Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2008/September

Promotional still released into the public domain (with possible copyright claim)?

I would like to make off-wiki use of this image which has been released into the public domain, but I'm doubtful of the original claim of ownership, since the image seems to be a promotional still from a German TV show. Additionally, they appear to be asserting copyright: "Mark Bellinghaus owns this image and the copyright to it" despite releasing it into the public domain. Is it safe to consider this a public domain image? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What are some guidelines to follow when determining whether a image needs permission to reproduce —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.206.142.34 (talk) 00:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The chances of Mr. Bellinghaus owning the copyright to a still from a TV show in which he acted are, I would think, extremely low. I've tagged it as possibly unfree. Regarding guidelines to follow, under US copyright law, in the vast majority of cases the creator of an image (or in some cases their employer) automatically owns the copyright on that image at the moment of its creation. So, absent evidence to the contrary, you have to assume that pretty much any image is under copyright. -- Hux (talk) 00:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

There are other images uploaded by User:Mmmovie that may be in the same "possibly non-free" situation: [1] [2] [3] [4]. The question following mine is not from me, and probably unrelated. Thanks for your help. For the more general question, if someone uses the public domain license but, asserts copyright in their comments, has it been released into the public domain? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The four images you linked to in the last post are most likely all non-free images per Hux's comments. No one can give an image any better copyright than they have themselves, so if you give it a PD tag and you don't have the right to do do, it does not become PD because you don't own the copyright of the image in the first place. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 04:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ww2censor that the other images are similarly non-free. Regarding your general question, if the person asserting copyright while using a PD tag really is the copyright holder then I would think it likely that a court would err on the side of caution, assume the owner was mistaken in their understanding of the PD tag, and still regard it as copyrighted. However, since Mr. Bellinghaus is almost certainly not the copyright holder this is likely not relevant to this particular case. -- Hux (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Hux. I was afraid the general question got lost in there, but that seems like a reasonable answer. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What are you intending to use the image for off-wiki? King of the Fondue (talk) 10:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

A project that required a public domain image of this person, and the car wreck image was especially apt as a metaphor. If it's not public domain , I'll do without. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Photos of game controllers and other commercial products

This is probably more as a doublecheck, but as part of getting a FTC on the Guitar Hero series, I'm looking to use Image:Guitar-hero-controller.jpg as its free image. (The image has been used on a recent FA article and the image itself used when it was featured on the main page in July, so if there's something wrong with it, I would have figured I'd heard something by now) A commenter there wonders if such deserved the free tag.

Now, I've seen game controllers and hardware photographed by users and uploaded with free licenses, as well as guitars themselves. That doesn't necessarily make it correct but it seems that with so many out there that someone would have caught on to this. And I did have a situation in the past where a toy (Image:Crazy Taxi remote control car3.jpg) that was photographed by a user was required to have a non-free "2D photo of 3D art" license and thus became non-free.

Is there some line or definition of "art" here that must be passed that makes a photograph of a commercial product go from free to non-free? If this is the case for the controller picture, we may serious need to consider a sweep of all such commercial product pages to review images for free-ness. But again, the fact that I've not seen anything to this regard suggests that these are not considered "art" and thus are free. --MASEM 13:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

A game controller can be photographed and the photo released under a free license (or into the public domain) in the same way that a car can be. While there is certainly artistry and design evident, the product is not considered a piece of art for the purposes of (US) copyright law since its purpose is, fundamentally, utilitarian. -- Hux (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

intertitle copyright?

Would Image:WYWO.jpg qualify for {{PD-textlogo}} in the same vein as Commons:Image:Torchwoodtitle.svg or Image:A-Team logo.jpg; the only real difference is the application of several fore- and background colours. Thoughts? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The way in which those colors are used, imo, makes it more than just a typeface and, thus, not public domain. As a comparison, checkout the logo for the UK version of the TV show What Not To Wear versus the logo for the US version of the same show.. -- Hux (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Public Domain

Are all history images (black and white) in Maritimequest is Public Domain?Aquitania (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have some reason for believing they would be public domain? I can't think of any reason for thinking that. —teb728 t c 19:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

OTRS as license?

I recently stumbled across Image:Tbpickens.jpg. Under permission it lists, "from Jay Rosser, Public Relations Director of BP Capital, email forwarded OTRS The permission for use of this work has been archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system; it is available here for users with an OTRS account." My understanding is that acceptable images on Wikipedia are: under a Free license, in the public domain, or are Fair Use. None of those are claimed (nor do any seem appropriate). Template:PermissionOTRS suggests some other license situation, but I don't understand it. At best I can guess that someone emailed OTRS and said, "Yes, you can use it for Wikipedia." But my understanding is that "for Wikipedia only" permission is not acceptable. The licensing details are hidden. If it is possible to submit images under other terms, I would like to know, as I've had several people I've contacted about photos offer them under terms I previously thought were unacceptable. Could someone explain to me what the licensing situation on that image, and this OTRS template in general? Thanks. — Alan De Smet | Talk 00:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I left a message on the talk page of person who added the OTRS tag. It seems likely that user that added the OTRS tag, simply forgot to put in the appropriate license tag (which the uploader should have added). {{PermissionOTRS}} doesn't imply any particular license, but merely helps confirm the appropriateness of one. --Rob (talk) 05:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Photos of artworks that are part of my collection

Can photographs that I have taken of artworks that I personally own be uploaded into Wikipedia under creative commons license? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronaldwei (talk • contribs) 18:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Only if the the artworks are old enough to be in the Public Domain. If they are still under copyright, the photos would be derivative works. —teb728 t c 07:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Image Possible Restoration

"All of the my three uploaded images here in English Wikipedia were deleted; Barangay Bilogo, Batangas City.JPG, Batangas City's Official Flag.GIF and The Maximal Dinobot.JPG."

Could those images that have deleted be restored again here in Wikipedia by means of following the correct procedure in uploading images? Below is the specific conditions and example:

When I uploaded the specific image of "The Maximal Dinobot.JPG" here in English Wikipedia, I place it as my own work though it was not. Actually it came from the other website.

This all started:

• I'm interested to put an image to the article Dinobot, a fictional Beast Wars Character.
• I decided to surf the Internet, hoping to find an appropriate image for that article.
• I managed to find a good one so I copied it from that host website and place it on my PC, then I uploaded it gradually to Wikipedia.
• Things go wrong now with that image. I specified it as "my own work" and afterwards, it was deleted due to the copyright problem.

If I'll try to revive it again, could this be possible. And if it's possible, what kind of image characterization and specific license are appropriate for it. My guess: It is "An Image from a Website" but I'll need an advice. Thanks. Kampfgruppe (talk) 06:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If it is a screenshot from that film, than the site can't claim copyright, as they don't own the material. However, the photo may qualify for Fair Use. I'm pretty sure an admin is able to restore it. If it isn't a screenshot the site is has full copyright over it, and it will be impossible to use it here (unless they agreed we release it under a free licence.) Guy0307 (talk) 09:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The administrator who deleted those images is going to help me in restoring it under the Fair Use category but he said it will be not as simple. I'm going to look back again that site and view there if the image is copyright or not. Your response greatly helped me. Kampfgruppe (talk) 06:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What I meant is that image licensing is not simple. I have restored 2 images, and added appropriate licenses and blank fair use rationales to both. I see that one of the bots has already tagged them as unused, so they need to go into the articles soon, and have the rationales completed. Kevin (talk) 06:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey. Thanks again for your help. Kampfgruppe (talk) 06:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Upload qualification

Quite some time ago I've uploaded the Image:De schending van soebadra.jpg. I'm convinded the image qualifies for fair use because it's the front cover of a book of my father. My father has passed away and as his daughter I think I can upload this (my mother agreeing as well). Am I right? Lestari (talk) 07:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you are a family member doesn’t make it fair use; the thing that makes it fair use is the way it is used in an article. Beside US fair use laws, fair use images on Wikipedia must comply with all of Wikipedia’s Non-free content criteria. One of those criteria is that an image must have a non-free use rationale which links to the article(s) where the image is used. Image:De schending van soebadra.jpg was deleted because it lacked that. —teb728 t c 07:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Following on from teb's post: copyright typically persists (under current US law) for 70 years after the death of the creator of the work, so it would require a fair use rationale for use on Wikipedia just the same as any other non-free image. However, may I suggest investigating who is now the owner of copyright and asking that person to release it to Wikipedia under a free license such as the GFDL? Absent the terms of a will dictating otherwise, that person would be generally be the author's next of kin, i.e. your mother. -- Hux (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The copyright on the cover might be owned by the book publisher. You might want to ask them: It's their business to to know about copyright rights. —teb728 t c 19:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Did your father publish the book himself and own the copyright on the design as well as the text? If so and you inherited it, then it had the correct licence {{GFDL-self}}, and was incorrectly deleted. If there was an independent publisher, who owns the copyright, then your original licence was not correct, but {{Non-free book cover}} accompanied by a fair use rationale may be justified, depending where and how the image is to be used. Ty 07:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyright question

Is it permissible to continue to claim copyright on an image uploaded (by the creator) with GFDL and CC licenses? Image:Miles city 2008.jpg (yes, it's on Commons, but I assume the same general principles apply) has both licenses, but its source line reads "© 2008 Larry D. Moore". Nyttend (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Neither license involves an author giving up the copyright on their work and in fact both the GFDL and CC variants explicitly recognize the author's right of attribution. -- Hux (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

But of course the copyright holder has given permission for use of images in the way that the licence stipulates and provided its terms are adhered to. If the terms are not followed, then normal copyright is applicable to the image. Ty 07:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Images in Bresle article

L.S.,

As an employe of TQC I started to create some articles about widely used test equipment for the coating industrie. One of these aricles is Bresle method Here included the pictures: Image:Breslekit.jpg and Image:Breslepatch.gif

These images where released by TQC an free for use. How can I correct the settings that these Images will stay?

With kind regards,

Nico Frankhuizen NicoFrankhuizen (talk) 10:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You need to follow the procedure at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and get an email from the company into OTRS confirming they have released the images into the public domain. Although note that the gif is a poor quality image and probably not suitable, perhaps you could ask the company for a better one. MilborneOne (talk) 11:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Derivative image in userspace; how to license?

