Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2009/May

File:OJ Simpson Newsweek TIME.png

I have listed a new fair use rationale for the image's use on the O.J. Simpson murder case#Media coverage page/section. It is already listed for use on two other pages. I'm requesting that someone validate it (is this the place for fair use validations?), so that it can be restored to the article. Thanks, -Stevertigo 18:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it could be valid, but you need to use a separate {{Non-free use rationale}} template for each article it will be used in. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. -Stevertigo 03:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

File:2239.news lg conan logo.jpg

I obtained this image from the following website: www.tvguidemagazine.com/images/uploads/2009/04/2239.news_lg_conan_logo.jpg

Shortly after I added the image, I recieved a message saying that there was a copyright issue. I'm embarrased to say, but I don't know how to add this status to the file. I don't want the image to be deleted seeing as it is the actual logo, but I don't know where to go from here. Do I have to make the change myself or could someone else kindly do it for me? I'm sorry, but I'm stuck on this. - User:Cartoon Boy User talk:Cartoon Boy 5:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, you did the right thing by coming here. I fixed the image description page. If you have any other questions about similar cases, this is the place. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

File:The One That Got Away (book cover).jpg

I was asked to provide rationale, but after reading the rationale page, I still don't understand exactly what I have to provide. I have edited the page, which hopefully is correct, but the page also says: "Please remove this template if a rationale is provided." I am supposed to removed the template, or will an admin do it? Also, wouldn't the rationale for any 'non-free book cover', used in an article on that book, be the same rationale? Mr Pillows (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You can remove the template, once you're sure that you've fixed the problem. I did it for you. And yes, the rationale would be almost identical for any book cover used in the infobox of an article on the book. But there are rare exceptions, so it's important to include the standard information, even when it seems redundant. (Your rationale is fine, by the way.) – Quadell ^(talk) 02:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

hospital

Syl Memorial Hospital Akeem Akonju St. Ikeja is what i was given as to where a one Heather Wilson is in after a car accident.. can some one check if she is indeed in hospital? accident happened on 04/27/2009.. i can not get any more info ..last place i know she stayed was the Execellence Hotel (Obga ljaye) which i can not find..Lagos State14:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)14:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Papabear9999 (talk • contribs)

Sorry we cannot help you here or anywhere else on Wikipedia. You should contact the hospital or the police in the relevant area. Try a Google search to find the contact details. – ukexpat (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

adding a picture

Please let me know if and haw I can add a picture of a church the body of the writ up about "Fairouzeh"- Syria. Thank you for your help —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgesNasserDeeb (talk • contribs) 17:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

If you created the photograph yourself, it would be best to upload the image to Commons at this link. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia as repository for documentary evidence

File:PFMagazineNL8pages.pdf is, as you might guess, a PDF of a number of pages from a single magazine, dated 2001. The text is in Dutch. File:PFTranslationUK8pages.pdf is an English-language version of the same. The fair-use templates attached are at best misdescriptions of the content. They also misdescribe the purpose, which (I infer) is to substantiate claims by User:1027E (previously User:1027 and before that User:Mathilde Fischer) and to make more accessible (and more credible) a source adduced in Errol Sawyer (and discussed in its AfD).

I see multiple problems here:

• Lack of any hint that this material is PD or GFDL
• No "fair use" as defined within WP
• Misinformation in template
• Unsuitable file format
• Dubious use of megabytes of WP's server

On the other hand (if I bend very far backward indeed [and thereby mix my bodily metaphors]):

• I'm no expert in these copyright questions
• What's uploaded is little more than a cover, editorial trivia, and stuff by Sawyer. As Fischer/1027(E) is the wife of Sawyer (User:Efsawyer), he probably wouldn't mind.
• The portion of the copyright that isn't Sawyer's is conceivably (IANAL) covered by "fair use" as somebody, somewhere might argue its interpretation
• Probable lack of any more fitting template
• It's certainly helpful, in view of the difficulty of locating copies of eight-year-old Dutch photo magazines

I have a delete button at my disposal and feel under some obligation to use it; however, I realize that I am not as well informed about these issues as many others are, and so invite the better informed to step in. -- Hoary (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

They have to be deleted. Regardless of "fair use" or "permission", the covers are copyrighted and non-free, so we could only use them according to our strict non-free content criteria, and this would never pass. (For instance, #7 is an obvious problem.) If it's useful to have this information, someone should set up an external website to host these, and you can link to them, but we can't have them here I'm afraid. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Just as I thought. -- Hoary (talk) 03:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone putting them up on another site without permission would still be a copyright violation, and we do not link to copyright violations. DreamGuy (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles don't, but talk pages do. Also, if the use would pass "fair use" under U.S. law (but not our NFCC), then it's fine to link from an article too. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Both files are now at "Files for Deletion". I'm surprised by two things: (i) Why even this is necessary (why they are not summarily deleted), and (ii) How PDF files can be helpful for WP (and if they can't, why their uploading isn't automatically disallowed). -- Hoary (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It could have been “speedied” for lack of a source or for lack of a non-free use rationale or as an orphan. But speedy deletion is not much faster than FfD, and someone could formally fix all those conditions, delaying deletion, and necessitating an FfD after all. A use rationale could be created, but it would not be valid, for it inherently fails minimum use and significance. —teb728 t c 02:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I could go for prohibiting PDF uploads as unlikely to be of any use here. Stifle (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Artist Concept Drawings: Public Facilities

I noticed on an article over an under construction project (see Brunswick Maine Street Station) that the photo was a picture of an artist conceptual drawing, and it was up for speedy deletion. Can these photos be unloaded and used? I couldn't find any specific categories for these types of photos. (See [1] for the photos). --Bubblecuffer (talk) 03:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You would need to show evidence that the artist who created the picture has either released it into the public domain or has given you specific permission to use it on Wikipedia. Since there is currently no such evidence, that is why I tagged it for deletion. The same goes for the Saco Station photo which you are also aware of. The sources for both images are unclear as well: you would need to provide a link to the web pages where the original images were obtained, rather than simply listing "Trainriders Northeast" or "Town of Brunswick" as sources. —BMRR (talk) 05:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia does not accept specific permission for use on Wikipedia. (Indeed a statement of permission for use on Wikipedia without a claim of fair use is grounds for speedy deletion.) Acceptable permission must allow reuse by anyone for anything. (Content without public domain or such a free license must conform to Wikipedia’s restrictive non-free content policy.) —teb728 t c 06:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the help. I'll see if there is anything I can do for permissions.--Bubblecuffer (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Movie poster

Can the movie poster be uploaded from http://www.whosdatedwho.com/poster/6262/young-widow.htm for the movie Young Widow?

Thanks

Savolya (talk) 11:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)savolyaSavolya (talk) 11:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

No copyright notice appears on the poster; if so, its publication in the 1940s would automatically put it in the public domain in the U.S. — Walloon (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done I uploaded it and added it to the article under a claim of fair use, which should be unproblematic, in case it is copyrighted. If it's really in the public domain, the description can simply be changed. decltype (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Two images I don't know what to do with

I uploaded two images 1 2 and I got two messages saying that i need to find out where they came from. These photos are well over fifty years old, and I am related to the members of this group (one is my mother), and were old publicity photos. I have no idea how to find out who took them. Please advise. Hatman1960 (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Your question was addressed above, at your previous inquiry.

