Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

Media copyright questions
Shortcuts WP:CQ WP:MCQ WP:IMAGEHELP WP:ICHD Welcome to the Media Copyright Questions page, a place for help with image copyrights, tagging, non-free content, and related questions. For all other questions please see Wikipedia:Questions. How to add a copyright tag to an existing image On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page. From the page Wikipedia:File copyright tags, choose the appropriate tag: For work you created yourself, use one of the ones listed under the heading "For image creators". For a work downloaded from the internet, please understand that the vast majority of images from the internet are not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. Exceptions include images from flickr that have an acceptable license, images that are in the public domain because of their age or because they were created by the United States federal government, or images used under a claim of fair use. If you do not know what you are doing, please post a link to the image here and ask BEFORE uploading it. For an image created by someone else who has licensed their image under an acceptable Creative Commons or other free license, or has released their image into the public domain, this permission must be documented. Please see Requesting copyright permission for more information. Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{Cc-by-4.0}}), not forgetting {{ before and }} after, in the edit box on the image's description page. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}}) Hit Publish changes. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below. How to ask a question To ask a new question hit the "Click here to start a new discussion" link below. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page. Don't include your email address, for your own privacy. We will respond here and cannot respond by email. Note for those replying to posted questions If a question clearly does not belong on this page, reply to it using the template {{mcq-wrong}} and, if possible, leave a note on the poster's talk page. For copyright issues relevant to Commons where questions arising cannot be answered locally, questions may be directed to Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. If you have a question about a specific image, please be sure to link to it like this: [[:File:Example.jpg]]. (Please note the ":" just before the word File) Thanks!
Click here to start a new discussion

Click here to purge this page (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

Archives

Archive list Archive year 2006 Closed Archive year 2007 Closed Archive year 2008 Closed Archive year 2009 Closed Archive year 2010 Closed Archive year 2011 Closed Archive year 2012 Closed Archive year 2013 Closed Archive year 2014 Closed Archive year 2015 Closed Archive year 2016 Closed Archive year 2017 Closed Archive year 2018 Closed Archive year 2019 Closed Archive year 2020 Closed Archive year 2021 Closed Archive year 2022 Closed Archive year 2023 Closed Archive year 2024 Open Some pre-2009 archives from pages now merged here (note: more recent questions from these pages can be found at WP:MCQ or its archives above.) Requested copyright examinations archives Can I use... 2005-2006 archive Can I use... January-August 2007 archive Can I use... August-December 2007 archive Wikipedia:Image copyright help desk/Archive 1 Wikipedia:Image copyright help desk/Archive 2 This page serves as a portal for Yearly archives, inside the archives are in month format, please see the Archives in the sidebox. Thanks.

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

It has been suggested that this page be merged with Requested copyright examinations. (Discuss)

This talk page is automatically archived. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Image:Images1.jpg needs rename. Hard enough trying to find this page to notify, but that needs a rename. Guroadrunner 03:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm. This actually is not the place to ask that it be done. Post the request at the requested moves page. Any time you need an administrator's help with something, head here and you'll find where you need to ask.

But yeah, that's an awful name for an image. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it should be tagged with {{ifr}}, and anyone can take care of it. WP:RM doesn't handle image renaming. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will add the tag. -- Guroadrunner 22:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im actually working on a bot for image re-naming. β^_command 04:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion/rant - I have a hard time finding this location because it is not easily accessible. I created Media and copyright questions and media copyright questions as redirects and both got deleted (I understand why, but that's not the point!). There are no easy ways to get here. I wish there was a link to Media and Copyright Questions at Wikipedia:Images For Deletion. I navigate to IFD through the mainspace IFD disambiguation page, by typing "ifd" into Wikipedia search. (I also use AFD to get through to the Articles for Deletion page.) I'm not really interested in discussing this, but the navigation links to get here are not as widely available, and I am frustrated by this. Usually I use my contribution history to find the link to get in to Media and Copyright Questions. -- Guroadrunner 22:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The short cut for this page is WP:MCQ. Is that what you're looking for, or do you mean there is a more systemic problem of publicity for this page? Most of the warning templates point here, and it is linked on Wikipedia:Questions. Any suggestions would be appreciated though. In general a lot of wikipedia pages have these shortcuts, so maybe that will help you out. For example WP:AFD and WP:IFD exist, and may be faster than your current method. - cohesion 00:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I have WP:MCQ among my recent contributions, it's easy to find it within that list. Otherwise it is troublesome finding this place. I would say that it is known well enough but the links are not spread around enough. Sometimes the easiest way to get here is Google "Wikipedia Media Questions".

I have added a link to this page on IFD, which should make things easier for me and help solve the issue. Now I can search for "ifd" -> click WP:IFD -> click WP:MCQ link.

Incidentally, my page Media Copyright Questions was deleted because I guess mainspace pages are not to redirect to background WP: pages, but Articles for Deletion redirects to WP:AFD... so, huh??? -- Guroadrunner 04:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is not the page you were looking for anyway, so I don't see why you feel that finding it should be made any easier for the purpose you had in mind. The name of that image had nothing at all to do with copyright. This page is linked to from every image tag where it's relevant, so in those cases finding it is trivially easy.

It's pointless to add {{ifr}}, by the way. That tag is intended as instructions to the uploader, or anyone else watching the image page, that it should be renamed -- and then it gives directions that say exactly how to do it. Since it's used on all of one page, you can do it yourself without much bother. I.e. re-upload the image under a different name, point all references to the image to the new name, and tag the old one for deletion with {{db-redundantimage}}. Re-uploading will require saving it to your own machine temporarily, but for such a small image that's no problem even on a dial-up connection. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm sorry, but when it comes to ease of finding this page in general, I am not sympathetic. Finding it is trivially easy -- if copyright is what you really want to ask about. Click on "help", as most people will do when they want help with Wikipedia. You're asking about an image, so "Images and media" seems like the natural place to look for more information. What you find is a fairly short list of topics, and a link to this page is right there in the middle of it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't fully understand the problem. I'm not sure if you understood, Guroadrunner, but WP:MCQ is an actual shortcut page, not only an acronym. It can be typed at the end of the url area directly, or in the search box and you will end up here immediately. Failing that, you might try bookmarks. - cohesion 03:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found an image that I liked for an article..sent an e-mail to the webpage in question (http://westwales.co.uk/), and got the following reply:

In a message dated 26/09/2007 12:20:56 GMT Standard Time, xxxxxxxxxx@talktalk.net writes:

I am one of millions of volunteer writers for the free encyclopedia Wikipedia. I am currently working on an article related to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiff_Arms_Park. Your photo at http://westwales.co.uk/graphics/stadium.jpg would look great in the article.

