful concept, though. It's a counterexample to an image that has a suitably significant encyclopedic purpose and is not an over-use of non-free images per NFCC #3 and #8. In copyright law, decorative means exactly what it says - used for purposes of ornamentation. An image used solely to show what something looks like or to identify something (e.g. for a section heading or to use as a symbol) is not decorative, and most galleries are just that - a collection of images to show what things look like. Decorative might mean using an image as a border, or a background, to make everything look pretty. But our standard is much higher than that. Anyway, non-free images in galleries, decorative or not, are generally prohibited as failing #3 and #8. That's been a rather firm rule for at least the past year or so - no non-free images in galleries. Wikidemo (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Err, this is not really true. There are extremely exceptional cases where valid galleries use nonfree media. Better to worry about whether its decorative or instructional. WilyD 21:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It might be better to note the article where the possible issue is occurring, instead of asking folk to issue a blanket statemetn on matters that are often resolved on a case-by-case basis. I am guessing that this might be related to the London Overground article, where the anon presenting the issue here has been involved in an unresolved edit-war (noting the anon's usertalk space and contributions). Don't know about you folks, but I kinda hate being used. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Images copied from provincial ministry web-site

How do you indicate the copyright for an image copied from the province of British Columbia's Ministry of Advanced Education's web-site? I uploaded the picture I wanted to use, then got that notification about possible copyright violation even thought I provided the necessary source information. (Dawnalee8 (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC))

I presume you are talking about Image:Org07 internet.gif which is copied from [4], the website states that all rights reserved so it is not free image than we can use on wikipedia. It might meet one of the criteria for use of Non-free images but I suspect it is not allowed as it can be replaced by either text or a similar (but not exact) self created image. MilborneOne (talk) 21:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, this is going to be covered by Crown Copyright, which expires on January 1, 50 years after it was first published (Probably Jan 1 2059). In the meantime, create a free alternative presenting the same information without copyright that chart. Cheers, WilyD 21:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah pooh, okay I won't bother uploading that image to the Wiki article. Thanks anyway. (Dawnalee8 (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC))

Non-exist organization's images

Hello, I'm a sysop from Vietnamese Wikipedia, a user there uploaded some photos which he said that it is from some booklets published by Ministries of Republic of Vietnam in 1960s. I'm very confused what license tags should be used and hope that experienced users here can help me. The issues are:

  1. As international practice, if a country is eliminated, all the copyright will follow the successive state (like Empire of Russia, USSR will be Russia, so Republic of Vietnam will be Socialist Republic of Vietnam).
  2. In Vietnam, the copyright law protects right for 50+ of author's life and everything will be in public domain (or as it says "not protected by law") if they are "official documents, legal documents of government, political organization; technical specifications,...". So, if a ministry published a booklet about news and photos, currently it is copyrighted in Vietnam.
  3. But the problem is, Republic Socialist of Vietnam doesn't recognize Republic of Vietnam's publications as they say "they were propaganda of older regime, and against the current communist regime".

So, what should I do with those images, I thought about fair-use, but I hope it will be the last solution. Vinhtantran (talk) 07:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a reference to your last point about non-recognition? Since vi.wikipedia is hosted in the USA this is governed mostly by whether or not the work is protected in the US which is a distinct question from how they are treated by the SRV. There is the possibility the work is protected in the US and is not in Vietnam (or vice versa). See Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights There was a question about the same topic last month here (Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2008/May#copyright regarding an extinct entity). Without clear evidence that the work really has no protection (see the various tests at the guideline page), the safe assumption is that it is protected in the USA and fair-use applies. – Zedla (talk) 05:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
In addition to the above, point #2 appears to contradict itself. If I'm reading it correctly, all creative works produced by the Vietnamese government are in the public domain by default, therefore they are not currently copyrighted, nor will they ever be unless Vietnam changes the law. Meanwhile, non-governmental works are copyright for the life of the author plus 50 years. -- Hux (talk) 06:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
You read incorrectly, Hux, I have read Copyright Law (Luật Sở hữu trí tuệ) and there is obviously no mention about what so-called "Government works", just government official documents (laws, guidelines,...). I have proposed to delete {{PD-VNGov}} in Vietnamese Wikipedia, and haven't received any objections. As Zedla said, I think I will choose the safe solution, use it with fair, and propose for deleting if it is not too necessary to article. Thank you. Vinhtantran (talk) 10:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Use of images from Press information Bureau

Can the images published by the Government of India in the Press informatin Bureau website can be uploaded into Wikipedia. The website claims its free and meant for the press/media/public. Source:[5]. The copyright holder is obviously the PIB. But they are stating that those images published can be used free can these images be used in Wikipedia.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Please come to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. As the banner at the top says, this page is closed. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 09:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Similarly I would like to know about uploading the images from this site.[6] which give permission to use it for free "This photo is free for news media use." Chanakyathegreat (talk) 02:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not considered free content on Wikipedia. It has to be usable by anyone. You could try WP:COPYREQ --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 07:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

What about the PIB website, it's said that anyone can use it for free.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 03:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Photos of copyrighted material

I'm having a conundrum with this photo (Image:NIN Tour posters.jpg being used in List of Nine Inch Nails tours). The photo itself is GFDL, so we're cool there, but it's a picture of posters that are probably copyrighted. In a way, it's somewhat similar to photos such as Image:CocaColaBottle.jpg being used in the Cola article. Both seem alright to me, but there's a shred of doubt in my mind. How should one handle something like this? Drewcifer (talk) 03:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The first question to answer, I think, is: is the use of the tour poster (which as you say is probably copyrighted) in this article considered "fair use"? In WP:NONFREE#Acceptable use it indicates that, for example, cover art and promotional posters in the right context can be considered fair use. However a little further down it in WP:NONFREE#Unacceptable use it says "The use of non-free media in galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements generally fails the test for significance (criterion #8). Given below are further examples of images that, if non-free, may fail to satisfy the policy: 1. An album cover as part of a discography, as per the above." I'd say that a list of tours is enough like a discography to be covered by the same rule. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. But I guess my question is does the photo fall under GFDL or fair-use? Drewcifer (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Simple typography and geometric shapes are not copyrightable, so there's probably nothing in the poster that's copyrighted. The uploader of Image:Nine Inch Nails logo.svg has also tagged the logo as not eligible for copyright. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
So to summarize (Rat at WikiFur, please correct me if I have it wrong): If the poster is copyrighted, then the image should be tagged as fair-use. If the poster is not copyrighted, then the image can be tagged with the photograph's license (GFDL). I would have thought the poster would be copyrightable, but Rat at WikiFur has suggested that it is not. I'd go with his advice since he's been answering copyright questions here for quite a while now and still learning all the intricacies. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
We have per previous precedent, Image:Nine Inch Nails logo.svg, that the NIN logo is not copyrightable. The rest of the poster is facts in bare form in simple typography. While it will have to be {{trademark}} tagged because of the logo, the photographer can choose the license, and if he chooses a Wikipedia-compatible license, it doesn't require a fair use rationale. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 04:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
That definately clears it up for me. Thanks. Drewcifer (talk) 05:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding Pictures

How do I add a picture to a page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darbyji (talk • contribs) 08:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

See this page for a full explanation of how to upload and use images. J Milburn (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Aozora Bunko

Re: Image:Aozora Bunko how-to-make illustration.png? Image talk:Aozora Bunko how-to-make illustration.png#Fair use?
I recently uploaded what I considered to be "fair use" images for use only in Aozora Bunko -- an article about a Japanese digital library and public-policy advocacy group. Sdrtirs examined the support information for both of them, finding one to be adequate and the other not.

While I regret my errors in properly documenting the modest argument for fair use, I don't quite know how this happened nor do I understand how to correct my mistakes. Using the format of the one image which seems to have been successfully uploaded, I tried to create a full and detailed explanation at Talk:Aozora Bunko#Fair use. Doubtless there is something more I should do now, but what must seem obvious to you remains opaque to me. I'm simply asking for direction? --Tenmei (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, first, Image:Aozora Bunko how-to-make illustration.png doesn't seem to be a logo, so I replaced it with a generic fair use template. Check to make sure it looks okay to you now. Second, Image:N0-70.png is simple enough that it may not be copyrighted at all and you can use it as {{PD-textlogo}} without needing a rationale. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. Initially, I would have thought that this particular paper-folding image was altogether too insignificant; but I was moved to upload it because the article inspired what I took do be a good faith complaint. As it happens, Aozora Bunko was merely a digitial library up until 2006; and I found myself facing a persistent critic who seemed to believe that additional information about copyright law was a kind of corrupting irrelevancy. He simply could not understand any explanations --- and all efforts to explain were unavailing, despite the linked in-line citations and references. These two graphics -- simple though they may be -- seemed to represent some kind of tipping point which helped clarify whatever unresolved issues there were. In this instance, a graphic "picture" really did seem to be more powerful than words ...; but then I somehow managed to mishandle the uploading protocols. As you can imagine, I was beginning to feel quite frustrated -- all of which is to say that your input was truly appreciated far beyond what would have seemed normal. --Tenmei (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
This was a pointless effort. I paid attention to the urgent threat from a robot that I must deal with questions immediately. I did seek advice, and I followed it -- only to have another robotic message bothering me with a new complaint, this one no more understandable than the first. This wasn't worth the effort. I'm sorry I invested any time in this exercise. --Tenmei (talk) 03:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It's okay, I'm taking care of it. I've watchlisted the images. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Chisel at Maxwell's image

I own the negatives and the prints of these images—the image was also properly credited to the photographer. They are property of the band of which I was a member. Why have they been removed—twice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonialboy (talk • contribs) 16:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright is held by the photographer, unless specifically transferred in writing(except in the narrow case of a work for hire). The ownership of the physical photograph is irrelevant. If it is the case that you are the copyright holder, explain how you came to hold the copyright on the image description page. Otherwise, see WP:COPYREQ --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Autographs

What do you think about copyright for autographs? Something like this: [7]. Do the heirs of these persons hold copyright for this? May I upload this scan to national section or to Commons? Andrei Romanenko (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Signatures are not eligible for copyright, according to Signature#Copyright. In Wikipedia, you can tag them {{PD-ineligible}} --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Image deletion

Hello,

I am trying to upload a free image File:Eliteweb.jpg but I am being told it has been deleted. I am not sure how to get it un-deleted, or rather get the permission to upload it again. the image is located at http://www.eliteanswers.com/img/media/logos/EliteAnswers_High_Resolution.jpg

Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yitzhaac Pesach (talk • contribs) 01:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be very much not a free image. It would likely be usable under fair use in an Elite Answers article, but no such article seems to exist. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

How do I add a tag a photo that I have uploaded ?

Hello .. have warning message from robot .. How do I add a tag a photo that I have uploaded ? below are 3 such file .. can you show me example of how I add the Public tag.

Image:COA doc.jpg Image:Coat of Arms 1615.jpg Image:Conti de Wlassm.jpg

Thanks Vlasime (talk) 02:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming that you've tagged them {{GFDL-self}} because you took the pictures, correct? --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 03:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello .. Yes I have photos of all the documents ( in fact I have many of the original documents ) .. the ones from 1593 and Daun Arch. are in Museum in Bruno( Czech Republic )but photos of them were sent to me for my use ... all are listed in Buro under family name / title Jankovsky z Vlasimi since they were created for us .. thanks for your review !Vlasime (talk) 04:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Image_copyright_tags for a centralized discussion on bringing our copyright tag names into compliance. MBisanz talk 03:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

permission to use articles

Hi I want to use your articles in one of the textbooks i'm writing. can i down load the articles and acknowledge it in the acknowledgements page or is there any other procedure for obtaining permission to use the articles in my textbooks.

Thanks Revathi 59.94.247.214 (talk) 05:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:REUSE should answer your questions on this front. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Festspiele Balver Höhle

Hi, i guess these images are Public Domain. Do you agree? --Weissmann (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

First, I'm not familiar with German copyright law, so everything I say would be based on my understanding of the US laws. The creator of the work automatically holds the copyright. ("Under the Berne Convention, copyrights for creative works do not have to be asserted or declared, as they are automatically in force at creation." (see Copyright#History). In the US that is true from 1978 on (see Template:PD-Pre1978).) What makes you think it might be in the public domain?
I think the {{Non-free newspaper image}} is the correct one and I think fair use can easily be claimed.
However, I think the images are of too high resolution since the writing can easily be read. Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text 2 lists the following as unacceptable use: "3. An image of a newspaper article or other publication that contains long legible sections of copyrighted text. If the text is important as a source or quotation, it should be worked into the article in text form with the article cited as a source."
Do you have a scan of the cover of the flyer to use instead? --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Dear Ishi, first let me say "thank you" for your help. Let me add a cover of the flyer so we can decide later which is the best way to expand this article on a proper way. All the best --Weissmann (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Apropos the message received by me, I have added the copyright details for image MVD1.jpg, for which Im the copyright holder. But Im not sure who holds the copyright for the following nine images:

Agamben 1.jpg
Agamben 2.jpg
Agamben 3.jpg
Zizek 1.jpg
Zizek 6.jpg
Zizek 8.jpg
SP 2.jpg
SP 3.jpg
Shelley Pollock.jpg

As a new user, these images were uploaded by me without ascertaining the copyright particulars. I request contributors and editors to ascertain copyright of these nine images. If this is not possible, I recommend the deletion of these nine images.

Nikhilesh. 10.25, 4th June, 2008 (UTC)

Can you give us any clues about where these images came from, who might have taken them, where you found them? Without more information, there isn't much we can do. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Question about licensing

I am the author of a Wikipedia entry on the Israeli engineer and business executive Dov Frohman. I have access to a quality photo of Frohman used on the book jacket of his recent book and also online at: [8].

Frohman is happy with using this photo on Wikipedia, but it's unclear to me who owns the rights (Frohman, the photographer). At any rate, I think it's likely we can use the image. My question: what do I (or Frohman or the photographer) need to do create a GFDL-compatible license? I'm a real neophyte about this so basic help would be greatly appreciated.

Rash21954 (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless there is a written agreement otherwise, or it falls under the narrow definition of a work for hire, the photographer owns the copyright. Also, whoever the copyright holder is, they have to choose a license that allows anyone to use the photo, not just Wikipedia. See WP:COPYREQ --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have, via e-mail, been granted to use an image on an article, which the contact person in question holds the copyright to. How can i reflect this permission properly on the image description page? Will mentioning that i was in contact with the owner and a date be enough? Am i supposed to post contents of the back-and-forth e-mails? Or what else? Thanks. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 21:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to be sure you understand, permission to use an image only on Wikipedia is not acceptable; the permission must allow reuse by anyone for any thing. See WP:COPYREQ for what permission is required and how to submit it. —teb728 t c 21:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I was not aware, thanks for pointing that out. That voids my question. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 21:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hiram Burnett

I have encountered a situation that is new to me with respect to the above-noted page, and think I need someone more knowledgeable to step in. The material is plainly an exact duplicate of material on another web page (I've cited the web page in the "db copyvio" notice I placed on the page) but the material is fairly clearly copied from a source that is asserted to be in the public domain, and is said to be part of something called the "Washington Biography project", or words to that effect. It's that last bit that worries me; the public domain material has apparently been published by an official source (Washington State, USA) as part of a larger project of accumulating biographic material. Can someone have a look at this page and remove the copyvio tag if it seems appropriate? Thanks in advance to whomever considers this. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

According to the credit at the top of [9], it was transcribed from "An Illustrated History of the State of Washington, by Rev. H.K. Hines, D.D., The Lewis Publishing Co., Chicago, IL. 1893". Any work published before 1923 in the US is public domain. If it was simply transcribed into electronic format, no new copyright was created, and it is still public domain. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt assistance with this: I'll go and remove the copyvio tag. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:New South Wales Police Force use of image

A little bot problem with {{New South Wales Police Force}} and Image:NSWPF logosmall.jpg.