Julian Rachlin Images

I want to place a picture to Julian Rachlin article. I found some pictures in Facebook [2] can I use the image? --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 19:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a smaller version of this photo which clearly shows it to be an AP photo. That one is copyright so you cannot use it or any other copyright photo of this person. You need to find a photo with a free licence for us to be able to use it. He is still living so in theory a free photo can be taken. There are a few flickr photos that have a non-commercial Creative Commons licence and perhaps the owner would re-licence one to a free CC licence for you if you ask. ww2censor (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It is rare that people on Flickr won't change the license. If there are uploads by more than a couple of people, you can pretty much be sure to get one if you ask. Richard001 (talk) 11:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Uploading an older picture

If I were to come accross photos taken in 1917 by an amateur canadian photographer in montreal, can they be uploaded into wikipedia?., If a Muesuem has the physical photos does this mean that they can re- copyright them, making it so i cant upload them? The photographer died in 1955. Hope i explained this well enough. ThanksOttawa4ever (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

All Canadian photographs taken before 1949 are public domain. Use {{PD-Canada}} --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Contesting the copyright validity of File:Examples of HAPs.JPG

I would like to request a copyright check on this image. Whether the image qualifies for Wikipedia under the licenses that I have listed on the page. Its presence is contestable because Although I have created the image, part of the image uses a picture which qualifies for copyright material.Digimanpk (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe the non-free one is the airship at bottm right. I am afraid this makes the whole composition non-free as well. Sv1xv (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes you are right. But then can it be used under fair usage of non-free image. As it comprise only a small portion of the picture. Plus it is non-reproducible( since It was done by an artist at Lockheed Martin), and also the fact that it is a picture of a special type of airship which is still under construction, hence free images are not possible. Can you please advice me if this image is permitted under any license or should i design another one using only available free images on wikipedia. Digimanpk (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

On the Lockheed Martin's website , I located the following documents regarding trademarks own by Lockheed martin for photographers and artists.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/12024.pdf Would this make the image free to use. ??? Thx.Digimanpk (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That PDF appears to only deal with the use of Lockheed's trademarks, not their copyrighted images. Trademarks and copyrights are not the same thing. – ukexpat (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I have some promotional adversiting based on an educational purpose

I have no idea exactly if File:UCFVictimServices.jpg if a copyrighted image. It has the UCF Victim Services logo on the bottom, but as far as I'm concerned, we use these "promotional stickers" to attach to the restrooms at the university...Now what type of "copyright" signature should I give it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serene skies (talk • contribs) 15:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UCFVictimServices.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serene skies (talk • contribs) 15:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone with authority from the university to do so will have to send an e-mail as described at WP:IOWN to release the image for use on Wikipedia. When the e-mail is received and confirmed the image will be appropriately tagged by the OTRS folks. – ukexpat (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Abbott thayer countershading.jpg

Could someone please check the licence I've used on this please? The author died more than 70 years ago and I'm sure I've seen a more suitable template to use but can't find it. Thanks in advance. Smartse (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I've found it myself... Smartse (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. – ukexpat (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

File:The Truth (painting).jpg

I am not at all clear about fair use of images. Is this one, used in The Truth (painting), ok? Thanks. Moonriddengirl sent me here. Dougweller (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The non-free use rationale on the image was basically fine, but I expanded it a bit to keep it in line with the non-free content criteria. -- Hux (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 04:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

{{PD-US-no notice}}

File:NatalieWood.jpg is derived from a film, Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice. The image (currently orphaned) carries a fair use justification, but it also includes a link to and explanation for {{tl|PD-US-no notice)), saying that the film was never legally copyrighted. I don't know anything about the film; could someone with more knowledge check this picture and remove the inappropriate category? Nyttend (talk) 04:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the incorrect PD tag. I originally listed this for possible deletion here. I wasn't quite sure what was the right was of doing it, because the uploader was disputing it (at the time, but nothing since). So instead of removing the incorrect tag, which was the point the uploader disagreed with, I listed it for a second opinion. The film is subject to copyright, and while the trailer may not necessary be, the image is not taken from the trailer but cropped from a lobby card, which shows a copyright notice. (File:Item 1950 1.jpg) As the image is an orphan and the original uploader has stopped adding it to the Natalie Wood article, it's kind of a moot point. I'm sure the PD tag is wrong. Rossrs (talk) 05:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyrights on audio and video files

Resolved

 – ukexpat (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

When you take a photo of someone you basically have copyright of it yourself and can upload it without their permission. I'm not so clear about audio/video of that person speaking. If they automatically hold copyright for anything they write, I presume it's the same for things they say, even if they do so in public? For example if someone gives a public lecture, you would still need their permission to post a video of it, right? Or if they gave a talk on a radio program, you would need their permission in addition to that of the radio station? Richard001 (talk) 11:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Difficult to say. If it was a performance of a work (e.g. an author reading an extract from a novel), then you would definitely need that person's permission. If it was a recording of a current affairs debate, you probably wouldn't. In between, it depends mostly on the country where the recording was made. Stifle (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Good question. Copyright protects "fixed" works. An extemporaneous speech is not fixed, so the speaker does not hold a copyright to his words. But if he wrote down his speech ahead of time, then his speaking is an expression of the copyrighted written speech. The copyright to an audio (or video) recording is completely separate. If I record you speaking, I choose what equipment to use, how to place the microphone, possible mixing and editing, etc., so I hold the copyright on the recording just as much as if I were recording a thunderstorm or a bird song. If your speech was also copyrighted (because it was previously fixed), then there are two copyrights to consider. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 14:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies, I'll keep this in mind if I ever manage to get such material (seems a lot harder than getting a video of a bird or something like that). Richard001 (talk) 03:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Duffy - Warwick Avenue.jpg

File:Duffy - Warwick Avenue.jpg. This image was nominated for speedy deletion, but I think it should be kept, since the music video is notable enough - it was nominated for a MTV VMA in the "Best UK Video" category. Alecsdaniel (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Everyone agrees that the image is copyrighted and non-free; the only question is whether is adheres to our non-free content criteria. I don't think it's a good candidate for speedy deletion, so I removed the speedy tag and nominated it for deletion instead. It's entry is here. It will be debated for 7 days, after which an administrator will decide whether the consensus is that it violates NFCC#8 or not. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 14:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

File:A BorisA Berlin1948.jpg

This file has been tagged for possible deletion, and I have received a note saying that the administrator has done this as he/she is not sure what the situation is. As I understand it, Soviet photos taken before 1951 were exempt from copyright, and that as the position is currently unclear on that, the cert that I gave it (which contains reservations) is OK. The copyright at the foot of the source page shouldn't affect it, although it appears to have expired in 2007. The historical content of the photo (the recognisable ruined cathedral in the Gendarmenmarkt plus the concert with Boris conducting) shows time and place: it's a Soviet photo in the Soviet Zone before 1951. I think it's important to be able to show this photo, as it helps to demonstrate that everyone was working together for peace at that time and place. I believe that some people may have put their careers on the line for trying too hard (Russians singing in German) at the concert, and am currently evaluating evidence. If there's still a problem, please let me know.--Storye book (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This is being discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 May 4#File:A BorisA Berlin1948.jpg. I'd recommend that all discussion go there. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Image with copyright problem

