Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Images from Government of Thailand

I am writing concerning about Image:11482i6.jpg, which I have uploaded. Thailand's Copyright Law [1] specifies that "Announcements, orders and regulations of ministries, bureaus, departments or any other agency of the state or local jurisdiction" are "Works Not Subject to Copyright under the Copyright Act". As this image is part of the government announcement, in my opinion that using this image is compatible with Wikipedia's policy. However there is no suitable Tags for works of Government of Thailand. --Rgl168 15:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

What exactly qualifies as an announcement "of ministries, bureaus, departments or any other agency of the state or local jurisdiction"? Does an employee's posting count just because he's posting it on the official website? A Thai lawyer would really be desirable here; law can be extremely tricky. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I am no lawyer but yes in my opinion that a posting on the official website is qualified as an announcement. Xoloz [2] appearently agrees and modified the tag accordingly. (Thanks Xoloz) --Rgl168 16:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have misgivings about this. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21

09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

TV screenshots Q/A

I just recently founded a picture of KSNB when it was part of the NTV (Nebraska Television Network), what should I do???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ks sonflower (talk • contribs) 20:27, 31 July 2006

It would have to be used under Wikipedia:Fair use if we used it at all. What do you want to use the image for? In what article? What exactly does the image show? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Missing person posters and images

What is the status of use of wikipedia whenpolice fores have released the images on to their websies and allow the use of the inages which are copywrited undercertian condition? Which type of licence tag is needed to allow for them to be placed on wikipedia? I say this as an example of a new page I have created about Amanda Dowler where many of the same Images which were released by Surrey police have appeard on geocities and on many oher websites with out copyright violations.--Lucy-marie 11:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is much stricter about copyright than other websites; that other websites reproduce an image doesn't mean we can. Missing-person images would probably be acceptable under a sort of de facto fair use, much as promotional images are: the ones who distributed them will typically want them to be disseminated as far and wide as possible, so strictly limited use of them is probably tolerable. Ideally, of course, free images should be sought, but I'm not sure it would be entirely sensitive to ask the parents of a missing child about the copyright status of an image of the child. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

permission granted for images

Regarding Image:Logo cyberboad.gif, I have written permission from the creator to use the image on Wikipedia. Why is this considered insufficient for Wikipedia's purposes? Jay Gatsby^(talk) 21:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Because one of Wikipedia's goals is to produce free content: content that other people can re-use. --Carnildo 22:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Bio articles and free images

I saw several articles like Hugh Grant, that has an unfree image[3] alongside a mugshot [4]. Right now there is a discussion in Mel Gibson with editors stating the fact that there is a free image (mel gibson mugshot), and so it is not allowed to use an unfree image to illustrate the article. Since the image is particularly denigrating of the subject, there has been resistance of some editors to use it (myself included). Please, what are your opinions? Thanks in advance.

--Stellatomailing 00:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Regardless of that discussion, the image of Mel Gibson currently used - Image:Melpremiere.jpg is a wire image. (Take a look at the yahoo source cited on the image description page. It's a wire photo.) Under WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5, this is not permissible. Honestly, if it were a promotional photo released by Mel Gibson's agent, I would find that to be a preferable photo to a mugshot, even if non-free, but this image is not a promotional photo - it is a wire photo - and is thus completely inappropriate for use on Wikipedia. BigDT 01:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi BigT, I was thinking about using 120px or maybe this publicity photo or even a film screenshot that was released as publicity of the movie and its star i.e. 120px or from IMDB(like 120px. PLease advise so maybe we can solve this dispute there :-). Thanks!

Stellatomailing 03:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• A film screenshot is fine when you are actually talking about the movie ... but using it as a stock picture of Mel Gibson probably is not. As for the pictures you listed ....
  • Image:Mel Gibson 2001.jpg probably cannot be used unless its original source was a promo photo released by the studio. From the website where you found it, this looks like a photo that some other company took and their product is the photo itself. So I would definitely not consider using it to be fair use.
  • [5] isn't Mel Gibson, but again, they are trying to sell photos. I wouldn't consider that fair use.
  • Image:Mel Gibson Lethal Weapon 4.jpg, IMO, as I said above, would be fine to use in the article for identification when you are discussing the movie, but as a generic photo of Mel Gibson, I would consider that inappropriate.
  • With IMDB, their photo gallery is a feature they use to attract you to their website so that they can sell ads. So I would not consider their images to be fair use.
  • Image:Promo mel gibson.jpg, even though it is from IMDB, according to the copyright notice, really is a Paramount-owned promotional image. So I would consider that one to be in keeping with the current fair use policy.
• Another thing worth considering is this comment [6] from Jimbo Wales. Honestly, I think he is right - we should exercise MORE discretion than the law requires because we are trying to produce a free content encyclopedia. Even though we legally should be able to use a photo that is really a promotional photo, it may be worth it in the long run to not do that. That's not really germane to your question, but at least something worth thinking about. BigDT 12:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding promotional photos, it may be worth reading this: http://poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=106490 and placing it into consideration. Basically, the promo photo for Jon Benet Ramsey that has been used for years in news media has received mandatory kills from the AP, Reuters and APF because the creator revoked the image rights. --Guroadrunner 02:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, BigDT! I agree with your arguments. I wonder if there is something that could be done so we can have a more consistent policy across the board, because the way it is(double standards for different articles) is confusing.

Stellatomailing 13:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleting Images

Image:somerset-levels.jpg.

Hi I uploaded this image but now think that it is probably copywrited, However I can't see how to delete it. How is this done?

Thanks

Add a {{d|copyrighted}} tag to the image page. This will indicate to an adminisrator you wish the image to be deleted. --88.109.133.70 13:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Great many thanks,

Is there a full list of useful tags anywhere?

For speedy delete, or copyright tags? WP:CSD for deleting, and Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags for image tags. SynergeticMaggot 15:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I was really wondering if there is a page in wikipedia that simply lists a full list of "tags" that can be used on wiki in general.

You can find most at Wikipedia:Template messages and it's subpages, for stubs consult Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types. --Sherool (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Excelent! many thanks --Theball90 14:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Two images

I uploaded two images earlier today and did not know which licence tag to put on. The two images are Image:CaGuJung.jpg and Image:SigFreud.jpg. The place where I obtained the images states that they are in public domain, but not where they got them from. I found them via the Wikipedia:Public_domain_image_resources#People section which said they were public domain drawings of famous psychologists. Anyone know which tags I should put on? SynergeticMaggot 15:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The Jung one is clearly someone's sketch. The Freud one is a problem. I was so sure myself that photograph was PD (the website above is not the only place that claims that) that I uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons. I then found out that the Freud Copyright Group claimed copyright on it, and have never found anything anywhere that justifies the PD claim, and I did more than a cursory search. Given that, I wouldn't be surprised to discover that the Jung sketch is a derivative work of unfree photography. The good news is that Sonoma.edu has clearly done some kind of thinking about this, and can be contacted. It would be great if you would be willing to enter into an email exchange with the website owner and get more information about these images so that their copyright status can be determined. Jkelly 17:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. However, it seems more hassle then its worth to for right now. I am currently busy and don't have time for email exchanges. If someone can just delete them, this is fine, and my apologizes for uploading them. Also, I'd recomend removing the web site link from Wikipedia:Public_domain_image_resources#People if others are having problems. Again I thank you, also for the digging. Much appreciation. SynergeticMaggot 17:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Er. Let me rephrase this. Just the Freud pic can be deleted. I'm not still not sure what tag to put on the Jung one though. SynergeticMaggot 17:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

copyrights

to whom this may concern,

Image:1933_main_2.jpg how can I change the tag of copyright to this image, which is already uploaded to the wikipedia system?