Specifically, I would like your permission to use the image at http://westwales.co.uk/graphics/stadium.jpg in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiff_Arms_Park.

Thank you for your interest - happy to support Wikipedia, but this picture is NOT our copyright; I believe it to be copyright-free.

Best wishes

John M Hughes

West and Wales Web

Not really sure what to do now??? What would you suggest?? I have already done an Advanced Google search on I R Andrews and J R Andrews (just in case) but I cannot find anything... Seth Whales 08:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was the text quoted in the reply the entirely of your request for permission? If so, please be aware that it was virtually useless. I don't want to discourage you in any way from trying to free up media, but it needs to be done in a way that achieves the goal. The request you sent is likely to elicit a response that's either so vague we have no idea what license is being granted, or "Wikipedia only", "educational use only" or "non-commercial only" none of which we can use. We have some guidelines that tell you exactly what to ask for and what to do afterward, as well as some sample requests to help you out.

The webmaster is clearly mistaken that the image is copyright-free; there's no such thing in the UK, and not in the US either for any work created after 1977. If he doesn't know, then either he's using it illegally himself, or under some license he's only vaguely aware of. Or possibly under UK fair dealing rules. (Note that he claims the copyright owners do not give non-commercial permission for re-use [1]. Perhaps that's the permission he has, but he doesn't clearly say.) Fortunately, we have the name of the copyright owner -- I R Andrews (I think that's most likely an "I") -- and that's enough for conformance with the non-free media policy, assuming it meets the other criteria. All we have to do is identify the copyright owner; we don't have to track him down to where he lives.

But free is better. So get back to Mr Hughes and ask him for the photographer's contact information so you can ask him for a free license. He might even be willing to provide a higher-resolution version, which would be great.

Failing that, we may be able to use it as non-free media if it can be shown to meet the 10 criteria given in the policy. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What option i should select while posting photos and contents that i obtain from Indian governments and other state government's websites? To be precise, photos and contents about the city, town, roads, bridges etc ?Saravan.manoharan 12:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That depends entirely on the copyright law of the government in question. India's Copyright Act of 1957 (IV.17.d,dd) provides that works of the Indian government are copyright to the government. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

gastroenterology . iam a dnb family medicine resident doctor iam doing my thesis topic on gastroesophageal reflux disease so i want to download book on gastroenterology from where or which site book will be available and what is the procedure — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.116.87 (talk • contribs)

Any such works will either not be free, or old enough to be out of copyright and obsolete. If you want current information, won't you want papers anyway, and not a book? I suggest the research library of whatever institution you're attached to. You might start with the Wikipedia article and follow up on the sources given in the refrences, which links to a number of papers on PubMed. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Harrypottercow.jpg is being considered for deletion for an inadequate fair use rationale. But as I said in the rationale, a free-to-use image of the cow is impossible, because the statue it depicts no longer exists, and it is used specifically to illustrate the image in question. Serendi^podous 07:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the bot has tagged the rationale as incomplete is simply because it has no link to the article the image is being used in. Just add a {{Non-free use rationale}} to the page, according to the guidelines at WP:NFURG, and make sure it contains a wikilink to Parodies of Harry Potter. And don't forget to remove the dispute tag when you're done. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i have a photo of myself taken by a friend. Do I have the right to use this photo if I give her credit and do not receive any monetary gain from it? Or does she reserve all rights to the photograph just because she took it?--24.18.106.182 16:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The latter. She is in complete control of the distribution of the photo, Wikipedia is no exception. you could however, always ask her to release it into the public domain, or under a creative commons license, or the GFDL. --Ybbor^Talk 21:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was notified by a bot that the image that I got from amazon.com for the dethalbum deluxe edition is invalid, even though it has the {{Non-free album cover}} tag. Image:Dethalbum.JPG --Finest1 01:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The links in the tag explain the problem with exhaustive thoroughness. Please read them, and then come back here with a specific question if you're still confused. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if im using copyright pictures. i don't want to be in trouble for violation wikipedia's rules. Please help me understand what images to use and not use. I get images from Kryptonsite.com, photobucket, and google images. Am i doing something wrong because i'm getting warning about copyright violations. i just created an account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beachdude0213 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you appear to be violating Wikipedia's image use policy. Many websites will simply say what the copyright status is for the content on their websites. So for instance if you had taken the time to notice, Kryptonsite.com on its front page has a notice that reads:

"Smallville and its characters are copyright ©2007 Warner Bros. & DC Comics. This is an independent website and not authorized by the WB, the CW, or DC. The term "Kryptonite" is a trademark of DC Comics. Page copyright ©2007 KryptonSite, unless the material is noted as coming from someplace else or being by an individual author."

Further, you might have also seen this notice as well:

"PLEASE DO NOT TAKE GRAPHICS, NEWS, SPOILERS, ETC. FROM KRYPTONSITE WITHOUT FIRST ASKING PERMISSION AND PLACING A LINK TO KRYPTONSITE.COM. OR, JUST SEND PEOPLE OVER TO THIS SITE! THANKS!"

Please refrain from uploading these copyrighted images to Wikipedia. Please read the Introduction to Wikipedia first. Also, before uploading images read the Wikipedia's Image Use Policy. All of the images you have uploaded so far that infringe on other's rights will have to be removed. Please introduce yourself to some of Wikipedia's policies before proceeding. Thanks. -- Ltvine | Talk 06:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beachdude0213 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday (29 Sept.) I uploaded a picture of the Bay Bridge, the next morning (today) I found a notice saying that the image didn't have a copyright notice. I just put a userbox that I got from Wikipedia:Image copyright tags saying that I allow this picture under the GNU Documation Licence. Can I please remove the notice?