This image [[File:BeethovensPiano.jpg]] is claimed to be public domain. But in the place for writting the permission is just written "Public domain". There is nothing that indicate that the image is public domain. Also the source (http://www.kingsbarn.freeserve.co.uk/bpianos.html) has no information about the image being public domain. And there is no information about the year the picture was taken. Therefore I think that the image is stolen from http://www.kingsbarn.freeserve.co.uk/bpianos.html. I don't know what to do about this but I thought that I should say it to you. Hope that someone will take care of the problem... Fanoftheworld (talk) 11:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no image at File:BeethovensPiano.jpg. You are correct that it would appear to be a copyright violation. I would tag it as such if I could find the image. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It appears to have been hosted on commons. It has been deleted as a copyright violation.[3]. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Newmarket.jpg

I believe the originator's intent was to make this freely available, I am guessing this from it being marked as " created this work entirely by myself" in the metadata, and imagine that (a) originator was in a hurry to catch his train after taking the picture! and (b) perhaps was not familiar with WP/Commons (his user page is a redlink). I've reinstated it at Newmarket railway station in good faith, though of course it will disappear again if not noted, and put a note on the originator's user talk saying it needs fixed up.

A shame to lose it, it's quite a nice pic (well I am not a trainspotter but I mean in the context of the article).

Any help you have as far as policies etc, I should be glad to hear them. SimonTrew (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid we can't keep it unless the uploader agrees to release it under a free license. If it's deleted and he shows up and agrees to license it under the GFDL, we can always undelete it. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Permission to use images

I am a writer and I have just completed my first effort. In one of the chapters, I briefly discuss the history of the bustle and Sarah Baartman. I am interested in using one or two of the images from the "bustle" definition and one from the "Baartman." My question is would this be possible and if so how do I go about getting Wikipedia's approval to do so? Thank you, in advance.

Sincerely,

DeLana S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugarland746 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

69Sexy.jpg

Hi STBotI, Thanks for your note. I tried to update the Summary for the 69Sexy.jpg I posted. It is property of Playboy Enterprises and I am an employee of the company, posting it on their behalf. Let me know if you need any other info in the explanation. Best Regards,

(Zepolekim (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC))

I removed the tag as you have now added the {{logo fur}} template. – ukexpat (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Help

I'm sorry but I can't understand how to do it could you help me? AlienX2009 (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

How to do what? We will need some more information before we assist you. – ukexpat (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

look at my talk page. AlienX2009 (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There are four image issues on your talk page. This page is for you to tell us what your specific problem is. Please do that and maybe one of us can advise you what to do next. ww2censor (talk) 11:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

vintage poster

I have an original poster from the 30's. I believe I have the only originals left. Can I copyright this poster and make repros to sell? Can someone else copyright it if they have copy made from my original? there appears to be no copyright on the original poster. thanks for your help dt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.199.9.162 (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry we cannot give legal advice, please consult a lawyer. – ukexpat (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You cannot copyright the poster for the simple reason that you are not the author, nor was the author your employee, nor has the author assigned the copyright to you. — Walloon (talk) 23:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Company Logo upload

I am a communications specialist for my company with the task of updating and maintaining our Wikipedia page. I get a message saying that I am "Unauthorized" to upload photos (i.e. our Logo) with my current account status. How can I change this?

Also, how can I be authorized to post content that is on our website without it being deleted? Thanks.

WOCCU (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

1. You can probably use the {{Non-free logo}} on the image, if it's a logo used in the company's article to identify the company. Then, include a rationale for using it. Also, give a source for the image.
2. More significantly, there may be an article about your company, but it's NOT your company's Wikipedia page (in the sense of ownership), and you have not been given any special authority to edit it. Please read our policy on conflicts of interest. As for content from your web site, it could be allowed if it's licensed under GFDL. However, don't bother. Few companies would license their content under GFDL. Also, text copied from commercial web sites for promotion is almost always removed, since advertising and promotion are prohibited. It seems this is an example of what you're trying to add. Don't do it. It will be removed, and repeated attempts to re-add will result in being blocked. --Rob (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Your account has to be autoconfirmed (10 edits and at least 4 days old) before you can upload files. – ukexpat (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

User:WOCCU permablocked as a WP:SPAMNAME/WP:SPA. – ukexpat (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Family owned photos

I'm doing an article about a famous deceased WWII figure. His sons have agreed to help out with the article with regard to providing personal family collection photographs of their father for it. The son I deal with the most has said they are willing to release many of these photos to Wikipedia for use in the article, but he hopes there is a way to put restrictions on it so they can't be altered by just anyone passing along the site who wants to take the photo for themselves and use it elsewhere. Are there any caveats that can be attached to these photos as condition of release to Wikipedia to protect their integrity to some degree, or at least require a byline for them if they are used elsewhere, or is it an all-or-nothing bargain? The photos are released with anyone on earth allowed to do with them whatever they please for whatever reason, or not released at all? --ScreaminEagle (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a "free encyclopedia", which means that anyone can use the articles and images for any purpose, including making modifications and selling them for profit. We can't make an exception for an image here or there. There are licenses which allow anyone to use an image for free so long as they don't modify it -- this, for instance -- but Wikipedia does not accept such images. Sorry. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hm, OK thanks. So what paperwork would either he or I have to fill out to make these family photos public domain for use on Wikipedia (if that's the avenue he chooses to go)? --ScreaminEagle (talk) 00:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no specific paperwork; the copyright-holder would simply have to agree to license the photos under a free license. Two popular choices are:

• The Creative Commons Attribution license, called cc-by for short. This lets anyone use the image, so long as they credit the copyright holder.
• The Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license, called cc-by-sa for short. This lets anyone use the image, so long as they credit the copyright holder, and so long as they release any derivative work under the same license. (So if someone used the photo in a coffee-table book, the entire book would have to be free for anyone to copy and use.)

Either of these is fine for Wikipedia. When you upload the images, simply tag them with {{cc-by-3.0}} or {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} to indicate what license they are released under. If you need help, let me know. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

nausea and fibromyagia

I could not find any mention of these to topics in relation to each other. When I am in a fibro flare I have extreme nausea as well as the usual reported symptoms. Thanks, z —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.170.76 (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You're probably looking for Wikipedia:Reference desk. This page is for copyright concerns. (Incidentally, my wife has fibromyalgia, and she says that nausea is a typical symptom, along with fatigue and pain.) – Quadell ^(talk) 18:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the poster must see their doctor, we cannot give medical advice. – ukexpat (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I just added a non-free use rationale

Admins, please remove the STbot tag on File:IAC_holdings.PNG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samwb123 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem has not been corrected because the rationale does not name the article that the file is used on. If and when you add the article, you can remove the tag yourself. I could easily fill out the Article parameter myself, but that would be a waste of effort, because the use inherently fails WP:NFCC#3 for using more non-free images than are needed and WP:NFCC#8 because the use does not significantly increase reader’s understanding of the subject. I will nominate the image for deletion. —teb728 t c 21:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

OCK

Sorry but i dont understand whats the problem for the images? Unluckyly i dont understand english very good!