See WP:ICT for the available licenses. howcheng {chat} 21:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You can edit the page like any other. Just edit and replace the license template. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Image Question

Hello Image:Raul2.JPG This image is from a newspaper article from newspaper (La Razon)1976-2001, a newspaper from Spain that is no longer published.
What is the proper tag for it?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Trade2tradewell (talk • contribs)

{{imagevio}} Jkelly 18:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps not. The image description page says that the creator gave permission for its use. Who is the copyright holder, do we have any evidence of this, and what is its licensing status? If they are comfortable with our using it, and there is no commercial value being imapacted, why aren't we asking for a freely-reusable license? We need more information here. Jkelly 18:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:UniSource Energy Tower, Tucson.jpg

found this pic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UniSource_Energy_Tower%2C_Tucson.jpg) at the buuilding owner's website, and dont know which licensing to use...

the website is http://www.cummingsbaccus.com/cbi_unisourcepg.html --Tucson 07:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any indication on the we site to indicate that this image is public domain or under a free license. Since this building is accessible to the public and is possible to photograph, we do not allow the use of an unfree image. If you live in the Tuscon area, though, perhaps you could take a picture and release it under a license such as Creative Commons Attribution. ×Meegs 07:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

copy right tagging of images

My_star_of_life.jpg‎

Not sure if I've copyright tagged properly. Tried to attach pd-self for public domain. Perhaps you can advise of intervene? --Medic can 12:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. To change the tag, all you need to do is edit the page like any other. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Granted permission to use on Wikipedia

Relevant picture: Image:Plethora-of-pk's.jpg

The creator of the image (a non-Wiki user) verbally gave me specific permission to use the picture on Wikipedia. He also stated that the image could be released into the public domain. It seemed inappropriate to use a pd-self tag, so I used the granted permission tag, and got the speedy deletion notice.

What's the proper tag? --BarnacleKB 22:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Permission to use the image on the Wikipedia web site is not sufficient for us to use it, as our goal is to create an encyclopedia useable anywhere, by anyone. We can use the photo, however, if John Browne has agreed to release it to the public domain. Please, though, make absolutely certain that this is the case, and that he understands that such a release is irrevocable. If this is the case, the correct tag is {{PD-release}}. In addition to the tag, it'd be helpful if you also mentioned the PD release in the prose of the image description page. ×Meegs 00:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively, it could be released under a free content license such as {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a really stupid policy to not allow images for which the copyright holder gives permission, but I thing you can work your way around it by using a {{WithPermission}} tag along with a fair use tag. --Arctic Gnome 23:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Only if the image qualifies for fair use in the first place. "With permission" has all sorts of problems. Immediate examples are that it doesn't allow use in non-Wikipedia projects like Wikibooks or Wikinews, and depending on the exact wording may not be usable on Wikipedia in other languages. And grants of permission can be revoked -- and are likely to be, if the person granting permission doesn't like how the image is being used. --Carnildo 08:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Image Copyright

Hello, I have recently uploaded image files for the wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toroa_House%2C_Otago

I took the photos on the page myself and did not tag them with a copyright. Is it possible to do a general tag for all of the photos instead of uploading them one by one again. I'd like to make them GNU Copyleft, that would be appropriate for anyone to use them, no?

I would also like to know if it's possible to change the wiki from Toroa_house to Toroa_International_House

Thanks in advance,

--N.chan 04:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your contributions. What you need to do is to click on the images, and edit the page you see there just like any other page. Add {{GFDL}} to the page, and remove the template warning about lack of licensing information. If this is unclear, let me know and I will help. Jkelly 04:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest you release them under {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} as well as {{gfdl-self}}; the GFDL is really not ideal for printed images, should anyone want to print them, since a page-long license must be included. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

In answer to your other question, articles can be moved (once you have a certain small number of edits) by clicking the Move link at the top of the screen. Images can't, although you can reupload it under a new name, change all the references in articles so that they point to the new image, and tag the old one {{isd|new image name}}. Stifle (talk) 22:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Orthodox icons

This discussion happened on Wikipedia talk:Copyrights a while ago, but I never got an answer there. I'm pasting it in here in the hopes that it's a more appropriate forum.

--> One diligent editor has uploaded a few scans of Eastern Orthodox icons, but I question his tag. Here's an example. He asserts that it must be public domain since they are "hundreds of years old" and/or, as here, "copies of copies" and thus not copyrightable. There may be other examples of this kind of thing which I have not located, but these were handy.

Now, while it's true that icons are "copies of copies" and that their types are often centuries old, icons in this style are painted by hand right up to the present day, and these in particular look new. While the iconographer must stay within the canons of the subject, there is considerable room for individual expression. For example, compare the first example above with this icon of the same subject. In many cases, I can't help but think there may be copyright considerations.

Several factors complicate the issue. First, authorship and copyright are very often not asserted over icons, and it is a common practice that they are not even signed. Sometimes an icon's creator can be identified by style, but often not. Second, they are very often work made for hire, and absent a contract to the contrary I believe this means the copyright is held by the commissioning party. Third, once an icon has been sold, the artist generally has no expectation of further income connected with it whether specially commissioned or not -- but then, they are not usually commercially exploited. Fourth, occasionally icons are signed and the artist does have an expectation of further income if reproductions of the icon are produced and sold.

The second icon linked at the top appears to fall into that fourth category. Its source is here, which gives the artist's name and carries a copyright notice. Its use here is, I think, is fair use at best.

I take it there's no question that a simple photograph of a very old icon is not eligible for copyright per WP:IUP#Public domain, as a reproduction of a public domain 2D work of art. But I think some clarity for other situations would be helpful. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I can’t help but take exception to one point in the previous paragraphs. There is not “Considerable” room for personal expression in traditional icon painting. While there may be some “Artists” who impose their creative style in painting images of a biblical nature, these images cease to be “Icons” once such personal expression becomes overtly manifest. What you do find in Icons are subtle differences in technique and style, but these differences might indicate which monastery or workshop in which the Icon originated; but the monks who paint the icons follow nearly identical patterns. Modern icons are mostly still painted in the traditional style following set patterns that have existed for centuries. There are, of course, new icons all the time, even as there are new saints. Once an Icon is approved for a particular saint it is meant to be copied. This may be the very reason icons cannot be copyrighted – they are meant to be copied, and no one has ever required permission from the original iconographer to make such a copy.--Phiddipus 06:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

But this isn't exactly the case. There are fairly exacting canons for a subject, yes. But if there wasn't any original expression, it wouldn't be possible to distinguish icons by style, and you clearly can. It's even possible to identify some works of genius among them. I linked to an different Pentecost icon to show how they can vary.

Now, ideally you're right. Icons are and ought to be for veneration only, and questions of ownership of an image shouldn't enter into the matter. However, some people obviously are asserting copyright and seeking to exploit them commercially. I linked to an example of that above too. Whether they're right or wrong in doing this according to Orthodox ethics, they may well have the law on their side. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Minor stylistic differences are sufficient creativity to merit copyright. There should be no reason for us to use images of questionable copyright when it should be easy to obtain copyright-free versions from any number of places. I've posted on User talk:Phiddipus about this issue, and tagged the various images appropriately. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Is the licensing of my image enough?