MusicaLucas 06:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please include a source on the image description page. Did you take the image? Also, the tags are templates, not userboxes. Userboxes are a specific type of controversial template some people like to put on their userpages. If you took the photo yourself, and you source and tag the image you can remove the warning. - cohesion 21:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there is an old Norwegian classroom poster (Image:Skjold kaares til konge.jpg) of which the publisher allows free use on condition that it is attributed. I know that it is of paramount importance that copyright legalese is respected to the letter, but I fail to see in what way this isn't this a clear case of free use. Help will be appreciated.--Berig 09:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the template for you. The problem was basically that fair use only applies to fully copyrighted images, whereas if your description of the licensing is correct, your image was essentially "free." In this case, a fair use rationale isn't necessary. Your uploading and description were perfectly fine. The bot just saw a fair use tag without all the necessary components of fair use (in this case thebot probably didn't see a link to the article it's used in, generally indicating a problem with fair use), and assumed the license was wrong. It shouldn't be a problem anymore. --Ybbor^Talk 13:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ybbor! It is much appreciated :).--Berig 13:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the images used in the "Nathaniel Street-West" Wikipedia page have been self-produced by a number of different persons, each of whom uses the same editorial username (PennyLane100) to log on and edit the page. In the case of images, these self-produced entities are uploaded independently by the creator after logging in as editor PennyLane100. We have now began making it clear which individual has self produced each image by adding in information such as the creator's name as an alias of the editor PennyLane100 at the time of upload. This gives proof that the editor is the person who has self produced the image, credits their name (as an alias) to avoid confusion, and also allows all of the fair use options and simplicity of the GNU Documentation License. Our PennyLane100 editors have just met to discuss this and it has been brought to our attention that the use of the GNU License in this way is rather convoluted and, in addition, is perhaps not in our best interest as a policy. (Hey this stuff is complex and we're not legal scholars!) So, to make it simpler for everyone we have decided to return to our original policy and find a different way to license or copyright these images. Please give us a week to upload new images and change our current licensing policy.

Thank you!

Penny Lane —Preceding unsigned comment added by PennyLane100 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a wikistalker, who used a number of sockpuppets. Eventually she started getting admonishments from administrators, received a few temporary blocks. She responded to these blocks by publishing her passwords right on her user-page. And this resulted in her being permanently blocked. I didn't know this when I signed up, but apparently part of the fine print is that wiki-ids are not to be shared. One wiki-id is only supposed to be used by one real life person.

So, IIUC, the several individuals who share this wiki-id are not in compliance with the fine print. Sorry. Geo Swan 13:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:USERNAME:

For reasons of attribution and accountability, you are not allowed to share your account or password with others. If you do, and this becomes known, your account will be blocked. Please also note that "role accounts" associated with an office, position, or task are currently prohibited with the following exceptions:

• Roles that directly represent the Wikimedia Foundation and internal Wikipedia committees

Role accounts for the purposes of conducting public relations or marketing via the encyclopedia are strongly discouraged and will be blocked for violations of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines.

Please stop using an single account in this way. There will likely be no particular extension of any policy. Our deletion systems are somewhat distributed, and any ongoing processes will continue. If you have any questions please let us know. I am not blocking the account right now, but be aware that any continues shared use violates the policy and other's may or may not block you. - cohesion 21:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And furthermore, it is not possible as far as I know to withdraw a free license once it's granted. If it's deleted from Wikipedia's servers, or if they're relicensed before they've escaped into the wild, as it were, then you may achieve your aim, but otherwise the images may continue to circulate with the original license attached.

Please note that if you re-license the images in such a way as to prohibit commercial re-use or derivative works we cannot use them and they will have to be removed. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it legal for me to upload screenshots from animes? For example pictures of characters to go with the list in the respective article. Is it a different case for licensed animes? Licensed in US? Licensed in UK (where I am)? (Please note I am asking this question before having taken any such screenshots.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prem-aka-Prince (talk • contribs) 23:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshots are copyrighted to the original owner, so we can use them under Fair use claim. We usually limit the amount of fair use images in articles to the minimum (in example, if you have a list of characters, instead of uploading one picture of every character, we try to upload just one picture with all the characters (or at least as many as possible) in it). So, please examine the WP:NONFREE page which states when you can upload and what you need in order to upload. Unused fair use images are deleted, as well as those images that haven't been correctly licensed. We don't encourage edit wars, so think before uploading images (in example, when you want to upload another screenshot because you like it more than the current one, or just because it is from a later episode than the current one). -- ReyBrujo 23:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to tag this image. It's for packaging of an action figure. Image:Steel-s3-variant.jpg

--Raxfrost 04:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Raxfrost[reply]

Please see the non-free content policy. Most of the images on wikipedia need to be free content. For the exceptions, they must follow a series of criteria. One of which is that they be used in an article. Currently the image under discussion is not used in any article. They must also have a source. For more information about the image policies of Wikipedia please see Wikipedia:Image use policy. - cohesion 22:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thumb thumb Over on Talk:Omar Khadr we are discussing the wikipedia's use of Image:Omar Khadr.gif. It is being argued that the wikipedia can use this image because mainstream media sources have used this image, and they claimed Omar Khadr's mother handed it out to reporters.

So, if this claim is true, does this constitute putting the image in the public domain?

Another argument put forward to its use here is "fair use". Policy currently allows the use of reduced resolution images if there are no free alternatives. Well, I recently uploaded Image:Omar Khadr hears Judge Brownbacks ruling.JPG from The Wire (JTF-GTMO). The DoD publishes a weekly newspaper, circulation 700, for the GIs and contractors who guard, interrogate, and analyze the data, from the Guantanamo captives. It is full of pictures -- about two thirds or three quarters of them are credited to the dozen GIs who staff the Public Affairs office that put out this weekly newspaper. The other fraction of the images don't seem to be any diffferent from the credited photos. Since all the credited photos were taken by GIs, in the course of performing their official duties, I believe they are all in the public domain. That is what Template:PD-USGov says. Well, if the credit is left off? When an official site of a US Government agency uses an image, without offering a credit, how safe is it to assume it was a PD image because it was taken by a GI or other Federal government employee?

Now if that sketch was drawn by a US Federal employee, and was therefore in the public domain, the fair use argument for using the Khadr photo would be eroded, because there were free alternatives? How to find out, for sure, whether the sketch is a PD image? Write to the editor of The Wire, and ask?

What about images a GI took during his off-hours? All the Abu Ghraib photos seem to be regarded as PD. But, if some of them were taken by off-duty GIs, would they no longer be PD?

In a related vein I have noticed that some publications honor what are almost certainly bogus copyright claims, or otherwise allow or encourage PD images to be claimed in the private domain. Case in point, this official mug shot of Dilawar (human rights victim). I can't imagine any possible conditions through which Jigsaw Productions could legitimately claim ownership of that image. If a freelance photographer takes a photo of a photo, and doesn't add any creative spark to it, like solarization, or drawing devil's horns on it, then they can't claim a copyright on their copy, can they?

Am I correct that if someone took a picture of an out-of-copyright picture, like, for example, the Mona Lisa, and drew devil's horns on it, that this would constitute a "creative spark", and they could then claim copyright on it? Am I correct that there are circumstances where someone could do the same thing for a picture that was under copyright, make a copy, under "fair use", make some modifications that they could claim constituted a "creative spark", and claim to own the copyright on their modified version, even though the original was still under copyright?