Hi. Image:Mfctext.png seems obviously to incorporate Image:Oreo.jpg. The latter image is released for use, but requires attribution. The derivative image (so I believe) is released into public domain with no attribution. I left a message for the user who created the image noting my concern and requesting that he attribute and repair his release, here, but on checking back to see if he had responded noticed that he is evidently on Wikibreak. (As indicated [5].) I'm not sure what tags should be used in this case, or I would repair it myself. Can somebody assist, either by telling me what tag to use or by fixing it? :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If it is indeed a derivative of Image:Oreo.jpg it's pretty straight forward, just read the license tag, any derivatives must be released under the same license (Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5) due to the ShareAlike clause, and give credit to the original author. --Sherool (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback. I hope that I've done the attribution correctly. Image work is not my thing. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ryan Reynolds pics from tags

I have no idea how to do the whole copyright stuff. Like the tags and such. I got the pics from a fan site and used magazine scans. Here is the site: http://ryan.fan-sites.org/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=topn&cat=0 If you can do the copyright for me that would be awesome. Please go to the ryan reynolds wikipedia page to see all the pictures Here are the pics:

• Image:Normal_photo_misc_003.jpg
• Image:Normal_blade3_promo_001.jpg
• Image:Photo_12_029.jpg
• Image:Normal_photo_04_003.jpg
• Image:Blade3_still_013.jpg

~~Raizen18 (talk)

Sorry, but none of these images appears to be licensed under a free license, and inasmuch as they show a living person, they could be replaced by a free-licensed photo. So we can’t use them. (Sorry, but Wikipedia policy strongly discourages non-free images.) They have all been tagged as replaceable non-free use; so they will be deleted in a few days. The only other thing that remains to do is to remove them from the article. —teb728 t c 16:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment - The Ross Institute Internet Archives

Please see Talk:Erhard_Seminars_Training#Request_for_Comment_-_The_Ross_Institute_Internet_Archives. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 01:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to prior discussions on this board here, and on RS/N here. It would be nice to establish a clear consensus on this, based on policy, so the question does not come up time and again. Jayen466 01:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-copyrighted photos - what licence to state

According to Latvian copyright law any images from pre-WW2 newspapers don't have copyright applied to them. I want to add photos of several pre-war Latvian footballers to their pages on Wikipedia, however I have no idea on what licence I should choose them to be. Any suggestions? --Kazhe (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The best thing to do, if possible, is to create a template specifically for this, linking to a website that shows the relevant law (for an example, see this template that I created), then add it to the list at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Public domain. That way, others can use it for future images that have the same status. Failing that, when upload the photos, choose any license then edit the page ASAP, delete all the text and replace it with a description of its status under Latvian copyright law, as you describe above. Again, if possible, provide a link to a web page that shows the relevant law. -- Hux (talk) 03:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Image on WIPO website

Can I use the image on this page in wikipedia? If yes then under which copyright? --STTW (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any way that this image could be used here. Kevin (talk) 22:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Starfleet Ranks and Insignia

In the article "Starfleet ranks and Insignia" there are people trying to remove my images. First they were claiming that I do not own the copyright of the images. Then, they changed their argument to say that I do own the images but that what is in the images I do not own so I can't put them here. I have several rank pins that were used in Star Trek movies that I legally obtained and I now own the pins. I have taken pictures of these pins that I own and have placed them in the article. I am being told that this is derivative work. Can you offer me any assistance?

Thank you, --Flans44 18:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Based on my experiences, as well on reading up at derivative work, I would agree that such imagery would constitute a derivative work of the original copyrighted work. Taking your own high-resolution photos of another entity's copyrighted work does not then confer that copyright to you (if it did, what then would copyright even mean? you could photograph anybody else's work and claim its copyright to then be yours). — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess I am confused on this whole thing. Can you really copyright a pin? If so, then why not a car? There are so many pics of different cars on wikipedia, should those also be removed for copyright infringement? --Flans44 20:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flans44 (talk • contribs)

See, this is one of those "confusing" things that makes copyright law so tricky. Cars can indeed be copyrighted -- that's what keeps one car company from exactly copying the designs of another. However, because a car is primarily functional rather than decorative (that is, the creative elements of the car's design cannot be separated from the car and remain recognizable), it falls under an exception in U.S. copyright law for "industrial" design, allowing derivative works to be freely made. Another example would be a chair -- many chairs are very creatively designed, but because their primary function is to be sat on (rather than looked at), derivative works are permissible. Powers ^T 23:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the rank pins are {{PD-ineligible}} as they are simple geometric shapes. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

'48 massey-harris 20 tractor banner.jpg

Image:'48 massey-harris 20 tractor banner.jpg seems to be a photograph of someone's display info for a tractor display at a fair or some other such venue. The copyright field for the image says, "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License." But it seems like the author of the photograph did not make the plaque, but just took a picture of someone else's plaque. So it seems to me that the author of the photograph can't claim to be the copyright holder and thus can't choose the CCA license. Is this correct?

Also, the author of the photograph started Massey Harris Model 20, and the only source for the article is the picture he took of the plaque.   — Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 14:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The plaque would appear to qualify as {{PD-Pre1978}}, so the author can release the photo of it under whatever license he wishes. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Government Photographs

I know all phographic works of the Federal Government are Public Domain. I'm told several states have the same policy for photographs they produce. Where can I find out what state pass there works into Public Domain?--Orygun (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Try that state's website — generally, it's www.xx.gov where xx is the state's mailing abbreviation (e.g. www.ca.gov for California). Stifle (talk) 09:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

list our company

Dear Sir, How do I list our company? Dwight —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deely2 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Your question is somewhat unclear. Do you mean, How do I create an article for it? Jayen466 18:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

See our Frequenly Asked Questions for Businesses. In short, not all businesses are notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. All articles must be written from a neutral point of view; inasmuch as you have a close connection with your company, you would have a hard time maintaining a neutral point of view about it. —teb728 t c 21:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ryan Reynolds pics

Since I do not have an idea what free license is or what tags are, can you explain them and how can I get pics that can actually be used. I got pics from his fan sites but apparently I can;t use them. How about u add pictures to ryan reynolds page, please. Also I added an "interesting fact" section to his page and I cited that I got the info on IMDB but it got deleted also, why? ~~Raizen18(talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raizen18 (talk • contribs) 19:00 (UTC)

A photo of a living person (almost always) must be “free” on Wikipedia. That is one that is licensed so that it can be used by anyone for anything. The fan site is not a good source of free images because few if any of the photos there are free, and if any that are, they are not identified as such.

The article on Reynolds’s fiancee, Scarlett Johansson, for example , has two free images. One is in the public domain because it was taken by a military photographer at a USO event. The other was taken by a the uploader; so he was able to license it under a free license. That is the kind of thing that you need for Reynolds.

As for your interesting facts section, see Wikipedia:Trivia sections. —teb728 t c 19:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Miss Alaska 1984

Who is Maryline Blackburn? [en.wikipedia.org] I see that she is listed as Miss Alaska 1984. I happen to know this is incorrect. I was there supporting our children's babysitter, Sherri McNealley, when she was crowned "Miss Alaska" 1984. 20:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)20:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)20:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

According to the articles, Sherri McNealley was the 1984 Miss Alaska USA, and Maryline Blackburn was the 1984 Miss Alaska (America). —teb728 t c 20:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Tag-on conditions to CC-SA and GDFL?

I saw the image Image:Mhartman.jpg just today and noticed that, while it's released under creative commons BY-SA 3.0 and GDFL 1.2, the uploader tagged on the condition "Permission is not granted for the photograph to be defaced or modified". I'm thinking this isn't possible considering the license under which it's uploaded, but not being very knowledgeable about such things, I'm unwilling to change it myself. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Section 8e of the BY-SA 3.0 says that such conditions have no validity. However, rather than going against the uploader's wishes on a technicality, it may be more prudent to delete it instead. May be better to talk it out first; figure out the uploader's intentions. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I've left a note on the uploader's talk page, though it looks like this had been a bit of a problem previously. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this use of a magazine cover acceptable?

Is the use of Image:The Economist 2007 10 20issue.jpg and Image:The Economist 2008 04 05issue.jpg in the article for which rationales are provided adequately justified? __meco (talk) 08:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No, a non-free magazine cover can be used only to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question—not to illustrate the subject of the cover story. —teb728 t c 08:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Agree with the above; in more detail: The rationale claims the images "show" the economic events. They don't. They show one particular journalistic reaction to it (The economic events themselves are something that cannot directly be illustrated at all, except with tables, graphs and the like.) That particular journalistic reaction by The Economist is not a topic of encyclopedic analysis in the article. And even if it was, it's doubtful if an image would be necessary. The images are simple enough to describe with text if necessary ("On date X, The Economist ran a cover depicting a fat happy-looking piggy bank; some weeks later it ran another where the piggy bank looked damaged, implying that [...]"). Upshot is, fails NFCC8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's been a while since I dealt with non-free images. Should these images be tagged for having an inadequate rationale, or should I remove them from the article citing/linking NFCC8 and then speedying the images as non-free orphaned? __meco (talk) 08:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Safest way for NFCC8 vios is IfD. Simply removing and then orphan-speedying should in theory be okay too, but for some reason uploaders tend to hate it (see my ongoing RfC). Also, when you've gone through an IfD you have an "official" result that can be used against re-creation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

To be fair to the uploaders, from WP:NFCC, "An image in use on an article and uploaded after 2006 July 13, that does not comply with this policy 48 hours after notification to the uploading editor will be deleted.". Clearly NFCC#8 fails, so tag the article, mention this on the talk page, and wait 2 days. --MASEM 13:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Publicity shots

I would like to illustrate my article on the entertainer Gladys Morgan, now deceased, with a publicty photo she used to use, as found here : [6] (second picture), and here : [7]
Would I be allowed to upload this picture? ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 16:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Should be okay. Deceased person; notabiliy very much connected to that face (and grimace) of hers, therefore substantial contribution to understanding the article (NFCC8 met) and potential for "transformative use" (if you go and actually write some commentary about how her facial expression was a kind of trademark for her and so on); plus, if it's an old publicity photograph there's likely no commercial damage (hence, NFCC2 met). Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I thought, but I don't know how to attribute it. or what sort of license to use. Can you help? ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 21:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

US copyright status trumps everything?