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vernito (talk • contribs) 13:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Tell us what images you mean, and we'll try to help. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The image which i add on the article of oceano club de kerkennah. It s name is Premier logo OCK.gif ‎ i take it from the officiel site of oceano club de kerkennah. I will make the history of the logo in his articel!

Thanks again —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vernito (talk • contribs) 14:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

See this diff. I fixed the non-free user rationale etc for you. You cannot claim an image as your own if you downloaded it from a website - it is a copyright image and can only used here under an appropriate non-free use rationale. – ukexpat (talk) 18:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello I have a problem with the picture of Stade_Ameur_Gargouri.jpg‎ . Please can you help me? There is something with discription problem. The complet problem is wrotten on my talks page!

Thank you very much Vernito —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vernito (talk • contribs) 15:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

QUESTION: Can We Use This Image At Wikipedia

Hi, there is a news story that is widely distributed about a Python pictured swallowing whole cockatoo. I believe the image copyright is available to anyone as long as it is properly cited, as described here. Can someone confirm this image meets Wikipedia's standards for use. Thank you. Green Squares (talk) 12:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it is copyrighted with a fee. Green Squares (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That would mean it's a violation of WP:NFCC#3, and we can't use it. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I meant WP:NFCC#2. Sorry for the confusion. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It says multiple images, are we allowed to use one image? Green Squares (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

No. DreamGuy (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It does meet the Wikipedia criterion, if we use one-image:

1. Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.

1. Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace.

Green Squares (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, but it doesn't meet the criterion before that, number 2. Stifle (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Images from defunct manufacturer's copyrighted spec sheets - fair use?

Resolved

 – ukexpat (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a catalog from a manufacturer that went belly-up in 1981. Another company bought the intellectual property rights, and continued manufacturing and marketing the products for a few years, then abandoned the product line. The catalog consists of individual copyrighted spec sheets, with photographs for each product.

Can the photos be used on Wikipedia under the Fair Use doctrine?

FWIW, the companies in question are ARP Instruments Inc., a manufacturer of music synthesizers, and CBS, Inc. Most of the ARP products presently have a Wikipedia page with no images.

Thanks for your help! Wobbith (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Even if the products have been discontinued someone (presumably the company) still owns all the intellectual property rights pertaining thereto, including copyrights. I don't think that the mere fact that the products have been discontinued affects their status under Wikipedia's free use rationales. – ukexpat (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact that they are discontinued doesn't matter. But it's possible that the image might not be copyrighted. Does the catalog have a copyright notice © anywhere on it? If it was published before 1978 without a copyright notice, then it's in the public domain. If it was published before 1989 without a copyright notice, then it might be PD, if it wasn't registered with the U.S. Copyright office. I can check, if you can provide details on who published it. But first: does it have a © notice? – Quadell ^(talk) 15:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, each individual spec sheet bears the copyright © 1979 Arp Instruments... so I guess it's no go.Wobbith (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Bummer. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Windows 7 image copyrighted

I believe the image "File:Windows_7.png" should be deleted as it does not stand for the microsoft guidelines for using screenshots; Microsoft does not allow the usage of screenshots of Beta (non commercial distribution) software. You may consult Use of Microsoft Copyrighted Content --Rojoeterno (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Our non-free content policy does not consider whether the copyright-holder would approve, nor should it. As long as a non-free image passes our WP:NFCC policy, we don't care whether Microsoft is willing to give permission or not. Our use is a "fair use" which doesn't rely on their terms of use. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, although I recall some similar image being deleted a while back for failing WP:NFCC#4. Stifle (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

bots keep deleting Arnold Tremere

To Whom it may concern,

Two separate bots have deleted my Arnold Tremere image. The reason sent in the first delete was that no permissions were sent in. This was simply not accurate as I was required to send in a special e-mail to specify this permission as well as updating the info in commons. (This occurred due to problems in formatting the image and displaying the image correctly). The second bot deleted the image because there was no source. When I checked the details it read that "I created this image and own this image (or something to this effect). I do own this image so this source statment is accurate. How do I remedy this situation in a way that is final?

Thanks for any and all advice. --Amazona01 (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The image is still here, but may be deleted in a week if the problems aren't resolved. The trouble is, it isn't clear who created the image. When you first uploaded it, you said "I created this work entirely by myself." But then you said "common internet use image", which makes one think you simply found the image on the internet. It was tagged by a person as needing deletion for this reason. (A bot notified you, but a person made the decision to tag the image for deletion.) You then said "donated by Liisa Tremere owned by Tremere family". Are you "Lisa Tremere"? Is Lisa Tremere the photographer? Is the photographer willing to allow anyone to use the image for any reason, including modifications and commercial use? – Quadell ^(talk) 01:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Two Questions

First how do you add information too uploaded images? And if you have a cite to a website can you copy the words off it as long as you make it your own words but still have the information needed, the reason is cause a user told me I couldn't add the information for Miley Cyrus that was on two websites and I even put my own words into it and they blocked it off so what cna I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprite7868 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Where do I flag images with fake/ambiguous PD licensing?

Hello.
Sorry to pester, but I'm not entirely sure where to mention images that listed as being public domain, but which probably really aren't (and certainly aren't attributed).
The first is File:SandUpYerAss.jpg.
It claims to be in the public domain because of lapsed copyright, but this is entirely unverifiable since no original source is provided. The closest to a provided source is the fact that the article in which it's being used says that tijuana bibles were produced from the 20's to the 60's (and, of course, the 20's included a few years before 1923).
More concerning is File:Wimpy_TJB.jpg, uploaded with the same claim. This one is of more concern because it's not only of a copyrighted character, but the same claim is made (prior to 1923), without listing a source and I don't even know that Wimpy existed before 1923. The earliest year mentioned in the Wimpy article is 1934. Even outside of that, in my own searches, I've been unable to find any solid evidence of his existence prior to 1931 (closest I've found to anything earlier is a single auction for a statue claimed to have been from 1929). If the character didn't exist prior to 1923, then obviously a 'parody' of him couldn't have, either.
Thing is, I have nooo clue how to actually, uh, report them? I mean, where do I post concerns about images? 209.90.133.69 (talk) 02:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Normally, you would want to list these at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files. In this case, though, the first image does not have a source listed, so I tagged it as not having a source. The second image exists on Commons, not here. I nominated it for deletion there. Thanks for bringing these to our attention. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I should note that they do not claim that they were made prior to 1923. It claims that it's public domain, and the tag then adds that that usually means pre-1923. Per the reasoning I gave at the Commons deletion debate, I can't imagine how that one could be anything but public domain, as the required copyright notices and renewal would have landed the creator in jail for indecency, etc. The first one, though, just is too unknown, as there's no way to make an educated guess at the origin at all without a source, and it could even be modern for all we know. I suspect it probably is PD, but there isn't enough solid info to make that call in that case. DreamGuy (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you can add your additional thoughts to my concerns (at the deletions discussion in commons). Most importantly: Is there anything a third party can do to make a definitely copyrighted character public domain? Even if one assumes that it was from a tijuana bible, and that the 'creator' didn't bother copyrighting it, the 'work' in question is essentially just a picture of Wimpy, a character from the Thimble Theater and Popeye comics (and cartoons). So, if someone else illegally makes an unauthorized work with a copyrighted character, but then doesn't protect his unauthorized work, does that mean that the character then falls into public domain? (If so, then just about every cartoon character, from Mickey Mouse to Goku, is arguably public domain now) 72.88.46.132 (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Toronado Article