I came across a web-site where freelance photographers could upload low-resolution and high-resolution copies of their freelance photos. The site displayed the low-res image, and would allow the photographer to bill downloaders before they could access the high-res images. How legitimate was this? One photographer had about two dozen photos from a visit he paid to Dilawar's village. I accept he owns the rights to all the photos he took there, except one image, which is just a copy of a photo owned by Dilawar's family that predated his capture. By our rules Dilawar's family would own the copyright on that image, correct?

Obviously, IANAL.

Cheers! Geo Swan 11:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot of questions, but I'll give it a shot. Copyrights in photographs generally belong to the person who took them. An exception arises under certain circumstances when taking the photo is part of someone's job, in which case it can be (but it not necessarily) a "work for hire", which means that the employer owns the copyright. If a GI takes a picture in the course of his or her duties for the US Government, the picture is in the public domain. If the picture were taken outside of his or her duties, I believe the GI would own the copyright.

Devil horns are probably not creative enough to obtain copyright protection. Mustaches as well. But if someone modifies an image using sufficient creativity, the modified image would be protected by copyright. If the original was under copyright, the modified image would have two copyrights -- that of the original image and that of the modifications.

Handing out copies of an image does not make the image public domain. Neither does making it freely available on a website. There has to be clear permission (a "license") in order for us to use it here as a free image. Fair use, or, more properly, Wikipedia's non-free content policy, might apply, but keep in mind that non-free images of living people are generally not allowed per WP:NFCC#1.

Hope this is helpful. -- But|seriously|folks  23:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What license applies to this image on this page? At the bottom of the page, this is written in Serbian: A further publication of the texts and contents of this site in the original form, is allowed if no profit is gained thereby, and with citing the site Друштво српско-руског пријатељства и руске дијаспоре as the source. Please answer on my talk page. --VVVladimir 22:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on talk page. Calliopejen1 12:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was notified that the image I uploaded of the album cover of "Single '96 = '06" by Hooverphonic wasn't allowed or something like that. I don't really understand what I've done wrong as I followed exactly the same proceedure (or at least I believed I had) as all the others who have uploaded.

Something about "rationale"; how do I add it for the image? If I just add rationale, will all be well with it?

Please notify my on My Talk page as am rather new at this... :)

--James Who 03:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on talk page. Calliopejen1 13:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I got a message that the fair use for Image:Eyesofanangel.jpg was disputed. After looking it over, it appears to be because I forgot to include the name of the article it was used for? I redid the fair use rationale. Now what do I do to see if it is okay now and to remove the notice from the image and from the article's talk page? Collectonian 06:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you were right. Once you've fixed the problem, you can just remove the tag yourself - no oversight needed. (If there's still a problem, Betacommandbot or someone else will tag it again later.) Calliopejen1 12:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks! Collectonian 12:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the tag Template:Non-free media rationale not satisfying when adding fair use in any uploaded photo? Some users do use this template on other photos but I was just surprised when BetacommandBot posted comments on my talk page regarding the Disputed fair use rationale for Images. BritandBeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 08:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requirement that each fair use rationale name the article that the image appears in, which hasn't been enforced too much until now. In the past couple days, I've noticed that Betacommandbot is going through images and tagging them for deletion if they don't name the article the images appears in. So just make sure you do that and hopefully your rationales will hold up. The template is fine as long as you put it under a section header or some other way refer to the article it deals with. Calliopejen1 12:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was done actually. The other photo i mean. BritandBeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What tag should we put if photos are redundant (e.g. identical photo)? BritandBeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 08:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For exact duplicates, you can use {{db-redundantimage|Correctimagename.jpg}}. Calliopejen1 12:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if not that exact? The size is different? BritandBeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a specific example? There's usually no reason to do that. If you have a higher-resolution version of a free image, just upload it in place and no further action is necessary. It's always better to use a high resolution image if possible. If it's a non-free image that was too high resolution and you've uploaded a reduced version in place, then tag it {{non-free reduced}}.

By the way, why do you keep tagging certain images as having invalid rationales? And why did you tag Image:OralFixation2.jpg with {{non-free reduced}}? The old versions are not higher resolution. The original might appear to be, but it's more compressed and therefore lower quality. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My fault. Wasn't able to read the desciption of the tag and i presumed that the template for the fair use is not valid. Ok, let me clear. I was not the one who tag {{non-free reduced}} to Image:OralFixation2.jpg. It was Spellcast. See the photo's history. I am not sure but i was able to read some policies that says the photo should not be lower than 200X200 px but not exceeding 300X300 px. Sorry but i cant cite where is that page. BritandBeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from Canada and restrict most of my edits to political things. One thing I noticed a while ago was that certain pages did not have party logo's. I therefore uploaded them. Well, within the last year I've been having one hell of a problem. Bots chasing me down, telling me the rules have been changed, and I have to do it all over again. So I did. Then they come after me again, telling me that, yet again, the rules have been changed. Oh there's nothing wrong with the images I've uploaded, they are fair use, but they want me to write that in a thousand different places and in a thousnad different ways. I've managed to get it down to one image (all the other images have since been updated by someone else). that is this image: Image:NSNDP.JPG. but, surprise surprise, a bot chased me down today to tell me I only wrote fair use in 999 places. Anyway, I've done what I can, so I'm asking for help that's twofold. If I did it right - please tell me in my talk page. if I did not - delete the damn image, I'm sick and tired of dealing with this much crap when I'm just trying to make this place a little bit better Nickjbor 10:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps take a little time to learn the rules? Use rationales are explained at WP:NFCC and WP:FURG. You can either derive it from the rules or find a comparable example and use it as a model. Wikidemo 10:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the rules have changed somewhat since 2005 -- or rather they've been codified; we've never encouraged the use of copyrighted material. But they've been pretty stable for over a year now, and since then we've become better at detecting when they're not being followed. (They certainly have not changed at all since 16 September of this year, when you uploaded the logo in question.)

To really make the place better, we must 1) obey intellectual property laws; and 2) work toward the project's stated goal of a free content encyclopedia. #1 means we can't go running around willy-nilly grabbing other people's copyrighted material without a reason justifiable under fair-use laws. If we must do that, it's the least we can do to present some kind of justification for it, and we don't do that just by saying "fair use" no matter how often. But it's #2 that tends to put most of the roadblocks in the way. It's more restrictive than the law is when it comes to fair use, since every piece of non-free media detracts from the goal even when they're necessary to complete an article. The rationale you put in place still isn't in compliance, since you don't say where you got it from. We don't really care where it might be obtained; we need to know the source of that particular image. (see WP:NFCC 10a.) If you got it from the party website, surely it's not a lot of bother to link to a page there where it's shown. I'm personally not going to flag it for that, but don't be too surprised if someone else does.