I'm a newbie, and having a hard time trying to make sure all the licensing tags, and the fair use rationale is professional and qualified.

Is there anything else my needs? Image:Duluth_Katharine.jpg And I just want to make sure no one deletes it since I have been given permission to use it. On the talk page, I did give my reason. Is there anything else I should do to make sure it doesn't get deleted, and I can use it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borava (talk • contribs) 19:01, 5 August 2006

Permission to use the image is not good enough by itself. Wikipedia is meant to be free content, which means anyone must be able to redistribute or modify its content. The work must be licensed under a free license such as {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}. In some cases, fair use might be acceptable, but that only applies when no free equivalent exists or could be created, and in this case it seems likely that someone or other would be happy to release an image freely. Could you ask the image's author to formally release it under a specific license such as the aforementioned CC Attribution-ShareAlike license? Does Katharine McPhee have a publicity office that could be contacted, for instance? Wikipedia is large enough to stand a reasonable chance of getting them to release a few photos freely. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikicommons and other Wikipedias (e.g. pictures from the German Wikipedia)

How does one classify a picture that one obtains from another Wikipedia?

The picture in question is Image:Florid ulcerative colitis on endoscopy.jpg. As you can see from the above page, the pictures was obtained from: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/2/22/Floride_Coltis_ulcerosa.jpg.

The German Wikipedia's image page says in no uncertain terms that it is public doman. See: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Floride_Coltis_ulcerosa.jpg

There is no "obtained from other wikipedia". I didn't create the image myself-- the PD self-created doesn't apply IMHO. None of the other descriptors apply.

---

Beyond the specifics of dealing with the above picture, I'd love to better understand the relationship between Wikicommons and the different Wikipedias in terms of file-linkage.

In an ideal world... I'd have moved the image to the Wikicommons so it is available on the German and English Wikipedia (see [7], [8] and the image [9] for what I mean). This, however, does not seem to be easy to do; it would require an account on Wikicommons and probably a specialized script and does not seem to be encouraged. An alternative solution would be to allow direct linking to Images in the other wikipedias i.e. one can insert a picture in the German Wikipedia using [[Image:de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Floride_Coltis_ulcerosa.jpg]].

Personally, I don't understand why the Wikipedias (English, German etc.) have to split their image databases. I suspect it was a design decision that was made a while back. If the image databases were linked-- the different languages could feed off one another to a greater degree. I've often found that different language versions of Wikipedia (e.g. the German Wikipedia) have better images than the English version. Nephron  T|C 20:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The application of {{PD}} on another wikipedia isn't a good source for the licensing status of the image. The idea is really to migrate all verifiably free content to Wikimedia Commons; some local projects redirect users attempting to upload files directly to Commons now. Jkelly 20:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question I had with regard to the picture that started this. How am I supposed to label the image?

The application of {{PD}} on another wikipedia isn't a good source for the licensing status of the image.

The licensing status of the image is as clear as can get if the person that uploads it gives permission and presents it on their web-atlas-- as is the case here. I discussed this image on the ulcerative colitis talk page --[10] at which point I translated the contributors user page. IANAL, but what you write doesn't make sense to me-- if it is well documented that someone else released into PD... it is best to refer to that public domain release.

Are you suggesting I don't use the image 'cause I can't independently verify it is PD? To me that seems illogical and nonsensical-- as it is suggests others (e.g. answers.com) cannot use Wikipedia (or other GFDL sources) 'cause they cannot independently verify the copyright themself. Nephron  T|C 20:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Should we assume that de:User:J. Guntau is the copyright holder of that image? Why does that website read "© 2003 Albertinen-Diakoniewerk e.V."? Why didn't the uploader use de:Vorlage:Bild-PD-Autor? I would get these questions answered before uploading. Jkelly 21:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I read through Guntau's talk page. A similar question to the one you asked is posted there. I posted a message to the guy that asked it (Sjoehest), who also speaks English. Hopefully, we'll find-out soon. Nephron  T|C 12:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

According to Sjoehest the issue hasn't been cleared. So, the copyright status is in some doubt. Nephron  T|C 04:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding photo uploading/liscening

Hi,

I've recently uploaded a photo but I'm not sure if I've followed the many guidlines properly. I did not take the photo myself but I have written permission from the photographer allowing me to use it. I don't know what or how to tag the photo..nothing. Can you please help me? Thank you. Please notify on my Talkpage. --Aroundtheclock 04:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you get permission to release the image under a free license, or just permission to use the image? If it's the first then simply pick the license he gave permission to use. If it's the later the proper tag would be {{db-i3}} and consider checking out Wikipedia:requests for permission and ask the photographer to release the image under a free license that we can use. --Sherool (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Photo Copyright Help

Hi,

If anyone could help me I would appreciate it very much. I have added the photos Image:Corini--450x210.jpg and Image:Toni.jpg--310x210.jpg to the history section of the Palermo soccer team of Italian Serie A. The photos are from the Italian website of the newspaper "La Gazzetta dello Sport". The photos have dates in the original file names that I am thinking my be linked to copyright dates. Can I use these photos and how would I change the copyright status ???Sjsharkmania 00:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)sjsharkmania

They will be in the public domain and free to use seventy years after they were published under Italian law. Jkelly 01:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Which isn't relevant if they were first published after 1977, which they were. They're protected for 70 years after the death of the author, just as domestic works are. But either way, they're unfree. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you want to use the images for? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

For use in the team's history section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjsharkmania (talk • contribs) 23:54, 7 August 2006

Right, I missed that, sorry. The images are unnecessary, in my opinion, unless they're irreplaceable images of some historic event in the team's history. Even if they are, are they stock photos or were they taken by the newspaper? Stock photos are virtually always prohibited on Wikipedia, because there's such a market for them that we would inevitably compete with the intended purpose. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

How to provide "source information"

Over the last year I have uploaded photos that I have made. I used a copyright tag CopyrightedFreeUse or NoRightsReserved.

Now I am getting a "no source information" warning. What is required for source information? What is the format?

Here are two of my photos. Image:SWTPC_Keyboard.jpg Image:CT1024_Monitor.jpg

Michael Holley --SWTPC6800 01:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the relationship between Michael Holley and User:Swtpc6800 wasn't clear to somebody. I've edited the image description page to reflect it. Jkelly 01:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

They talk nothing about copyright

On August 2, 2006 I had uploaded Image:Ebiet1.jpg from this website. The matter is, I'm not sure about its copyright because the site talk nothing about the images' copyright. What is the appropriate tag for that image? Thx for your answer. --AFP 03:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It's actualy quite simple. If there is no mention of any special terms then the default is full copyright protection. The only way to make something more free than "all rights reserved" is for the copyright holder to explicitly waive some of theyr rights or spesify some terms under wich you are allowed to use theyr work. So you'll need to look into a possible fair use justification if you want to use that one. --Sherool (talk) 05:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Help needed at Allen County Fair and Putnam County Fair

I need help tagging the allen and putnam county fair logo - Allen_County_Fair.gif‎ and Putnam_County_Fair_Logo.gif —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanrschroeder (talk • contribs)

I assume that you are looking for {{Logo}}. Just add that to the description page of both images. Jkelly 20:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyritght problems

I was told on my discussion page that there were copyright problems with both of my only pictures uploaded to wikipedia, "Anarchist.jpg" and "Thor Olav.jpg".