I refer to Wikipedia:Help desk#Non free use image in template problem..

I am aware of the template exclusion for fair use images but thought there was an exemption for when the image was explicitly and solely depicting the legal personality which held the rights to the image.

The image in question could be used on each page the template is being used on. So why cannot the image appear in a template which provides the common information to the pages. This is what templates are for.

Please note that there are other templates like this one, see Category:Snapshotinfoboxes.

What needs to be done so that that an exemption can be made for templates like this, that is, templates which contain tangible encycyclopedic content, for use encyclopedically, they are not navigation boxes, etc.?

I could work around the problem by putting the relevant material into a main space "article" and transcluding it using : prefixes, but this is likely to be inelegant and produce a clunky looking article. However, I should not have to do this from a fair use aspect, because the material is being used identically, whether it is in a template in template space, in a "template" in main space, or repeated in each article in main space.

Perhaps the whole template could be managed as fair use content once it has a fair use image content in it ?


In short, how can you put encylcopedic content containing a fair use image into a template so that it can be used on multiple pages, where the image in the page DOES comply with fair use requirements?

Peet Ern (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


These are just my thoughts on the matter... Per WP:LOGO, "Copyrighted logos, like all non-free media, require a separate use rationale in the image description each time they are used in an article. The template {{logo fur}} may help editors construct a rationale." If a logo were used in a template, it wouldn't really be possible to list the separate use rational for each article it was used in. In addition, it could be argued, since the image is part of the template, that no one has studied each article and verified that the use of the logo on that page is covered by fair use.
In fact, with a quick look, I'd say the logo really should not be used on Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service.
So, for me, I'd say it has to do with the lack of control over which articles it gets included in and the lack of fair use rational on a page-by-page basis. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 04:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The logo would need a rationale for each article the template is used in I would think though the use of the logo in a template could be considered as decoration which is not allowed. MilborneOne (talk) 11:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ishi Gustaeder and MilborneOne.

I do understand the issue. What you have advised above, very clearly and succinctly actually, reinforces my underlying concern that the issue is not really one of copyright but rather managing the copyright, and is a problem of technology, and how it interplays with policy. If, for example a template once it contained fair use material was managed as fair use material, subject to all the same rules, a rationale each time it is used, then there would be no problem. If for example a fair use reason has to be provided to enable the template to present the infobox at all, then the rules are satisified. The problem will be getting admins and bots to recognise a new way of complying with the fair use copyright rules.

I also agee that the royal commission article is not correct fair use.

I will see about modifying the template to insist on a fair use rationale. The problem will be that the fair use rationale for the image will be in the article using the image, not with the image, which some might argue is where it should be anyway.

Cheers.

Peet Ern (talk) 12:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Rules for using Fair Use images in sandbox

I use sandbox at bottom of my user page to prep articles before uploading them to thier final home. Sometimes article includes Fair Use imgage. Just had Oregon State Parks logo deleted from sandbox page even though it was image for article on Collier Memorial State Park--a legitimate Fair Use article for Oregon State Park logo. In this case, I already finished/uploaded article so nothing was lost. However, want to be sure I understand rules for using Fair Use images in sandboxes?--Orygun (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's official policy that non-free images are not allowed on user pages: in general, such usage is inconsistent with US copyright law and although there are some situations in which it's not, the Trustees have decided to err on the side of caution. One major factor as to why they're not allowed is that user pages are wide open to public browsing. What might be acceptable is if you moved the sandbox from your user page to a sub-page (e.g. just edit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Orygun/sandbox). The only way that page can be seen by others is if someone searches for it using Special:PrefixIndex (unlikely) or they just randomly type the address in (really, really, unlikely). Does that help?-- Hux (talk) 03:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Non-free images may not be used at all outside of main namespace, and there are bots and other users going around who will remove them if they are. Add the image after you have moved the article into mainspace. Stifle (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Can certainly do that. Thanks!--Orygun (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"Fair rationale use"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KennedyBaird


The message at the bottom of the page, could someone explain it in more detail for me?

Thanks, Kennedy (talk) 06:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC).

It looks like someone already fixed it. See WP:FURG if you need more background. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 07:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

How can i upload the image file for my own page?

Hi,

i want to upload some image files for my own page in Wkipedia.

i cannot find the option to upload the image files from my computer..

its showing like don't have permissions, copyrights, etc..

is there anyway to make my own page with my files from the computer..

Please give me a solution for this..

tregards, Prabu.ravichandran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prabu.ravichandran (talk • contribs) 07:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are the photographer or sole creator of the images, then you are the copyright holder, and you decide which license to put your work under. See WP:ICTIC. Otherwise, please tell us more about the images you want to upload. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 07:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Material from Kremlin.ru

I've just started a PUI debate here, but I see now that there are others. Basically, the Kremlin gives this permission-

All materials on the Presidential website may be reproduced in any media outlets, on Internet servers or on any other information supports without restriction on the amount of material and time of publication. This authorisation covers equally newspapers, magazines, radio stations, TV channels and Internet sites. The only condition is that any reproduction or broadcasting of the website’s materials contain a reference to the original source. No prior approval from the Presidential Press and Information Office is required to reprint information from the website.

This appears to give permission only for informational use, and does not give explicit permission for modification. This means that, by Wikipedia standards, the images are non-free, right? J Milburn (talk) 13:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"without restriction on the amount of material" seems to imply to me that the content can be changed. The original material in any derivative work is a variable amount. I am pretty certain this is free enough for us. There may also be other relevant Russian government statutes as well, although I'm not aware of them. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
It's clear from the phrase, "the only condition", that attribution is the sole restriction placed on the use of works from Kremlin.ru; any other use, modification, etc., is permitted. In addition, Russian copyright law makes several classes of works public domain by default, meaning that even attribution is not required in those cases. See the template {{PD-RU-exempt}} for more info. -- Hux (talk) 03:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Images of music album covers and book covers

What about adding to an article an image of the cover of a music album? Can it be copyright infringement? By the way, what about adding an image of the cover of a book?

Thanks in advance.

User:Alfredo J. Herrera Lago —Preceding comment was added at 18:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:NONFREE covers these in section 2.1 Acceptable use and 2.2 Unacceptable use. In particular it says the following is acceptable use: "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." Whereas for unacceptable use it says: "The use of non-free media in galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements generally fails the test for significance (criterion #8).". So it is definitely okay to use the cover art for an article on that book or album. It also says it's not okay to use it in a discography. Other uses would be a gray area and would have to be handled on a case by case basis. (FWIW, I take a more strict view and would tend to say "no" where others say "yes", but that's just me.) --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

what would i choose on the fair use for a screenshot of a DVD from a band if the screenshot is being used to illustrate the band. I need to find an image for the band Pain For Pleasure, but since they are an alter-ego band, who hasn't ever played live, they are featured in a Mockumentary on a bonus DVD from a Sum 41 album. This is really the only coverage they have had. Any suggestions? please post them on my talk page. - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 20:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably {{Non-free music video screenshot}}. Make sure you add a fair use rationale explaining why a free replacement couldn't be made, similar to what you wrote here. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Moving image from commons back to en.wikipedia

The following image Image:USDHScrestred.jpg was uploaded with the wrong license and ended up on commons. It is not a free image the correct license is -non-free-logo and requires a fair use rationale. How does one go about getting the image off of commons and back on en.Wikipedia at which point fixing the license and FUR is a simple matter. Dbiel (Talk) 01:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not definitely non-free - the summary is ambiguous: "uploaded with permission from the school's website administration" could mean that the school has given permission for it to be freely usable (which means the license is accurate), or it might mean that they gave permission only for it to be uploaded to Wikipedia (in which case the license is wrong and non-free-logo/fair use rationale is the way to go). However, the Commons is pretty strict on this stuff so it probably should be removed. What you could do is first save the image to your computer, remove it from any Wikipedia pages, then nominate it for deletion from the Commons (see Commons:Deletion guidelines). While that's happening, you could upload the image separately to Wikipedia (with a different filename) with the correct license. -- Hux (talk) 04:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Removing LOGO Onda

Hi, I just added a logo to the site of ONDA after I had received permission from the/a webmaster of that company to use that logo as long as it was not changed in any way and as long as the source/owner was mentioned. Nevertheless I saw a bot had removed it seconds later. Can you explain me what I did wrong? Many thanks, --JanT (talk) 23:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC) (page was about ONDA (Morocco)

When we get an image that we aren't allowed to modify or has other restrictions, we look only at whether it meets the Non-free content criteria. If it does, then we write a fair use rationale. I'm not sure about the details of the problem, since ONDA (Morocco) hasn't been edited since November 2007, but if you need help, you can ask back here. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 23:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The usaagericht I received was to use the logo and could be reused mentioning the owner and no changes were allowed. This doesn't include resizing (as long as you keep the main characteristics is use: thus not changing the colors (exceot making a monochrome version) and do not abuse it for use for other means then displaying the logo of the firm. It is not free to reuse the logo by another railway company or comparable. You can change size as long as the ratio stays the same.
That seems reasonable; I can't imagine that the -eg- logo's of any organisation would give permission for reuse when you use it as basis for your own organisation. If this has to be allowed to put it on commons I am sure I've found many other pictures on Wiki that won't have that kind of permission —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonkie67 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Joe Clark at Progressive Conservative Convention 1976 small.jpg

Image:Joe Clark at Progressive Conservative Convention 1976 small.jpg appears to need deletion, for the same reasons as Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Library and Archives Canada non-PD images. It's a crop of this, so even if fair use applied, it's the original that should be used, not this derivative. I messed up an attempt to list it as a copy vio, and as usual, it's completely unclear to me, which of multiple venues, I'm supposed to use to propose deletion. --Rob (talk) 05:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:IFD would be the right place, I'd think. But if it's usable under fair use (which I doubt it is), it would actually be preferable to use the cropped version, per WP:NFCC criterion 3. b. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Granted that the image is not PD as claimed, the terms of use at the source seem to indicate a free license. Maybe equivalent to {{cc-by}}? —teb728 t c 06:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
It explicitly prohibits derivative works, I'm afraid. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes, so I see at the Commons page referred to in the original post. —teb728 t c 06:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Photos of copyrighted material (2)

This is similar to the question above under "Photos of copyrighted material". A user has found an image on flickr that is CC-BY (and therefore an acceptable free license). See the image in question. However, the image is of a 3D sculpture/costume which is most likely copyrighted, right? So is it possible to release images of copyrighted work that you don't own under a free license? (would the Iron Man suit image, if uploaded here, by CC-BY or would need a fair use rationale?)-Andrew c [talk] 14:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

See commons:Commons:Derivative_work. Basically there are two copyright holders, the photographer and the sculptor. So you could record that the photographer released their work under CC-BY, then include a fair use rationale for the sculpture. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Randknight.jpg

I stated where I found the image in the summary, but I don't know what license to use for images with a confirmed domain but the owner of the image didn't state whether or not it could be used here. WPjcmWords are cool 14:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "confirmed domain"? Just looking at the link, no where does it state the image is released into the public domain, or under a free license, so therefore (judging by first looks) we cannot use the image here on wikipedia. However, you can always try to contact the blog owner and see if they are the one who took the photograph and see if they wouldn't mind uploading the original to the commons, or at least stating on their blog that they release the image under a free license.-Andrew c [talk] 14:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding a deleted image (and yes, I read the Bot's links)

Hello, I got a message on my talk page that the bot had deleted a picture I uploaded. The link to the photo was on the Bot's message, but to be honest, I have not a clue what this image was, what article I'd added it to, or any information whatsoever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:96_1_b.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1

So first, how do I found out the page it was deleted from? Second, this may be something worse revising...to at least give a bit more context regarding the deleted image so that people logging in have a clue what was deleted, and not just why it was deleted.

Adtrace (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Your best bet is to contact Maxim (talk · contribs), the admin who deleted it (found by clicking the link you provided). He should be able to view the deleted image content and answer your questions. giggy (:O) 15:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
If you check your own [User Log] it says you uploaded it on the 19 Feb 2006 and then if you look at your My Contributions it says you created an article soon after Bank of Hamilton that included it. MilborneOne (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The image has now been restored, and I've put it back in the article. Thank MilborneOne. giggy (:O) 15:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


Fraternity Emblems and Fair Use Criteria

Hello, I was just checking on my fraternity's page (Alpha Epsilon Pi) when I noticed our cofa was not on it. I went to the talk page and it said that File:AEPi Crest.jpg needed justification for why it was on the page. However, the few other fraternity pages I clicked around all had their crests. What do we have to do to get ours back up in an acceptable manner? Jklharris (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

To upload a non-free image such a coat-of-arms or logo, you need to provide the licensing information (in this case, that it is a logo) and provide a fair use rational ("fur") for each page the image is used on. In this case, you might want to look at Image:Sigmanucrest.png for a good example of what to say in the rational. You should also review the Wikipedia rules on non-free image use at WP:NONFREE and the use of logos at WP:LOGOS. Then you can use Wikipedia:Upload and select the "It is the logo of an organization" option. Fill out the form and for Licensing, select Logo. If you need more help with filling out the form, just ask here. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 04:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

CD cover

I have trouble figuring out where to ask my questions, so I hope this is the right place. I want to upload a couple of images of CD covers for use on the CDs' pages. I own the CDs, so I am able to scan the pictures and upload them onto Wikipedia. However, if I do this, the images will not be perfect (due to scratches on CD cover, minor tilt of the image, scanner quality, etc.). I'm wondering if this is the only way to upload the images without disobeying copyright policies. For example, I noticed that this image was found on the net. Am I aloud to upload a picture found on the internet for this use? Thanks! You're dreaming eh? 03:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are allowed. Just go to Wikipedia:Upload/Non-free album cover and click the appropriate link (most likely, it's infobox), then for "source" in the textbox towards the bottom, put the image's URL. Easy! giggy (:O) 03:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Good to go? (I took the Fair use rational from the No Time For Later page, by the way) You're dreaming eh? 05:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
It has two fair use rationales now, you only need the one that comes when you upload. But yeah, good to go! giggy (:O) 05:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
........Oh well, the more the merrier. Thanks a bundle! You're dreaming eh? 05:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a question regarding linking to videos on YouTube from an the Demos from the Basement article. The videos are unnofficial, and consist of a music track over a still image [10]. I understand that linking to an unnofficial video is not allowed due to copyright, however the question here is whether these songs are indeed copyrighted. They are from a demo album of which only a limited number (200 I think) were made and distributed for free, which has led some to believe that they are not copyrighted. Personally, I still believe that there would be a copyright associated with these songs even though they were given away. Thus, my query is basically are these songs copyrighted and can we link to these videos or not? Cheers Nouse4aname (talk) 09:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you on this one. The fact they were given away for free doesn't mean anything. My guess is they are still copyrighted. Just my opinion though. Landon1980 (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's just let the admins answer this. --Pwnage8 (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone point to where it's documented that they gave the songs away? I can't seem to verify the protection one way or the other, so the automatic assumption is that it is protected and those videos would be copyvio's and unlinkable. "Giving the CD's away for free" is not the same thing as releasing the songs with a free license (public domain, GFDL, etc). Generally speaking, it's not likely they were placed in the public domain, it's more likely they were released for promotional purposes (which usually still has a copyright). Remember, copyright protection is automatic, a free license releasing it must be explicit. – Zedla (talk) 00:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
If I'm reading Image:Used_demo.jpg correctly, I see a "(C) Copyright 2001" notice there, case closed... – Zedla (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Then how come I keep seeing videos linked in album articles? --Pwnage8 (talk) 00:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Example? Problems in other articles don't mean they can be repeated here. In this case it's clearly a copyright violation on youtube. – Zedla (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
They are music videos though. Maybe that's different. I'm not sure --Pwnage8 (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