I wish to upload two screenshots to the Toronado_(Zorro_horse) article to illustrate my comments in the last paragraph regarding Toronado and Chico wearing the same harness ten years apart. One would be of Zorro on Toronado and the second of the Queen of Swords on Chico. What objections would there be?REVUpminster (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Are the screenshots copyrighted? If so, you'd need to show that they are not replaceable by free images and that there is a solid reason why both images should be used rather than just one or neither. Stifle (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I removed the statement itself, which was nothing but original research, so the images are moot. DreamGuy (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

If you say it is original research then that means the whole of wikipedia is merely a copy of something else. so it must continually violate the copyright of someone else. I found the items on the internet and thought they would be of interest. What is a reference if it's not to someone else's work/research. ps I since found the same harness was used in the Alain Delon ZorroREVUpminster (talk) 07:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)07:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by REVUpminster (talk • contribs)

Barletta.jpg

Amadeo Barletta Barletta

I uploaded an image yesterday from Ambar Motors site,which has no notice of copyright. I don´t have the information about who took the picture. the picture is from a person who died 34 years ago. Can I still use it. Please help tag it with the proper information.--Juliaaltagracia (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. The image may well be copyrighted. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

material from US gov't

I have two pieces I was thinking about scanning and uploading for use in WP, but I'm not sure what the copyright status might be. When JFK was assassinated, my aunt (then a teenager) sent a letter of condolence to Jackie Kennedy. The response she got was a photograph (about 8" x 10") of JFK, Jackie, and (I presume) Caroline and John Jr. and a short form letter from Nancy Tuckerman (in her capacity as Secretary to Mrs Kennedy), thanking her. I thought they might make nice additions to one of the JFK assassination articles, such as Reaction to the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Since Ms. Tuckerman was acting in her capacity as a US government employee, can I assume it is now public domain? The picture doesn't have any identification on it, but came from the same office. Is it likely to be public domain as well? Matt Deres (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

While although she was acting in her capacity of a government employee, that doesn't necessarily mean that the picture itself was produced by the government. For example, if Kennedy had simply had some pictures done for christmas cards or something and had those made up, then they wouldn't be government works (unless the government paid for it, of course). Since you only know how you got them, but don't know how/why they were made, there's really no way to know whether or not they were produced by the government. 72.88.46.132 (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, what about the letter? Matt Deres (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me like the letter is certainly in the public domain. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

CC-BY and CC-BY-SA compatibility with GFDL (text, not images)

Is it OK to add CC-BY and CC-BY-SA text to Wikipedia? Thanks --PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 15:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

CC-BY yes, and I think CC-BY-SA and GFDL 1.3 are compatible now, but you'll want someone else to confirm that. howcheng {chat} 20:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I've always been told I couldn't add CC-by text, and I thought that was one of the problems that they're trying to fix with the relicensing. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the answer is "not yet... but soon." – Quadell ^(talk) 22:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Creative Commons

Have several questions. First is [Fort Wiki] part of Wikipedia--it appears to use same page format. If so, how can I locate Fort Wiki images for use in Wikipedia articles. If not, are Fort Wiki images available to transfer to Wikipedia? They have Creative Commons tag in lower right corner (e.g. [CC logo]).--Orygun (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

FortWiki is not a part of Wikipedia, they just use the same MediaWiki software that we do. The images don't have explicit license tags and are credited to John Stanton (administrator there) so I think its fine to assume that the images are CC-BY-SA too; but you might want to contact him just to make sure in case you are planning to do a mass upload. All these images should go to commons as they are free. PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 12:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Is {{cc-by-sa-3.0} the correct tag to use if I upload one of the Fort Wiki images to Wiki-Commons or is there another tag that would specifically cite John Stanton as original source? Maybe {{attribution|John Stanton}? There are so many tags, it hard to figure out which one to use when your do something new.--Orygun (talk) 01:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, {{cc-by-sa-3.0} is the right tag. You should also link to the page on FortWiki you got the image from and source it to John in the summary field. PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 04:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

waylon jennings

the article on waylon never mentioned his first marriage to anita carter or that he and j cash were brothers in law also i seem to remember waylon stating somewhere about he and buddy holly being from the same town namely lubbock texas kevin ireland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.217.104 (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

That is not a media copyright question; so this is not the place for your post. You should post at the article discussion page. —teb728 t c 00:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Old picture postcards at Newmarket Racecourses

There's a couple of lovely picture postcards I'd like to add from Newmarket Racecourses for the article on Railway stations in Newmarket (Easom, Sandra, Newmarket Sausages, Railways & Skulduggery, Newmarket Racecourses, retrieved 6 April 2009).

They are old enough to be PD, though the site is copyright (but no copyright claimed for the individual pictures); to make things interesting they are probably also in the Cambridgeshire Collection which is owned by the local government and hence essentially by the public (though they wouldn't have you believe it).

I'm not asking for people here to do all the work for me, but a quick glance to say yes no or maybe would be helpful. Another editor and I have essentially been working a lot around this area and done quite well; he said (this was around 7 April 2009) he would have thought they were in copyright, I am not so sure. Of course there is the reference there so it's no huge deal, but it would be nice if we could have them.

Thanks in advance for your advice. Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

If you can establish that the postcards were issued ("published") before 1923, you may upload them here and tag them with {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. Sv1xv (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Call me Mr Picky but why would I tag them PD-US when they are from the UK? SimonTrew (talk) 01:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess cos Wikipedia is in the state of Florida. But that makes no differnece to who owns copyright. SimonTrew (talk) 01:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly - the text of the template explains it. – ukexpat (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Drew Peterson mugshot.jpg

This copyright doesn't seem correct. Isn't this the work of a state government, not federal? I don't think that necessarily means its free, does it? 98.227.168.34 (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It depends whether he was booked by state police or federal agents. I can't tell from the article. Either way, the image is on Commons, not here. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

In practice there's no actual difference. They're all public domain, despite some people making claims to the contrary. DreamGuy (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy, do you have some reason behind your claim that state mugshots are still public domain? Certainly state works generally are not PD. What is special about mugshots? —teb728 t c 00:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't seem right. According to this, "State and local governments usually do retain a copyright on their works. 17 USC §105 only places federal documents in the public domain." 98.227.168.34 (talk) 00:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions about Commons image with questionable copyright status

Yesterday, the image File:HMS Shropshire (73) in 1935.JPG was added to the article HMS Shropshire (73). On looking at the image page (which is hosted on Commons), I noted two things:

1. The image is scanned from a book. Jane's Fighting Ships 1938 is claimed as the work the image came from
2. The image has been tagged as {{Copyrighted free use}}. However, there is no accompanying statement showing that Jane's Information Group (a) retains copyright over the image (unless somebody else, unidentified, is the copyright holder), and (b) gives permission for the image to be used for any purpose.