The first picture can be deleted, it was not that important. But the second picture is of my DAD, so i don't think i need a big copyright thingy other than his permission, as he is the Owner of the website i got the picture from.

Thank you,

Adrian Rorheim (user name: adrianrorheim)

Legaly no, however to use it on Wikipedia the image need to be under a free license, permission to use it on the Wikipedia site itself is just not free enough. I suggest you simply ask him to release it under a spesific free license (see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for a list of possible ones). --Sherool (talk) 11:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Info on Pic

The picture of Armenian soldiers in Iraq was deleted by a bot from the Military of Armenia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Army-b.jpg . Reason being that the copyright holder was not known, but the person who took the photo is known to me. I'd like to know how we can add the picture back into the article and sort out the confusion.--Moosh88 21:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to ask your friend to release the image under the GFDL or a Creative Commons License (note that only Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike are accepted here). In other words, they have to be OK with the possibility of commercial usage of the image. Alternatively, they can release all rights to it (declare it to be in the public domain). Put as many details as you can on the image description page and try to find a matching license tag from Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Come back here if you have more questions. howcheng {chat} 21:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused

I'm having a really difficult time trying to grasp Wikipedia's copyright policy. I realize that many images or picture cannot be used with out permission from the original source, but I don't get how to get there permission or how to tag it? For most of the images I have uploaded, I just placed the link of where I found the image. If anyone knows a more simplified system of uploading images, can you please inform me. --Manfro 91 02:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Images may not be used with permission if that permission does not extend to the grant of a free license. See WP:COPY where the license under which Wikipedia content is made available is described. Any images you upload must be under a compatible license. (i.e. the GFDL, released to the Public Domain, a free grant of reuse for any purpose, etc.) Mere permission to use on Wikipedia only, or for "non-commercial" purposes, is not sufficient. Please do not upload such images.

In general, images that you find somewhere on the Web are not available for use here. It's not impossible that the creators of such images would be willing to license their work appropriately though, so it's worth emailing them to ask. If the image you find on a website was not created by the webmaster, it is likely being used illegally and we really don't want it here.

There are special circumstances where a copyrighted image might be usable in specific articles as Fair Use. See WP:FAIR for guidelines.

A tag is a template that you insert on the image description page. When you upload an image, there is a popup menu with an assortment of tags that you can pick; this will be automatically added. Otherwise, see WP:ICT. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for some input on the permission issues. --Sherool (talk) 06:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

My photography for non-commercial use.

I uploaded an image to use for the Sagamore Camp article. However, I am unsure which license to tag for this image. I am the photographer of this image, and I don't want it to be used for commercial use, if at all possible. Or, if I could get it so my work can be used anywhere on Wikipedia, but nowhere else? Which license would work? I apologise if this is a stupid question; I am new to Wikipedia and don't really know what I'm doing. --Riley 05:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia is about creating free content and material that can not be used commercialy or by others are not free (free of charge is not the same as free in this context). I would recomend you read Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License and consider releasing the image under GFDL though. The license require (among other things) that you be credited, that others distributing the image include a copy of the license text and release the result under the same license. The requirement of enclosing the full license text makes it very inpractical to "exploit" GFDL licensed images legaly (would be unpractical to sell postcards or posters with a multi page legal text attached). However yes it can be used commercialy if someone for example sell a (subset) of Wikipedia in print or on DVD with the image included and simmilar things, and if you object to this then sadly the only option is to not contribute the image. --Sherool (talk) 06:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that the reason for permitting commercial redistribution is to encourage distribution to as many people as possible. Someone who wants to distribute Wikipedia on DVD or in hard copy would have to charge money to cover costs, at the very least. And there are many mirrors of Wikipedia content that run ads for-profit, so do be aware that anything whatsoever you contribute to the encyclopedia is going to quickly be used commercially by someone. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Magazine Cover

I've just uploaded image:CRP_nature_cover.jpg and got the warning message that it was flagged for "speedy deletion". I have personally spoken to the editor of the journal who told me he was happy for the image to be anywhere so long as the title of the journal was not removed. What is the best way of indicating this?--Simon 17:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You will probably need to include a copy of the email with him/her on the talk page of the image. Would you say they were only requiring attribution? I'm a little unclear what you mean by "the title of the journal was not removed". It's unlikely that Nature would want to license this image as attribution only, but it could be possible. Currently the use of the image in the article is not what I would personally consider fair use, since the subject of the article is not the magazine, nor is it even mentioned in the text. - cohesion 18:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The talk page of the image also mentions that no derivatives are allowed, thus it is not a free license. As cohesion says, fair use isn't viable here, so it must go, I'm afraid. Stifle (talk) 00:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the status of the picture I uploaded.

It is a screenshot, that I took myself, of the front page of the forum. Does that make it copyrighted or what?

Do you mean Image:SAnet bigfront 3.JPG? If so, yes, it's copyrighted by the owners of the web site. The tag you are looking for is {{web-screenshot}}. howcheng {chat} 21:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

doesnt seem to work

i already tried for more than 10 times and the tag just wouldnt appear —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auron xp (talk • contribs) 07:49, 10 August 2006

Trying what exactly? Did you edit the page and click "save" or did you try to upload a new version of the image on top of the exsisting one(s). Please note that the later does not work, if you overwrite an exsisting image only the image file itself is changed, the page is left as-is, so if you need to change the image page you need to go there and click "edit this page" rather than upload a new version on top of it. --Sherool (talk) 08:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Bont_Fawr.jpg and Image:Canol_y_dref.jpg

I got both these pictures from the German-language version of Wikipedia, assuming that pictures that can be used there can be used on the English version. I couldn't see an obvious way of moving an image directly from one language version to another, so I downloaded it from there to my desktop and uploaded it here. I hope I've chosen the right copyright tag for them. What is the policy/procedure on this? garik 22:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I see similar questions have been raised before. garik 22:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

A few things. First of all, no, works acceptable on one WMF wiki are not necessarily acceptable on another; the English Wikipedia has probably the most lax policy of any, so importing here is typically okay if the original license is legitimate, but other wikis may choose to obey local law on top of American law (which all our wikis must obey for legal reasons: the Foundation is an American corporation and almost all its servers are here). Second, please recheck the validity of the original stated license before reuploading; we should have as many checks of any work's copyright as possible. Third of all, be certain to choose the same license as was on the original page. Fourth, you can create a link to the original page by linking to the name of the target page, prefixed with :de:; [[:de:Bild:Dolgellau2.jpg]] produces de:Bild:Dolgellau2.jpg.