How are we able to use relatively new flags without any fair-use rationale? For example, Image:Flag of Kosovo.svg, Image:Flag of Iraq.svg, and Image:Flag of Lesotho.svg are all less than 2 years old, but I can't imagine that they are in the public domain, yet we use them widely, without fair-use rationales. Each of those three is on Commons with licenses such as {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} from the editor who created the SVG files and uploaded the images. Is that correct? Can I just look at a photo or web image of a flag and redraw it myself and then release it as a free image? I certainly wouldn't think that I am the copyright holder under those circumstances. We recently had an image deleted from Commons and put back up on en.wiki for fair-use only (3 articles), namely Image:Flag of NATO.svg. That SVG file was created by the same process as those flags, but something is different between the two licenses. What's the difference? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the copyright of the original creator of the flag does have to be taken into account unless there is a specific reason otherwise. Image:Flag of Iraq.svg may be an exception, because it consists only of simple typography and basic geometric shapes and thus ineligible for copyright. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Your last comment is interesting. I didn't see anything in Wikipedia:Public domain#Works ineligible for copyright protection that would seem to apply to flags, but perhaps that is still the case...? What is the boundary for a "basic geometic shape" vs. a complex one? (For example, the Kosovo flag consists only of stars (basic) and a map outline, which might be considered "common property".) Would {{PD-ineligible}} be the right image tag for flag images like this? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
My comment about it being ineligible is more about what's on the flag than it being a flag. From WP:PD#Fonts, basic typography is ineligible. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

←Ok, here's a semi-hypothetical but specific question to help me understand the legal status of flags. Suppose I see a photo or graphic image of a real flag that represents a particular geopolitical entity (i.e. not a commercial organization), and then make an SVG file by myself that best represents that photo. What license tag can I attach to that file? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I know that some flags are too simple to be copyrighted, some countries specifically exclude official flags from copyright, and some flags are old enough that any copyright would have expired. The remaining ones I assume are still eligible for copyright (although I'm open to any new information people can bring up). An accurate reproduction of a two-dimensional work does not create a new copyright; it just inherits the copyright of the original. See Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp., which considered a more difficult decision(photographs of paintings, which can be difficult to do), and still came to the conclusion that accurate reproductions were not eligible for copyright. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 08:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I know this is an old question, but I'd like to revisit it. Evans County, Georgia has a county flag that has not been flown since probably the early 90s (it was created in 1989 I think). I have created an image of the flag and would like to use it for the Evans County article. What would be the copyright status, if any, of that flag? Reb (talk) 14:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

No permission template

I would like to move Image:Garrybarry6.jpg to the Wikimedia Commons so that I can use it at the Norwegian Wikipedia. However, the permission for free use is missing, and the Flickr version says © all rights reserved. At Commons, I would have tagged such an image with Template:No permission since, but I can't find such a template here. What is the correct procedure at the English Wikipedia for requesting documentation of its licensing status? --Kjetil r (talk) 09:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is an equivalent for the npd template on Commons. This image can probably be nominated for deletion with {{subst:rfu}} though, as I imagine it could be replaced by a free image (and it isn't free itself). giggy (:O) 09:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
But the uploader does not claim fair use, why should I tag it as replaceable fair use? I guess I have to take it to Ifd instead.--Kjetil r (talk) 12:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Image from a PD TV Broadcast

I have an image I'd like to use on the article for Let's Join Joanie. I've checked various websites and I've confirmed the broadcast is PD. I'd like to upload the image, But I don't know what license to use. Retro Agnostic (talk) 05:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It depends why it's public domain. Is it because the copyright wasn't renewed? Then use {{PD-Pre1964}} --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!! Yes, It's because it's copyrights were not renewed. Retro Agnostic (talk) 09:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Contributions from User:Jm0371

User:Jm0371 has uploaded quite a few images, among them some aerial imagery. All of the user's contributions, including the aerials, are tagged with {{PD-self}}. However, it seems likely that the images came from an imagery provider, and could be a copyright violation. The user has not responded to at least two requests for more information about the source of the images, and has done things like tagging an FAA airport diagram as his/her own work, making the other contributions suspect. Suggestions for next steps? - Eureka Lott 23:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Bring them up at WP:PUI --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Images at Detachment 88...

There are some rather high quality photos at this Indonesia related page. Copyright is often a big problem with this part of wikipedia, and I'm suspiciuos about the origins of the photos.

  • [11]. One of two images by this apparently retired editor. This image says it was taken during counter terrorism raids(!?!). It means the editor was right in the middle. Another in the article uploaded by the same editor was apparently taken during Indonesian independence day parade which sounds (and looks) a bit more feasible.
  • [12]. This is by another editor and I am waiting a reply from them. It is claimed as public domain.

many thanks --Merbabu (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like they are both copyvios, shows up as a set here [13] credited to AP Photo/Bayu Pamungkas. You'd need to be able to search the apimages.com site to definitively confirm it. – Zedla (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Image sourced to web pages that go away or change

I have several pictures I uploaded as non-free fair use from the www.transformers.com web site. Here is one example - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cannonball-cybertron.jpg - Now since then www.transformers.com has become a redirect to www.hasbro.com/transformers, and then they changed the site a lot, removed things, updating pictures, etc. I had sited a pictures source as www.transformers.com, which is now is obviously incorrect. I had a complaint that I was giving the wrong source, so I looked, and the picture is gone from the site now. I then removed the mention of www.transformers.com, and now people are posting that the pictures have no proper source and should be deleted. As of right now the only source for this image on the internet is Wikipedia's copy, I can't point to the original source. How do I handle a source for an image to a web site that has changed since I got the picture? Mathewignash (talk) 01:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You can see if has been archived at http://www.archive.org/. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 02:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Nope, not there. Mathewignash (talk) 02:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I looked around, too, and couldn't find the Cannonball pictures (although I'm not too familiar with the Transformers so I might not have looked in the right places). Too bad you didn't point to the URL the picture came from, then it would be easier to look up.
I looked at http://www.flickr.com and there are some photos there. Unfortunately, the ones I saw were all copyright. It might be possible to talk to the uploader and have it re-licensed under the Creative Commons ShareAlike license. In flickr terms, that's the "Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons" option. ("For an image to be considered 'free' under Wikipedia's Image use policy, the license must permit both commercial reuse and derivative works." -- WP:ICT) If you can do that, the picture would still have copyrighted material in it (the Cannonball character design) so you'd still need the fair use rational. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 16:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The source is still the source even if they took the image down. You should list where you found it, roughly when, and make a note that the image was taken down by the owner. With an image like this, I don't see any reason to seriously doubt you if you say it came from the manufacturers' website. That ought to be fine. Sourcing is mostly about identifying who owns the image, and I think that is clear here. Dragons flight (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me. I do have the date on the original files I copied onto my hard drive, and the home page it was taken from. I hope that is enough then. Mathewignash (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

New York & Ottawa Railway map

My image was tagged. I own the Time Table from which this map was scanned from. I plan to use it in a future publication on the history of the subject railway. It was given to me by a man named Gary Villeneuve, whom passed away a year ago. The Time Table is from 1930 and is older than 75 years old (the age used at the Canadian National Archive for material allowable to be viewed by the public). I also will be uploading this map to my New York Central - Ottawa Division web site, which I own all the material for as well. My question.....is this enough to clear the image for the NY&O entry? I described where it came from in the description when i originally uploaded it, but your bot does not think it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonfire34 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I assume the company that created and published it was a US company, correct? If it was published without a copyright notice, then it is public domain and should be tagged {{PD-Pre1978}}; if copyright was not renewed {{PD-Pre1964}}. If both formalities were complied with, the copyright expires 95 years after publication. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Lou Gramm picture

I recently uploaded a picture of Lou Gramm, but I do not know what tag it should be. What would be the appropriate tag for a picture of a rock musician? --IceSickleSHAKE (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The notice at the site says the whole site is copyrighted so the image can't be used at Wikipedia. If you want to try to get permission, see WP:COPYREQ --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Works by the government of Afghanistan

Hi, I just came across a newly-created article at Amirzai Sangin, which is a direct copy'n'paste of http://www.president.gov.af/english/cabinet/bios/amirzai_sangin.mspx. Most pages on that site (e.g. http://www.president.gov.af/english/cabinet.mspx) assert "© 2006 Office of the President", however list of countries' copyright length suggests that Afghanistan has no copyright law (it's probably not at the top of the Afghan government's list of priorities) which would imply that the text is in the public domain. What's the best approach in this situation - delete as a copyvio on the basis of the asserted copyright, or treat it a PD source based on the apparent lack of any copyright law? -- AJR | Talk 23:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it appears there are no copyright relations with Afghanistan. Opinion follows: Since it is probable that eventually there will be copyright relations with Afghanistan, it is better to get permission or delete it as a copyvio. Since writing a new article in Wikipedia's own license is straightforward and avoids possible future problems, the choice seems clear. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The US and Afghanistan are definitely in the process of establishing intellectual property relations (see [14] from 10-2007), its only a matter of time before copyright is restored. – Zedla (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Keeping control of posted pictures

I have not uploaded any pictures to Wikipedia for some time because every time that I look at the licensing conditions I can never make any sense out of them without reading lots of documentation which probably means that anyone lifting an image from a page will also not understand the licensing conditions. I basically want to retain copyright of any picture, I do not want it used elsewhere without my permission and I want "copyright" "my name" displayed on the image. As far as I can see this is not possible which is a pity as it means that I will not upload any more images - I have a number of photographs that would be useful additions to articles. --jmb (talk) 12:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, what you want to do is not allowed on Wikipedia. All images uploaded must be able to be used elsewhere, even for commercial use. Whan you say it should not be used anywhere else, that goes against Wikipedia policy. Soxred 93 16:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
That is what I thought, pity as it just means that I will not post any more on Wikipedia. Is it possible to remove pictures already posted on Wikipedia? --jmb (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
You could remove all article links, blank the image description page, and request a speedy deletion (only if you are the original uploader/author) under the G7 criteria by adding {{Db-g7|rationale=}} to the blanked page.– Zedla (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Though the free licenses that Wikipedia uses are not retractable. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Ummm, heck no, you can't delete them. It appears about two dozen pics were uploaded, from July to February, all declared your own work, all under a free license, and most used in an article. G7 was intended for cases where somebody makes something that nobody else improved or used (so it's loss would go unnoticed). You can't go back in time and take away things that articles have been partly built on. --Rob (talk) 03:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
You may request that your name be listed next to a picture, however, once you click Upload with a tag declaring its yours and you release it under a free license, it is free forever. MBisanz talk 04:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
It just seems a poor policy, I took some pictures last week that I had intended to upload. These were of some very rare old objects that I found in a cupboard and would have been a very useful addition to the relevant article but I will not now be uploading. There are many other contributions that I could make but will not now being doing. Wikipedia's loss not mine. --jmb (talk) 07:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
A creator can clearly retain copyright and re-release elsewhere under a different, possibly restrictive, license (see WP:COPYRIGHT#Contributors' rights and obligations) but can never retract the license for copies uploaded here under the GFDL. All copies derived from wikipedia retain the GFDL/CCA. The basic consideration of G7 deletion for an image should be no different than its application to an article/text (which is also under GFDL). A G7 could still apply if the image went sufficiently unused in article space but 'sufficiently unused' is a separate issue. – Zedla (talk) 07:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

photo from 70s?

I uploaded a photo of Image:Sarolta Monspart.jpg. Author is unknown. (it was made in about 1972). What licence I should use?

Dnikitin (talk) 02:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there any proof that the image is licensed under a free license? If not, it may be deleted as copyright violation. giggy (:O) 02:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
If you know it was first published without a copyright notice, you can tag it {{PD-Pre1978}} --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 04:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, I thought it was a photo created in the US, but after looking more closely, it's unlikely. Do you know where the photo was taken? --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
from this site http://www.szszbtfsz.hu/images/monspart_sarolta_fut.jpg Dnikitin (talk) 07:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
You may be in luck; see {{PD-Hungary}}. You'll need to make sure it was really created in Hungary though. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 07:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

book image

What do you do with an image inside a book (not a book cover)? Thylacinus cynocephalus (talk) 03:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It depends on a lot of things. Can you give us more details? --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 05:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:NHM

Would one of you kind folks enlighten me as to what {{NHM}} actually means. Only a few images are tagged with it, all with free (PD, GFDL) license tags as well as this tag (which says it forbids commercial use). I am having a hard time reconciling this tag and the license tag (they seem quite contradictory to me). Thanks. - AWeenieMan (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be functioning as a warning tag, i.e. the image starts out with a PD or GDFL tag then an editor notices that it's a photo of the interior of the British Museum and puts this tag on it, presumably as an indicator that an admin should delete it since images licensed for non-commercial use only can't be placed on Wikipedia as PD/GFDL images (or on the Commons at all). If I'm right then it's not very productive for people to do that. They should just nominate the image for deletion instead. -- Hux (talk) 04:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
What is odd is that commons has their own version of this template (commons:Template:NHM). Based on its wording, it seems they don't know what to do with the images. I left a note for the creator of the en.wiki version, we'll see what he says. - AWeenieMan (talk) 04:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
What's really odd is that the NHM claims to put a burden on what people can do with photographs that they take there. Stifle (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding pictures from other language Wikipedias

If an image is being used on a different language version of Wikipedia, can I add it to the English one? Would the copyright rules be the same for all language versions? --Cexycy (talk) 11:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the best practice here would be to copy the image from the other-language 'pedia to the Commons (CommonsHelper can do this for you), then the same image can be used in multiple places. But yes, you can copy the image here under the same license if you like. Kelly hi! 12:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Let me just add that before you upload anything either here on on commons, make sure the copyright status declared on the source wiki is actually plausible. I see that in your case you were transferring something from the Macedonian Wikipedia. I'd strongly recommend against doing that – mk-wiki is full of copyright violations, nobody on that wiki gives a damn about copyright, even the admins are blatant serial copyright offenders. My estimate is 90% of all images over there are falsely tagged. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Ugh, you're right. That's a messy wiki. Kelly hi! 14:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi.

How do you know all this about the Macedonian group? Anyway I think we need a good Tose picture for the article, I think he deserves that. What's the best way we can go about it? --Cexycy (talk) 23:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

About mk-wiki: I sent them a complaint a couple of months ago [15], pointing to cases where even the admins themselves had been uploading whole series of obvious copyvios. They promised to clean up their act but didn't. Even those ones I specifically proved were copyvios are still there as of this minute. Their deletion log was almost totally blank until recently; they were deleting only images that had been moved to commons. I think they didn't even have a proper mechanism in place about how to nominate bad images, or if they had, nobody had ever used it. It's only today that a new admin happens to have started deleting some images. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't find any free images using the CC search. So, I'd say use an image with a known copyright (as opposed to one of unknown origin) and give it a fair use rational. Maybe get one from this "official website" or this "official website". --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Best thing would be to contact somebody who has some private images (like, from concerts) on flickr or somewhere, and ask them if they would release them under a free license. Second best thing would be a fair use case. I'm not sure how our general stance on fair use images of recently deceased persons is. I guess it could only be a promotional image whose copyright belongs to Proeski's heirs or agency (i.e. something from his official website) and that's not currently being used commercially. Images from news sources are taboo. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS

1  want a short  note on DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS121.245.138.233 (talk) 08:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
2  WANT A SHORT NOTE ON DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRIC POWER121.245.138.233 (talk) 08:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
3  WANT A SHORT NOTE ON INDUCTION HEATING121.245.138.233 (talk) 08:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

WANT A SHORT NOTE ON DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS121.245.138.233 (talk) 08:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Try reading Transformer and Induction heating. If you need addition information on these topics, try posting a more specific question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. —teb728 t c 10:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Canadian pre-40th election polling up to Mar 2 08.PNG

I've been told there is some sort of concern regarding the chart I created for the up coming Canadian federal election (see subject/headline).