Now, this is probably my lack of copyright knowlege speaking, and I am probably asking in the wrong place (I don't know enough about Commons to locate the equivalent page there), but this whole situation strikes me as somewhat odd and maybe possibly illegal. Can someone enlighten me? -- saberwyn 10:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's tagged incorrectly, but I believe the work is in the public domain. Jane's Information Group is based in London, and copyright in the UK lasts 70 years after the death of the author. This book was obviously not written by Fred T. Jane, who died in 1916, and I believe it's a work of corporate authorship. I believe works of corporate authorship in the UK are copyrighted for 70 years after publication (though I'd appreciate it if someone could confirm this), which would make the work PD as of January 1, 2009. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Factual information from the recent scientific article

Hello! Is factual data protected by copyright? For example, I see an article in a scientific journal. There is a table that shows how psychotropic meds affect the expression of different molecules. I want to reproduce the table in the Wikipedia article. Under the table in the PDF I see that authors write "data on mRNA expression reprinted with kind permission from publisher so-and-so, copyright 2006". The article itself is also non-"CreativeCommons". But the data is quite simple: "goes down", "goes up", "no change". Does it mean that I cannot reproduce this simple table or even say in the article "This medication leads to higher\lower mRNA [molecule so-and-so] expression in rats"? Best regards, --CopperKettle 13:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Factual information cannot be copyrighted, but the presentation of that information can be. You can certainly include a table of that information, but make it as different as you can. Potentially copyrightable aspects of a factual list may include: the selection of which items to include, the order in which they are listed, the specific wording involved, and the layout of the table in general. See Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service for more info. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I just was baffled why the authors mentioned copyright and "reprinted with permission" under the simple table.. The table included their own results, just printed earlier by a publishing company. I will try to think how to make it different.. I'll take a look at that link you mention, thanks again. --CopperKettle 17:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Co-operative Championship

I found these two maps on the Co-operative Championship article that show the locations of the teams that will play in that league. Both maps appear to be taken from commercial mapping websites with the locations drawn on top. The first one seems to be taken from Google Maps and the second probably is also. The uploader claims to own copyright of both and has released them for use. I don't know much about the subject but is this allowed? File:Clubs_Championship_2009.jpg File:Toulouse_location.jpg

JimRDJones (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

No, these are derivative works, and are not allowed. Someone could recreate them from scratch, or using a public domain map as a base. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Consistent Use of Copyrighted Washington Metro Logo by User:SchuminWeb

File:WMATA_Metro_Logo.svg‎

Mr Schumin has repeatedly put up a registered and copyrighted Washington Metro Logo on the Washington Metro Wikipedia page. He has been asked on numerous occasions to remove it and does such. After a few weeks though he consistently puts it back up illegally. I ask if you can please address this issue so no further actions need to be taken in this illegal copyright infringement. Thank You. 129.2.16.143 (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, question: What does this have to do with me? My name's not on any of the logs for this image, and I've never placed this image. Do your research before you make an accusation. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly the IP of a user SchuminWeb blocked. His concerns are not only false but irrelevant. --Golbez (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep... thought as much after a little further research, finding this diff. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

That logo is not eligible for copyright. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Michael Bublé Meets Madison Square Garden

File:Meets Madison Square Garden.jpg and

File:Michael_Buble_Meets_MSG.jpg I found these picture in his official website at michaelbuble.com. I uploaded the pictures to wikipedia, but I have no idea about the copyright issues and tags and all the other stuff that comes with uploading a picture. I'd be glad if somebody could shed some light on this. I wish to upload it to Michael Bublé Meets Madison Square Garden. The blue one is the special edition, and the orange one is the standard edition. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverfriends0730 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, those images lack fair use rationale. Since this is an album cover, you can use Template:album cover fur, as long as you fill out all the information that you can. I'm not sure both images are necessary as they are basically the same, only a slight tint adjustment. File:With Love 1.jpg is an example of a Michael Bublé album image that has the template in use. Good luck. -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Diagrams from a 1970 book

I am in the possession of this book:

• Ion Gudju, Gheorghe Iacobescu, Ovidiu Ionescu, Constructii Aeronautice Romanesti 1905-1970 (Romanian Aircraft 1905-1970), Editura Militara, 1970.

It lists every romanian aircraft from 1905 to 1970, with dimensions, some characteristics and 3-view line drawings (wikimedia line drawings category). Some aircraft are very rare, so much so, that no images are available. Some drawings, of more popular models (e.g. IAR 80), are available elsewhere too, yet not under a free license.

The illustrations were done by Ștefan Pârâu, of whom I have no further knowledge.

Is there enough reason to upload scans of the more rare plane drawings? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandru.rosu (talk • contribs) 17:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say not enough reason since you have the book and can archive it without needing to upload it. However, you might want to look at Jane's All the World's Aircraft and see what if anything is in there about these rare machines. You may well have already done that; just a suggestion. SimonTrew (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way you confused me for a minute for thinking plane drawing meant a plan or blueprint i.e. 2D drawing, until I realised you meant a drawing of an aeroplane (Br.)/airplane (US). It might be worth trying to keep that clear, I am not overly pedantic but if talking about plane plane drawings it could get confusing... SimonTrew (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is a 3 view line drawing of a Dornier 17, it's this kind of drawings/diagrams I'm referring too.

I can't access All the world's Aircraft without a subscription ($3160?!). In the meantime, I found some aircraft on the russian airwar.ru (e.g. IAR 24 via Google Translate). The drawings are suspiciously similar (I think they scanned a book in a worse condition).

I don't think we can use them (or can we :D ?!). - Alexandru.rosu (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This is an unresolved question. I believe these works are ineligible for copyright. U.S. courts have determined that simple line-maps of countries or rivers are not copyrightable, regardless of how complicated they are, since they are mere records of fact and not creative material. Similarly, new architectural diagrams of old (PD) buildings are not accepted by the U.S. Copyright Office, since there is no new creative content. In the case of maps, judges have specifically ruled that elements such as line thickness and map colors are not creative enough to qualify. For these reasons, I think that simple line drawings of aircraft should be tagged {{PD-ineligible}} so long as the underlying aircraft design is not copyrighted. (And most aircraft designs would be ruled functional and not decorative, unless major aspects of the design were chosen for aesthetic rather than utilitarian reasons.) – Quadell ^(talk) 15:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this question is resolved, thanks for the help. According to commons:Commons:Copyright_tags#Romania, technical drawings are exempt from copyright (these qaulify as technical drawings, right?!). Alexandru.rosu (talk) 04:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I've some images and permission to use on Commons but not sure how to step forward