I've clarified the status of both images. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The image "binary planet"

I have an image I have just uploaded onto the definition of planet article which is derived from the European Southern Observatory. It should be in the public domain but I can't find an appropriate tag. Image:binary_planet.jpg Serendipodous 12:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but what makes you think this image should be in the public domain? NASA images are PD because of US copyright law. I know that the copyright laws of some of the ESO member countries put "official works" into the public domain, but the definition is much more restrictive than in the US. So I think the image is copyrighted. —da Pete (ばか) 13:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It is in the public domain. The man who took the picture emailed me today and told me it was in the ESO's archive. So what tag do I use? Serendipodous 19:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Marie van Goethem article

Is it possible to re edith the picture, and by doing so escaping from the copy right laws, making it my own? Also re edithing the tag's, and name ectera. --Grim Reaper2 12:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No, making (un-authorised) changes to an existing non-free image is considered copying, wich you do not have the right to do unless you hold the copyright, see Derivative work. --Sherool (talk) 12:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The image is French, I'm Dutch. Does it make a difference. The me coping and re editing part happens here, in Holland. The image is found on the website of the museum in Paris, does that make it educational or promotional? --Grim Reaper2 12:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Idaho juvenile rehabilitation article picture help

Tuluvas2 15:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Can somebody help me determine if I could put this image into an article on juvenile detention/rehabilitation programs in the state of idaho? any responses to my talk page would be nice seeing as this is a huge article and I have trouble navigating it =P. Image:http://www.youthranch.org/images/ranch.jpg

? No Copyright on it, But still yelled at ?

I Put that image on the Meg: A Novel of Deep Terror page and was told by OrphanBot that I needed a copyright tag. But I said in the picture summery of the picture that the author said, "The below are images for you to download as you wish". What should I do with this picture?--ASDFGHJKL 17:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not a tag. A tag is one of these templates. But I'm afraid this is still a copyvio without further word from the copyright holder. He gave permission to download, not to upload somewhere else. It also needs to be clear that he's granting a free license such as the GFDL, one of the free Creative Commons licenses, permission to use for any purpose, or a release to public domain. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Images

Can I download images from the city of Galveston to use on our website? Our website is part of them University of Texas at Galveston. It is the department of Psychiatry. The site is used for patient educational purposes about our services. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.154.64.36 (talk • contribs) 2006 August 14 20:06 UTC.

Sorry, we can not give you legal advice for the development of your web site, but the webmaster of your University's main site may be able to help you with these issues. You may also want to contact the people at the city's web site and ask them for permission to use the images. ×Meegs 21:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

They may be asking about our article, Galveston, Texas. There are a couple of public domain images rendered there. commons:Category:Galveston, Texas has many images that can be freely reused, but be sure to read the licensing requirements carefully. Some of them (like the GFDL) are quite demanding. Jkelly 00:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Image upload question

I have uploaded an image, macpherson-emblem.gif, which I believe to be in the public domain because it has been in use many years. I propose to replace the emblem previously posted on the Clan Macpherson entry in Wikipedia because it is incorrect. The previous emblem shows the cat with both front paws down, while the correct emblem has a cat with the left front paw raised.

When I edited the Clan Macpherson entry and replaced the old file name with the new one, the emblem was not shown, only the file name. Please tell me how to get the correct image into the entry.

This page is really for questions pertaining to copyright. For this kind of question the Help Desk is the more appropriate forum.

However, the problem was that the file you uploaded was really Macpherson Emblem.gif, with a space and with the second word capitalized. Wikipedia will automatically capitalize the first letter in the filename, but any other capitalization must match. Spaces are allowed. Even though they're "invisibly" changed to an underscore (_) and not a dash as you used above (-), the space is preferred for readability. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot's work

It seems that User:Carnildo, runner of User:OrphanBot, is out on vacation, and there is no way to contact him about misdoings of his bot. May be some of you here can help me, or block the bot, or anything? thank you. The problem is that this bot repeatively puts "no rationale" tag on the image page, where rationale is provided. --Monk 11:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not know exactly what OrphanBot looks for to determine whether an image description page contains a fair use rationale, but it generally does a really good job. I'm assuming that you are talking about Image:Valentin Belkevich.jpg? The rationale that you have provided there does not address all of the factors of fair use, such as how our republication of the image will affect its value. The rationale also needs to make it clear that the image meets all of Wikipedia's fair use criteria. Unfortunately, it seems that this image — a photo of an active football player used solely for identification — does not meet the first criterion on the list. Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia and does not allow the use of unfree images when it is possible to create a free alternative, as it clearly is in this case. Using this image, though it might seem to improve the article in the short run, hurts the project in the long run by removing the incentive for contributors to take a free photo of the player that could be used anywhere, by anyone, forever. Sorry, I know it's not the answer you were looking for, but we can not use this photo. ×Meegs 12:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

image tags

image:Bpi00.jpg and image:Bpi01.jpg were provided by the Director of the Bernard Price Institute of Palaeontology. They were provided at my request to illustrate the article James Kitching. It seems that most of the tags listed in the image upload template will lead to a speedy deletion of such images. To prevent frustration and bafflement on the part of contributors to Wikipedia, it might be a good idea to list ONLY options which will ensure that the images remain in place. I find it difficult to understand why tags which will lead to speedy deletion are in the list. Could someone please explain the logic behind this facade? Paul venter 14:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You are talking about drop-down items like "Found the image somewhere" and "The copyright holder gave me permission to use this work in Wikipedia articles"? The idea, I think, is that inexperienced users tend to act first and read policy later, and are going to upload their first image whether it is compatible with Wikipedia or not; the fear is that without those menu items, an uploader with an incompatible images will choose to misrepresent the image's copyright or simply choose the closest option that they see. If they do that, their actions may go unnoticed, their image will remain, and they will not know that they've made a mistake. The system is awkward, as I'm sure anyone will admit. If you want to propose a change, Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags is a good place to do so.

For these particular images, the best thing would be to ask the copyright holder to release the images under a free license such Creative Commons Attribution, or outright to the public domain. If that fails, we might be able to use them under fair use. ×Meegs 14:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:KIMIFISI1JPN05.jpg

I originally saved the image off the F1.com website, and found it on Google once again.

Copyright is Formula One Administration Ltd. If this picture isn't allowed to be kept on Wikipedia fine, i'll just use another picture uncopyrighted for use on the onboard camera article.

What is the source of this uncopyrighted onboard photo? If you really do have access to one, please do upload it. Bear in mind, though, that most all creative works are automatically copyrighted to their creators and only enter the public domain if they're explicitly released by their owners (or with the passage of many decades). ×Meegs 16:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Maltaoldmap.jpg

Reproduction of this image is permitted provided that is sourced. The image is referenced See [11]. However, as far as I know the image is no longer used anywhere and I find no objection whatsoever to delete the image without entering into further arguments Maltesedog 15:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Matticus78 removed the {{EU image}} from this image because the map's copyright does not belong to the EU web site. You have not provided any description of this image. It is clearly a map of Malta, but that's all I can tell. It looks quite old and may well be in the public domain. If can tell us the age of this map, where it was created/published, or give us the exact site of the URL where you found it, then we might be able to help you. ×Meegs 10:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Adding images

I have tried reading the instructions regarding addition of images on Wikipedia. I still do not understand how to verify copyright of images. Will you please explain how to get a copyright verification in simple terms as to satisfy Wikipedia's regulations?

Thank you, (Charlie)--Maddawg1967--

• What is the source of the images in question? BigDT 01:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

HELP PLEASE

I want to keep this image that I put onto wikipedia and I found the correct copyright tag but I dont know where to put it. I'm also having trouble finding the source information for the image. Is there anyone that can give me some help? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dillamond (talk • contribs) 2006 August 22 9:08 UTC.