Which takes precedence to consider an image free-use on en:wiki, copyright status in the originating country or status in the US where the servers are? For instance, PD-Canada is determined by this, but at least on Commons the more restrictive US rules apply, summarized here I believe. Depending on the exact image, a 10-20 year difference in PD status can result. Which regime rules the roost here? Thanks. Franamax (talk) 08:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I would assume both US and (if the source country's PD rules differ) the source country. Commons servers are located in the US, but they only accept images as PD if they would be so in the country of origin and the US, lest I am mistaken (if I am, correct me). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Bodging WP edit by edit)} 09:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Jeske is correct. If there's any difference at all, it seems to be that Commons would take a stricter approach, insisting on free status in both countries, while en-wiki might look primarily at the US only. No wiki project could possibly ignore the US status. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

So if Canada says the image published in Canada is PD, for the purposes of en:wiki we would still consult US law (which in some cases would say it's not free-use on en:wiki), right? Or only consult US law (if the US says it's PD, it's PD no matter what the originating country says)? And on commons, it's whichever is most restrictive? Franamax (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Supplementary comment: I'm not so sure for foreign wikis, wouldn't de:wiki apply their own PD-rules for German images? Not sure at all on that. Franamax (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It would depend on exactly why the image was PD. While en only really worries about US law uploaders should probably have their local laws in mind. Commons is basicaly most restictive unless we think the restiction is fundimentaly unacceptable (UK law on copies of 2D images and some elements of italian). For wikis like de.wiki their images have to be PD under US law but they may chose to follow german law on top of that.Geni 09:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The only thing that matters on en-wiki is the PD status under U.S. Law. See eg Template:PD-art-US. Commons required (or at least used to require - see the discussion starting here at Commons talk for recent developments) that an image also be PD in its own country. But this has never been required on en-wiki.

PD status in a home country may sometimes be important for establishing PD status in the USA. For example, where freedom of panorama applies in the home country, it is probably safe to assume it is also PD in the United States, and that US courts will not enforce copyright in the underlying photographed work. PD status in the home country may also be important for works made overseas before 1974 without compliance with the old US copyright formalities. US copyright in such works, which otherwise would have been held to have been lost, was re-established by the 1995 Uruguay Round Agreement Act.

But such issues are only relevant on en-wiki to the extent that they affect U.S. copyright. Jheald (talk) 09:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The exact rules have never been made clear. We allow US exceptions such as fair use and 2D-reproductions (the latter is probably safe in most jurisdictions, but has not been tested), but we also try to respect the copyright laws of other countries. The only concrete rule of which I know is that we may never use material which would be an infringement of U.S. copyright (regardless of status in other countries): this is not the same as saying that there is a "free-for-all" regarding works which are (might be) PD in the U.S. but which are copyright elsewhere. Physchim62 (talk) 11:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:Non-U.S. copyrights:

While Wikipedia prefers content which is free anywhere in the world it accepts content which is free in the United States even if it may be under copyright in some other countries.

Also WP:Public domain:

Although legislation is sometimes unclear about which laws are to apply on the Internet, the primary law relevant for Wikipedia is that of the United States.

-- Jheald (talk) 12:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Neither of the quotes is inconsistent with what I said. We do not guarantee to abide by the 200-or-so (we don't even know how many) copyright laws exist in the world, but we "respect" them as far as we "can": on the other hand, we do not infringe the US law (as far as our administrative capacities permit us). To say that U.S. law is the only law which dictates what is acceptable on WP would be a change in policy, and one which I would oppose. Physchim62 (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, we can accept images from uploaders that have a right to license, and that license is generally subject to US law, even if the creation might have been elsewhere - e.g. some countries recognise a right of panorama, but the US does not. An image taken in the US might be protected by fair use, and would be subject to those restrictions, because those restrictions also apply to whoever took the image. On the other hand, an image taken in a country with FoP by a citizen of that country is free, since the person who took the image was under no such restriction, and has the right to license the image as they see fit, and such a licence would be valid under US law. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Old coins

I assume pd-old doesn't apply for pictures of old coins, since what counts is the age of the photograph, not the age of the coin. I'm about to delete many such images on mk.wiki, but maybe you can suggest something before I do that. Here are a few examples: mk:Image:AleksandarI2.jpg, mk:Image:Lajai.jpg, mk:Image:Denar.jpg, mk:Image:Sestertij.jpg. I'm almost sure that I need consent from the photographer (and thus delete all of them), but can someone please confirm this? Thanks. --iNkubusse^? 03:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

According to Mike Godwins comments on Wikipedia:Copyrights/MikeGodwinSays, it seems that photos of coins are copyrightable, so the only proper use you can make is that you would have to use a Fair use rationale template for the images so long as the article in which they appear has some critical commentary about the coins themselves and not the subject of the coin. However, this situation is muddied because there are many coins on the Commons though many of them are there because the images have been provided with licenses from the source website, such as the permission to use any coin image from the World Coin Gallery that have the OTRS ticket number 2006080810014758. BTW most of your coins don't seem to have any source and that would be required if you use a FU rationale. ww2censor (talk) 05:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's exactly why I said ...and thus delete all of them. These coins are kept in the Museum of numismatics in the Republic of Macedonia, so I don't think images of them can be easily found on the net; I guess I'll just go there and take some new pictures. Thanks a lot. --iNkubusse^? 12:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Your thought that deletion should be the action may be a rather knee jerk reaction because the images may be able to be used right now in the appropriate articles with a fair-use rationale, but otherwise deletion may indeed be necessary. If you do take some new photos, then please upload them to the commons so they can be used across all wikis. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 22:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

For mk:Image:Denar.jpg and mk:Image:Sestertij.jpg, you might be able to find acceptable alternative images at commons:Category:Denarius and commons:Category:Sestertius respectively. You should probably take a look at as well, which is in the same class as the other you list, ie, photographer's copyright. Physchim62 (talk) 01:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Do I own the photos I took of a film shoot?

I was asked to take photos of a film shoot. I was not paid for the service, but was requested to document the shoot. My question: Who owns the rights to these photos? I would like to put them on my web site. Do I have to ask the producer for permission? Does he have the right to stop me from doing so? Is it okay just to use them without permission, or permission of the subjects of the photos? Please Help.74.73.192.121 (talk) 04:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyright in general belongs to the photographer, unless it is a work for hire, or there is an agreement otherwise. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 07:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) We are not permitted to give legal advice here; you should ask a lawyer for that. This page is for questions about posting content to Wikipedia. We also can often tell you about reusing content from Wikipedia. —teb728 t c 08:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Rename

I don't know is it the proper place to ask this question. How can I rename image? This is regarding [Image:Pidukki.jpg] (wrong/bad name), It has to be renamed to [Idukki.jpg]. --Avinesh  T  08:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Images can’t be renamed. Upload it again with the correct name, and flag the bad image for deletion with {{db-i1}}. —teb728 t c 08:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

URL

how do you change the url name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.237.15.23 (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok

I am an aspiring children's author, and have recently been intrested in twisting old cultural tall tales and legends into children's stories. I would like to add in better endings that teach lessons and such, but mantain the same theme. I will not copy and paste these stories in any way. I am planning to keep the theme but change the words, endings, and contexts. My question is, is folklore,tall tales and cultural legends public domain? Or can it be copyrighted? Do I need to contact someone for permission? If so, who?

Thank you so much in advance,

68.101.229.10 (talk)Jayme —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

As a general rule, you can pretty much safely assume that any story older than 120 years is in the public domain. Other stories created later than that might also be in the public domain, but it would depend on when they were first published. Here's a really handy chart that goes through the many (many) different permutations under US law. Having said that, if you're looking to create new interpretations of old stories with a view to publish, I strongly advise that you consult with a lawyer to ensure that you're not adapting stories that are still under copyright. Paying a couple of hundred dollars to a professional now could save you a lot of time, money, and heartache later on. It would really suck to work so hard and then find out that you can't publish without paying some ridiculous fee to a copyright holder, if they'd even allow you to publish it at all. -- Hux (talk) 04:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Angler POW Escape Movie

hello, I am wondering if someone in the Wikipedia society remembers a movie made on the Angler P.O.W. Escape from lake superior and ended In medicine hat, Alberta. There was a Hollywood movie made back in 41 or 42 about this escape. if anyone out there can remember the name of this movie please supply. Thanks; Chris Ekstrom Edmonton, AB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.64.224 (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, this page is for copyright-related questions about media (usually images) uploaded to Wikipedia. For answers to your question, try asking at the Reference Desk. -- Hux (talk) 03:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:MOTG logo.jpg

This image is currently marked as fair use (with no rationale). Doesn’t this logo qualify for PD-textlogo? — H92 (t · c · no) 19:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think so. What about this one. you can see this discussion as well.--OsamaK 21:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Unlike the Cure album cover, the background is not an explicit part of the MotG logo. The logo itself is solely text from a standard typeface so, as you say, it qualifies as {{PD-textlogo}} (or {{PD-ineligible}}; either one would work). -- Hux (talk) 03:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ayumi Hamasaki A Logo.gif

I think that Image:Ayumi Hamasaki A Logo.gif is clearly {{PD-ineligible}}. Is not it?--OsamaK 21:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If it's a designed logo then that would make it a copyrighted work according to US law, in which case the tag and Fair Use rationale are both correct. However, if it's just one letter pulled from a typeface then it would be {{PD-ineligible}}. I don't know enough to say which is correct but I would lean more towards the former. -- Hux (talk) 03:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Images without Copyright.

I uploaded a whole bunch of images related to the Elwha River and Lake Crescent. But, I accidentally forgot to put open to everyone in terms of the copyright. Now I have a ton of messages saying they will be deleted. But, I can not figure out how to change the copyright before they disappear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jefftaylor@xwb.com (talk • contribs) 22:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that i. you took the pictures, and ii. you're releasing them into the public domain? If so, just go to each of the pictures, click "edit", and add {{PD-author}} to each of them. If not, please clarify what you do mean. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, you also did not give the images any description. You should do so, so that other editors may be able to know what they for a widest possible usage. ww2censor (talk) 23:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Project Help

Hi,I am Nicholas Renshaw.I want to print out some of the articles on the page,but I don't know if I can.So,I am asking permission to print out some articles on the page without getting in trouble by anyone. -Sincerely, Nicholas Renshaw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.143.103 (talk) 01:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You are certainly welcome to print off any of Wikipedia's content for personal use. You can also republish it, but if you do so you must provide credit to the authors (you can learn who the article's authors are by using the "history" tab). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Carville b power station.jpg

I was wondering if anybody could help me with finding the correct copyright for the image Image:Carville b power station.jpg, which I recently uploaded. I cannot find anything on copyrights of images scanned from books.Fintan264 (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

When was the book published? Assuming the photograph was not published elsewhere previously, that date would likely define when the copyright on the image began and, thus, when it ended/will end. -- Hux (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The book was published in 1982 but it says that the photo was taken in 1962.Fintan264 (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

In that case, the photo would still be under copyright so we can only use it in accordance with the non-free content criteria, i.e. it needs a copyright tag and a Fair Use rationale for each article in which it is used. -- Hux (talk) 03:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I have already provided a Fair Use rationale for the image but I don't know what copyright tag would be suitable or where I would find the template for it.Fintan264 (talk) 11:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

{{Non-free fair use in|Carville Power Station}} should do it. Unfortunately I can't find a tag that's more specific than that. WP:ICT is the page with all the links to the various image copyright tags. -- Hux (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the help.Fintan264 (talk) 15:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Current Image:Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg renders bad in inkscape.