Hello my friends

My good friend recently went to Antwerp and took some beautiful pictures there. I'd like to include them on a couple of articles. I have her permission to use them, written as an email. I'll have all the dates etc off the camera and they are published on her blog. I'm just not quite sure how I can do this and not just get a delete bot removing them, as I have tried my best to get permission and she is happy for me to put them on Commmons (and she publishes them herself on her blog). They are essentially PD. Any advice please? SimonTrew (talk) 00:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Has she actually released them to the public domain? If not, is her permission for use on Wikipedia only, or does she allow reuse by anyone for anything? See WP:COPYREQ. —teb728 t c 00:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

A method that may be less tedious is to have her write on her blog a short notice below the images, using the wording of {{Cc-by-3.0}}, or {{PD-self}} or similar. decltype (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

regarding this file...Statesman-journal july 23rd 1986

File:Statesman-journal_july_23rd_1986..jpg I have taken this photo of an artcle from the newspaper mentioned that I want to use as a reliable source and couldn't find on the internet . I apparently tagged it wrong and it has been retagged as an orphaned fair use speedy delete, is there any thing else, a correct tag that would allow it to stay so I can quote from the article? Or perhaps If I can't find it anywhere else can it stay to support using the comments as a reliable source? I would be grateful for a simple comment on this , ta (Off2riorob (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC))

We can't keep the image on Wikipedia, but you can certainly use it as a reliable source anyway. Like:

• Davies, Janet (July 23, 1986). "Plea Bargains Save, AG Says". The Statesman.

It's okay if it's not online; you can still quote from it, and it's just as reliable. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

right thank you. I will ad a delete tag now . (Off2riorob (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC))

It does not have to be online to be reliable, but it would be most helpful for WP:V if we could confirm the article by having its page number and verification through some sort of database archives like LexisNexis. Cirt (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is archived in the Statesman-Journal archives in Oregon. They can be contacted on-line.(Off2riorob (talk) 08:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC))

Photographs by Romanian Defense Ministry in Public Domain?

Are pictures taken by employees of the Romanian Defense Ministry (Ministerul Apararii Nationale) in the public domain, similar to those by the U.S. Department of Defense? I am looking to replace this copyrighted image of the IAR 99 with one by the Romanian Air Force (one of these). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandru.rosu (talk • contribs) 15:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently not, see the copyright notice at the foot of that page: Copyright © 2005 - Romanian Air Force. – ukexpat (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as this plane was designed in 1975 you might be able to find a pre-1991 photo that, according to commons:Commons:Copyright_tags#Romania are in the Romanian public domain. ww2censor (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ukexpat, there are other images on wikipedia (e.g. File:Fregata_Regele_Ferdinand.jpg) from the Defense Ministry site which are licensed public domain, hence my question & uncertainty. Furthermore, it is common practice in Romania to put copyright notices everywhere, even on already (c) items. Ww2censor, thanks a lot for the hint, will look into that. Alexandru.rosu (talk) 19:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Just because that image from the Ministry is PD, I don't think we can assume these are. And how can we confirm that the other image is indeed PD - it's not clear from the image info page and the template isn't that helpful. – ukexpat (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I very much doubt the original image Fregata image is in the public domain because the main page clearly shows a copyright notice as do many other pages and I cannot find any PD release on the website, so unless you have some evidence their images are in the public domain we must assume they are all copyright unless taken before 1991. ww2censor (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

All true and well. Yet, they don't state 'all rights reserved' and you do have to own the copyright for an image to be able to release it. I've contacted the romanian chapter of CC, maybe they know something for sure. Alexandru.rosu (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

How do you keep a picture for more than 7 days?

How do you get the copyright for the image so that it can last for more than a week? User:Looney Guy —Preceding undated comment added 18:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC).

If you create the image yourself, you hold the copyright, and the image can stay as long as you like. If it's a copyright infringement, we can't use it. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you're trying to upload a fair use image. Policies for that are at Wikipedia:Non-free_content. If you provide us with the information about what you're trying to do, we'll try to help. We'll need information on the source of the image to help with it though. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If you are asking about File:250px-E102gamma.png, it needs a source (telling where you got it from), an image copyright tag (telling what right Wikipedia has to use it), and if the tag is for non-free use, a non-free use rationale (telling how the use conforms with the highly restrictive Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria). —teb728 t c 23:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Licensing

Dear Sir/Madam,

Further to your queries relating to the following illustrations: "An Ethereal Encounter", "Leap into Legend" and "My Ftaher. My King", You have been approached some time ago with questions regards the licensing but no reply was ever forthcoming. The images are the works of Arthur Benjamins, who is happy for them to be used for the Wiki entrance and is satisfied that the quality is not good enough for illegal copying and distribution.

Could you therefore please advise what kind of licensing is required as per above comments.

Thank you,

Rotterdam1953 (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The copyright owner has to release them for use on Wikipedia via the process set out at WP:IOWN. Then the appropriate licensing information can be added. – ukexpat (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Statistics Canada

Is statistics canada considered to be public domain? I'm mainly looking at the graphs and data in this discouraged workers pdf.Smallman12q (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's not a PD source. But the data is not copyrighted; only the way the data is presented is copyrighted. You can't copy the graphs as images, but you can recreate them using the underlying data. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

File:EUREKA TOWN HALL.jpg

Could someone please tell me how to change the copyright status of an image? I have written permission to use this image.--Moland freak (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The copyright owner has to release it for use on Wikipedia via the process set out at WP:IOWN. Then the appropriate licensing information can be added. – ukexpat (talk) 02:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

letters from a public office

I have a letter sent froma public office by a public employee on official paper, If I uploaded it what would be its copyright status. I have been told that it would be public domain. Is this correct? I have as yet not uploaded it as I am unsure about its copyright status. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC))

In some countries, some works by some public employees are automatically public domain. For example, works produced by the US federal government are not subject to copyright. However, in most countries this is not the case. What public office produced this letter? Algebraist 21:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Even if this is in the United States, the USPS has been an independent corporation since 1970, and can hold copyright. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Why would we upload this? If it has never been published by a reliable source then it wouldn't be suitable as a source. If it's just to show the text then that could be transcribed. Is there something about the appearance of the letter that would be on interest in an article?   Will Beback  talk  22:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

yes it is American. United states department of justice. United states attourney, District of Oregon. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC))

looking at that page..works produced by the US federal government

I would say it comes under that catagory. Could I upload it under public domain for people to look at?(Off2riorob (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC))

Only if you think it could be used on one of the Wikimedia Foundation's projects, not just for your personal satisfaction. Physchim62 (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

no of course not .. i want to use some of the text or the whole thing in an article (Off2riorob (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC))

For what encyclopedic purpose? I.e. how would it improve the article? See Will Beback's post above. —teb728 t c 23:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

to present additional information. (Off2riorob (talk) 07:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC))