What image are you referring to? You have never uploaded an image with this account, but did edit Image:Eldest2japan.jpg a few minutes after leaving this question. In any case, if you still need help, please tell use the filename and everything that you know about the image — such as who created it and where it was published — and we'll try to help. ×Meegs 10:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The appropriate tag for an image

I am trying to get an appropriate tag for an image. I have explained in the summary of the image where I got it and why it is not copyrighted. However, it has been deleted. I have uploaded it again with a description but it still has to give a confirmed tag. I know the creater of the image personally and the site that I uploaded it from is using as political information on a political candidate. the image link is

Any help on what I need to do would be greatly appreciated. my user name is NC Detroit. my email is ncdetroitmi@aol.com

Thanks

NC Detroit 23:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It's going to keep being deleted by our image cleanup process if you cannot identify who the copyright holder is (typically the photographer, not the subject of the photograph), and under what license they have released their work. Jkelly 23:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

How do I indentify the copyright holder? the photographer holds no copyrights to the image. The subject of the photograph is the one who released the image to the public domain. I just don't know how to properly display his copyright release.

NC Detroit 16:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Multiple photo uploads from BBC, AP, and Reuters

Here is a list of photos uploaded from the BBC, AP, and Reuters, some with a dubious claim of Fair Use, others without a good explanation. I am not sure if I have tagged them all correctly, or what the next step in the process of dealing with these copyright violations is; there are more from the same user from orgs like BBC, AP, and Reuters, where Fair Use doesn't seem applicable, but I wasn't able to keep up with all of them. There are others which are no longer in use: is there a way to speedy them?

• Image:R2157456581.jpg
• Image:Miraflor1.gif
• Image:CarterGaviria.jpg
• Image:Oppositioncrying.jpg
• Image:Latam summit.jpg
• Image:Chavezsurvivescoup.JPG
• Image:October1993crisis.jpg

Sandy 14:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, thanks for taking the time to examine these images. Tag the unfree images that do not appear in articles with {{subst:orfud}} ("ORphaned Fair Use Day"). If they remain that way for seven days, they will be deleted.

When you use {{fairusedisputed}}, make sure you spell-out the reason why you think the image does not qualify (you didn't on Image:October1993crisis.jpg). Some of the photos in your list have long been a part of some important articles. In cases like these, it's a good idea to leave a message on their articles' talk pages. Anyway, the dispute process is really fuzzy. After a while, if there's no discussion, someone (you, the experimental User:FairuseBot, or someone else) can remove the image from its article and tag it as an orphan (as above). If someone defends the use and you can't come to a consensus, WP:IFD is a good place to go.

Also, it doesn't apply here, but images uploaded since May that do not contain a fair use rational qualify for speedy deletion following a seven-day waiting period (WP:CSD#I6). Tag those with {{subst:nrd}} ("No Rationale Day"). There's also the seldom-used "invalid fair-use claim" criterion (WP:CSD#I7) for images uploded since June. ×Meegs 16:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Meegs. Sheesh, this system is a mess, and if Wiki can lift photos from AP, Reuters and BBC without a clearer process for dealing with it, that's not good. I really don't want to take on this chore. As part of WP:FAC and WP:FAR, I've been trying to understand this situation for a long time, but if I have to become involved in protracted discussions to help Wiki avoid copyright problems, something is wrong with the system. It's very confusing. There will be a discussion, the uploader will claim Fair Use, it will be a dubious Fair Use claim at best, and there just must be a better way of dealing with the whole Fair Use thing. Sandy 16:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, all of these processes are a mess (not to mention WP:CP for images). The situation has gotten better with the new speedy criteria from May and June, but they too are hard to use and do not apply retroactively. There really are a lot of people that will reargue WP policy tooth and nail every time someone tries to delete one of their uploads, so I don't blame you for not wanting to get involved. If you can bear, please continue keeping an eye out for violations in FACs; we already have too many FAs setting a bad example. Best regards ×Meegs 17:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

These have been tagged for almost two weeks: what's the next step ?? Sandy 13:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Ulgi.jpg

I own that Image!!! in was made my MY program on MY computer NONE of it is from another source.. Please, I need my image back!!! Zharta 18:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No image that you have uploaded has been deleted. Please see your log - [12]. The image that you mention, Image:Ulgi.jpg, as well as another image you uploaded, Image:Jvfdf.jpg, have both been tagged as lacking copyright information. Images must have a tag from Category:Image copyright tags that tells other users the copyright status of the image. You can remedy this problem by removing the warning from the image description pages and replacing it with {{PD-self}} or {{GFDL-self}}. Please feel free to contact me if you have further questions. BigDT 18:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Image used with permission, what tag to use?

I uploaded a publicity photo with the express permission of the owner and subject of the photo. Please see Image:Dana_Davis_headshot.jpg and Dana Davis. The image is listed for "speedy deletion", and I'd like to know how best to indicate that it is used here with permission. ~Ulfrikr

Hello Ulfrikr. Unfortunately, permission for Wikipedia to use the image on our site is not sufficient; our goal is to create a free content encyclopedia that can be used anywhere, by anyone. Since you are in contact with the image's copyright holder, perhaps you could ask them if they would be willing to release the image under a free license such as Creative Commons Attribution. The process for making such a request is outlined at Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. ×Meegs 06:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

JonBenet

The image on the JonBenet Patricia Ramsey page is being used without the permission of the rightful owner Randy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.5.147.175 (talk • contribs) 2006 August 24 06:45 UTC.

I have removed Image:JonBenet.jpg from the article. It does not list any information about its copyright holder, and qualifies for deletion as early as later today. Thanks for the notification. ×Meegs 07:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:PD-USSR

I believe the discussion at Template talk:PD-USSR would benefit from an educated outside opinion. Basically, the dispute is whether the copyright tag is valid and what is the legal ground for what it claims. --Lysy^talk 00:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Webcam pictures

My question is this: I have a bunch of pictures (12) from an archived webcam feed that was taken on 2005-12-03 by a webcam managed by the city of Gävle, Sweden, when someone sets fire to a giant straw goat, called the Gävle goat. On the Gävle city homepage it says: text and pictures are free of use if you state the source. The source woulde be Gävle Kommun. Now, what kind of licence is that?? I can't find anything that is even close when I'm about to tag the pictures. (I uploaded theam under free licence because I was experimenting, PLEASES delete them all (I would have done it myself if I had the authorization), and I'll upload them under the right licence later!!) Thankxxxxxxxxxx FreddyFred 08:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello FreddyFred. I have deleted them for you. If you reupload them (one or two should be sufficient for an article), the correct tag to use is {{Attribution}} or {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|restrictions}}. Please provide as much information as possible on the image description pages: the url of webpage containing the image, the date of the image, the url of the copyright statement, a quote of the copyright statement (if the original is in Swedish, then give that in addition to the translation), and the date that you copied the copyright statement. We want to have all of this information because the image will probably remain on Wikipedia long after it is removed from Gävle's website. ×Meegs 10:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Largo, Florida Map Mar 6,1925.jpg ratioanle suitable?

I believe I've placed a suitable rationale on the description page. Someone, please, me know. 12:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the tag since there is a rationale. If the rationale is disputed, it can be discussed on the image talk page or on WP:IFD. As for the question of whether this image qualifies for fair use - flip a coin. What would be ideal would be if it could be demonstrated that they never renewed their copyright or, if a current-day company has legal rights to what that newspaper published, if the copyright holder would release it under the GFDL.BigDT 15:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Creative Commons and future Wikipedia plans

Hello,

This is a two-part question. I would like to ask

1) If I add an image to Wikipedia as a Creative Commons License that utilizes the nd, nc, and by attributes, does that firmly set that the image cannot be used commercially?