I downloaded the following flag and opened in Inkscape 0.46 under Windows. Image:Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg

The flag renders bad, the diagonal white stripes go outside the flag area. When opening the previous flag in the image history, I do not get this error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.136.58.100 (talk) 07:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Editing Image talk:Concorde District Map.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AAA_Concorde_District

The image of Fairfax County Map that was illegally posted by the Concorde District was not posted with my permission.

This map is duly registered with the Copyright Office and their claim that it has been released for public use is false.

I attempted to place a warning on the page but it was edited out by Wikipedia. This action serves only to encourage the misuse of copyrighted material which is a violation of the law.

My notice of the copyright violation was deleted, but my copyright protected map is still posted illegally on the page.

There is something wrong with this picture. Seems to me that Wikipedia would be more interested in protected the value of a copyright than in encouraging the misuse of one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lennharley (talk • contribs) 14:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Lennharley, and thanks for bringing this to our attention. I've deleted the image. In fact, we take copyright very seriously around here, but the fact is that if somebody claims that they are the author of an image and that they are releasing it into the public domain, there isn't really much we can do to investigate that. Again, thanks for bringing this to our attention. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Please Help!!!

Hi,I am Nicholas Renshaw. I am doing a project in social studies and I was looking here and I found what I was looking for. The state that I'm doing for my project is Nevada. So,I was thinking about printing it out,but I didn't know if it would be ok or not. So,my question is can I print out some articles on Nevada? (I'm making a poster,by the way.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.143.103 (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes certainly, the entire encyclopaedia is free. This means that there are no copyright restrictions on any of the articles. If you want to print one out go ahead. A printable version can be obtained by clicking the "printable version" link on the bar on the left of the article you want. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed that this enquiry (a duplicate) was also answered above by User:Sarcasticidealist you may also want to read Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content which is a complete guide to what you can and can't do - Dumelow (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

First Upload; Need a Little Help

Resolved

Hello, I've been debating for many weeks now whether or not to upload the cover of the book Indian Summer: The Secret History of the End of an Empire by Alex von Tunzelmann to the article with the same name. I only wish to use it in that article, but I'm not sure about what the copyright says (since I'm not sure where to find that, for one). I think that I should, since it does apply to the article, but I really don't get what the summary part of the upload section is. Can I have some help with that especially, and your opinions on whether or not I should or should not upload it. Helixer (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The license to use is {{non-free book cover}}, and then you need to add a fair use rationale. Selecting A cover or other page from a book, DVD, newspaper, magazine, or other such source on the upload page does most of this for you. Kevin (talk) 22:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, that makes sense, but in the summary section what do I put for Source if I scanned the cover myself, in the Low_resolution, and pretty much everything else, and do I need to put the article it is to be used in in brackets???? And where do I put the edition, publisher, etc. Help, please. Helixer (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Upload the image, then edit the page and copy/paste something like this into the summary section:

{{Non-free use rationale
| Description       = Front cover of the book ''Indian Summer: The Secret History of the End of an Empire'', by [[Alex_von_Tunzelmann]] ([[Henry Holt and Company|Henry Holt & Co.]], 2007)
| Source            = Scan of the original book cover
| Article           = Indian Summer: The Secret History of the End of an Empire
| Portion           = Whole image
| Low_resolution    = Yes
| Purpose           = To provide visual information for the article that words alone cannot capture
| Replaceability    = Not replaceable - no free version exists
}}

You can look around at other book cover images too in order to get a sense of how people do it (for example). Also, make sure that the image you upload is no more than 300 pixels on its longest side. -- Hux (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much!!! And yeah, it's way more than 300 pixels, so I'll need to fix that. But it'll be up soon if I do everything right!!! Thanks so much!!!! Helixer (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The image has been there for seven days now, and it's still way more than 300px (1,881px to be precise). It needs to be replaced with a scaled-down image soon or it risks being deleted. Scolaire (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Scolaire (talk) 06:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Did I upload this image correctly?

I uploaded this image to wikipedia. Image:Ducks_band.jpg I want to know if I licensed it correctly, I added the source the pictures from, I dont want to get in trouble for uploading content I do not own but the sites free and so is the pic. Someone please help me.

I see no reason to believe the picture is free, i.e. licensed for anyone to use it for anything. Who took the picture? And what right does Wikipedia have to host it? —teb728 t c 07:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well the site its from has it up for display with no guidlines or rules about it, not to mention I'm giving the site I found it on credit. So is it ok to host? and what will i need to host that picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OldBlack (talk • contribs) 08:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

When you find a picture on a web site with no guidlines or rules, the only right you can assume is that you can display it on your own computer. I see no reason to think that Wikipedia has any right to use this picture. —teb728 t c 08:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

So how do I get permission to use it? Im sure alot of the people on here upload images from IMDB.com ect ect..what do I have to do. If its totally out of the question I guess it will be removed soon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by OldBlack (talk • contribs) 19:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

If you know how to contact the copyright owner, you can ask them to release the picture under a free license. See WP:COPYREQ for how to do that. —teb728 t c 07:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't upload photos from IMDB, unless it's a TV/movie screenshot (because then IMDB can't claim copyright over it). Guy0307 (talk) 12:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyright on speeches by American politicians

Would copyright laws apply to a public speech given by an American holding a political office, or is it in the public domain? If that speech is reprinted verbatim by a news organization, does copyright apply there?

I'm asking this because I've obtained a copy of a speech given by then-Honolulu Mayor Neal Blaisdell in 1966, which is from a verbatim reprint in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, and I'd like to know if I can reproduce it and distribute without having to worry about copyright. Musashi1600 (talk) 05:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, speeches are not considered creative works for the purposes of US copyright law. If you look on Wikisource you can find hundreds of relatively recent speeches reprinted verbatim (e.g. Martin Luther King's, "I've Been To The Mountaintop" speech). -- Hux (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty bizarre. The U.S. Copyright Office does not make such distinctions (see, e.g., this circular, which includes speeches along with "Nondramatic literary works"). You should not assume that all speeches are without copyright. In fact, another speech of Dr. King led a case establishing this very fact. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hux, "I found copies of it on the Internet" is not determinative of a work's copyright status. If you're not familiar with the details of U.S. copyright law, don't be giving incorrect information like, "As far as I know, speeches are not considered creative works for the purposes of US copyright law."

To address the initial inquiry, all speeches given by employees of the federal government in the line of their official duties are in the public domain. State and local government employees are not included, nor is a speech given by a federal employee outside his or her line of duties. — Walloon (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Nikola Pilja

His name is Nikola Pilja. He was born in Kotor Serbia and was raised in Highland Indiana. He attends Highland High school and plays tennis for Highland. He also plays basketball and the drums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardkoredrummer7 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool. What do you want us to do with this information? Guy0307 (talk) 12:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Guyanese government fair use?

http://www.gina.gov.gy/natprofile/formerpresidents.html Are foreign government websites allowed? This is from Guyana. Trying to upload a pic for the Janet Jagan page, currently photoless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoberacai (talk • contribs) 01:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there is no special rule that allows Guyana government photos to be used. (If you have proof otherwise, please bring it to our attention.) Not that many governments release their work into the public domain like the US does. Furthermore, it is not clear the the government is the actual author of that photo. It might just be using it on its page with permission (or even without permission, as is often the case). Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Derivative work

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bowl-out-nz-wi.JPG is a derivative by the artist's own admission. It should be removed 151.197.6.6 (talk) 02:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It has been nominated for deletion on the commons. Since it's hosted there, the discussion will take there, not on wikipedia. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Confusion over a message

I received the following message regarding a logo I uploaded. The image was created by me and is the intellectual property of both myself and the football club I am a director of, so I cannot see a problem with it. Would it be possible to explain the problem.

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hatter69 (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The first thing you need to determine when uploading a picture is whether it's free or not. "Free", for our purposes, means that anyone may reuse the image for any reason, and may also alter it for their own purposes. In this case, you and the football club would have to decide if you were prepared to make it free (either by releasing it into the public domain or by licensing it under one of the free licenses acceptable to Wikipedia). If so, it should be tagged as such, and all will be well. If it's not free, that means it's being used under "fair use", which means that you have to provide a justification as to why the image needs to be used on Wikipedia (here's some explanation about what information such a justification needs to include). Hope this helps. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, now that I've actually looked at the image, I see that the warning you received was from October 2007, and that another user has since rectified the problem. There is no longer any problem with that image. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:GOES logo - SSLoral.svg

Image:GOES logo - SSLoral.svg needs a source; for example, was it obtained from a print source? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Now-defunct band picture question

Hi folks, I have a question about what photos are allowable for a band that's been defunct (or, er, disbanded) for awhile. I'm not talking about some band with a decent chance of reforming, I'm talking about a band with a snowball's chance in you know where of even getting together for one last gig. I know about not being able to use photos that have already been published on a website, but what if a former band member were to pass along a studio photo that was taken for promotional purposes but never used and allowed its use on the band's Wikipedia article? Is that kosher? If so, could someone help out in terms of defining what to put on the picture page so no nefarious botbeings with too much time on their hands will get their grubby paws on the image and shove it off? I would consider this instance to be similar to that of someone who's died in that in both cases it would be impossible to recreate an image of both, but hopefully someone who can actually provide some assistance here can help out with this issue. 68.92.156.115 (talk) 04:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Since it is a studio photo, it is probably not under a free license. That means that to be used on Wikipedia it has to comply with WP:NFCC—in particular by WP:NFCC#4 “Non-free content must have been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia.” Does the band already have an article? If not, does it satisfy our notability guideline? If the band is not notable, it would be a waste of effort to upload a non-free photo, because there couldn’t be an article to use it on. —teb728 t c 07:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, the band satisfies the notability guideline. There's already an article about the band and it's been peer reviewed -- if the band hadn't been considered "notable" enough to garner its own Wikipedia entry, it would have come out in that process, I am sure of it. And besides, why did you automatically assume that the band might not be notable just because it hasn't existed in awhile? The band released quite a few studio recordings while it was around.

By "non-free content must have been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia" do you mean that something that was displayed in, as a for instance, a magazine would be passable? Because there was another photo from the same photo shoot that appeared in Smash Hits magazine. Would that one be acceptable? I thought it was only the stuff that hadn't been used before that could be clearable by Wikipedia. I mean, it's not like anyone could recreate the exact band lineup from this photo shoot and recreate a "free license" photo of the band from this era. We're talking a good 25 years from that point to the present. So what, these bands are basically screwed out of photo representation on Wikipedia? 68.92.156.115 (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd treat a band in this situation similarly to the treatment of photos of individual dead or extremely reclusive people. Choose a representative published photo and explain why it can't be replaced by a free image (the band is "dead"). But others' milage may vary. Crypticfirefly (talk) 04:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Maps by User:PelionClimber

Hi, There are a number of map images which have been uploaded by User:PelionClimber, which have questionable licenses.