I created the chart MYSELF - and took quiet a while to do it, too. The data I used are available from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40th_Canadian_federal_election

Please advise. --Can-eh-dian Redhead (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If you created it from scratch, then you own the copyright, and you choose the license. See WP:ICTIC --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 01:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

logo image

I want to upload some logos of Orienteering Championships.

What licence I can use for logo of championships?

Dnikitin (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Use {{logo}}. Easiest way to do it is to click here, and on the drop down menu at the bottom, choose "logo" (and obviously, choose the file to upload a bit above where the "browse" button is). giggy (:O) 10:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of Template:PD-Art, vis. 2-D art

One thing I've been wondering: how do the provisions of {{Template:PD-art}}, and by extension, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. (which explicitly mentions only two-dimensional works), cover things that are debatably two dimensional?

The two examples I am specifically thinking of are 1) coins (ancient ones, not current ones that are still within copyright), and 2) vase painting (again, thinking mostly ancient Greece). The former case is basically but not exactly two dimensional, as coins feature a certain degree of relief; the latter case is exactly two dimensional, but occurs on a three-dimensional surface. I assume that a close-up photograph of an ancient painting on a vase, one that was close enough and cropped enough to make it difficult to tell on what surface, exactly, the work occurs, would be covered by PD-Art, while a slightly wider frame, that reveals the painting to be on a curved surface, or that reveals the vase itself, would not. Or maybe not even that. I don't know; that's why I'm asking.

You can answer here or on my talkpage, whichever is convenient. Thanks in advance for the assistance. Ford MF (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

image/figure upload to article

Hello....what format must an Image or Figure be in to be able to upload to an article I wish to write? Thankd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.77.137.57 (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There's some information on this at Wikipedia:Image use policy#Format. Last I knew, however, you will need to register an account in order to upload images. Once that's done, you can visit Wikipedia:Upload to learn more about uploading an image. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Crediting CC-BY

Do CC-BY images need to bear a credit line in every article they appear in, or is the credit on the image description sufficient? Is there a resource that explains this? – flamurai (t) 22:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Generally the image's description page is considered sufficient on WP, either by upload history or by naming the author. I'm not sure as far as a specific resource page, but it's briefly mentioned at Help:Image page and Wikipedia:Image use policy. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

image tag?

--Ekweisberg (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)i have an image i am trying to upload. i own the rights to the image but am unsure as how to tag it. Can you advise?

thanks.

The copyright to an image belongs to the photographer, unless there is an agreement in writing(or it falls under the definition of a work for hire). If you own the copyright, explain on the image page how you came to own the copyright, and then choose a tag from WP:ICTIC --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of Template:PD-Art, vis. 2-D art

One thing I've been wondering: how do the provisions of {{Template:PD-art}}, and by extension, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. (which explicitly mentions only two-dimensional works), cover things that are debatably two dimensional?

The two examples I am specifically thinking of are 1) coins (ancient ones, not current ones that are still within copyright), and 2) vase painting (again, thinking mostly ancient Greece). The former case is basically but not exactly two dimensional, as coins feature a certain degree of relief; the latter case is exactly two dimensional, but occurs on a three-dimensional surface. I assume that a close-up photograph of an ancient painting on a vase, one that was close enough and cropped enough to make it difficult to tell on what surface, exactly, the work occurs, would be covered by PD-Art, while a slightly wider frame, that reveals the painting to be on a curved surface, or that reveals the vase itself, would not. Or maybe not even that. I don't know; that's why I'm asking.

You can answer here or on my talkpage, whichever is convenient. Thanks in advance for the assistance. Ford MF (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:The back of Marchmont.JPG

I am aware thet I didn't add a license to this image but I believe I uploaded a the same image again and licensed that one as I could not find a way os license tagging the first image once it was loaded. Can we delete the first version with no license? Mark J Richards (talk) 13:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

To edit the license on an image that's already been uploaded, just go to the image page and click the "edit this page" tab at the top. Images with no license will get automatically deleted, but I'm sure you can get someone to expedite it if you ask. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

May I use the image from http://www.eas.slu.edu/Earthquake_Center/TURKEY/xx1.jpg for the article Earthquake protector?

Thanks,

Shustov (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless a reason is stated otherwise, images on the web are copyrighted and not suitable for Wikipedia. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this Plagiarism?

...or a copyright violation? Talk:Anti-Americanism#RFC:_Plagiarism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Life.temp (talk • contribs) 22:28, 12 June 2008

Non-media related questions should be taken up at Wikipedia:Copyright problems – Zedla (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

hello. I received an instruction message for my newly uploaded image. I'm not really sure how I can handle this situation because I'm not well aware of copyright rules and laws. I found the from a website and it doesn't seem to provide source information on the image. If it is insufficient to just reference the webpage address where the image was found, then please let me know how to delete the image.

It seems I dont have file deletion right. How can i delete it?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Als0605 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You not only have to provide source information, you need to make sure that anyone can use the image for any purpose. Since it is a graph, it means any Wikipedian could redraw it and release it freely. It will get deleted through regular process if you do nothing, or if you ask, I'm sure some admin will delete it ahead of time. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
You can probably put Speedy Deletion template {{db-g7}} on the image's description page. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Image rights questions

I've been contacted by an advertising agency that wants to use one of my photographs that is posted on Wikipedia with a GFDL license. They are aware that they can use the photograph under the terms of GFDL, but they would like to use it without having to post all that text, and they would like the photo at higher resolution than can be found in Wikipedia. I did not upload the original higher-res version anywhere. Here are my questions:

  1. I haven't found anything in the GFDL license that restricts me from licensing a different version of the photograph for commercial purposes, so I assume it is alright. Is this correct?
  2. I will make it clear in the agreement with the advertising agency that their use is non-exclusive, and that a GFDL version will continue to exist at Wikipedia. Are there any other considerations I should be thinking about?
  3. As this ad will be seen by thousands of people (it will be in a newspaper insert), do I need to do anything to keep the Wikipedia image from being challenged as a copyright violation? Should I note on the image page that commercial rights to a higher resolution version that was never posted on Wikipedia were not GFDL?
  4. Is there anything else I should be thinking about?
  5. Does anyone have an idea what I should charge for the rights? (I'm planning to donate the proceeds to Wikimedia) E-mail me if you have advice about this question.

Thanks. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 01:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

1. That's correct; the GFDL is non-exclusive. 2. That's a good idea; also make it clear that the GFDL version will appear anywhere that is in compliance with the GFDL, not just Wikipedia. 3. Maybe archive the permission with OTRS. 4. You may want to make sure it's clear that you're not transferring the copyright; they can't sublicense it; they can't use your name as an endorsement. 5. Depends what it is before I could even begin to guess. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 08:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Associated Press?

This photo was likely taken from a news source, which took it from the Associated Press (AP), which in turn took it from a photographer. I don't know which of these entities owns the copyright, but if it is AP, then the address (for requesting copyright permission) is:

AP Images
450 West 33rd Street
New York, NY 10001
http://www.apimages.com
69.140.152.55 (talk) 23:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

GIMPS Threads

Is information in GIMPS (Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search) threads subject to copywright protection?

00:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)00:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)~~

First of all, facts or the raw information cannot be copyrighted, only the wording or creativity used to express them. Second, I assume you're talking about the posts at [16]; the footer there says that the content is licensed under the GFDL, so crediting the author(probably by linking the the post) you can copy the content to a GFDL wiki like Wikipedia. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

What do I need to mark this graphic?

How should I mark a graphic given to me by the author so I could put it in an artical. I said it had to be open source and he sent me one. I just can't seem to get it uploaded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KitemanSA (talk • contribs) 02:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

He should have selected a specific open source or free content license(see WP:ICTIC). Also see WP:COPYREQ. If it's the actual upload that's the problem, see Wikipedia:Uploading images --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 04:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Spoken Article

I just added a spoken article for 2005 Atlantic hurricane season (file here: Image:2005 Atlantic hurricane season.ogg) and now I got a bot telling me it's going to be deleted if I don't let it know where it came from. This is the third such spoken article I've created and the first time this bot has gotten upset about it. Furthermore, it refers to the file as an image when the file is, in fact, an audio recording. I'd appreciate some advice/help here on how to amend this and how to assure it doesn't happen again in the furure. Thanks in advance! Fliry Vorru (talk) 03:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the bot just screwed up because it's clear that you already provided everything it's asking for. I deleted the {{no copyright holder}} tag that it left so it shouldn't get deleted. Feel free to remove those kinds of tags yourself if they show up on any files that already have the requested copyright/licensing info. Also, the reason it's referring to it as an image is because as far as the Wiki software is concerned, it is. This is simply because the software itself wasn't designed to handle audio files. That functionality was just bolted on to the existing image handling framework as a workaround. Just one of the many Wiki idiosyncrasies! -- Hux (talk) 04:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
It looks like you didn't save the edit; the tag was still there. I deleted it. —teb728 t c 08:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I reported this to the bot owner. And he says he has now fixed the bot. —teb728 t c 08:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

other's photo of public domain object

I'd like to upload a copy of the photo of a Roman die at [17]. The die itself is obviously public domain. What does that mean about the photo? Thanks. Cretog8 (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

A photo of a 3-dimensional public domain object can be copyrighted. (Ref. Photographs of three-dimensional objects) --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 04:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Dang. Thanks, Rat. Cretog8 (talk) 07:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair Use Doct.

What is fair use? what is the test? why is it such a big deal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.89.225.180 (talk) 02:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

See fair use. I don't understand your other questions. —teb728 t c 08:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Image postings tagged

The following images I posted were tagged. I indicated they were all from NASA and a U.S. Govt agency.

What else do I need to do?

16 Image tagging for Image:Discov docked.jpg

17 Image tagging for Image:Karen n.jpg

18 Image tagging for Image:Mark at work.jpg

19 Image tagging for Image:242193main kibo-m.jpg

20 Image tagging for Image:245913main image Garan.jpg

21 Image tagging for Image:124 crew.jpg

22 Image tagging for Image:Iss black and.jpg

23 License tagging for Image:Discov june 13.jpg

24 Image tagging for Image:Discov june 11.jpg

Please note, the license tagging is for a file that needs deleted, but I didn't know how to delete. Please delete Image:Discov june 13.jpg

The tag is fine(if the images can be verified as coming from NASA); if appropriate, it could be replaced with the more specific {{PD-USGov-NASA}}. All the tag is asking for is a plain english description of how it can be verified that the image is indeed from NASA. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 07:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
So I am OK? They won't be deleted or anything? If you look at these images you'll see they almost HAVE to be from NASA! ; )--Utahredrock (talk) 07:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
All you have to do is tell where you got the images(then anyone who's really curious can research it more), and then delete the tag. If you don't remove the tag, it will get deleted. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 07:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I wrote "NASA" or "Image from NASA" is that not enough? Do they need URLs? If so, is www.nasa.gov sufficient? If I go through a laborious process to add more detail, can I remove the tags? Please note, by saying NASA, I thought that was sufficient as far as the source.--Utahredrock (talk) 07:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
It's probably not enough. There needs to be a way to verify that it really is from NASA. The bare minimum is the URL of the page on the NASA site where you got it(or if it's not on the web, some detailed description of where it's from). --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 07:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Is the Barack Obama birth certificate acceptable to upload?

The Barack Obama presidential campaign has put up a picture of his birth certificate on one of its official campaign websites. You can see its small version here:

[18]

The very partisan (but I believe pro-Obama) Daily Kos website has put up a much better version of the birth certificate here (which should be a reliable enough source for simply reproducing a one-page document fairly, especially since the Obama campaign has not complained publicly about it, and Daily Kos states that it received the document from the Obama campaign):

[19]

Click on the picture at the Daily Kos website and it expands enormously, giving a very detailed rendition of the document. I assume a large, detailed version would upload to Wikipedia.

The birth certificate has been said to be a printout of Hawaii computerized government records, so it's more a record than it is an old piece of paper given to Obama's parents at his birth. However, it is an official "birth certificate" issued by a state authority.

If uploaded, I would suggest using it on one of the campaign-related Wikipedia articles, and probably link to it somehow from the Barack Obama article, although I don't think it's notable enough to actually use on that page. The birth certificate decisively, vividly, graphically confirms that various rumors are wrong (for instance, that he was named something else, like "Barack Muhammad Obama"; whether or not we need to actually mention the rumors is a decision to be made elsewhere), it has been made public by the Obama campaign, and the document is of historical significance. It seems to be a valuable document for Wikipedia to be able to show readers. I might try to move it to Wikipedia Commons, as well.

Is there some Wikipedia policy that prevents uploading this document? If so, does that policy apply in this situation where the document has been released voluntarily in a matter of the public interest? Please don't tell me there's any privacy issue here, now that the campaign has published it and given out a copy to be published. Last question: If uploaded, what copyright template should be used? Noroton (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The only thing that could possibly be a problem copyright-wise is the state seal, but Wikimedia Commons has come to the conclusion that it is public domain. The rest is bare facts in point form and therefore not eligible for copyright. The tag for works not eligible for copyright is {{PD-ineligible}} --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Rat! Noroton (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
For fairness and balance, someone should locate John McCain's birth certificate also, to see if he really was born in the Panama Canal Zone, and to ensure that his middle name wasn't originally Bush III. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll get right on that, Bugs! Noroton (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Usage: Day Joyce Sheet.jpg

Day Joyce Sheet image: this has been deleted and I'm not sure what are the criteria for getting it restored. It is copyright of the Imperial War Museum, who have given me permission to use it, free of charge, on a Wikipedia page about the Sheet. Other IWM copyright images appear on the Stanley Internment Camp page. What was the procedure there? 91.125.195.221 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Permission for use on Wikipedia is irrelevant because Wikipedia does not accept permission for use only on Wikipedia. The only permission that Wikipedia accepts is that which allows reuse by anyone for anything.
The Imperial War Museum images on Stanley Internment Camp, (Image:Stanley Internee.jpg, Image:StanleyExecutionJamesKim.jpg, and Image:StanleyUnionJack.jpg) are usable because they are in the public domain. In other words they are not copyrighted by the Imperial War Museum. According to its image description page, Image:Day joyce sheet.jpg is copyrighted. Are you sure this is true?
If it is copyrighted it can be used on Wikipedia only with a non-free use rational, explaining, among other things, why it contributes substantially to an article. At present it is not used in any article. If there is an article that it would contribute substantially to, see Wikipedia:non-free use rationale guideline for how to create a rationale. —teb728 t c 23:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I see the draft article you are working on at User:Johnhk31/Day Joyce Sheet. If this were a real article, it looks like the image would be useable there. But unfortuately a non-free images may not be hosted unless it is used in an article , and it may not be used except in a real article. —teb728 t c 00:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If I want to open ngo in kenya for child disability and poor people who cant help themselves.

In —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.244.79 (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are asking about media copyrights. —teb728 t c 19:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Old Picture

We have a picture in our Parish Archive that I have posted to an article. The photographer is unknown, but most likely was a parishoner in the late 19 century. The picture shows features of our church known to have been removed in 1871 so pre-dates that year.

What is the best way to release this for use on Wikipedia...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kneewax (talk • [[[User:Kneewax|Kneewax]] (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming that this was a photo taken in the UK or somewhere in the EU(if not, disregard this). If so, photos with unknown authors have their copyrights expire 70 years after creation. See {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} for details and nuances. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

coppyright

i have taken the pictures myself i dont want any coppyright on them is that oright —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willrey619 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If you have taken a picture yourself, you can renounce your copyright by releasing it into the public domain. You can indicate that on Wikipedia by placing a {{PD-self}} tag on the image description page. —teb728 t c 07:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

PD license dispute tags?