By the way, you will need to retag your election maps. The rules haven't changed there either; just the tags are more specific, so it's not an urgent matter but just something that should be done at some point. If you drew them yourself from publicly available data, then the tag should be {{PD-self}}. If they're taken directly from government websites, note these may not be PD under Canadian law as government works generally aren't. (That hasn't changed either.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I added rationale templates to Image:Sweetheart Cover.gif, Image:NPC logo.jpg, and Image:HuntsmanCancerInstituteLogo.jpg per the betacommandbot posts on my talk page. Am I allowed to remove the "images for deletion" tag? Or does someone higher up than me have to do that? —ScouterSig 15:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no one higher up involved, and of course you can. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TCC. So many people are held up on conventions I'm leary of being bold sometimes. —ScouterSig 14:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale given for Image:Lg dc10.jpg isn't to the liking of the bot. What can I do? __meco 16:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WIth regard to your ridicolus charges of using the Italian Military Coat of Arms in violation of some imaginative copyright, I have the honour to inform you that the only copyright that I am violating is the copyright on anglo-american stupid and absurd obsession for copyrights. Do you seriously believe that there is a copyright on this sybol? Are you kidding? You admins of wikipedia have deleted many of my contribs with this absurd obsession. I'm sick of this stupid rules! What do you expect from me, that I phone to Mr. Arturo Parisi (our Minister of Defence) and I ask him for a oath asserting that Italian Military Coat of Arms are not protected by a copyright????????????? Symbols of italian institutions are not of private property (as all things in your country) so there are not copyright over symbols that belong to all the Italians. It is clear? Or do you want to talk to Mr. Prodi? So I will delete my account, cause wikipedia is really pastering. Auguri di cuore per la vostra enciclopedia delle cavolate. Quando voi americani imaparerete a liberarvi dalla vostra ossessione per la proprietà privata sarà sempre troppo tardi, non potrete mai essere liberi come noi europei. Goodbye.

--Conte di Cavour 17:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you have the situation exactly backward. Contrary to your assertion, any such symbols associated with the US Government, including its military, are public domain by a specific provision of US law. This is not generally true in other countries, and where such a provision is lacking -- as in Italian copyright law -- works of a government are protected by copyright just like everything else. Legge 22 aprile 1941, n. 633 (as amended) Art. 67 seems to govern here, but it seems to cover only legislative acts, works related to public safety, and administrative, parliamentary, and judicial procedures (proceedings?) and not, for example, the contents of a government website or symbols of governmental agencies.

But even if that were not the case, you tagged that coat of arms as a fair-use audio recording. The basic information you were given, that the image was mistagged, is perfectly true. And given that your government does in fact own the copyright to its own symbols (absent any information to the contrary, which ought to be publicly available without contacting any high government officials) we do need your fair use assertion to be properly justified. Sorry if that upsets you, but that's the situation under Italian copyright law and international treaties to which both Italy and the US are party. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. Allow me to apologize in advance if the answer to this question is provided elsewhere; I've been looking around and can't find it.

I'm working to improve the article on Chinua Achebe, and I need to provide some pictures. Obviously any cover of Things Fall Apart is unfree (first published in 1958), but I wonder what the rules are for my photographing a stack of books? What are the copyright restrictions on such a thing – is there a certain amount of the books' design that I can or cannot show? Thanks in advance for your assistance. – Scartol · Talk 18:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's unlikely there's sufficient artwork on the spines for there to be any copyright issues, but it's a case-by-case thing. Keep in mind that things like titles, variations in typography, and background coloration are ineligible for copyright under US law and you should get some idea of what you can freely do. But even the cover might be freely reproducible, depending on the artwork. You, of course, will own the copyright on any photograph you make, and should release it under a free license when uploading. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smashing. Thanks much. (If only I had brought the books home with me! You mean I have to wait until tomorrow? Yeesh!) – Scartol · Talk 01:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to use a company logo at the top of my page about said company. I think I'm in the right about it being acceptable material, but I'm also a newbie at Wikipedia, so any advice would be much appreciated.

Anyway, in the image description I stated why I thought it was fair game as per the Wikipedia:Non-free use Rationale Guideline, so what do I do now? Am I free to use the logo until someone complains?

Aar.Phi [e-mail address removed to avoid spam] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aar.Phi (talk • contribs) 19:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link to the page you're referring to? I would expect that nearly every company's logo is not a free image. You might have a legitimate fair use rationale, but the two phrases are not the same. Show us what page you're referring to and we'll be able to shed more light. – Scartol · Talk 19:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user has only uploaded one image, Image:Uponor logo.JPG. -- But|seriously|folks  19:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually a somewhat complicated case. Copyright laws in different countries set the threshold of creativity at different levels, and I've at least seen arguments that under U.S. copyright law logos composed solely of text might in fact not be eligible for copyright. However, the safe thing to do would be to assume that the logo is in fact copyrighted, and follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content. In particular, that means you need to write a non-free use rationale for each use of the image in articles. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering what the licensing would be for a picture taken from a library's website (specifically a shot of the interior, if it matters). Would the picture be any different than a fair use license? Thanks! Icestorm815 20:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very different. It would be a copyright violation, unless we're talking about a library in a US Government institution like the Library of Congress. Any time it's possible for a free image to be made, the non-free image policy disallows upload of copyrighted material. Any editor can walk into the library, take a picture, and release it under a free license. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, say I still wanted to use those pictures. I think I heard about some sort of permissions statement that can be filed to the library to use those pictures. How would I go about doing that? Icestorm815 00:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. If the library doesn't say yes, you can either take a picture yourself, place a {{reqphotoin}} tag on the photo's talk page and hope someone in the area takes a picture (e.g. {{reqphotoin|Florida}} for a library in Florida - see Category:Wikipedia requested photographs for more), or place a request on Wikipedia:Requested_pictures. Hope this helps! (By the way, this is exactly what our policy of not accepting nonfree images is supposed to encourage--thanks for being so cooperative!) Calliopejen1 01:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help! Icestorm815 01:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded a picture to this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_sign#Imitations. It's a picture of a Hollywood-style sign in Hammarstrand, Sweden. The picture is taken from the municipality of Hammarstands website i can't see a reason why they whouldn't like their sign on wikipedia. How do i prevent you from removing the picture in a week?