I would like a some second opinions about whether these are ok.

The images are screen captures from mapping software by Next Destination Pty Ltd and map data by PSMA Australia. PelionClimber has stated that he has obtained permission, however I suspect the images require two things:

• for PSMA/Next Destination to specify what license they are using when giving permission
• for a OTRS ticket to be opened to archive the permission.

I have discussed this with PelionClimber at User_talk:PelionClimber#Maps, but it is unresolved.

The images involved are :

• Image:Ironstone map.jpg
• Image:Ironstone area map.jpg
• Image:Ragoona area map.jpg
• Image:Pelion West area map.jpg
• Image:Cathedral area map.jpg
• Image:Cathedral Topo Map.jpg
• Image:Pelion Gap 3D map.jpg
• Image:Ragoona Map GPS.jpg
• Image:Barn Map GPS.jpg
• Image:Ironstone TOPO map GPS.jpg
• Image:Pelion East Map.jpg
• Image:Pelion West Map.jpg
• Image:Ironstone TOPO map.jpg

Thanks, --Ozhiker (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Just tag them {{subst:npd}}. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

British WWI photo

Hi, I would like to use the top photo at http://www.liverpoolscottish.org.uk/frontearly1915aim4.htm to illustrate an article on Colonel Davidson (At far right firing a rifle grenade) but am unsure of its copyright status. The photo was probably taken by a British Army captain who probably died after 1938 (for the 70 year limit) and appears to have been widely distributed through the battalion in 1915. Any help on determining its status is appreciated. If not I will add it as fair use. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 12:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, will upload as fair use anyway - Dumelow (talk) 12:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Not certain. Need help

I am not entirely certain I understand Wikipedia, or Wikipedia Commons.

Deciding that the image I wished to post within an article was "not-free use"—but was within the public domain—I uploaded the image to the Commons. There, after reading the result, and reading further into the instructions, I am still baffled. As I understand: At the moment, someone somewhere has sent an email requesting premission from the author of the work. Meanwhile, I believe that I too could attempt to secure permission by sending the email myself. However, since everyone under-the-sun considers unsolicited email as spam, I doubt that emailing for permission is going to achieve anything. As I read further into the instructions, it dawned on me that I could add to my edit box (of the image) the expression {{PD-author |insert author's name|then some sort of explantion}}. I am here seeking assistance. Could someone access ''now deleted'', see what I have done, and then explain everything without linking me forever through the cyberspace of Wikipedia puzzles? Thanks. Hag2 (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

More...I have decided now that the image is not acceptable for the article. I do not like it. Hag2 (talk) 19:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

To help you for next time, we need to be sure that images are free before we use them, and either an email with permission or a notice on the source website suffices for this.

Note that your understanding of "in the public domain" appears to be incorrect. An image is in the public domain if anyone is free to use, modify, or sell it in any way without copyright restriction. If an image is non-free it is implicitly not in the public domain — just because an image is publicly available does not mean it is public domain. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you upload an image if it's made with a proprietary program?

Specifically, a screenshot of a graph made using Microsoft Excel. Could it be used? zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as long as it doesn't contain any non-free clipart or other non-free components. —teb728 t c 09:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

ask

can i use this image for rape for female by female

No, you can't edit at all because you have been indefinitely blocked as a vandalism only account. —teb728 t c 09:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Bailey bridges

dear sir, i wish to know about the longest bailey bridges constructed in the category of continuous span bailey bridges. Also I would like to inform that a 360 feet long continuous span bailey bridge was constructed by the Indian Army in Pottuvil district of Srilanka —Preceding unsigned comment added by Girishkumar1974 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This page is for questions about media I would suggest you ask your question either at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science or read the article Bailey bridge which details some of the longest bridges constructed (which are three or four times longer than the Indian Army bridge). MilborneOne (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Difference between non-free and unfree

What is the difference between Non-free as in Wikipedia:Non-free content and unfree as in Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. -- Suntag ☼ 16:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Insofar as they are different, non-free content is tagged with a non-free tag acknowledging that is subject to WP:NFC, and WP:PUI is for content (incorrectly?) tagged with a PD or free-license tag. —teb728 t c 19:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 22:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Page explaining acceptable CC licenses?

Some time ago someone pointed out to me a page here in the backstage areas of Wikipedia which explains (with symbols) which Creative Commons licenses are acceptable (why I can't find this linked off WP:IUP I don't know). Hoping someone here will know what I'm talking about and drop the link in here. Cheers. WWB (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

All Creative Commons BY (attribution) and BY-SA (attribution-sharealike) licenses are acceptable. Anything with NC (non-commercial only) or ND (no derivative works) is unacceptable. An alternative method is to look up the license template for the license you're wondering about, and it'll tell you if it's acceptable or not. --Carnildo (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. WWB (talk) 01:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This page lists all the acceptable CC licences and also links to a list of "Non-free Creative Commons licenses". ww2censor (talk) 01:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to explain this to me...

I got two picture warnings about improper usage of non free content or something... My question is what should I add to the licences I already supplied for the media that I uploaded?

• One of the media is self made.Ioan-Mihai Gale I (talk) 00:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Your fix for the self made logo is OK. The other logo is too simple to have a copyright; I fixed the tags on it. —teb728 t c 04:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Free use may be fair use

The images listed here largely are tagged as free use, but seem to be fair use. I put a note on the editor's talk page, but I would appreciate someone else reviewing the uploads. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 22:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Solved. All imaged have been deleted. Guy0307 (talk) 08:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yingz appears to be uploading images as free yet crediting them to a company

Yingz appears to have been uploading a bunch of images (and scattering advertising text in articles as a bonus). He's marked them as free, but in the articles he places them in, for example Bowl_feeder he then adds an attribution which seems to indicate they are commercial images. There is no response to my comments on his talk page; but it does smell like he's using commercial images and claiming them as his own. Can anyone advise/deal? --Blowdart | ^talk 13:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Send the images to WP:PUI. TinEye shows that www.rna-uk.com has cropped versions of some of the images, such as Image:RNA Bowl Feeder pharmaceutical.jpg [8]; and Image:RNA Bowl Feeder Framework.JPG comes from page 3 of [9]. --dave pape (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Done, thank you for the pointer. --Blowdart | ^talk 16:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Helleo I want to upload my own picture

Hi

Can some one tell me that can i upload my own picture in my own user page and if yes how can i do that. please reply me as soon as possible...

Regards,

Jimmy Shaw --Jam 18:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

See Help:Images. Please note that you need to have at least ten edits and that your account must be at least four days old. howcheng {chat} 02:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Container ships

What do container ships have below their decks where the containers are stored?```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.220.45 (talk) 01:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Please try asking at WP:REFDESK. howcheng {chat} 02:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hyundai Concept Genesis sketch

I've been working a bit on the Hyundai Genesis article, and think there is a possibility this concept sketch could be included under fair use, especially as it is a promotional image used widely by the automotive press earlier in the year. Is there a fair use case (or another case) for using this image now? If not, what would I need to satisfy licensing issues? Per my disclosure on the talk page, I do have some access to Hyundai. So if there is an acceptable way to declare permission, let me know that, too. NMS Bill (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

We can only use it if the image itself is notable in some way -- for example, the image included some aspect that turned out to be impossible to build, or the sketch was copied from another company's concept sketch; something where the image itself became notable, not just the car that is depicted in the image (if that distinction is clear to you). However, if you can convince Hyundai to release their sketch under a free license, then we could use it without limitation. If they're uncomfortable with releasing a high-resolution image, maybe you can convince them to allow a small image instead. See WP:COPYREQ for help in this. howcheng {chat} 16:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

optic engines

hi! friends im new to the wikipedia world... i think u people can solve my doubts.... my question is... 1.if the parts of engines used will be made of optical glasses which is reliable wat sorts of energy it can produce???????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANANDHANMARIMUTHU (talk • contribs) 06:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, this page is for copyright-related questions about media (usually images) uploaded to Wikipedia. For answers to your question, try asking at the Reference Desk. -- Hux (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Photographs of busts, statues, portraits, and other artwork displayed in public

If a bust or other work in on display in a public venue is there a general rule for what licensing/rights apply? Specifically I was wondering if I took a picture of the bust of Harvey Milk on display in San Francisco's city hall SF Chronicle story about it would be eligible for just a standard public domain tag, or would it have to fall under non-free justification? I know I've seen commons images of sculptures Commons:Category:Isamu Noguchi (died in '88), while portraits on display in Australian parliament were deleted. Is there a policy page I should be looking at here? -Optigan13 (talk) 08:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

See commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama. Problem is, rules differ from country to country. IIRC, the US do not have "freedom of panorama", so a (modern) sculpture on display in the US could not be photographed freely. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, looks like I'm out of luck as far as I can tell. I'll keep searching for images I guess. -Optigan13 (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Mickey Mouse

Another user recently deleted a photo I made and uploaded of my Pal Mickey toy, because he claimed that the photograph was a copyright violation. I'm still very confused by copyright law as it applies to Wikipedia. In an attempt to help me understand: are any of the images currently used in the Mickey Mouse article legally acceptable to use on Wikipedia? I don't think they would be, because they depict a copyrighted design, right? Or are there circumstances which would allow them? - Brian Kendig (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

They can only be used under fair use: they must provide encyclopedic content and they must not be reasonably replaceable by a free image.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 00:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

What's the process by which I can have an image deletion re-evaluated? The image was already deleted, but I don't believe it should have been. - Brian Kendig (talk)

Aren't you an admin? I thought you should know this stuff.. Anyway, I can't have a look at the photo now as it's already deleted. However, you might be able to upload it again with a fair use licence, if it passes the fair use criteria. Guy0307 (talk) 12:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am an admin. But image copyright issues aren't my forté, and I'm frustrated that I can never seem to upload a picture of anything - not even this photo I took of a toy I own - without it being taken down as a copyright violation. I haven't had the time to figure out the correct channels and procedures to follow for this. - Brian Kendig (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you own the toy doesn't give you copyright over it. Mickey Mouse is, I believe (I'm no copyright expert, either), covered by copyright; any photograph you take is covered by that copyright. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you, but I really want to understand this. I don't see how my photo of a Mickey toy could be a copyright violation which requires deletion while the photos of toys and the screenshots and the copies of artwork in Mickey Mouse are not. I'm at a complete loss to comprehend. - Brian Kendig (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Day Joyce Sheet photo

I was asked to provide further information about the source of the photo and have now obtained as much as is available:

"The image was derived from a photograph purchased from the Imperial War Museum, London, which holds the full copyright. It was taken some years ago by a member of staff in the course of their work for the IWM, but there is no record of exactly who it was. The IWM has given me permission to use it in this article, free of charge."