How do I tag a PD image as disputed? Image:1370243140 95bfc95e3b.jpg is clearly not pre 1923, but does not seem to meet any speedy criteria. Cheers Kevin (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Follow the instructions at WP:PUI --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Kevin (talk) 00:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Facts vs. Expression

my work is a paraphrase from a website. can i post it to wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbaxley (talk • contribs) 01:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

hello. I was wondering whether gathering information from other articles on wikipedia is legal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mawad84 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

These two questions are similar so I'll answer them together. If you write the facts from somewhere else in your own words, there is not a problem with copyright. Intellectual honesty would require you to cite your sources though. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 02:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Choosing a license

How do I know which license to pick? leo604 13:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a list at WP:ICT; if you're having trouble, let us know the details. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I am writing about my company and I want to use the company logo but everytime the I make the page it keeps getting deleted for advertising but it says the pictures are wrong. How do i site this logo? Image:neulion(2).jpg

Right now, it says that you created the logo entirely by yourself. Is this correct? If the copyright holder won't put it under a free license, then you'll have to use a fair use rationale. If you're having trouble, one of use may be able to help; just let us know the details. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure about your specific situation, but since you are writing about your own company, it would help to familiarize yourself with the following relevant policies: WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:COMPANY, and WP:COI. They may explain why your articles/uploads are being deleted. – flamurai (t) 03:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Homework question

In your opinion what is the impact or influence of mass media portrayals on delinquency in today,s society.? Discuss either entertainment or news sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdul77H (talk • contribs) 04:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the mass media spends too long encouraging people to stop thinking for themselves and impressing upon them the expectation that other people are supposed to do your homework for you. It also seems to encourage people to hit "Save page" without checking to make sure that what they're posting is something that is relevant to that page. Bad media. Bad! :) -- Hux (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

raven_claw14@yahoo.com.ph

define adolescence and what are the 4 developmental stage of teenagers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.52.28.111 (talk) 04:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

"Adolescence" is often characterized by the inability to follow instructions (such as those at the top of this page) along with a tendency to want other people to do things for them that they really should do themselves (such as their homework). The four developmental stages are 1) angst about life, 2) angst about girls, 3) misplaced indignance, and 4) emo hair. :) -- Hux (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

A few days ago, I uploaded a photo for the Emma Roberts' article, which I found at the Internet Movie Database. I'm not 100% sure it is copyrighted, though, but if someone could help me with the tagging to let the image not be deleted (on the 18th), I'd really appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSilverRaider (talk • contribs) 05:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The problem with that image is that it's a replaceable nonfree image of a living person, which we can't have as we intend to be a free encyclopedia, with free images. If you can find a free image of her (released under WP:GFDL or into public domain, etc.) we'd love to have that. giggy (:O) 05:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. But, what do you specifically mean by "public domain"? Also, does a fan site count, for example, www.fabulous-emma.com?
- The Silver Raider 05:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
"Public Domain" means (loosely) "100% freely usable by anyone, for anything, without limitation". It's simply a shorthand way of referring to creative works that are not controlled by any laws - see public domain. Not sure what you mean by your second question. The key point is that a) we can (generally) only use freely usable images on Wikipedia, and b) 99% of images you might find on the internet are not freely usable since they are typically copyrighted automatically the moment they are created. So, basically, unless you find an image that explicitly indicates that it's released under a free license (e.g. the GDFL) or into the public domain, you have to assume that it's copyrighted and therefore not usable on Wikipedia (except in accordance with the non-free content criteria). This will almost certainly apply to any image of Emma Roberts you might stumble across. It's unfortunate that the law is so strict in this area, but that's the way it is. -- Hux (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sammy the Snake

Where was Sammy the Snake's name on the list of characters?? I was raised on Sesame Street and The Electric Company and also Mr. Rogers...and I still to this day love them all! (My kids do, too)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.20.229.18 (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You might better ask this question at Talk:The Muppets. —teb728 t c 23:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Images of fictional characters

I've reviewed the Wikipedia fair use policies regarding images and am still unsure about this: Is it fair use to include, say, an image of a comic book character, taken from a widely published comic book issue or promotional artwork, in an article about that character? Or would it only be valid if used in an article commenting on the comic book issue, or artwork, itself? (I would note that nearly every article about a comic book character does include such images, but of course that doesn't necessarily mean they're not a violation.)

If it is NOT fair use, is it a violation only of Wikipedia's guidelines, or copyright law? Cnanninga (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is "clearly" fair-use... If it is not fair-use, It is a violation of copyright law... (althouth not a very serious one, i think...) but what constitutes fair-use is debatable, and as far as I know, only a court can have a final word... (please correct me if I´m wrong!) SF007 (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images item "5. Film and television screen shots" would seem to cover this situation. Be sure to remember rule 3a in the Policy section: "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
(By the way, I'm not considering any particular image I want to use; I just want to learn more about fair use, as it's of very practical value.) So in your understanding, (this is just an example) using a single promotional image of Batman from DC Comics to provide a visual next to your commentary about the character of Batman is a commonly accepted fair use practice? Cnanninga (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The Press Association Pictures

There is a picture I found on the BBC website here of Supergrass at the Brit Awards 1996. I have searched all over for a picture of this but have been unsuccessful. I am unsure on whether I can use the picture as it has a PA logo on the picture but I assume it is a really low resolution from the original. Any help would be much appreciated. --TwentiethApril1986 22:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I see no indication of a free license on this image. Without that it could be used only under Wikipedia’s highly restrictive non-free content criteria. —teb728 t c 23:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

permission for posting photo

Hello,

I recceived permission to upload a photo taken by Michael Wilson who first-hand said it is ok to use this photo for commercial use non-commercial use including use on Wikipedia. the photo is Lee Townsend-Floratone which was uploaded recently to Wikipedia. An editor deleted this photo twice even after I made this note and marked the photo as copywrite-free. Can you please help me with uploading this photo with permission. thanks,

Lee Townsend's article

Adam

My advice would be to archive the release with OTRS; see WP:COPYREQ --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:24tv.jpg. Public Domain or Fair Use?

We can't decide if this is Public Domain or fair use. I'd argue that the image remains fair use, as a screenshot from a copyrighted TV show. I took the screenshot myself, and looking at the image closely, you can see the image flickering (as it does on 24). This is distinctly different to something such as this, you can see a very clear difference here, and for that reason, I'd argue that it remains fair use. Steve Crossin (contact) 20:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Colour (or shading) doesn't make something copyrightable "... mere coloration cannot support a copyright even though it may enhance the aesthetic appeal or commercial value of a work." [20] --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I linked you to the copyright office's own practices; that's pretty independent. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 00:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

infringements or not

I copied alot of your pictures and some articles attached to family ancestors in your site and would like to have some sort of ok or written permission to use them in a book I am making only for my father and one for my mother as a gift. I wanted it completed by this year on parents day or grand parents day but I would certainly like your permission to do so. It would only be for my family. I could only afford two books. LOL

I know there are some things that are ok but some may not be. I do not want you sued or myself, so if you could please advise soon, I would definitely appreciate it. Thanks, Your faithful servant, Robin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin, queen (talk • contribs) 03:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

As long as you aren't using the image commercially, you are unlikely to require any kind of permission. Some of the images may be GFDL, but unless you are distributing the book commercially (or on a large scale) then I wouldn't worry. Megapixie (talk) 05:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Mistresses of King George IV

I noticed that in the articles on some of the women there was no photo of them. The three women of whom there are no photos are, Frances Villiers; Isabella Seymour Conway, Marchioness Hertford; and Elizabeth, Marchioness Conyngham. The webpage with the photos is http://www.georgianindex.net/mistresses/prinny_mistresses.html. I wanted to know what license I may be able to use for the photos. The last woman to die was Elizabeth in 1861. So any photo of her must be at least 147 years old. I thought that photos' copyright deprecated after 140 years or something, and they entered public domain at that point, but I'm not sure. Please make a note on my talk page indicating what license, if any, I may be able to use them under. I'm afraid I can't find any information on them regarding their authors, date of photo, etc, so I'd need help with that. I hope someone can find out how to use the photos, or inform me of what to do on my talk page. Jonjames1986 (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I dont think the photographs are 147 years old as the photographs you link to are photographs of two-dimensional (2D) works of art (paintings) and the copyright is related to the creator of the painting, which could have been painted anytime after the death of the subject. If the creator or author of the work died more than 100 years ago you may be able to use {{PD-art}}. But you do need to know who the original painter/creator was, if he or she died less than 100 years ago the situation may vary depending on where the painting was created. MilborneOne (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

maps.live images in wiki articles

can birds eye view images (screen captures)from maps.live.com be used in wikipedia articles? if so, what is the proper tag to use?

Weston ontario (talk) 04:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you link to an example ? The short answer is probably not. Megapixie (talk) 05:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


hello, here's the image.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pinepointpark.jpg

and how it is used... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Point_Park

is it okay? Weston ontario (talk) 07:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No. Not fair use. In that context. If you don't understand copyright law, then the safest option is to use photographs that you took yourself. Random photographs from the internet 99.9% of the time are unusable. Can you provide a link to the terms of use of the website you got the image from. The answer will probably be there. Megapixie (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


this is where the image comes from... http://maps.live.com/

i think this is the TOU... http://help.live.com/help.aspx?project=searchtou&market=en-us#PU

Weston ontario (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Section 4 of the terms of use says, "In using the service, you may not...resell or redistribute the service, or any part of the service." Grabbing photos and putting them on Wikipedia would count as redistribution. Also, "All contents of the service are Copyright © 2008 Microsoft Corporation and/or its suppliers, One Microsoft Way, Redmond, Washington 98052-6399 U.S.A. All rights reserved. Copyright and other intellectual property laws and treaties protect any software or content provided as part of the service. We or our suppliers own the title, copyright, and other intellectual property rights in the software or content." Pretty unambiguous, I think. -- Hux (talk) 04:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:1434Menzies.jpg

The non-free / fair use media rationale says that the image should be low resolution. Could someone please check to see if Image:1434Menzies.jpg is low resolution? Or does it need to be scaled down a little? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be an unwritten rule that "low resolution" means 300 pixels or less on its longest side. Personally I think that's way too small given the increasing size of users' monitors, but I'll respect it I guess. I tried to crop/resize the image and upload the new version but for some reason it came out looking totally distorted, so I reverted it. Maybe you can do a better job! -- Hux (talk) 04:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Linkin Park - Numb.ogg

Is this sample too high of a quality?

I set Audacity to output the lowest quality possible with .ogg's, and it still kicked out 91 kb/s. Any ideas how to make it output lower quality? J.delanoygabsadds 22:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

All REWORK..

I, would like to understand the purpose of using a GNU* as a way to express information cited in this Encyclopedia process. (1) I, just assumed 'Original Work' could be defined by proving the person behind the camera lens as one that took the image that came into focus.. (2)that seems only fair as in respect too getting any supplied image from the person. Reminder* ‘your’, ‘we’ are getting information to document. Please, know that everyday people are not the fosterling of important social news only they want hopefully to in those things that are sought for the entertainment, education, and intellectual sufficiencies that moral beings surplus. I, already know that I'm not going to get the answer that clears my conscious for misusing this Encyclopedia as you all's terms are subject to every change success. Only help me in clearing the images that I've already used at a personal liberty of interest. ASAP/Devona.westhaven_asboro3324.148.128.7 (talk) 00:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

At Flickr Commons, The Smithsonian has released thousands of high-quality images under a (non-)license of "no known copyright restrictions". Can we upload them as free content, and if so, under which license? Skomorokh 04:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Recommend dropping a note at Commons:Commons:Licensing about this, as, if these have really been released, the images should be uploaded there. For now, {{PD-USGov}} could likely be used, though a more specialized license template would be useful. Kelly hi! 04:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, I dropped a note there. Here is the ref for the image release. Kelly hi! 04:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. So would it be safe to say anything on Flickr Commons is fair game? As in I won't get steamrolled by BetaCommandBot if I use a couple dozen? Skomorokh 04:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"No known restrictions" images should be fine. I still recommend uploading at Commons instead of Wikipedia, as they are much more familiar with copyright there. Kelly hi! 04:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Cool, thanks for the advice, and keep up the good work (cabal permitting). Sincerely, Skomorokh 04:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Proper licensing of a picture

I am attempting to update the wikipedia page on my boss, Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, with his most recent official photograph. The photograph is published on our website at http://myfloridalegal.com/picture.html. The photograph is available for public use. I don't know which license to use when uploading it to his wikipedia page. Please advise. Thanks!

Sandi Copes, Press Secretary, Office of the Attorney General Sandisea (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The copyright to the picture will be owned by the photographer, unless there is an agreement otherwise in writing, or it falls under the definition of a work for hire. You will need to get the photographers permission per WP:COPYREQ, or take a new photograph. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, one more question. Was it taken by an employee of the federal government in the course of their official duties? If so, it's public domain and can be tagged {{PD-USGov}} --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
That would be an employee of the state of Florida government. Corvus cornixtalk 21:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

100 Players Who Shook The Kop

Is 100 Players Who Shook The Kop copyrighted? The list is from a subjective poll. Corvus cornixtalk 21:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

See WP:PD#Non-creative works, or for a similar case, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive24#Should this be in the main namespace --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, what I thought. I'm going to list the article for AfD. Corvus cornixtalk 21:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:RobertPetersWikipedia.JPG

Image:RobertPetersWikipedia.JPG From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Image File history File links Metadata

Size of this preview: 450 × 600 pixels Full resolution‎ (864 × 1,152 pixels, file size: 316 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg)

Dear Sir

This image is own by me as a free lance photographer. Wiki has my utmost permission to have this inserted in Robert Peters article. I'm also Robert Peters literary executor. I submit this photo for free domain. I've filled out the form many times. I'm very frustrated by submission not being accepted. Do I have to get a license from Congress in order to legalise this photo for insertion? It seems to be far more complicated to insert a photo into an article than to edit it. Forgive my frustration. Again I own the photo, I took it privately. I have no intentions of violating a copyrights. I simply don't know what forms you want me to fill. Sincerely Pjt48 (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

When you say “free domain,” do you mean “public domain”? If you release an image into the public domain, you give up all your rights to it. If that is what you want to do, put {{PD-self}} on the image description page. —teb728 t c 05:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Manuscript page with handwriting

mailer-strawhead.jpg is a page from Hannum and Norman Mailer’s script for Strawhead, with Mailer’s handwritten notes. I want to use the image in an article on the play, Strawhead. Which fair use template fits best for this situation? Bebestbe (talk) 02:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If there were an appropriate tag, it would be {{Non-free fair use in|Article}}. But I can’t imagine how any use of this image could comply with WP:NFCC#8: “Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic.” In addition to the tag you would have provide a non-free use rationale, explaining among other things why the image is essential to understanding the article. Sorry. —teb728 t c 05:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Coin images

Has anyone actually complained about copyright infringement in respect of the coin images in Wikipedia? If not, then would the person or people who seem to have a mission to delete all coin images because of "invalid non-free use rationale" concerns (or similar) please consider:

1. Finding something more useful to do with their time.
2. Following the advice given at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline to "consider, as an alternative to deletion, fixing the description page".

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.194.52 (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Since you don't give any specifics, I'll have to reply in generalities. The first item to consider is the copyright of the coin itself. Wikimedia Commons has a good list of the status of different countries currency copyright [21]. The second is the copyright of the person who digitized the coin; see [22] --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Not Alex

I intend to upload a low resolution screen capture from the Not Alex TV commercial and add it to the commercial. It is my understanding that this is acceptable under fair use rules. Am I correct in my understanding? Chicken Wing (talk) 05:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

In order to be acceptable under the WP:NFCC#8 policy, use of the image would have to significantly increase readers' understanding of the article. I doubt you could make a convincing case for that. —teb728 t c 07:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Bummer. Thanks for the advice. Chicken Wing (talk) 07:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Question about deleted image

The NASA image Image:Yarlang tsango river tibet.jpg was deleted here because it was moved to the Commons. Then a bot came and deleted it from the article it was in, Yarlung Tsangpo River (Tibet)‎. How do I get the image back into the article? I cannot find the image on the Commons. Thanks! –Mattisse (Talk) 13:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If you can't find it on the Commons then try contacting the editor who deleted it from here. -- Hux (talk) 03:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
It's Image:Yarlung Tsangpo river tibet.jpg. I'll put it back in the article for you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Oops, someone beat me to it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

How do I justify photograph usage??