--HenrikLarsson 20:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean i can take my own picture of the sign? That whould be a good solution? --HenrikLarsson 06:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't. There's no way the inclusion of this copyrighted image can be justified without an explicit grant of a free license from the copyright owner. You are free to seek such a license -- see WP:COPYREQ -- but we can't even use it as a non-free image because it would be a trivially easy matter for a Wikipedia editor in the area to make a free image on his own. Note this is in fact what was done for the other images in that section. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded an image that is too big and would like to have it deleted so that I can upload a smaller one and add it to the information page for the documentary. The image is titled A Fair to Remember postcardAdvert.jpg

I am the intern working on uploading information for Media Projects Inc. I am also in the process of gathering the information for the pictures I upload.

---L. Silguero —Preceding unsigned comment added by CynFilm (talk • contribs) 22:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem with it is that it appears to be an invalid format. The easiest thing to do is to add {{db-author}} to the image page, and then re-upload it when it's gone.

But please do not do that until you get the copyright issue settled. You should know whether or not you have the right to freely license it before you upload. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We all know that we should be cautious about using images found websites because most of copyrighted. I wonder, is it okay to use images which are NO LONGER being used websites. Because they have applied newer pictures to their pages, it is unlikely that the ones they formerly use still have copyrights. --124.106.201.225 23:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unless you have an explicit statement otherwise, assume all work you find on the internet (or anywhere for that matter) is copyrighted. This still applies if an image is no longer being used. It still belongs to the person who created it. --Ybbor^Talk 23:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have three images currently pending a speedy delete for possible free use breeches. They are Image:Mayhemicdestruction.jpg, Image:MortalSin-MD.jpg and Image:Last stand dvd cover.jpg. As album and DVD covers, there really isn't anything that can replace them, so what am I supposed to put in the description? If this is going to be applied to every album and DVD cover I've uploaded then I'll just stop doing it.--BrianFG 00:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The links in the tag tell you exactly what the problem is if you follow them. WP:NFCC#10c says the rationale must be related to a specific named article. You need to say what article you're justifying fair use for. This makes more sense if it's used in more than one article -- which can always happen at some point. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah ok, that's acceptable. --BrianFG 03:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since football (soccer) replica kits are licensed for production both by their manufacturer and the club they represent, is a line drawn image of these a contravention of those groups Copyright and Intellectual Property? e.g drawing (red kit) and Photo of the real thing. The logos are not used as they are definitely copyrighted, but as the design of the shirt itself (the lines, shape etc) are possibly covered by UK IP and Copyright laws (specifically either a Registered design^{page 6} or an Unregistered design^{page 8}) would a line drawn representation in this form of it be allowable for use on wikipedia? Nanonic 00:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under US copyright law (which is what matters for wikipedia purposes), clothing designs are currently not protected by copyright because they are considered primarily useful as opposed to decorative. (Recently, fashion designers have been lobbying for copyright protection, but they haven't succeeded yet.) As long as we are not copying any particular drawing of the shirt, it should be fine. Calliopejen1 01:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to make my fair use rational more acceptable than that. Replies on my talk page would be appreciated. Millancad 01:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for pasting from my answer above, but it's exactly the same siutation. The links in the tag tell you exactly what the problem is if you follow them. WP:NFCC#10c says the rationale must be related to a specific named article. You need to say what article you're justifying fair use for. This makes more sense if it's used in more than one article -- which can always happen at some point. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently posted a screenshot of the Pursuit Force: Extreme Justice video game (Screenshot), put a copyright tag and fair use rationale but I keep getting messages on my talk. I even emailed Sony and asked for permission to use Sony pictures on Wikipedia and they said: "Dear Tim, Thank you for your recent email. The Public encyclopedia website Wikipedia, is free to public opinion, you do not need permission to post pictures relating to any sony products on the wikipedia site as it is a not for profit organisation. Thank you for enquiring with us before making a decision. Regards,Maximilian PlayStation Support Centre Have you registered for PlayStation 3? <http://au.playstation.com/ps3update/> Telephone : 1300 365 911 Email : support@playstation.com.auFax : (02) 9450 9011"

I even sent this email to Wikipedia in regards to my other picture and I thought that would cover them both, and any other pictures I put in regards to Sony products.

What do I do? Reply to my talk page please Scorpus57 02:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The permission above is not sufficient, as it is limited to Wikipedia and noncommercial use. The copyright holder has to grant permission for subsequent reuse, including commercial use, etc. Please see WP:COPYREQ for more details. Thank you. -- But|seriously|folks  04:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it doesn't violates if the photo is being reduced. Photos need to be reduced or expanded to comply the standard size which as far i knows, 200px X 200px to 300px X 300px. Then why does Image:OralFixation2.jpg is being tagged with (non-free reduced|October 1, 2007)? the concern their if the uploader added fair use or does the fair use meets the criteria orif it's invalid. Thanks.

Currently, i put a speedy deletion tag on the photo because it's fair use may not be valid. The other tag is still intact. BritandBeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no standard size for images. You size images for an article using the extended image syntax, not by reducing the image itself. This image as it stands is of sufficiently low resolution for fair use considerations. BritandBeyonce, if you feel fair use is not justified here, then list it at WP:FUR and add one of the tags listed there. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are wallpapers that can be downloaded off internet sites considered? Can they be used as images? I spacifically would like to upload a wallpaper from http://www.halowars.com/Media.aspx to the article Halo Wars, and the technology area of the United Nations Space Command page. Can I do this?S II 087 00:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It says very clearly on the bottom, "©2007 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved." They're essentially allowing downloads for your private use, and you have no license to upload them here. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This picture is tagged as public domain, but I doubt the uploader had the authority to release the image into the public domain. Aboutmovies 01:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed he did not. It's mistagged. It's at best fair use, but then only if it's impossible for anyone to take a picture of the floor of the Oregon State Senate. If it's not, then it needs to be speedied. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader was likely confused by the rule which makes federal government images in the public domain. This, however, does not apply to state governments. --Ybbor^Talk 03:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is posting about the story behind the songs copyrighted?

Sfft 2108 03:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would help to link to the article in question, which appears to be Mission California. It's a copyright violation because it's a verbatim cut-and-paste from [2]. They're not your words, they're someone else's. Write up the information in your own words with no more than very brief quotations from the band members, and cite the web page as a source. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was tagged for deletion as the fair-use rationale was fully completed. I filled it all in afterwards - but the image has still been deleted. Why is this? Dan K 06:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you remove the {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} (or whatever) tag when you were done? TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I'm pretty new to this, would the following be sufficient or is there anything further that needs to be added? Please advise..