2) If Wikipedia makes an offline encyclopedia, does it have any plans to sell it at a profit, or would it be considered a non-profit, non-commercial enterprise?

Please note that I would consider any responses (such as from an administrator) as official, so if I need to go somewhere to ask this question, please direct me there.

--Guroadrunner 16:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Images that prohibit commercial use are not considered "free" for purposes of Wikipedia or Commons and cannot be uploaded unless they also qualify for fair use. If a non-commercial-only image is uploaded to either Wikipedia or Commons, it will be speedy deleted as soon as someone notices it. There are commercial websites (such as about.com) that right now, today, use Wikipedia content for commercial purposes. If you take a look at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team, a CD version is in the works, but I have no idea what the price will be. BigDT 16:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Our requirements for free images do not allow for the Creative Commons -nd licenses (no derivative works) either, but their -by (by attribution) and -sa (share alike) restrictions are ok. ×Meegs 18:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for advising me. I will not place any image I create onto Wikipedia that I would not want to be sold or commercially used.

I support Wikipedia as a free Web site encyclopedia, but I do not support Wikipedia's owner/board of trustees financially benefitting from any contribution to an encyclopedia that is meant to be a free resource. --Guroadrunner 13:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

If you think there's money to be made in selling Wikipedia in whole or in part, why not give it a try? It's freely reusable for you to do it just as much as it is for the Foundation. Jkelly 00:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

While that is true, I would feel more violated if the Foundation itself tried to profit from it than if somebody else tried to do it simply because I feel Wikipedia was originally set up as, and meant as, a free, online encyclopedia. No money involved. Basically, my wikiphilosophy goes crosscurrent from what Wikipedia's current interest seems to be. I'll continue to contribute information and photos, but nothing that I'd want seen being used for profit. --Guroadrunner 07:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Can't find suitable tag

Image:GleninaghCastle.jpg was released by its author into the public domain. I can't find a suitable licencing tag for it in the drop-down list on the upload page. What should I do? Rwxrwxrwx 21:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right, the only PD option in the drop-down is for instances where the uploader is the image's creator; this is probably to prevent abuse. For this image, all you need to do is edit its description page and add the template {{PD-release}}. Thanks for finding and adding this great free image. ×Meegs 21:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Rwxrwxrwx 18:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Picture

I had a picture of MYSELF on MY page. The Picture was taken by ME and I own the picture. Why dos the orphan bot remove this? And how do I prevent it from being removed again?

td —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Teddavid (talk • contribs) 2006 August 26 17:46 UTC.

Hi Ted. You uploded Image:Ted2.jpeg with the tag {{PD-self}} indicating that you are the image's creator (or former copyright holder) and that you have irrevocably released it to the public domain. If you agree to the same terms for the other images, Image:Tedheadshot2005.jpg and Image:Tedheadshot2005.jpeg, you should edit their description pages and add the {{PD-self}} template. By the way, that third image seems to be corrupt; it does not render properly on my machine. ×Meegs 23:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, it's not an absolute rule, but I'd encourage you to read Wikipedia's guidelines on autobiographies. ×Meegs 00:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mr. David,

Did you take the photos (with a autotimed camera) or did some photographer? If it was someone else, that complicates things on your end because it's the person who snapped the picture who has the rights, unless they get transferred over. --Guroadrunner 13:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Archimedes_spiral_fermi.jpg

Please see the notes I have attached in the image page.

Thank you.

MrWarMage 19:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

PAUL.T.T.EASTER English film actor

HI.. NEED SOME HELP PLEASE HOW DO I GET A TAG FOR MY PIC.ALSO HOW CAN IT BE PUT UNDER English film actors many thanks..Filmset 11:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you please delete my jpeg ?--Chazfable 02:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The first thing that we need you to do is to edit the image description page (here) and specify the photo's creator and copyright holder and provide the reasons that you believe that they have irrevocably released all rights to the image. ×Meegs 13:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Image of prehistoric animal

Hello, on August 28, 2006 I submitted an image of a prehistoric creature and meant to put the image on the animal's page, but I can't seem to provide either pixel number (whatever that may be) or a copyright status. And on top of that, I can't provide any good information for this problem.

The name of the animal in the image that I had submitted was Macrauchenia and I I wanted to send it to the appropriate page.

Would you please either help me to straighten this mess or just post the image and end this charade? --KnowledgeLord 06:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

In order to use Image:Macrauchenia3.jpg, we need to know its copyright holder and copyright status. The website that you listed is a collection of images from many sources and does not help in this regard. If you have any of this info, please add it to the image's description page; if not, the image will be quietly deleted in about a week. ×Meegs 14:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:YV VSM 23.jpg

This is an image from ancient Hindu scripture VEDA. VEDAs are non-copywrited just like Bible. The image was created by me using camera phone. details are on the image page. please remove the warning from the image page. the link is [13]nids(♂) 07:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

While the original texts are not subject to copyright, a 1996 publication (with translation, editing and layout) may be. Also, this is a rather low quality image; do you intend to use it in an article? ×Meegs 14:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well actually, the book is not copyrighted. Moreover, these are plain texts and not translations. Nobody understands this language, it is vedic sanskrit. but I think Dab doesnt want to keep it in the article, so you may very well delete it.nids(♂) 14:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright legality of yearbook excerpts

Can I use a scan from a highschool yearbook page as a primary source for birthdate and real name for a biography page? Is this covered under fair use? As a relatively new Wikipedian I want to make sure I'm doing things by the numbers! Supersquid 15:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

New threads on the bottom please.

Is there some reason you need the scan, and can't simply cite the yearbook? TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It's just a minor point on sourcing a birthyear for a pro wrestler that I grew up with... my changes keep getting reverted, and a source that is being referenced by the person doing the reverts is answers.com... :-)

Supersquid 23:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

IMDB ought to be an adequate source even without the yearbook. Since you have explained at Talk:Doug Basham that answers.com is a Wikipedia mirror and therefore not a reliable source, if this behavior continues they are just being difficult. Such people are unlikely to be swayed by a yearbook scan anyway; they just want to be disruptive. All you can do is to keep replacing their unreferenced year with the verifiable information. IMO this amounts to simple vandalism. You may want to take it up with an admin. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Images of documents

Referring to Image:Bobby Fischer.gif , which is the notice of deportation from Japan to Iceland, I am pretty sure that court notices are not protected by copyright. I never got the hang of how image copyrights work here so maybe someone can fix it and reinstate it in the Bobby Fischer article. _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 22:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have undeleted the image so that you can see its history, but have not restored it to the article. As you can see, User:Prosfilaes removed its public domain tag in April. You will need to find evidence that Japanese court documents are not copyrighted and add this to the image's description page. If this is not the case, we probably should not use the image under fair use as the document is not really important to the article. In either case, could you please add a brief description of the pictured document to the image's description page. ×Meegs 02:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Deewane Huye Paagal movie poster.jpg

This image was tagged today because User:Yamla has disputed that it qualifies for fairuse. I have added a fair use rationale but I thought one would not be needed for a movie poster. I have seen thousands of posters for movies and they only have the name of the movie written on the image description page. Is it OK to remove the fair use disputed tag or do I have to wait until its copyright status is verified. Shakirfan 23:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Much of what is needed for a poster to be used in this way is covered in {{Movieposter}}, but it is best to cover the points of our fair use policy in your rationale. Yamla is a very nice guy. Ask him if he is satisfied by your rationale, or if not, what it is lacking. ×Meegs 01:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Animated images? Lenticular posters?