Who should I submit this to?

Also I would like the image to be restored to the size it was originally, when I first submitted it. The present reduced size makes it difficult to distinguish any of the details that the article describes and discusses.

91.125.205.193 (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I presume you are talking about this image. If that is so, just edit the page I just linked to to include that information. Unfortunately, I think the image is probably still at too high a resolution for a fair use image, so it really can't be expanded any more. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I am confused about the status of this photo. File:Day Joyce Sheet.jpg. If I click on the "enlarge" icon that appears below it I get to a larger image and the non-free use rationale that I have submitted. It would appear that the rationale has been accepted, since the image still appears in the article. I accept that this larger image cannot be used in the article. If I add a non-free fair use tag will that be sufficient to satisfy Wikipedia requirements? 91.125.31.163 (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Need some help

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

I'm not sure what license applies to this image. The source is the Queensland, AU govt Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries.

I would also like to know what I should do in the future for images like this. Thanks. --Ryan858 (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the copyright on that image is likely held by the Queensland government (I couldn't say for sure unless you provided a link to exactly where you got the picture), and therefore wouldn't be usable on Wikipedia. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is the page I got it off of: http://www2.dpi.qld.gov.au/horticulture/4759.html --Ryan858 (talk) 22:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

According to their copyright page, no part of the work may in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or any other means be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or be broadcast or transmitted without the prior written permission of DPI&F - thus this image is non-free, and since it's definitely replaceable, should be deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Derivative work confusion

According to Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ#Derivative_works, "You may not distribute a derivative work without the original author's permission unless you're using one of the rights they weren't granted (like fair use or fair dealing)." I interpret this to mean if the usage of an unauthorized derivative work falls into fair-use, then it is acceptable. In terms of wikipedia, I take this to mean a low-res image that cannot be replaced by an equivalent freely usable image, being used to better describe the topic at hand, that does not deprive intellectual property holders of profit (my own shoddy paraphrase).

However, I cannot find any Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free for which this is appropriate. This causes me to doubt my reasoning. I suppose my question specifically relates to unauthorized derivative works where the derivative author is willing to grant usage under whatever license is appropriate (if it's even possible to give licensing to an unauthorized derivative work...) Could someone please set me straight? (Man, I prefer dealing with Concensus-based policies over this legal muck!) -Verdatum (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

While legally, you may be correct that such images fall into fair use, on Wikipedia there is a more stringent requirement that we aim for free content (free as in thought). Derivative works are non-free content even if the unauthorized author releases them with free use-type licenses, and even if used in a manner that aligns with fair use consideration. Such works should only be used in articles where there is critical commentary (sourced discussion) about the nature of the derivative work, and not as a replacement for a non-derivative work that is non-free (a non-free non-derivative work is less a problem from the "free" standpont than a non-free derivative work). --MASEM 17:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Masem, that sounds like a resonable guideline to me. Perhaps such a clarification should be added to Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ#Derivative_works or...somewhere? I came to that link when an image I happened to be watching was appropriately tagged with Template:derivative. -Verdatum (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Talking parrot video on flickr

There is a talking parrot video of flickr at here. It can be downloaded and modified to a local computer. Can you confirm that its copyright is appropriate for the original and an edited version to be uploaded to commons and linked to en wiki. Snowman (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

That is perfectly fine. Just tag it {{cc-by-2.0}} and {{Flickrreview}} (this one apparently exists on commons only and not here... it lets a bot review the copyright status). By the way, have you found an easy way to convert .flv to .ogg (the only video format accepted on commons)? I was trying to do this and was having a hell of a time. Let me know on my talk page! Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi managed to download the file using Downloadhelper [[10]], it took a while but used the software as a Firefox add-on to XP, initially it wouldn't see the video but after I tried one on a different site it then saw the parrot one and let me download it. I then had to download the conversion tool from the same site and created an MPG after rotating part of the clip in Adobe Premiere Elements. From this I had to reboot into Ubuntu 8.04 and convert the file into ogg format using KinoDV (FFmpeg2theora must be installed too) Hope this helps.....Aviceda talk 07:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading it to Image:Amazon edited.ogg. Snowman (talk) 09:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mindfield sampler.jpg Not Fair Use?

The Betacommandbot removed this image: Image:Mindfield sampler.jpg, saying that it doesn't qualify under fair use, however this one: Image:Load_Metallicaalbum.jpg is an album cover just like it and is accepted as fair use. Is this some strange double-standard or did I do something wrong when posting?

MR.R (talk) 14:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

According to the deletion log Image:Mindfield sampler.jpg was deleted because it did not have a non-free use rationale as described at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. Image:Load_Metallicaalbum.jpg does contain a rationale. —teb728 t c 04:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

First image uploaded.

Okay, I uploaded my first image of the book cover on The Post-American world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ZakariaFareed-PostAmericanWorld.jpg I got the picture when I did a google search on the book, off a forum. The picture of the book cover is all over google when you type in the books name. So I should be able to use it without any problem. A bot left a message on my talk page, and I don't really know what it wants me to do. Help please Deavenger (talk) 02:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

What the bot is telling you is that you need to add a non-free use rationale to Image:ZakariaFareed-PostAmericanWorld.jpg as described at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. Perhaps the easiest way to do that is to use the {{book cover fur}} template. —teb728 t c 03:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this comment: "The picture of the book cover is all over google when you type in the books name. So I should be able to use it without any problem." FYI, the fact that you can find it all over Google means nothing with regard to whether or not you can use it on Wikipedia. (Similarly, just because I can find pirated DVDs for sale on any number of street corners, that doesn't mean I can legitimately copy my DVDs and start selling them on street corners.) Book covers are copyrighted the moment their design is created or published, which means that Wikipedia's non-free content criteria apply. -- Hux (talk) 04:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Person photo released under GNU now has "special" restrictions?

Image:Magadan, 09.06 019.jpg the fair use bot has posted on the talkpage that the History of the Eastern Orthodox Church that the image can not be used. Is this consistent with GNU fairuse? LoveMonkey (talk) 00:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The bot's message doesn't say that the image cannot be used. It says that it needs a non-free use rationale added to the image page for the article in which it appears. See this page for information on how to add such a rationale. -- Hux (talk) 04:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Photographs by Yousuf Karsh

Greetings,

I work with the estate of Yousuf Karsh. The goal of the estate since Mr Karsh's passing is to ensure the public is able to see his body of work. Images are copyright protected worldwide with small number of exceptions in Canada. I'd like to selectively upload some © Karsh's images to respective person's pages, eg Hellen Keller [11]

What is preferred as far as a letter from the estate endorsing me as a representative of their copyright?

Many thanks

Jgrahame (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jgrahame - unfortunately, our policies require that we use non-free images only when no free alternative is available or could be created. In the case of Hellen Keller, for example, there are plenty of free images already in the article, so our policies would not allow for the inclusion of Mr. Karsh's portrait, even if it was better than anything we currently had. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Understood. If there are subjects with no illustration and I have an appropriate image would it then be acceptable? I'm not planning to spend my time finding them but would love to fill in gaps if I do. More often than not Wikipedia has the most useful entry on Karsh's subjects than other resources. Thanks for your help, big up for your username.

Jgrahame (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have read more on the copyright info pages and understand better. Jgrahame (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

In case the reply above didn't fully answer your question, please note that a non-free image that is replaceable, e.g. a photograph of a living person, is unlikely to be usable on Wikipedia. Thanks for your interest. Stifle (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Might the estate be willing to release images under a free license? Other responders seemed to assume not, but you didn’t say that. If so, see WP:COPYREQ. If not, any permission from the estate would be irrelevant, for Wikipedia uses non-free images only under fair use. —teb728 t c 19:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to upload a fair use seal? (details below)

I'm planning to upload a vectorized version of this image but the problem is that I couldn't apply this template on it. Could I be involved in potential troubles/problems once I uploaded it's vectorized version? Thanks in advance. -iaNLOPEZ1115 11:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Generaly best not to vectorise fair use images. If you are looking for something to vectorise there are various lists of images that could usefuly be vectorised such as Category:Images that should use vector graphics.Geni 12:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Best to try Category:Images that should be in SVG format rather than that redlinked one. Stifle (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

National anthems of micronations

Can I upload the audio files of national anthems of micronations? If so, what template would I use? Thanks - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 21:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Use of images from US Patent Office?

I'd like to upload and use some images from patents to illlustrate an article. I've found them in the US Patent and Trademark Office database, http://patft.uspto.gov/, but I can't find a clear statement in Wikipedia or at the Patent Office site about appropriate use of images from this source. I would appreciate some direction on this. Regards, Chuckiesdad (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

See Commons:Template:PD-US-Patent. Check the text of the patent for any explicit statement that the images are copyrighted. If there's no such statement, they're PD. --dave pape (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

expenses

how much does one earthship cost 118.94.7.169 (talk) 10:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, this page is for copyright-related questions about media (usually images) uploaded to Wikipedia. For answers to your question, try asking at the Reference Desk. MilborneOne (talk) 11:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Collection of someone else

If the image is the collection of someone else, what image copyright tag will be use?Aquitania (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, unless the creator of the image had agreed to release the image under a free licence we can't use it. See WP:COPYREQ for help with requesting permission (Asking them "Can I use this image under a free licence?" or "Can I upload this picture to Wikipedia" isn't enough). Guy0307 (talk) 05:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Posting an image for the first time

Hello, I'm updating a page for an actress and the photo I have was given to me by her. She dose not know who took it, but it was taken at an event party for a play she was in. Can I use this image, and if so, how do I mark it? Thanks.

Biggunn01 (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No. Images on Wikipedia must quote their source and copyright license. The image you describe is copyrighted and would need to be released under a free license to be used on Wikipedia. Non-free images of living people can very rarely be used because they are assumed to be replaceable by a free image. Stifle (talk) 15:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Biggunn01 (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Free image?

Hi, I'm in the process of making an info box for a wikipedia article about the book "Woman Hollering Creek" and I am wondering if this image is ok for me to use.

It is the book cover image for "Woman Hollering Creek" and it is on the right hand side of the webpage. (I tried enlarging the image so it was by itself, but the URL for that page didn't work...