--
== Licensing ==

{{Non-free logo}}

== Fair use rationale ==

{{Non-free use rationale
|Article= Tms-online.gif 
|Description=Logo of  Tms-online.gif .
|Source=Copied from {{#if: www.boonsoftware.com | www.boonsoftware.com  | Tms-online.gif }} web site, and intellectual property owned by {{#if:{{{3|}}}|{{{3}}}| Tms-online.gif }}.
|Portion=Whole logo used to avoid misrepresenting brand image.
|Low_resolution=Logo was selected in order to maintain the quality intended, without being unnecessarily high resolution.
|Purpose=Identification and critical commentary in the [[ Tms-online.gif ]] article, a subject of public interest. The logo confirms to readers they have reached the correct article, and illustrates the intended branding message.
|Replaceability=Logo is protected by copyright and trademark, therefore a free use alternative won't exist.
|other_information=
}}

=== Fair use in [[ARTICLE NAME]] ===
This image is subject to copyright and is used as the primary means of visual identification of the article topic.
--

--Dleewh 06:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, please don't add those templates to this page.

There was a problem and User:Sherool came along and fixed it for you, but he didn't remove all the weirdness. I have no idea what those parser functions and template parameters are doing in there. I suppose it's not impossible they happened as the result of a subst:, but you shouldn't do that with these templates. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when providing a URL, include the protocol (the http:// part) so that it can be recognized and made into a link. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a good scan of a CDV photograph that I own of James G. Blaine, who died in 1893, and would like to add it to Wikipedia. Is this "My Own Work", or is some other license applicable? Tim Ross 11:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what a CDV photograph is. If the photograph was taken and published before 1923 in the US (which would seem reasonable), then tag the image {{PD-US}}. If the photographer died more than 70 years ago, then tag it {{PD-old-70}}. Provide as much source information as possible on the image description page, and if possible credit the source of the scan - i.e. whatever CDV is. Megapixie 14:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CDV is an abbreviation for Carte de Visite, usually applied to the visitors card sized photos which were very popular in the late 1800s. And, yes, the photo is old, clearly taken about 1885-90 and printed at that time. So, I'll use the {{PD-US}} tag you suggested. Thank you very much, Megapixie. Tim Ross 15:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added some info. I assume things are okay now? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 16:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve, Sm8900. A non-free use rational template is available for use on the image page for non-free content use in Wikipedia that lists all of the required components necessary to establish fair-use. You might also want to read the image help page where it talks specifically about developing a use rationale. Oh and wait, there's even more information about Wikipedia's non-free content policy here. After you take a look at some of this stuff, you might find that you want to more fully explain your rationale of that image in that particular article. -- Ltvine | Talk 21:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the base image of someone's map of the US (user:Wapcaplet - Map of USA with state names.svg) and have removed the state names and put in all the state capitals. Can I now upload this to Wikipedia? Blueturtle01 18:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Image:Map of USA with state names.svg, just to make it convenient. (Note how I make the link.) It's licensed under the GFDL, so you have to follow the terms of that license. Link to the original in the image description, and license it under the same license yourself: tag it {{GFDL-self}}. The original is actually on the Commons, so consider uploading your new map there too so that it's available to all Wikimedia projects. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the Wits University personnels for a non-copyrighted image of the campus and they emailed it to me. The author is aware of Wikipedia and knows the image's purpose and that I would upload it on Wikipedia (giving due credit to the university). How do I tag this picture given the above information?

Samuella99 20:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not enough information to be able to tell you. What does he know of the image's purpose, and what permission did he give exactly? Does he know it might be used for commercial purposes or in derivative works? In other words, is the image licensed for any purpose? TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page might be a good starting point to look over, but as Csernica implied, you will likely need to get another e-mail clarifying in no uncertain terms what they're realeasing. That page should give you some direction on how to go about that. --Ybbor^Talk 02:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't imply that, although it may well be the case. We need the terms clarified. If the permission is "Wikipedia only" or "non-commercial only" or "educational only" or "no derivative works", we can't use it. If the person understands what Wikipedia needs and is allowing all those things, then it should be {{attribution}}. And do forward that email with permission to the foundation as it says at the link. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what is copyright and how do i find it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxas255 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright is everywhere, and you find it in anything creative anyone makes. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was told that my Image:Hall Seal.jpg wasn't proper. I used then Non-free logo template,just as was done with Image:LamontCrest.gif. I see no reason why my image should be deleted if I used the same template as the Lamont Crest. --Lord Balin 22:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the instructions at the top of this page for linking to images. Boldface isn't useful.

With heraldry any particular instance of the arms or a part of the arms may or may not be copyrighted depending on whether it's taken from an older source or is recently produced. Although all examples of a particular arms are very similar, there's enough leeway in the exact expression of the blazon to allow for copyright.

In this case the Lamont badge is clearly copyrighted because it bears a notice and a specific non-commercial license, which we cannot use here. This is not true of the Hall badge, but it's unsafe to assume that any particular expression of a blazon of arms is free without positive information of the fact.

The answer to your question may be simply that the bot doing the tagging hasn't found the Lamont badge yet. {{non-free logo}} is a fair-use template and a rationale is expected. However, no valid rationale can be offered in either of these cases, since any Wikipedia editor of sufficient skill can make a free version. It's therefore replaceable. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded Image:Karl Kasten - Campus Drypoint.PNG. I tagged it with the same tag as the other images on the page that I've uploaded. The bot has told me I need to tag it. The questions that are asked of me on the referenced page have all been answered by my comments. I'm trying to do the tag correctly. I want to know what I've done wrong with the tagging. I'm getting pretty good on wikipedia but I apparently still need to work on tagging. With all due respect, directing me to the tutorial page doesn't work for me. I'd like examples. Please direct me to a page of examples. Mrshaba 05:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have fixed the page for you. I think what was going on is that the bot is flagging all images that don't have any text on their pages except the copyright tag, so since you put the source info inside the copyright tag, it was having problems. (If it gets tagged again, come back here and we'll try to figure it out again.) However, what you need to do for this and all the other Karl Kasten images is to have Mr. Kasten send an email to permissions@wikimedia.org specifying all the image names he is giving permission for and the license he is granting, so we have a record of his actual permission and don't just have to take your word for it. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for the form that email should take. Calliopejen1 13:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded the Ecunet logo Image:Ecunet Logo.jpg in order to ask this question: Wikipedia guidelines appear to allow only images that are in the public domain or that have a free license. Yet I see logos on plenty of pages (cf. Chevrolet, CompuServe, which clearly are owned by the companies in question. Please tell me how to use a logo with permission. InkQuill 01:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, although they're tagged with a template that suggests they're copyrighted, most corporate logos actually aren't. According to the Copyright Office, logos are generally ineligible for copyright protection as they contain insufficient "authorship"; that is, they're composed of details of coloring, typography, and/or simple geometric shapes with no original artwork to speak of; and these things cannot be protected by copyright. However, they are protected by the trademark laws, so we still need to be cautious in how they're used.