I own the photograph.. The photograph was taken of a painting that I own..

It was listed under Fair Use but that may not be correct..

so.. How do I state to Wikipedia that this photo is given with permission of owners to be placed in Wikipedia?

I don't wish to say that anyone can use the photo for anything.. Just that it can be used on Wikipedia.

bth-talk

Ben (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless there is an agreement in writing otherwise, the copyright stays with the creator of a work; when you purchase the work, you are usually only getting permission for personal use. If the painting was created before 1923 it may be public domain anyway; if you think it may be before 1923, let us know the details and we'll work out whether it is or not. Second, Wikipedia does not accept images that are licensed for use only on Wikipedia(though if it does turn out to be public domain, it may not be a condition that you can impose anyway). --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I have uploaded a JPEG of an image in my possession. Image:F Brooks at Nora's mast.jpg The image was photographed sometime between 1953 and '63 by a friend of one of the people in the image. I was given the photograph by this gentleman, without any restriction on its use. Both the photographer and the person who gave me the image have now passed away. The photographer was an amateur, co there will be no commercial interest in the image. Having studied your image copyright tag page, I could find no category into which the above circumstances fit. Please advise. Boatbuff (talk • contribs) 20:29, 21 June 2008

There are two tags that would have put the work in the public domain if the image was published before certain dates. If it was published before 1964 and copyright was not renewed, {{PD-Pre1964}}; if it was published before 1978 without a notice of copyright, {{PD-Pre1978}}. But since you say nothing about it being previously published, copyright will expire 70 years after the death of the photographer. So you will probably have to get permission from the heirs(see WP:COPYREQ --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Xerophthalmia Article

I have noticed that the article for Xerophthalmia looks almost EXACTLY like the article on this website here: http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=6040. I just thought that the people on wikipedia might like to know...

220.253.64.89 (talk) 23:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC) What do they mean by signing stuff????

Thanks. I just removed the copied text. "Signing" just means typing ~~~~, which causes either your username or your IP address (if you are not logged in) to be inserted, along with a timestamp. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

photo of John Brown House from Pennsylvania state archive site

This image Image:JohnBrownHouse.jpg was recently uploaded with what i believe is incorrect assertion that it is public domain. It is linked from the Chambersburg, Pennsylvania article. I would be interested to have such an image available, but i believe this is not PD. It is a photo of a house that is listed on the U.S. National Register, but it is not a Federal government photo, it is not from a Federal website. Instead, it is from the Pennsylvania state ARCH system, obtainable by going to search site http://www.arch.state.pa.us/search-form.asp and searching on "John Brown House" in the second search option. That system, like other state historic department systems, includes many photos that are Pennsylvania owned. No indication this is Federally owned. For sites to get listed on the National REgister, they go through the state process first. It is not likely that this was obtained from the Federal government; it could well have been sent to the Federal government as part of the state's application for this place to be listed on the National Register, but that does not forfeit copyright.

I am concerned because i work on historic site articles and photos, and i do want there to be photos added, but i don't want anyone starting to upload lots of copyvio ones from the Pennsylvania system or similar state systems.

I posted to the poster at User talk:Smallbones#John Brown House pic appears not to be public domain, but don't really know how to take care of this. Please advise! doncram (talk) 04:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

And there is this followup/discussion: User talk:Doncram#re Image:JohnBrownHouse. doncram (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I've moved that discussion here, with 1 minor clarification Smallbones (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The site [23] gives only information/pictures from the National Register Nomination forms (accepted in PA). As I understand it these are Federal government property.

Their description of the data (with my bolding): "ARCH provides public access to Pennsylvania's inventory of National Historic Landmarks and National Register of Historic Places. At this site, you will find the original, complete nomination forms for over 3000 National Register nominations and almost 200 National Historic Landmark properties. Each nomination includes the name and location of the property, a physical description, a statement of the property's significance, geographical data, biblographic references, and, at least one representative photograph for each property or district. Forms can be retrieved through a searchable database.

The original nomination forms and selected photographs were digitized for presentation on the Web."

There's no mention of anything else being included.


Sorry that the exact pages are difficult to link to (go to search, Franklin County, Chambersburg Borough)

The site says in its FAQs [24]

"12) Q. Can I save the National Register nomination form and photographs?

A. Yes, click on the square computer disk icon on the upper left corner of the Adobe Reader toolbar. From there, you can save the file to any directory on your computer.

13) Q. Can I print the National Register nomination form and photographs?

A. Yes, either pull down the file menu on the upper left corner of your toolbar and select "Print" or click on the printer icon on the upper left of the Adobe reader toolbar and a print menu will appear."


This seems pretty clear (from the State of Pennsylvania) that it's not under copyright.

Please let me know if you think this interpretation is wrong (after all, nobody came out explicitly and said "This photo is property of the US gov. and therfore in the public domain."

Thanks for any help.

Smallbones (talk) 12:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately their giving permission to users of their site to download and print pictures isn't as comprehensive as releasing pictures to the public domain, IMO. Although perhaps they would refute that perception if asked.--Appraiser (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

From the University of California (my bolding)[25]

What types of works make up the public domain?
Categories of material that are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection include:
  • Ideas and facts
  • Works with expired copyrights

....

  • Laws, regulations, judicial opinions, government documents and legislative reports
  • Words, names, numbers, symbols, signs, rules of grammar and diction, and punctuation

This is a (federal) government document, from a nomination form to the National Registry (intended for distribution to the public, now via going to the state or federal archive - but soon to be put fully on-line). The form (document) is needed to get, e.g. tax benefits. I'm sorry, but I just don't see how a government document, intended for distribution to the public (and indeed distributed by the web in this case) can be copyrighted.

Smallbones (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, the photo was included in the 1970 nomination without notice of copyright, and distributed (via the state archive) prior to 1978 (change in the law requiring copyright notices) Smallbones (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Unless I'm mistaken, I'm not seeing anything that clearly indicates that this photo is a work of the US federal government. It might be a work of the Pennsylvania government, but if so then that's a different ballgame, copyright wise - some states have similar Public Domain rules about state government created works, others retain copyright on all government works. But even if PA works are PD by default, I see no information in your links about who created the photo in question; we can't assume it's a fed govt. or PA govt. creation just because it's on a government site.
So, as it stands I don't think we can use it. Imo, your best bet would be to ask for more info at the email address provided at the bottom of your FAQ link. -- Hux (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Smallbones' moving the discussion all to here is helpful, thanks! I fully believe that Smallbones means well, and might be frustrated, understandably, that we should not be able to use photos that are obviously put out there with intent for people to use them. He is inferring specific intent on Pennsylvania's part, however, that they would wish to put the photos out in the public domain, but Pennsylvania has not done that. It would probably be fine for an individual to use the photo in a blog somewhere, i doubt that Pennsylvania would care and would not prosecute or anything. However, wikipedia can't use many photos, including these, because we have higher standards and want to put out true public domain or "forever free" licensed images. We can't just grab photos without a clear license to do so.
Perhaps it would help Smallbones to understand that even many photos at the National Park Service, including many included in NRHP applications that the NPS puts up on its NPS Focus federal domain website, are NOT public domain. Here's a copy of what i wrote up a while back regarding that.
Quoting myself (with added bolding):

some but not all National Park Service photos are public domain: Some National Park Service webpages (within nps.gov domain) include photos that are NPS-owned and are public domain. But the NPS is clear that it uses, with permission, some copyrighted pictures, and those do not go into the public domain just because the NPS uses them. Some say from the "National Register Collection." Those would be okay to use. There may be different ways for them to say it, that they own the negatives, that they have ownership and put it in the public domain. The National Park Service copyright-related policy statement, at http://www.nps.gov/disclaimer.htm states, under Ownership, that "Information presented on this website, unless otherwise indicated , is considered in the public domain. It may may be distributed or copied as is permitted by the law. Not all information on this website has been created or is owned by the NPS. If you wish to use any non-NPS material, you must seek permission directly from the owning (or holding) sources. NPS shall have the unlimited right to use for any purpose, free of any charge, all information submitted to NPS via this site except those submissions made under separate legal contract. NPS shall be free to use, for any purpose, any ideas, concepts, or techniques contained in information provided to NPS through this site." So they are clear that some of the images they use are NOT public domain, but ones that are suggested to be NPS-owned are public domain. (from Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Resources#some but not all National Park Service photos are public domain)

About this photo, it would be nice if Smallbones would agree that it should be removed given all this discussion. Smallbones also received other counsel along these lines at User talk:Smallbones#Re Brandywine Redux from Ruhrfisch, an editor of several featured wikipedia articles on Pennsylvania historic sites who uses ARCH references. I think it's time to remove it. Should Smallbones put a "copyvio" tag on it and request its deletion, or what is the procedure? doncram (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me while I take a bit of time to take this all in. Smallbones (talk) 00:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that I can't be gracious about this. A Federal public record, designed to be released to the public on the National Register, with permissions explicitly given to print and download...ergh (the only polite thing I can say). I'll let others delete without any further comment. Smallbones (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I just want to close this and appreciate that you concede. I also sympathize, and i think you express the situation well, and politely! Anyhow, following what i can figure out of the processes, i just tagged the photo, and listed it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 June 22/Images, and gave one final notice at uploader Smallbones talk page. I believe that no further replies are needed, and that an administrator will process this and delete the photo in a week's time. doncram (talk) 07:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Odd that's it's just a frame house. I was expecting a Brownstone. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Pictures of computer hardware including the interface

Greetings and salutations! I have a picture that I would like to upload for the iPhone article, however, as there is some consternation among the frequent contributors there, and I have had uploaded works deleted in the past, I am seeking clarification on the proper licensing for a self-made photograph of this hardware device with the screen on thus displaying a copyrighted software interface. If you could be so kind as to let me know on my talk page what the proper licensing for a photo of this composition would be, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks very much, --frijole (talk, contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 15:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If the interface in the picture is more than just a blur of colour then it will need a fair use rationale. It follows from that, that unless you're discussing the interface in the context of the picture that you're better off under the NFCC getting a photograph while the device is powered off. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, due to the importance of the interface to the iPhone, I think its pretty clear, then, that its a justified case for fair use. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 20:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that this proposed guideline at Commons describes the concept pretty well. Kelly hi! 19:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
According to much discussion already, lots of images have been deleted for commons due to the fact that the device is almost all screen, and there's no fair use on Commons. Ergo, why I asked about uploading it here on WP specifically, where we can have fair use materials. Thanks, though. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 20:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Image in article says Copyright by photographer

Resolved

I don't usually see the copyright symbol under images on Wikipedia, this image Image:Glen Canyon Park Chert Outcrop.jpg says it is licensed under Creative Commons, but in the article, Franciscan Assemblage, it says, ©2007 Eric A. Schiff., underneath. Is this the usual? --Blechnic (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Creative Commons licenses are just permissions put on top of a copyrighted work, so it is usual for a Creative Commons-licensed work to be copyrighted as well. As for whether the notice is in the caption or just the description page, that's a matter of some debate on Wikipedia as can be seen at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_25#Photograph_attribution_in_image_captions --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 05:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not the attribution, though, that's an issue, but that the copyright to the individual in the caption trumps the copyright on the image page. No one is going to look at the image page to see if they can use it, because the image is copyrighted to a single individual in the article. --Blechnic (talk) 05:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I removed the copyright from the caption with an appropriate edit summary. —teb728 t c 06:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to all. --Blechnic (talk) 06:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

There's currently a minor dispute over the copyright on Image:PsychologicalWarfareII.jpg. The image is a photocopy/photograph of a US govt. propaganda leaflet. The original uploader claims copyright on the work, on the grounds that he created the copy. As I understand copyright law, simply copying a work doesn't transfer copyright of it. So in my opinion the work is public domain as all US govt works. I guess either way it's not a problem for inclusion on wikipedia, but for reasons of credibility the wikipedia community would benefit if this issue is resolved. Can someone help with this? Meachly (talk) 04:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I just photocopied a couple of pages out of a brand new text book at the school library. Do I now own the copyright to the 6 pages I photocopied? It's a well-written text, and I would love to just use it as my own without attributing it to its authors and editors. That's weird, Meachly. Good luck. --Blechnic (talk) 04:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Aren't you the comedian Blechnic. If you have some sort of issue with me, take it up on my talk page. And as I said in my response which you deleted in favor of your ill-willed attempt at humor,

I said that the issue was resolved, and my issue with Meachly is his disrespect to a user of 4 users when he's been involved for 3 months. It was an honest mistake on my part, but anyone who refers to me as silly and fraudulent is going to get an argument on anything I can throw at them. This is not your issue, it's none of your business, and you've added nothing to it accept now I have the knowledge about you that you may think you're sardonic and witty, when in fact you're meddling, petty, and abundantly ill-informed about the original intentions of Wikipedia. Sometimes, there are people in the world who are harried, who actually work, who don't have a lot of free time, but want to contribute something to Wikipedia of historic value. So I put a photograph of something on Wikipedia and attributed it wrongly - there are 700,000 stolen images on Wikipedia right now! I think a long time user can get one break without having to tolerate a nasty comment about my mistaken attribution. You two should get together, join Furries, and go out on a date with each other. Googie man (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


I changed the tag back to PD. BTW, I recommend against using the word silly in an edit summary; it makes people less likely to accept your change. —teb728 t c 07:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Usable image?

I scanned a negative that belonged to my father who is now deceased. This is a photo of my father in a Link Trainer at Freeman Field, a Army Air Force base, taken in 1942. The photographer is unknown. I believe he had someone take the photo with his camera. Is this type of photograph acceptable and if so what copyright tag should be used? JMSchneid (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

As an anonymous work that hasn't been previously published, copyright expires 120 years after creation. You do mention however that it was taken at an Army Air Force base. Works of the United States federal government are automatically public domain. If you know that it was taken by a federal government employee(for instance the base was not open to the public, or he mentioned that a fellow soldier took the picture), you can tag it {{PD-USGov-Military-Air Force}} --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
It sounds like your father owned the picture. You indicate it was his camera and I doubt the passer-by that pressed the shutter button filed for a copyright on the photo. The photo now belongs to your father's heirs and they can release the photo under any license they wish. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleting images

Resolved

i have added an image and would like to delete it till i get permission from the person in the photograph. how do i do soSaratahir (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted it for you. You can also request deletion in such cases by placing {{db-author}} on the page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright Question - Rand McNally Atlas of 1895

Someone has scanned in a public domain atlas of the Unite States published by Rand McNally in 1895. The maps in question were posted by Pam Rietsch on her website which can be found here. Ms. Rietsch is claiming copyright over all the maps on her site, even these 1895 maps, even through the original document was in the public domain. Her reasoning is that she "spent thousands of hours enhancing, cleaning up etc. to make them easier" to use. She has not added anything "original" to the maps. The only thing close would be that she has posted smaller maps of individual counties scanned from the same original public domain source, which she has cropped and recolored.

Identical maps are also posted by Ray Steiner on his website, apparently from the original paper source. I have no idea who posted or scanned them first. Mr. Steiner does not appear to be claiming copyright of the 1895 maps, though he does apparently request attribution.

My understanding is that pursuant to Bridgeman_v_Corel, "exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright because the copies lack originality." I believe similar court cases held that changing the colors of a public domain map also failed to provide sufficient originality to justify a copyright, though I can't recall the specific case.