--Jacqui Nicole (talk) 01:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Book covers are almost always copyrighted, so you'll need to do three things: 1) Upload the small version of the cover, 2) Add the template {{non-free book cover}} to the "Licensing" section on the image page, 3) Add a Fair Use rationale to the "Summary" section on the image page (see this page for an example of how to do that). -- Hux (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help!!--Jacqui Nicole (talk) 06:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Harold Challenor

This isn't actually about an image but about a block quote. I found in Challenor's obituary in The Times a quotation from his citation for the Military Medal. User:David Underdown then found the original citation in The National Archives site and corrected a couple of misquotes. We are now wondering at Talk:Harold Challenor whether including the full citation may still be in copyright and whether we have Fair Use grounds to include it. Could someone more expert on this give their view, please.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Excessive use of sport team logos

I am concerned at the recent usage of sports team logos on large numbers of per-season pages, instead of only on a top-level team page, as a solitary fair-use instance. For example, look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Image:OregonDucks.png. In another case, Image:Ohio State buckeyes logo.png has fair-use rationales for seven articles, still far less than the 28 articles that currently have the image, but even seven articles seems to many to me, as I understand WP:NFCC. The rationale states logo confirms to readers they have reached the correct article, and illustrates the intended branding message, but I think that is stretching the bounds of the criteria. Am I correct with my concerns, or is this type of usage allowed? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

{{pd-textlogo}}. Problem solved for Oregon. Seriously, you can't copyright a green letter "O". That said, I don't think using a copyrighted logo on 10 or even 100 pages is necessarily a NFCC problem. Each page should be individually judged on whether it fits the NFCC criteria and an appropriate justification is given. Now, admittedly, widely used logos are unlikely to be used correctly in all cases, but being widely used isn't itself proof of a problem. Dragons flight (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so Oregon was a bad example. How about Image:University of Kansas Jayhawk logo.svg, Image:BuckyBadger.png, Image:Usc football logo.gif, and Image:GeorgiaTechYellowJackets.png? The point is that most of the articles in Category:2008 NCAA Division I FBS football season have an infobox with a non-free logo, and over time you could expect hundreds/thousands of articles in Category:College football seasons and its subcategories to be written this way. The real question, I suppose, is:

Is it acceptable for a team logo image to be used on dozens of per-season articles for that team and still be compliant with WP:NFCC?

I note that a sampling of articles from Category:2008 National Football League season by team, Category:2008 Major League Baseball season and Category:National Basketball Association seasons by team don't show logo images in their infoboxes, so perhaps this is just a problem with the college sports, and the pro sports editors are aware of and abide by NFCC. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

ovaries

is it bad when you have one ovary bigger than the other and does it prevent you from getting pregnant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.206.211.14 (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, this page is for copyright-related questions about media (usually images) uploaded to Wikipedia. For answers to your question, try asking at the Reference Desk. --Admrboltz (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Haenschen.png

Sheet music, undoubtly the author (of the music, not the actual sheet) died more than 100 years ago. Is {{PD-old}} good enough? Guy0307 (talk) 05:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. howcheng {chat} 02:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright tag for Image:Torpedoed Lusitania diagram.jpg

This image is from Mary Evans Picture Library, so what image copyright tag did I need to use? Aquitania (talk) 04:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright tag for Image:Lusitania vast hole.jpg

This image is the collection of Eric Sauder, so what image copyright tag do I need to use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquitania (talk • contribs) 04:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That depends on questions like: Who owns the copyrights on Image:Torpedoed Lusitania diagram.jpg and Image:Lusitania vast hole.jpg? And what right does Wikipedia have to use them? —teb728 t c 23:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Logo for Norfolk Christian Schools

Dear sirs:

The current logo on the Wikipedia Page is the Athletic logo, not the official, copyyrighted school logo.

I would like to delete the current logo and replace it with our actual llogo, if that is possible. Can you assist me with this?

Thank you,

Ross McCloud Director of Admissions Norfolk Christian Schools 255 Thole Street Norfolk, VA 23505 rossmccloud@norfolkchristian.org

757-233-8477 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.59.82 (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see instructions at Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission on how to send us files for inclusion in articles. howcheng {chat} 02:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-free images for Frank Zappa article

Two non-free images have been questioned at the article's FAC. I have for now removed them but is nevertheless interested in feedback on their potential viability. The images are: Image:ZappaDailyReport1965.jpg and Image:MothersBBC1968b.jpg Thanks for any input. --HJensen, talk 14:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia’s policy on non-free content allows its use only if its presence would significantly increase readers’ understanding of the topic. The screenshot contributes little to the article but decoration. As for the news article, if someone thinks it worthwhile to mention press coverage of the incident, that could be done more effectively in text alone. (It seems to me that even if these were free images, their poor quality would make them poor candidates for inclusion in the article.) —teb728 t c 23:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

List of best-selling albums in the United States

As this list is generated from the RIAA website with specified it is copyright - then this article is breaching such copyright beyond fair use? Should the article be deleted? Eight88 (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

wrong place. sorry Eight88 (talk) 02:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Attribution for images which are links to anywhere other than the image description page

I've seen a number of images which are links to pages other than their description page, such as {{Featured article}}'s usage of Image:LinkFA-star.png (). As attribution of images is, to the best of my understanding, done using the description page, it would seem to me that use of images as links to other pages violates the attribution clause of licenses such as GFDL, CC-BY-SA and similar ones - licenses which cover most of Wikipedia's and Wimedia Commons' free image content. Is this really a problem? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting point and imo you're correct: in order to comply with attribution requirements the link must go to the image page, which shows the author's name. The only way around this, as far as I can see, is for the creators of such images to release them to the Public Domain. What does everyone else think? -- Hux (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is strictly true. Unless you provide a tooltip or some other link, then it would appear that we are breaking copyright there. Stifle (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Does the fact that the target page has the same image linking to the description page matter? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Playing devil's advocate, but exactly what "attribution requirement" requires a link? The image description page includes attribution - that should be adequate. Do we need to have every word in an article link directly to the author who added that word? Gimmetrow 12:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspect Gimmetrow is correct, but I'm curious to know the "actual" license. Why is the local PNG using {{LGPL}} (a software variant) when the the Commons version is tagged as {{GFDL}}? Эlcobbola _talk 15:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this question the question of whether a given image MUST link to the httpd'd URL of the author demonstrating he owns the image by hosting it "online"? Or just whether they must be credited in the Image: space? Only the latter is required--no Main space/article attribution typically, or direct URL. rootology (C)(T) 13:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think either you misunderstood the question, or I misunderstood your answer. The credit for an image is on the Image: page, and that's fine because when a thumb is included in an article, clicking on the thumb leads to the Image: page with the credit. However, in a small number of cases (such as at the top of any featured article), clicking on the image doesn't lead to the image description page, so there's no way to know who created the image. I do think this is a problem. I know the French Wikisource requires that only PD and Wikimedia-owned images be used in cases like this (see s:fr:Modèle:Lien sur image); other wikis probably do the same, and I think the English Wikipedia should too. Pruneau^talk 14:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that {{Wikipedia ads}} is a problem. Here you have a GFDL image where a click gives you a WikiProject page; directly under the image, there is a link "File info" which brings up the Image: page for the image. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please help me understand this? Where is the line drawn? Why clicking on the Wikipedia globe logo doesn't lead me to an image description page? Likewise, the many images used in the "sister projects" section of Main Page. Why is our site the only one required to provide direct links to attribution while others only provide a boilerplate license note somewhere in the footer? Thanks, Миша13 16:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a note in the footer is connected well enough with images at the top left corner of the page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Old Encyclopedia: Copyright Status

Please kindly let me know if this is already in the public domain: text and image contents of The New Book of Knowledge, Grolier Incorporated, 1977. Thank you. - AnakngAraw (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No, 1977 is much too recent to be out of copyright. Assuming it was published with a copyright notice on it (which is extremely likely for an encyclopedia), it would remain under copyright until 2072. See [12] for a brief summary. The best encyclopedia currently in the public domain is the 1913 edition of the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Dragons flight (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, very helpful and informative. - AnakngAraw (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Languages problem

hi i'm from malaysia and i try too search 'bahasa malaysia' language about 'hydropneumatic suspension', where can i found it...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aminnem01 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You want the Bahasa Malaysian language's equivalent of the Reference desk. This page is for copyright questions regarding images and the like on the English Wikipedia. Sorry. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 03:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

An old painting I own

I own an anonymous folk-art painting, created in Mexico in 1947. What's the correct licensing that I should select when I add it to a Wikipedia article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whbonney (talk • contribs) 02:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Who is the copyright holder? Stifle (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Judging by the notes at Commons:User:Drini/Mexican_copyright_law, the Mexican government might be the effective copyright holder, if the work is truly anonymous. In any event, Mexico has a 100 years PMA copyright, so even without knowing the author, if it was made in 1947 it's copyrighted and would be {{Non-free 2D art}}. --dave pape (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Photo of a ship's bell

Would a ship's bell qualify as a piece of art, making a photo of it a derivative work? In particular, I'm asking about a bell that came from a U.S. Navy ship. Musashi1600 (talk) 07:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't personally think so. Also if it's a US Navy ship it may well be a work of the Federal Government anyway. Stifle (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Confused about licensing an image already uploaded.

I hope this is the right place to ask this. Image:JOSE1.jpg is already uploaded and in use in José Sarria. It's tagged as PD but in the course of an FA review the tag has been questioned because it's supposedly been released by an organization. The uploader and I have no clue what needs to happen to clear up this issue. I find image licensing the most confusing thing about Wikipedia so if someone can talk me through the proper procedure like I'm a six year-old I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Otto4711 (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries for a boilerplate e-mail to use. Njcraig, or someone who can speak officially for the International Court System, should send such a message, stating exactly who owns the copyright to the image and asserting that the copyright holder agrees to release it to the public domain (or change it to a CC or GFDL license, if, for instance, they want to require attribution and didn't realize that PD gives up all rights - the fourth sentence of the example message doesn't actually apply for PD-self). --dave pape (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reply. Another editor gave me the following text:

  I own the copyright to the images attached. I grant permission to copy, distribute and/or modify these documents under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.

  to send to permissions. Would that text along with the name of the copyright holder suffice as well? Otto4711 (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The above is equivalent to the first two sentences of the example message. The other text is preferable, because in addition to stating the license, it has the sender acknowledge important aspects of a free license that sometimes people aren't aware of (they might otherwise think they're just giving permission for Wikipedia, not for the entire world). --dave pape (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• So am I reading the directions correctly, once the declaration is received the rest is all handled internally? The copyright holder doesn't need to do anything else? Otto4711 (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The OTRS volunteer who handles it might e-mail back, if anything needs clarification. Otherwise, usually the volunteer will take care of everything and add the {{PermissionOTRS}} tag to the image (sometimes I've seen the uploader adding it, so I don't know for sure if it's guaranteed that the OTRS person will do it). --dave pape (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• OK, great. Thanks for all your help. Otto4711 (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Ryan Reynolds Pics

OK, if I can't use pics taken from magazine. Then can u wikipedians upload some photos somehow. It would be nice to actually see the actor instead of just reading about him. That would be very nice of u guys to do, we fans would very much appreciate it if u can add some pics to his page. ~ Raizen18 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raizen18 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I just uploaded a free image for you and put it in Ryan Reynolds. It's not great, but I think it's better than nothing.... Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I enhanced the contrast a little. If you want a better photo, try asking at Talk:Ryan Reynolds. His fans are more like to read there than this forum. (I see that Scarlett Johansson fans have come up with two good free images of her.) —teb728 t c 18:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

acceptable use of streaming video screen shots

I am interested in uploading a few images taken from a political debate (Idaho Senate) to the Larry LaRocco wikipedia page. My understanding is that the LaRocco for Senate campaign owns the copyright via purchasing the services from Ustream TV. Is this considered acceptable use? How should I reference it on the discussion page?