Are the cool animated images in Spider-Man 3 acceptable as fair use? If they are, why don't we do that for all movie articles? 138.237.165.140 00:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Use like this isn't supported by our fair use policy and, from discussions that I've seen, is also discouraged for aesthetic reasons.

• Wikipedia:Fair use criteria #3 says, "Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately."

• Wikipedia:Fair use criteria #8 says, "The material must contribute significantly to the article and must not serve a purely decorative purpose"

• Wikipedia:Image use policy#Displayed image size says, "Inline animations should be used sparingly; a static image with a link to the animation is preferred unless the animation has a very small file size. Keep in mind the problems with print compatibility mentioned above."

Any unfree animation that we do use must contain a detailed fair use rationale including an explanation why a single frame would not suffice. ×Meegs 01:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

We also really don't want to get into the business of competing with the official websites for movies over having the best movie clip previews. Jkelly 01:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as the Lenticular Poster goes "one" will not serve the purpose, seeing as the actual poster changes colors in real life, and having one poster picture of one color doesn't fully show what the poster (that was released to the theaters) actually is. Also, since is basically symbolically depicts the transformation Peter goes through in the movie, I would say that it contributes to the article. The Sandman gif is up for grabs. Bignole 02:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

A non-animated poster would do the same job illustrating the film, use far less bandwidth, and be much further within the bounds of our policy. The article contains no commentary about the fancy poster, after all. ×Meegs 03:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

We had a single poster, it doesn't do the same job. Have you seen the posters? There's a red, black, and a mix. It does not illustrate the same thing as having one poster that is animated to fully show what is really happening. We picked one before and what happens is an edit war with what people feel is "the better picture". Either they want the red, or the black, or to compromise they say the "mixed" (which ends up being changed later because it isn't as clear as the solid colored posters, which none are as good a quality as the lenicular poster). Second, the article isn't about the poster, did you not read what I wrote? I said the poster symbolically illustrates what the movie is about. I didn't say the poster is mentioned in the article. The movie is about Peter's transformation from hero to something darker. The poster illustrates Spider-Man's transformation. I think that's rather clear. As for bandwidth, the hundreds upon hundreds of individual television show articles that do not satisfy Wikipedia's policy for Television episode articles take up far more bandwidth than one lenticular poster. And, since the article isn't riddled with animated images I don't think having one or two is a real problem. Bignole 03:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

In a case like this, I'm not sure what the best way to display the poster is, but the animated gif certainly isn't it. What about having the three views of the poster side-by-side? --Carnildo 02:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

There was a long process of reducing hte quantity of images on the page, esp. after another editor announced his intent to erase almost all the images as copyvio. it was decided to select ONE poster to represent the film. The lenticular was chosen, beignthe most emblematic, and least controversial of those available. We reduced the quantity of images, and it's my understanding that most other poster images are deleted from wiki now. The lenticular poster .gif creates a good sense of the poster seen in theaters, references direcly the symbiote plotline, and so not as excessively flashy and visually distracting as the Sandman .gif is. It's size and simplicity enable it's readability to the viewer's eye. I think further reductions in the name of 'bandwidth' are spurious, given the bandwidth the pre-edit version took. (though at broadband, it's all negligible). Finally, as the majority of readers of this, the American wiki, switch to broadband and other high bandwidth capacity ISPs, such concerns will fallaway entirely, leaving only Copyvio, relevance, and aesthetic concerns, not technical ones, so I think that relying on that aspect of hte policy is the weakest leg of it. As to the others, If it's one of the only official images, and it is, then it falls under Fair Use. I've addressed relevance above, and aesthetics as well. ThuranX 03:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep it. It takes up less space and besides, the poster is supposed to move. UnDeRsCoRe 18:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

picture

What tag do you use if I took a picture and wanted to use it for an entry and don't really care what happens to it after that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LJParson (talk • contribs) 2006 August 30 14:24 UTC.

The {{GFDL-self}} tag that you've started using since posting here is just fine. It releases your photos under the GNU Free Documentation License. You may want to go back and add it to your very first upload Image:Fog nozzle001.JPG. If you decide that any of these images are not necessary, you can request their deletion by adding the {{db-author}} template. ×Meegs 15:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Uploaded Photo

I uploaded an image that I shot and had my © mark on it... Why did you remove it? Please put in back on Loni's info page..... Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lvshooter (talk • contribs)

We need more information than this. What image are you talking about? Who is Loni? Jkelly 18:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I note that Image:Loni.jpg was overwritten by a non-worksafe image by User:T mang. If there is some connection between Steve/Lvshooter and/or T mang and the website whose watermark is on that image, please send email to permissions AT wikimedia.org to establish that fact. Otherwise we cannot use the image. Jkelly 18:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The images where deleted because you did not spesify what licence they where released under, they are all watermarked as "Photo By Steve Smith ©2005". You need to spesify what free license you are releasing the images under, simply saying you took them is not enough unless you actualy agree to allow others to modify, copy and sell the images too. Also if you agree to release them under a compatable free licence you need to get rid of the copyright watermark, it's against our image use policy for users to watermark theyr images. --Sherool (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Tree of Jesse Image of Jesse

Image: Hove Jesse.jpg.whch hjas been uploaded and awaiting copyright permission. I have permission to use the image on the website from Mrs Annette Millar who produced the photograph 2004 from All Saints Church, Hove. Sussex. From the Tree of Jesse window in the church. How do I quote copyright in this instance? From …Malcolm Low.

I'm afraid permission to use the image on this site alone is not enough. Wikipedia contnet have to be free licenced meaning permission must be granted to anyone to copy, modify and possebly sell the image. Please read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and ask Mrs Millar if she is willing to release the image under terms that are compatable with Wikipedia's licence. If not I'm afraid we have to delete it. --Sherool (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Public Domain or do we need Fair Use?

This is a question regarding two slightly different images.

The first is Image:Bullet cluster.jpg. It was not taken from the NASA site, and was instead taken from a pdf of a presentation by a non-NASA employee. The picture is originally from the Chandra Telescope, who's image release info is here.

The second image in question is Image:Bullet cluster lensing.jpg. Again it has been cropped from a pdf. The image is from the HST, and so I believe it is potentially copywriter by an independent research group.

If anyone can provide any insight or help, it would be appreciated. The original uploader User:Mac Davis and I are stumped. You can see our discussion here. --Falcorian ^(talk) 23:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

i cant tag my file..and i would like the articlle be named after sowmone...im new here...

i cant tag my file..and i would like the articlle be named after sowmone...im new here... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sweetequila (talk • contribs) 2006 August 31.

Hello Sweetequila. Please tell us more about Image:DSC00880.JPG. Who is the photographer? Who is the man in the photograph? ×Meegs 19:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

it should be searched as honeycakes, i took the picture and he is my bestfriend

My Pen Y Fan image

i have put the tag on but it hasn't appeared on the Pen Y Fan page.

--Wongston 17:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have figured it out already :). I took the libery of deleting all the duplicates you uploaded while experimenting though. --Sherool (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you...