Therefore, would I be able to take the scanned state-based maps from this website and post them on wikipedia, including my own county-specific crops of the larger state image? That's seems pretty clear based on Bridgeman V Corel. I'm a little hazier on whether I could do the same with the county maps Ms. Rietsch created. In either case, I would give her attribution as the original scanner (or Mr. Steiner if I use the maps on his site).

What says the peanut gallery?Dcmacnut (talk) 01:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably bridgeman would hold in court - but do you really want to go there ? Why not just spend a little money on ebay [26] and scan the bits that you are interested in yourself ? On commons we've gone backwards and forwards on issues like this before (see [27]). Megapixie (talk) 01:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I have no plans on using the images at this time. I've merely been curious and was asking a more "what if" question. Many of similar maps are also available through the Library of Congress website. With your ebay analogy if I scan something public domain (which I did with Blabon, ND and Sherbrooke, ND) I could claim a more restrictive copyright right than public domain, including a commons by-sa license. I guess the fact that Ms. Rietsch is claiming copyright should be enough to give someone pause, even though the spirit of the ruling states there is no new copyright. I tried to find out if Stener or Rietsch was the original scanner, but archive.org won't show me anything for Sterner's site because of a block. Again, I was more asking for sake of discussion.Dcmacnut (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

There shouldn't be a problem, though it's slightly possible that there could be copyright in where the county maps were cropped. [28] has another set of scans of the same maps, and doesn't overtly claim copyright (though that's of course not a requirement post-1989 when there is creativity). --NE2 02:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I can't be completely sure about the digital files, but all three sites definitely used the same set of originals, since there are some stains (such as the one west of and below the label for Donnybrook, ND) that match. The Rietsch one has a higher rate of JPEG compression than the others, which is most obvious around text. The Broer one looks very slightly blurrier than the Sterner one, but otherwise identical; since the rotation is the same, they are almost certainly the same file. I myself would have no qualms about uploading the Sterner scans, which are the highest quality. --NE2 02:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


How does PD-Art cover things that are debateably two dimensional

I'm reposting a third time, since it's gone unanswered and keeps getting archived by bots:

One thing I've been wondering: how do the provisions of {{Template:PD-art}}, and by extension, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. (which explicitly mentions only two-dimensional works), cover things that are debatably two dimensional?

The two examples I am specifically thinking of are 1) coins (ancient ones, not current ones that are still within copyright), and 2) vase painting (again, thinking mostly ancient Greece). The former case is basically but not exactly two dimensional, as coins feature a certain degree of relief; the latter case is exactly two dimensional, but occurs on a three-dimensional surface. I assume that a close-up photograph of an ancient painting on a vase, one that was close enough and cropped enough to make it difficult to tell on what surface, exactly, the work occurs, would be covered by PD-Art, while a slightly wider frame, that reveals the painting to be on a curved surface, or that reveals the vase itself, would not. Or maybe not even that. I don't know; that's why I'm asking.

You can answer here or on my talkpage, whichever is convenient. Thanks in advance for the assistance. Ford MF (talk) 03:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

What you suggest regarding vase paintings more or less matches what I vaguely recall reading about them somewhere before. Unfortunately, I have no idea where I may have read that or how authoritative a source it might have been from.  :-/ Anyway, it's worth keeping in mind the reasoning behind Bridgeman v. Corel, which is that the verbatim duplication of a work involves no creativity and is thus ineligible for (separate) copyright protection. Conversely, this means that if a reproduction does involve any creative elements, even such limited ones as lighting and choice of camera angle, it's probably not appropriate to appeal to Bridgeman v. Corel in that case. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 04:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Image suitability for wiki

I wanted to contribute to wiki by attaching this image to the "Martha my Dear" Song by the Beatles.

Although the work is completely mine, I would like to know if it adheres to the wiki policies before taking any further action, given it's a derivative work from my personal interpretation of the song.

Fefogomez (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That would probably fall afoul of WP:NOR. --NE2 17:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, as a derivative of a non-free copyrighted work, it's not free. Transcribing the melody by ear is not transformative enough to eliminate the composer's original copyright claim, given that the song is still recognizably the same. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes, but the idea was to put it in the article about the song, which then gets into harder questions of whether it passes WP:FUC. But we can sidestep that issue by using NOR. --NE2 20:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Questions 1- If I had copyright to my music score then would not there be any problem in publishing it? 2-What kind of music writing is one allowed to publish in wikipedia for describing a particular rhythm or a song snippet with foreknown authorship? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fefogomez (talk • contribs) 21:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
You mean if you were Apple Records? Then you certainly could. --NE2 21:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I mean for example hal Leonard and others own copyright over their own music sheet transcriptions of well known artists.
I'm no expert on this so my idea is probably miles away from the truth, but if this is the introduction of a song in musical notation, acould perhaps we apply WP:SAMPLE? I know that's meant for sound recordings, but it does justify it's use on Wikipedia normally as, "Music samples can be a valuable addition to articles about bands, musical styles, and genres. They can illustrate the particular instruments or musical elements in a song in a way that a text description cannot. However, usage of such samples needs to comply with copyright law and Wikipedia's guidelines. The limitations on length and quality described here apply only to fair use samples; free content samples are not subject to these limitations.", and so doesn't explicitly say such samples have to be auditory, only non-text, and the image supplied is most certainly non-text. If a sample doesn't have to be audio, then obviously the image would still have to fit into the relevant time frame given in WP:SAMPLE, but it would be interesting if that policy can apply here or not. Deamon138 (talk) 22:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Daemon. It would be truly interesting if short classics sheet music snippets could be incorporated into corresponding articles. It would bring more interest to musicians and even interesting exchange of ideas could be put forward. Fefogomez (talk) 22:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

So you personally are okay with what I said, but it's not allowed though, is that what you're saying? Or is this way of looking at it I suggested totally new? Deamon138 (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Daemon, I am ok with what you say, but by different opinions I've gotten from wiki, there's not general concensus about the issue at hand. I think it's one "black spot", that for one reason or another, has not got the attention of content regulators, so that explicit enactments about music notation material, had been already made by now. Fefogomez (talk) 04:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Photo of University Shield

I'm creating a Userbox for Wikipedians from my university, the National University of Singapore (NUS). Previously I used the logo on the NUS page, but was told non-free images cannot be used for templates and userboxes. My question is, can I take a photograph of the NUS shield placed outside the library, and upload it as a copyright-free image? AbhikMajumdar (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably not. (Does freedom of panorama come into play here? I'm not sure.) --NE2 17:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Which tag is most restrictive?

I've uploaded a photo which I took and had wanted to only allow use on wikipedia although I now believe that this is not possible; can you tell me which tag is the most restrictive - ie witholds as much of my rights as possible? Cheers.

There is no "most restrictive" tag per se, but {{GFDL-1.2}} and {{CC-BY-SA}} are probably among the most restrictive options acceptable to Wikipedia. Dragons flight (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

WOMEN soccer

Stuck

How many teams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.102.205 (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Written permission.

I have 2 images I uploaded recently. 1) Image:Atilla26m.jpg and 2) Image:Magyar_huszar_1850.jpg

The respective owners of the pictures have given permission in email to use the pictures on Wikipedia.

On 1) (Permission was asked for use an was given by owner of image. His email address is regiamilitiahungarorum@vipmail.hu URL is: http://erdelyikutatok.extra.hu/uploads/photos/408.jpg Appears on page: http://erdelyikutatok.extra.hu/modules/myalbum/p)

On 2) (Hungarian hussars wearing atilla. Permission was given for use, website also states that images are free to use for educational purposes. contact for images are Info@magyarhuszar.hu website is: http://www.magyarhuszar.hu/)

So the point is that in any case, there is a specific permission given, to use these images on Wikipedia, as they illustrate the subject matter, which is hard to imagine without the images themselves.

What would be the tag that I use in these cases so the images are not deleted? Thanks Thadson (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, permission to use in Wikipedia only, or educational use only is not sufficient in itself to allow use on Wikipedia. See WP:COPYREQ --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding images to a wiki entry

Hello, I have added content to a school entry for Jane Addams Business Careers Center. I put an information box on the page and would like to add a picture of the school.

I contacted our web design team, who told me simply to copy the image.

I do not know why, but when I try to upload the image it tells me the image is not permitted.

The image is a jpeg.9.8KB,the size is 300x297, the dpi is 72. The color model is RGB. Most of this information is lost on me as I do not really do much with digital photography.

I would like to add this picture and a couple others to the Jane Addams Business Careers Center page.

Thank you Teala1 (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

What exactly did the message say? --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I am usually very careful when I am troubleshooting technology to write down exactly the error message, but did not think to do that with this sad to say. I now know better. I was in the common area of the wikipedia. The gist of it was that this type of media was not permitted. So I double checked to see if it was a jpeg and it was.

I am wondering if it is too big??Teala1 (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Unused Public Domain images

This image, Cary1.jpg, as well as others uploaded by the same user are listed under a Public Domain license. Only one is currently being used in an article. According to WP:CSD#I5, they should be tagged with {{subst:orfud}}, however that template seems to only apply to fair-use images, not public domain. Is this correct, or should I submit these to WP:IFD? Jauerbackdude?/dude. 21:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Freely licensed or public domain images not used in an article should be moved to Commons --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course it should be reasonably believed that they are in fact freely licensed. --NE2 21:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Album cover art

Do you know if you can use album cover art from wikipedia and put it on to your ipod so the cover will show up on your ipod while the album is playing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.135.21 (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I do it all the time. It's just like copying it from Amazon or discogs in my eyes. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sandfly image from Amazon Govt page

This is a Amazon and Brazilian funded site with this photo i want to use but am not sure about the copyright? link to image http://www.fmt.am.gov.br/areas/entomologia/imagens/imagem009.jpgLisa.Cinciripini (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

What page is the image linked from? Is there any image credits on the site? For all we know, they obtained the image from somewhere else and that site has no relation to the image. Anyway, see WP:COPYREQ for how to locate and attempt to obtain permission from the copyright holder. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 01:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

album cover art cont.

Would you know if that is considered copyright infringement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.135.21 (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia does not have any license to distribute album covers, copying them for use on an iPod probably would be considered copyright infringement. If this bothers you then you probably shouldn't do it. However, using the "find album art" option in iTunes is almost certainly authorized by the respective copyright holders as a condition of their works appearing in the iTunes Store, so you can probably use that means of getting album covers with a clear conscience. -- Hux (talk) 08:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Fraser1776officer.png. 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. Sdrtirs (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Why are you hassling me with this crap? When I uploaded it I clearly indicated it was completely original work. So what is your problem? It even says so right on the image page. You tell me to go look at the copyright tag listing, but there are like 7,000 of them, and I can't even find one for "self-made". So why not just add the proper tag since I already stated quite clearly "self-made" when I uploaded it?
Even if you made it yourself and you state so, there's still the question of what license you're making it available. Do users have to credit you? Do they have to make modifications available under the same terms? That's why you need a source AND a license. If you need help picking a license, just ask. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 07:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not allowed to link to external copyright violations (such as videos illegally hosted on youtube). Does this extend to article talk pages, or is it only relevant in mainspace itself? Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't see there being a problem with a link accompanied with discussion- 'can we link to this'/'is this a reliable source' and whatnot, but placing a link on a talk page but saying 'you can't remove this, as this is a talk page' is obviously Wikilawyering. I suppose the links could be removed once the discussion has reached a conclusion. J Milburn (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

WIKISKY/DSS2 images

I would appreciate it if I could get some further input on the discussion here. It's looking like a large number of good images may need to be deleted, and I am hoping that can be avoided. J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Can I?

Can I upload an image from a website which I don't know the author? - User:Weirdo82

Can you tell us more about the image you want to use? --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
If there's a statement on the website saying something to the effect the website & images are public domain or released under the GFDL then yes. Otherwise no, you can always try asking though (see WP:COPYREQ) – Zedla (talk) 23:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Help

I have this interesting problem: On this page is an image of a flag I would like to upload (im not logged in at the moment, too risky to do so). The site is USAF, and ergo PD, but the image page itself doesn't state who took the photo. If it isn't public domain, then its copyrighted, and therefore usable under fair use, but only in a reduced capacity. Can someone tell me what the image copyright is? I would apreciate it. 129.108.231.194 (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You'd have to ask the museum for the byline/source info on the image. There is this statement on their site

Information presented on www.nationalmuseum.af.mil is considered public information and may be distributed or copied. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested.

— [29]
It looks like they take user-submitted photos and implicitly publish them as PD but you probably want to clarify that with the museum. – Zedla (talk) 23:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

So trust that its a PD image, but verify that with the meusum before tagging the image as such. Thanks. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

ParkerCanyonLake.jpg

Hi, the images I am uploading including Image:ParkerCanyonLake01.jpg are all owned by the Arizona Game and Fish Department. The photographers and I are employees of AzG&FD. Any more information on how to label these images differently so the ownership is clearly understood would be appreciated. I am currently labeling like this:


File information
Description

Parker Canyon Lake 2

Source

Arizona Game and Fish Department

Date

06-24-08

Author

Arizona Game and Fish Department

Permission
(Reusing this file)


Thank you, Scottbulloch (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are taking these images as part of your employment, then generally copyright vests in the employer, in this case the Arizona Game and Fish Department. They will need to release the images under the GFDL. Some info on how to do this is at Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. Kevin (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Gained permission for pictures

Hello, I have emailed the webmaster of this site to see if I could obtain permission to use his pictures. He has replied to me and given me the permission, but how do I verify this so I can finally upload the pictures? Thanks. CL — 02:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

See WP:COPYREQ --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 02:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


Help with a baseball picture

I have an image that is the possession of the Hagerstown Suns. The Hagerstown Suns have given Dynasty Athlete Representation, the sports agency representing Leatherman, the permission to use the image through any medium. As a representative of Dynasty Athlete Representation, I have the permission to post this image on here. How do I tag this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbhman2007 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like this would fit under the Non-free promotional tag. Make sure to include the source (Hagerstown Suns), the terms of their permission, and an appropriate fair-use rationale for the article(s) it will be used in. – Zedla (talk) 04:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm reverting your change to Image:Leatherman.jpg you should tag Image:Dan Leatherman.jpg with non-free promotional. – Zedla (talk) 04:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

57 year old picture with photographer deceased

Image:Adel-tinys-horse& buggy.jpg

The person who took this picture is deceased, yet the photograph was taken in 1951, less than 100 years. The issue is under question for it to be deleted.

Here is the text of the discussion thus far.

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Adel-tinys-horse& buggy.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nyttend (talk) 13:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I fail to understand the nuances of public domain licensing. This particular picture is un-copywrited, un-licensed and the person who took the photo is deceased. Plus there is no one who desires to protect the licensing over the picture. Perhaps there is different licensing rules can be applied to this picture? If so, could that licensing rule be applied to the picture?
As for this, I don't know; my knowledge about copyright law is small, although I do know that something created just 57 years ago by a now-dead person is assumed to be copyrighted unless we have other reason to believe it. You'd do better to ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, where there are people who know the law better than I do. Nyttend (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

to the public domain licensing legal experts, what say ye?