We really ought to change that template, since its confusing in that way. Copyright-ineligible logos hosted at the Commons are generally tagged with {{trademark}}, as many "non-free" logos here really should be. But it's a bit of a judgment call in some cases, so better safe than sorry.

Second, we don't use non-free media with permission. That's why they're non-free; either that or the permission we have isn't acceptable according to Wikipedia policy. The non-free media guidelines are helpful if you want to find out how we do this. The legal basis is fair use, but non-free media are contrary to the basic goal of the project so Wikipedia policy is actually stricter than the law requires.

Third, you didn't need to upload anything just to ask a question here. We don't answer general copyright questions, but this one was rather pointed.

If, however, you have a legitimate use for this logo, tag it {{logo}} and then {{logo fur}} for each article where you are using it. Read the documentation for the latter to find out how to use it, since you need to provide some information in the parameters. If you're not planning to use the logo anywhere, you can expect it to be deleted as is the policy on unused non-free media. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I put the {{logo}} and {{logo fur}} tags? Do put the first on the discussion page of File:Ecunet logo.jpg? Where does the second go? InkQuill 03:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I really didn't know how to find out what the issue would be with this logo. I didn't mean to violated the policy against pointedness and I apologize. The rules are rather difficult to navigate. Even your explanation and the non-free media guidelines are confusing to me, or just too complicated for my feeble brain. I understand the efforts to keep Wikipedia's content open, but print encyclopedias have long used non-free content. I'm not sure how we'll ever be able to use the Ecunet logo on the Ecunet page under the guidelines. InkQuill 03:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, Wikipedia names are case-sensitive. Image:Ecunet Logo.jpg is not the same as Image:Ecunet logo.jpg. And when posting here, please add a colon before "Image". Otherwise you won't link to it, you'll insert it into this page and we don't really want that.

Yes, print encyclopedias have long used non-free content, but Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Encyclopedias have also traditionally been non-free themselves, but that's not what we're about here.

The issue with this logo is the same as with every other logo here. You can use it to identify the organization in an article about them. You just have to jump through the hoops to justify it.

To place the tags, go to the image page and click the edit link. This doesn't edit the image; it edits the text describing the image. Add both tags there, and make sure that you fill in the parameters for {{logo fur}}. Policy requires that we include a rationale justifying each use of non-free media, but logos are so commonly added and all for the same reason that we now have a template to make writing rationales for them easier. Essentially we need to know where you got it from, who it belongs to, and in what article you're using it. The rest of the text in the template should suffice. It will look something like {{logo fur|article=Ecunet|use=org|source=<say where you got it from if not the website>|website=http://www.ecunet.org<if that's where you got it from>}}. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would add the following comment Gordon Laird 14:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Gordon Laird:[reply]

This Ecunet Logo has been provided to me by the President of Ecunet, Inc. who own the Logo. It was commissioned by the Board of Ecunet, Inc. by a motion made by that Board November 10, 1993. The person who was commissioned to design and execute the Logo was Phil Porter, who is a creative United Church of Christ consultant, workshop leader and co-founder of InterPlay (http://www.bodywisdom.org). I assert that we are acting on behalf of Ecunet, Inc. and have a 100% right to the use of this Logo. signed: Gordon Laird

copyright for these gifs?

Lollerskates

ROFLcopter

I thought they'd be cute in the Leet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotorius.kool (talk • contribs) 04:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt they've been floating around for a while, but the photobucket user "shockedstupid" probably didn't create them. Strictly speaking we can't use them. On the other hand, there certainly seems to be an implicit free license, doesn't there? This is probably wrong of me, but try uploading them, tagging them as {{PD-author}}, and see if anyone complains. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been told that the fair use rationale for Image:Karin logo.png violates WP:NFCC#10c. Reading 10(c), the only thing I can see is that I didn't give the name of the article it was uploaded to within the rationale itself, instead the article name is listed in the file links section lower down. I have now added the name of the article to the rationale section, is that all that is required? The image is simply the logotype for the story title. Can I remove the deletion tag?

Yup. The file links section says where it is used; the rationale says where it should be used. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

Yesterday I published my first article in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruges. I put a lot of effort in covering copyright issues. As a matter of fact the external link consisted of a copyright case study within itself to be covered in several chapters of Wikipedia. That video was critical in an effort made by dozens of people.

How can I find out who removed this article and what can I do to avoid this kind of vandalism?

For me as a starter, I took me half a day to wade through the Wiki forest to get there.

Tx a lot for your swift reply.

MindStein —Preceding unsigned comment added by MindStein (talk • contribs) 07:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The removal was on grounds of WP:LINKSPAM, not copyright. All of the links you inserted were to metacafe videos. I don't have the time to look through all of them, but in general links to youtube, metacafe, etc., aren't considered useful. Take a look at WP:EL for the external linking policy. In addition, you added a bunch of disorganized text at the very top of the page where the WP:LEAD is supposed to go. Normally you would add text to the appropriate section describing the article, and if necessary either reference external sites as a source for the material you added, or sometimes an external link. It looks like your edits caught the attention of a person who has spent a month or more doing major edits to the article. He or she probably reverted the new material because it hurt the article. Bruges is a 3-year old article about a 500+ year old city city with 100,000 + residents, and already a "B" class article, meaning it is already pretty good and not a whole lot of drastic improvement you can easily make. You might want to start out a little slower, adding one link or image at a time, making small corrections, or bigger projects on articles that are relatively new. Wikidemo 08:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are Indians skin so dark with fine facial features —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.88.205 (talk) 10:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for asking questions about images and copyright. You might want to try asking at the science reference desk. Calliopejen1 13:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am having trouble inserting a picture image i took myself. It was autimatically deleted. Would like to restore the one originallty there.

Could use a

I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby grant the permission to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. GFDL GNU Free Documentation License //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License This template should only be used on file pages.

If this file is eligible for relicensing, it may also be used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license. The relicensing status of this image has not yet been reviewed. You can help.

coypright designation.

Ken Evans Kenneth Evans 14:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read in the Copyright FAQ, it says "In the U.S., buildings built on or after December 1, 1990 are also eligible for copyright." I know you just can not take a picture of these buildings and use them in your intellectual work, but I know a couple of these buildings are in Wikipedia that are copyrighted like the Denver Art Museum I was looking at the pictures in those articles and some have CC licenses and other tags, is this correct labeling? GWatson &#149; ^TALK 14:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]