Thanks. Sixdegrees2008 (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

See WP:COPYREQ. In order to be acceptable the images would have to be licensed under a free license, i.e. one that allows reuse by anyone for anything. Would the campaign license them under such a license? And you should check with Ustream TV to be sure that they agree that the campaign owns the copyright. —teb728 t c 00:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

reproduce?

Can I reproduce a Wikipedia article if I credit Wikipedia with the article?

Mary Wildmann 22:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)22:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Mwildmann (talk)

See Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content for the requirements on reproducing Wikipedia articles. —teb728 t c 00:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Scanned image of a (significant) concert ticket

Can I scan my old concert ticket from the Freddie Mercury Tribute concert for use in the respective Wikipedia page? This is a significant, one-time concert. I realize that the ticket itself contains a design that would be subject to copyright but I am unsure how to treat this and whether it is acceptable fair use to show the concert ticket as a historical record. Any help will be gratefully received and, in the meantime, I will look up Live Aid :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevorhirst (talk • contribs) 06:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia’s policy on non-free content is intentionally much more restrictive than fair use law. In particular, “non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic.” I can’t imagine how a scan of a ticket could satisfy this condition. Sorry. —teb728 t c 00:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Picture of Dead Person from CNN

Image:Gallery.welles.headshot.jpg

Am I doing it right? Y/N

Metty (talk) 13:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No. You haven’t provided an image copyright tag indicating what right Wikipedia has to use the image. —teb728 t c 01:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I knew that. I was asking if it was legitimate to use. Metty (talk) 13:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused.

I don't know why I got this message. Thanks for uploading Image:Randy_Rogers_Band_Promo.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.

2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Melesse (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't even know what to do. I go the picture from the bands website. So is that allowed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfft 2108 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Randy Rogers Band Promo.jpg has a {{Non-free use rationale}} on it. This implies that the image is not licensed under a free license i.e. a license that allows reuse by anyone for anything. Wikipedia has a policy that a non-free photo cannot be used if it could be replaced by a free photo. Since the band is alive and active, it should be a simple matter for you or someone else to take a snapshot of them which you could upload under a free license. So what you need is a free photo. And when you upload it you need to indicate which free license permits Wikipedia to use it. —teb728 t c 00:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well the photo is free. I got the picture from the bands website. Or yall getting confused because It has promo in the image title? Sfft 2108 (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The photo may be "free" because you didn't have to buy it, but it's not free from Wikipedia's perspective, since the band still retains copyright over the image. That copyright limits reuse of the image. Promotional press photos may be OK from the standpoint of other media, but Wikipedia restricts fair use to images that cannot be recreated or replaced easily with a "free" (as in free of copyright). As mentioned, someone will have to take a personal photo of the band and post it under a "free" license that permits reuse of the image. DCmacnut<> 21:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

More specifically, the band’s website’s Terms of Use contains the following license: “6. Grant of License. Company hereby grants to you a limited, worldwide, non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-sublicenseable, and revocable license to use the Services and/or the Materials for personal, noncommercial use only, subject to the restrictions in this Agreement.” The restrictions in this license are not acceptable to Wikipedia. Sorry. —teb728 t c 22:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Movie artwork question

I just wanted to know if i should refrain from uploading movie artwork [movie poster or dvd cover] for use on the wiki for that particular movie. For example, tonight I watched the movie Roadhouse 2. Not a real big deal as a movie. Kind of a half ass sequel, but I noticed there was next to no info about it on it's wiki, so I decided to fill in some of the general missing info. I was going to add an image of the dvd cover as well that I found on Amazon.com. Should I upload it or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1938superman (talk • contribs) 08:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There's minimal problems to include the movie poster (ideally) or DVD cover (if the poster can't be found) for use in a movie's infobox; that's generally an acceptable use of non-free media. If you follow the "Upload file" link to the left under "Toolbox", it'll give you instructions for how to do it, and what you need to include for its fair use rationale; just make sure you point to amazon with a URL as your image source. --MASEM 13:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

German copyright

This is an English translation of a German copyright. The commons helper tool does not recognise the template. Can this image be used outside Germany, and can an image with this license be uploaded to commons to be used on the en wiki. Snowman (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a CC-BY-SA-3.0, seems perfectly acceptable to me! Physchim62 (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I would inform the author of the commons uploader tool of the bug, but the bug report link does not work. Snowman (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

What bug? The license tag is Commons:Template:cc-by-sa-3.0-de or Commons:Template:cc-by-sa-3.0. What’s the problem? —teb728 t c 21:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC) It's the 16th line on the Licensing dropdown. —teb728 t c 21:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be an alternative format {{Bild-CC-by-sa/3.0/de}} [13] on the German wiki which is not recognised by the upload helper software. There is one on this image, which will be deleted in a day or two, after I uploaded it to commons without using the upload helper tool. Snowman (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ordnance Survey maps

I wish to upload a section of an old Ordnance Survey map in order to show the location of Bank Street stadium, but I don't know what licence I should upload it under. According to the website I got the image from, the dates of the maps range from 1925 to 1945, and the maps themselves are now out of copyright. – PeeJay 09:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

UK Crown copyright is fifty years from publication, so they're public domain now. Maps from 1946–1957 are in some sort of copyright purgatory, as theoretically they're copyrighted in the U.S. but not in the UK (through U.S. copyright restoration), but pre-1945 should be fine. Physchim62 (talk) 10:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I have now uploaded the image to Commons as Image:Bank street os.jpg. I hope I've tagged it correctly. – PeeJay 19:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

FUR

Hi guys, would u mind taking a look at a question I left here plz? Ryan4314 (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Old UK Photo

Can I upload this 1884 UK photo of Bedlay Castle? It has a photographer (Fleming) indicated but no date of death. Under UK law the photo is only public domain if the author died before 1st January 1938 (commons:Template:PD-UK-known), since the author is indicated. Can I assume this is the case because their is a 54 year span between the photo taken date and the death cut of date and through no reasonable method can I find the author's death date? Any help is appreciated.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 20:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Try {{non-free unsure}}. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mojos-Everythings-cover.jpg

This image is used in Decca Records, and I wondered - could I use the same rationale used on Image:Decca198.jpg (also used in Decca Records)? Also, generally, am I doing it right by tagging that image as a record cover? I've looked at several other images of record labels and they mostly seem to be classed as being like photographs. I'm confused! -- Bobyllib (talk) 01:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You would need to write a separate rationale explaining why the use of the image complies with WP:NFCC. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Gallup poll graphs

Is it OK to use data from the Gallup website to create graphs for use on Wikipedia? (Gallup web site T&C [14], examples [15], [16]) Ha! (talk) 04:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Data isn't copyrightable, so if you make the graph for yourself (using free software to cover off all bases) then this isn't a problem. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

xenophobia

what is the reasons of xenophobia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.1.53.47 (talk) 07:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't seem like a media copyright question. —teb728 t c 07:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over two million articles, and thought that we were directly affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the online free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is a help desk for asking questions related to using the encyclopedia. Thus, we have no inside track on the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the left hand side of your screen. If that is not fruitful, we have a reference desk, divided into various subjects areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Screenshots of copyrighted Audio files

If I load a copyrighted audio file into, say Audacity, take a screenshot of the waveform and save it as a PNG file, is this considered for copyright purposes to be "different enough from the original to be regarded as a new work" (under derivative works law), so it can be uploaded under GFDL; or, is it regarded as a derivative work and thus requires a fair-use rationale? I'd argue that since the bandwidth of the image is such that the original waveform cannot be reconstructed, it is "different enough". I've also asked this on Commons since it's something they should know about; but there doesn't seem to be a definitive answer anywhere. --Rodhullandemu 21:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No caselaw but people have reconstructed sounds music from waveforms. Probably a derivative work but no caselaw. Should be some free audio samples around that you could do it with though.Geni 09:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Commons seen to think it's a "derivative work", but they do that with regard to images and text; in this case, the image represents the dynamics of a copyrighted piece of music, and being a PNG file, any reconstruction of the original track from it would be pointless. I didn't want to bother Mike Godwin with this, but perhaps I'll drop him an email. --Rodhullandemu 21:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair Use? Image:Halloween Decorations.jpg.

The sole objector's charged "derivative works", I believe the image conforms wholly with the following litmus defining "Fair use".

1. What is the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit education purposes? It's art I created. I posted it with the intention of illustrating commercial applications of traditional Halloween imagery.

2. What is the nature of the copyrighted work? A random display of manufactured items shot in a storefront based on cultural objects in which there are no visible copyrighted elements. No different than photographing cars in a parking lot.

3.What is the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole? Assuming there is any copyright work at all, with the exception of the pumpkin, all other items appear in only fragmentary portions.

4. What is the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work? 17 U.S.C. 107(1-4). None. Originals are three-dimensional, image is one-dimensional.

In summery: This image is "art" composed of "found objects" based on "cultural reference" which I created and posted in the context of "educational purposes" for a free online article.

Can an image conform with fair use standards and still be considered by Wikipedia to be a derivative work? Willjay (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Free and fair use are separate licenses. You've twice uploaded an image and released it under GFDL, a free license. Since you do not own the copyrights to the objects within that work, you are not permitted to release it under the terms of the GFDL. It has, therefore, been rightfully deleted (twice). Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Halloween Decorations.jpg was deleted by this IfD. If you want to contest the deletion, take it to WP:DRV. —teb728 t c 08:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Neuralgia

Can an alergic reaction to a hair dye lead to Nerve problems in the jaw/check and teeth area?

Thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FEEBAP (talk • contribs) 19:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

If you are looking for medical or legal advice, you should consult with a doctor or lawyer. Wikipedia is not allowed to give medical or legal advice. In any case that is not a media copyright question. —teb728 t c 21:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)