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rabbit.runner"

There are two scenarios which could put the work in the public domain; if it was published before 1964 and copyright was not renewed, {{PD-Pre1964}}; if it was published before 1978 without a notice of copyright, {{PD-Pre1978}}. Check those templates for any details or caveats. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
The picture was taken by a private individual and it was never published in any newspaper or periodical. The photo resided in a pack of photos in a desk drawer for years, then someone (in the computer age) decided to digitize the image (and a bunch of others), storing them on a PC. There they resided until discovered by my brother who was repairing the PC. He passed them along to me (with the owners permission). The photos were never used in any publication, never used for any display, and never used for any advertisement. They were only used for enjoyment by the family and their friends. So, Rat at WikiFur, I'm not certain what you mean by published. To me that term means used in some commercial venture or for advertisement. To my knowledge, this picture was never used for that purpose. Since the photo was a family picture, there would never be any notice of copyright. So how would this picture fit in with those two caveats? I wait to hear back from you again. --Rabbit Runner - Those who dance, appear insane to those who do not hear the music. 01:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabbit.runner (talk • contribs)
I don't know of any rule in that case that would put the work automatically in the public domain. From what you've given so far, copyright would expire 70 years after the author's death. You would either have to use it under fair use(which in this case probably doesn't apply), or get the author(or their heirs) to release it under the public domain(see WP:COPYREQ) --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 08:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
The situation you describe makes it an unpublished work. Copyright will last until 70 years after the photographer died; it's currently held by whoever the photographer's heir is. --Carnildo (talk) 08:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The photo in question has a caption superimposed on the image. Was that on the original (in which case it looks like a postcard) or was that added later by someone else? If this was a bunch of photos taken by the deceased, this is different from a bunch of postcards bought by the deceased. Carcharoth (talk) 09:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Carcharoth, I wondered about that caption. I can't answer your question because I don't know. Carnildo, I doubt that it has been 70 years since the photographer passed away. I believe it was the 60's. I'd have to enquire further for the exact date, if you believe it's necessary. The family passed the photos along to me with no expressed restrictions. Rabbit.runner (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The executor of the photographer's estate or the rightful heir of the image will need to provide in writing that he/she releases the image to the public domain or will license it under the GFDL or Creative Commons. See WP:COPYREQ. I have deleted the image for now. If the copyright issue is cleared up, the image can be re-uploaded or it might be able to be restored -Nv8200p talk 01:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Patient images

WikiProject Medicine would like to discuss once and for all what the copyright status of patient images is. Anyone interested or knowledgeable in this are is requested to comment over at Commons:Patient images. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

New Jersey artist "King D.A.D" questioning u.s. copyright's selling of personal information

I have recently heard that an artist from New Jersey was questioning the u.s. copyright. Do you think that they sell information to Amerecord of Hollywood, CA? He reported that after he received copyrights for his first and second album a letter from Amerecord followed saying that they would like to sign a commercial recording contract with him. He never did any business in Hollywood, CA and never heard of Amerecord. Matter of fact, the letter wasn't even personalized and required a stamp for business reply mail. How could they acquire his information so quickly? Aren't copyrights used so that an artist could have their music to themselves and not have anyone stealing their material? My son is 12 years old and is serious about being a rock singer. If we can't trust our copyrights, who can we? And since the letter wasn't personalized, do they just give names and addresses? You'd figure that if they had his lyrics they'd write his name on the letter and maybe say something about his music. I'm not sure how this whole copyright thing works. Could you please fill me in? I found out about the issue on King D.A.D's site blog. It was one of the first entries if you wanna get the facts. http://myspace.com/kingdad —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorate1977 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

See Copyright or consult a lawyer. Megapixie (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

photoshopped image

I recently linked to the page MV Princess of the Stars, and I noticed an unusual image (Image:Mv_princess_of_the_stars.jpg). It looked like the user ripped the name of the boat off another image, Image:Mv_princess_of_stars.jpg, and photoshopped it on to the first image. What is the legality of the first image? Is it eligible for deletion?Kingalex56 (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've nominated both for deletion (as copyvios). Both look like drive by copyvio uploads. Megapixie (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

picture

I have a picture for "Cheryl Chin" and I own the copyright to it. The page is protected so i cannot edit. Can I email it to you to post? I am not good with using wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazedandhazed (talk • contribs) 09:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Contact_us/Photo_submission --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 09:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sent in the picture to said email. Photo have not publish and I have not receive confirm of submission. Please advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.137.189 (talk) 02:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "the page is protected". The Cheryl Chin article isn't protected and you can always use the image upload pages, even if they are protected. To upload, just go to this page, click on "my own work", and fill out the relevant info at the bottom, making sure to select a license under the "Licensing" drop-down list. Then you can add it to the article by adding something like, [[Image:YOUR_IMAGE_FILENAME_HERE.jpg|thumb|200px|right|YOUR_CAPTION_HERE]]. -- Hux (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:1AAQ HIVPR with HIV-1.png

Hi, could someone please comment/confirm the validity of the licensing information for Image:1AAQ HIVPR with HIV-1.png? Thanks. --Eleassar my talk 10:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You need to add some info about the image, i.e. what it is and what software program was used to create it. Without that info it's not possible to tell if the public domain tag you used is the correct one. -- Hux (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This image represents HIV-1 protease complexed with HIV-1 polypeptide. I hope someone would recognize the program as it was not posted by me. --Eleassar my talk 12:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Help!! MMBN6 image:crossbeast.png

theres something wrong with the status. please help!! can you also suggest to me what kind of licensing/copyright to give it? thanks! Moogle 12 (talk) 11:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It will need to be tagged with a copyright tag, probably {{Non-free game screenshot}}, and a fair use rationale, easiest to use {{Vgrationale}} for that. Let us know if you need more help. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Photographs in books at Internet Archive

I am hoping to use some photographic images from out of copyright books at the Internet Archive as for example this [30] and this [31] for wikipedia biographies. Is it permitted for me to do so, and what copyright status tag would be most appropriate to accompany same? RashersTierney (talk) 23:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

A faithful scan like the Internet Archive, doesn't create a new copyright. The scanned work has the same copyright as the original. Of course, it's polite to credit them. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 00:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks Rat. This has opened up a great source of difficult to locate portraits and groups of historical interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RashersTierney (talk • contribs) 00:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Pictures from public events

I took a picture at an event - there are people in it - do I need their permission to use it on my website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.15.229.128 (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably not for events in a public place. If you were using them for commercial purposes, like implying you had their endorsement for something, then you might run into problems. See personality rights --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

BBC News Trooping the Colour

Any way I could use these two images, cropped from screenshots of BBC News, showing the British Royal Family at the Trooping the Colour? DBD 22:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they are freely usable. You could try asking the copyright holder as per WP:COPYREQ --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 00:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, COPYREQ is the only way. We can't use them under the non-free content criteria because the image features living people and a free version could be taken (since the trooping of the colour happens annually). -- Hux (talk) 06:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Federal Art Project

Am pretty sure photographs taken as part of the Works Project Administration's Federal Art Project are in the Public Domain since they were funded by the FederaL Government. Are there any restrictions on using photos credited to the FPA?--Orygun (talk) 01:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I shouldn't think so. Like you said, the works were created by employees of the US government, so they're Public Domain by default. -- Hux (talk) 06:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyrighted image of living person

When there is a copyrighted image of a living person used in an article, should it be removed and listed for deletion? I have always been under the impression that this is so, because a free image is theoretically available, even if it's not available to Wikipedia yet. Unfortunately, I'm unable to get a definite answer to this, instead I usually get "I think it's okay" or "I don't think it can be used". Can someone please give me a definite answer, with a link to the project space which discusses it. Thanks, regards Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:NFC is a guideline and under unnaceptable use of images Para 12 it simple says apart from exceptional circumstances images of living people are replaceable. MilborneOne (talk) 10:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Copy right help!

I am very confused and would appreciate your assistance. I have rewritten my father's biography and plan on publishing it for him as a gift. Although not for commercial use, there may be several copies printed for family members/history purposes. With that in mind, I have found it extremely difficult to understand the different copyright requirements (I assure you, not from lack of trying). That said, here are my questions:

1. I have included some historical information from Wikipedia (not the whole book, just a couple of excerpts located in different sections rather than on one page). What specifically do I need to include with regard to GNU copyright and where does it need to be located?

2. Does the entire license need to be included.

3. If the copy right information is placed after the title page, how do I delineate specifically those sections or paragraphs the license refers to?

4. When do I use a tag and how to I determine what tag (they are all greek to me)?

5. Lastly, If I use images from your site, is that a different license? What I need to do differently?


I would very much appreciate your assistanc........

Thank you------Rhonda Allenson


ps. What is invariant?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.45.86 (talk) 12:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you checked out Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content? If you're still having trouble after reading that I will try to answer your specific questions. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Use of photo on Bobby Broom's wiki page

I'm trying to use a publicity photo of Mr. Broom that he has owns and has authorized me to use. Every time I post it it get's deleted. What tags should I be using so that this doesn't happen again? Syd Stevens (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You would need to have the copyright holder email us, please see WP:COPYREQ on how exactly this works. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 17:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Engraving/Woodcut from 1874

I've come across a image of an old engraving from 1874 that I want to use in an article. Since 1874 pre-dates copyright restrictions in the US, is it alright to use it? The image is not a photograph of the engraving and it simply represents the original engraving without modification. Its a scan. It is an exact copy of a 1874 (public domain?) image, however, the image source is claiming copyright protection. Is it free to use regardless of their claim? I have also found the same picture on independent websites as well. I have not contacted these sites as of yet simply because it is a reproduction of an 1874 engraving (produced in Paris) and I'm not sure if I need copyright release in order to use it. Advice appreciated. --Trippz (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think I can give you a legal opinion, but I will direct you to a previous discussion Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_25#Photographs_of_ancient_coins --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Ancient coins are different; those are photos of 3D objects and therefore the photographer still has a copyright on the work. Here we have a faithful reproduction of a public domain work, which is therefore in the public domain itself per Bridgeman vs. Corel. Museums often engage in copyfraud to boost their bottom line (selling reproductions is part of their business after all. howcheng {chat} 05:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Is "non commercial use without further permission" acceptable?

I am thinking of up loading pictures from the website of the Canadian Museum of Civilization to improve articles on Inuit artists. Will someone more knowledgeable than myself please read their release license and tell me if this conforms to Wikipedia requirements? I think I inadvertently screwed up the edit button above, but I can't figure out how to undo it. Lithoderm (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC) Never mind, it was automatically corrected... Lithoderm (talk) My main question still stands, however Lithoderm (talk)

No, Wikipedia can not accept non-commercial licensed images. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 15:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Postage stamps

wondering of the use of postage stamp from Somali Republic 1997 which has a Neapolitan Mastiff on it for the Neapolitan Mastiff page - I have one which is posted/used and one new - am I allowed to scan and upload for the article ?Lisa.Cinciripini (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of anything special about that stamp, so no, it doesn't meet the critera for non-free content. --Carnildo (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply - in an effort to better understand I ask - so a postage stamp is not public domain ? they are issued by a government body - this one is not of course a US government body but I thought images distributed by a government body were public domain? or is that just US federal government issued images/items ? Thanx again !!!Lisa.Cinciripini (talk) 00:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Only the US federal government puts all their works in the public domain. Other governments put some of their works in the public domain (usually things like laws or court decisions), but this usually doesn't include anything useful to us. Keep in mind that the US Postal Service hasn't been part of the US government since 1978, so all recent stamps from them are copyrighted. --Carnildo (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Many thanx for that info !!!Lisa.Cinciripini (talk) 03:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Please change the copyrights status to the one bellow. The edit button is missing and I can't do it myself(why the heck not!!!)\ Thanks

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b4/AlexandriaMonument.jpg

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmitri1999 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

You should be able to change it directly. Just go to the image description page, Image:AlexandriaMonument.jpg, and click the edit button at the top rather than directly to the image. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 08:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

gg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.74.114.250 (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Photo from Harpers in 1897

I have an image from Harpers Magazine which dates from 1897. I do not know further particulars. Is this allowable? Timbreese (talk) 18:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Published before 1923 in the US, is public domain; see this page, lead section if any clarification is needed. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Replacing removed image

 Done

I just came across this edit recently. I have added a fair-use rationale for the image now but I was wondering if I should warn the user about doing this? And if so, is there a template for this purpose? ~ Ameliorate U T C @ 21:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I would warn them, but a quick glance at their contribs doesn't lead me to believe they are doing it left and right. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 21:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Alright sure, I'll leave it. Just for future reference though, is there a template to warn for this? The only one I could find on WP:WARN related to uploading images. ~ Ameliorate U T C @ 21:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure if there is one, I would look at Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 21:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for your help. ~ Ameliorate U T C @ 21:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:174InfBdeDUI.jpg

This image, Image:174InfBdeDUI.jpg has copyright tags but a bot is still tagging it as not. Does the image need another tag or is the bot wrong? -Ed!(talk)(Hall of Fame) 02:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the bot might be asking for the immediate source ie. Did you scan it? Get it from a government website? Somewhere else? --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 03:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sscolorlogo lg.gif

I am wondering whether the Image:Sscolorlogo lg.gif is actually necessary to illustrate the article in question. If the image does not contribute to the encyclopaedic content of the article, then unless permission has been granted, I say we should remove it. Bwrs (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You could bring it up at Fair use review or on the talk page of the article. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

fair use

The image I am trying to use is a company logo that I would like to add to the company's wikipedia page (which is in draft form on a subpage now). It seems to fall under fair-use, but I'm not sure exactly what I need to do and what information to put to allow the image to remain up. Thank you in advance for any help. Abzug (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Image:Datatel_logo.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abzug (talk • contribs) 13:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I added to correct logo tag, but if the article isn't moved to the article namespace soon, the image will probably get deleted soon because fair use images aren't allowed in User space. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll try to get the article up soon. Abzug (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Marriage certificate?

I wasn't sure how to tag the copyright status of a scan of a marriage certificate dating from 1836. My assumption is that it is public domain, but not sure if there is a separate template for legal documents. If anyone knows better than me, let me know on my talk page or the image's discussion page. The image is Image:PoeMarriage.JPG. Thanks! --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Even if we ignore the fact that, at 172 years old, it's definitely PD in the US due to age, the more significant point is that government records containing only typesetting and handwriting are considered to have no creative authorship and are thus ineligible for copyright protection. The template to use for that is {{PD-ineligible}}. Hope this helps! -- Hux (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

rules for skip bo

once a person lays down a card on the build pile is it a done play or can the person remove the card and put it back in their hands and play off the stock pile. Or is it that once the card is lay on the build pile it stays there. This is taking in consideration this person did not lay his or her card down on the discard piles. I think that once a card is layed on the build pile it should not be allowed to be removed.thank you

Sorry, this page is for questions about copyright. You may want to read our article about Skip Bo or ask your question at the reference desk. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Photo for use on the Tillit Sidney Teddlie page

I need help in verifying the status of the linked image below. I would like to use it in the Tillit Sidney Teddliebiography. Cyberhmynal, a noted Christian Hymn prjoject, states on their website material is only copyrighted if noted on the page. There is no copyright notice anywhere on their Teddlie page. This image shows up elsewhere on other sites with no copyright notice as well. --Johnnybegood12 (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Tillit S. Teddlie Biography

You could try asking as described in WP:COPYREQ, but it may be more difficult since the website may not be the copyright holder. The other possibility is using it under the Non-free Content Criteria --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Image from Website

Can i use the photo of the paramount airplane at http://www.asiatraveltips.com/news05/2110-Paramount.shtml ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rammstein737 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, no. You could try asking as per WP:COPYREQ --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Question on French and UK maps from the occupation of Germany after World War II.

Background: During the occupation of Germany after World War II France tried hard to acquire control over the remaining German industrial regions. See for example this French memorandum (Requires Flash). In the end they acquired the Saarland for more than a decade. And the Ruhr area was after the occupation for a period economically administered by the International Authority for the Ruhr. I wanted to add some images of the French plans to the article Monnet plan, and need advice on copyright.

Could anyone provide assistance. I have a vague memory that UK military material is free to use, but cant find the reference again. Besides here we have material produced respectively by the UK foreign office, French Foreign office, and by the UK Military. Help appreciated.--Stor stark7 Speak 18:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

UK crown copyright (which is what applies to govt works) expires 50 years after publication - see {{PD-BritishGov}}. I'm not sure about rules relating to French govt works. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Per French copyright law, there is no special rule for govt works in France, so this will be protected for 70 years after publication if anonymous and 70 years after the death of the last collaborator if the authors are known. (Either way, non-free.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, great help thanks. I'll use the UK ones then.--Stor stark7 Speak 19:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2008/June&oldid=1143670326"