If it was created by United States attorney as part of his duties, there is no copyright problem with the letter. If it were something of visual interest, you would tag it with {{PD-USGov}}. It appears, however, that the letter has no encyclopedic use, and as such the letter as a whole is not appropriate for Wikipedia: Wikipedia is not a repository of original documents. If you want to quote some of the text, you could transcribe it. But unless it has been published in a reliable source, you cannot use it as a source (which I suspect is your intended purpose). —teb728 t c 08:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes... teb728 t As it is an official document on goverment paper and exposes a strategy by the person in question totally opposite to 'reliably sourced' comments published here I would indeed like to use it as a source. I personally would say that an official document lke this has more encyclopediac value than the one sided reporting of local newspapers. I would also like to note that as per the help and discussion here I realise to use the text I would have to find the letter in a reliable source but as is seems almost certain there is no copyright problem with the letter I can see no problem with uploading it, there are many many images of free use that are not as yet in use on wikipedia are are kind of sat there waiting for the opportunity to be useful somewhere. I myself have uploaded images that have become part of the repository and as yet are unused but are part of the database available for use and may I also say that these free use images also attract a lot of people here looking for images that they can use on other sites. I would also dissagree that the letter has no encyclopediac use as it is public domain and is written by a person that is central to a couple of articles here , and who knows... once it is uploaded it may indeed have a use. I have been informed that it has been published but I have no idea where , yet! best regards.(Off2riorob (talk) 09:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC))

You say you can see no problem with uploading it. Take a look at yesterday’s Files for deletion nominations; 2/3 of them PD images nominated as “unencyclopedic orphans.” —teb728 t c 10:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, if an image is not ever going to be used in an encyclopedia article, it'll probably get deleted. WikiMedia Commons may be a better forum. But in general, it's a bad idea to use an image on Wikipedia (or Commons) as a source. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks teb728 t and Quadell ^(talk) I feel the outcome here is that if I upload it to commons as P-domain there is no problem with the copyright but it may get nominated for deletion as orphaned unencyclopediac and unless I can find it in a wikipedia reliable source then it's a bad idea to attempt to use it as a WP:RS . Ok thats cool , thanks for your time. (Off2riorob (talk) 13:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC))

File:SEHS-austin seal.jpg

This graphic is a partial scan of the cover of a St. Ed's High School yearbook that is in my possession. The school closed 42 years ago. Does that make it public domain ? What type of tag would be appropriate ? Oconnem4502 (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't necessarily make it public domain. Was that seal around before 1923? If so, the seal itself is definitely in the public domain, and I would say the scan is too. Since the school was founded in 1872, I think it's very likely that the seal itself is old enough to qualify. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Seal dates from at least 1885. Don't know about before that. Will use PD for that image.Oconnem4502 (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

File:SEHS Old Main.jpg

I have permission from the photographer to use any of his work as it pertains to SEHS. What tag do I use ? Oconnem4502 (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The copyright owner should follow the instructions at WP:IOWN to confirm release of copyright. – ukexpat (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright owner? There is no copyright that I am aware of. Photographer a fellow classmate at St. Ed's, is not particularly cyber savvy. All of his SEHS photos were sent to me on CD as a gift, and are disk resident on my computer. I will assume that make me the current owner, even though I acknowledge that he originally shot the pix  ? Oconnem4502 (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The original photographer owns the copyright and unless he has legally assigned them to you, he still owns them. He will have to release the images for use on Wikipedia or you will have to provide evidence via the process at WP:IOWN that you have his permission to use them. – ukexpat (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Contacted Jeff to ask he what he wants to do. Waiting for his answer.Oconnem4502 (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Large non-free images

Hi. WP:ALBUM says with respect to covers: "The width of the image should ideally be no less than 200px (the default display size of the infobox), but it should be no more than 300px on at least one side (to satisfy fair use criteria)." I was just notified that an image I uploaded, File:BestofEarthWind&Fire.jpg, was orphaned, and I discovered that it had been replaced with File:Earth Wind and Fire Symbol.jpg, which is 500 px. on each side, well above that limit. For the moment, I've restored the one I uploaded to the article, but was hoping to get feedback here (not knowing where else to ask) on how to handle the matter. Ordinarily, when I run into a large image, I tag it {{Non-free reduce}}. But this seems pointless when there is already a reduced image. What to do? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you did the right thing. The smaller image complies with policy, and should be used. The larger image should be tagged for deletion as a non-free orphan, or possibly deleted outright as a duplicate image. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Time/Life photo question

Resolved

 – ukexpat (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

For use in an article on Jimmy Savo, can I can upload this 1942 photo by Gjon Mili? It says "for non-commercial use only".

If so, what tag do I use? J. Van Meter (talk) 13:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a non-free image, and can only be used in compliance with our non-free content criteria. The fact that it allows non-commercial use isn't relevant; we need to treat it like any other non-free image. That said, I think we can use it, if there are no free images of this person. Simply upload the work and tag it {{Non-free fair use in}} and {{Non-free use rationale}}. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the help. upload to here or commons -is one preferred? J. Van Meter (talk) 14:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It will have to be here, since non-free images aren't allowed on Commons. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

of course. (what a stupid question.) J. Van Meter (talk) 14:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Old postcards

Hi, sorry if this was covered before, but I can't seem to find it on the list. I want to include in my article on Tower City, PA a picture of the East Brookside Colliery, where a significant local disaster occurred in 1913. I came across an image of an old postcard placed on someone else's website, but there is no licensing information, or anything on where he got it, what date it was produced, or anything like that. I tried to find it someplace else using google search, but no luck. My assumption is that the image is from the early 20's by the look of it, but I'm not completely sure. Can you help? The image is at http://www.redwolfcs.com/landweride/index_clip_image004.jpg. Thanks! Bowie60 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC).

Is this photo a record of the 1913 disaster? Is it safe to say that the photo was created around 1913 or soon thereafter? – Quadell ^(talk) 21:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in answering. After doing some research, I do believe the photo is from somewhere between 1892 and 1913, given the construction and comparisons to other photos I have seen, but I have no actual written proof. So, this would have pre-dated the disaster. Bowie60 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC).

Image of a medal

Hi there

Would there be any issues with uploading an image of a winner's medal from one of England's professional football (soccer) competitions? I notice that Commons has files like this one which are tagged as "uploader's own work", but was wondering if it might be claimed that copyright on the design rested with the sport's governing body or anything like that........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The design could very well be copyrighted. Do you have a link to the medal in question, so we could examine whether it meets the minimal create requirements for copyright or not? – Quadell ^(talk) 13:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately not, as I haven't taken the picture of it yet. I'll report back when I have...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The medal you pointed to on the commons has been deleted as a copyright violation and the same may well apply to a similar new medal you intend to upload. ww2censor (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Out of interest, would a medal be treated differently to something like this? I'm guessing the NFL would have copyrighted the design of that trophy, and the league's logo, which is visible in two places in the image, is certainly copyrighted, so surely that image is unacceptable too..........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Maps Of B.C.

I sent an email about using Maps owned by B.C. in article about lakes.

Hi There. I was wondering if you could answer a question for me.

I see that the Bathymetric Map Reports are copyrighted by the Government of British Columbia.

I was wanting to use portions of the map and upload them to Wikipedia.com, a Free Online Encyclopedia, and create detailed articles of the lakes of British Columbia.

Wikipedia only allows people to upload images that you own the right to or received the right from the copyright holder. Is it possible for the Government of British Columbia to release the Bathymetric Map Reports of certain lakes under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License?

Then I got this response.

Dear Kolton Smith,

Thank you for your email below. You or anyone else are welcome to take a copy of material owned by the Province of BC for personal use, which includes personal study and research, without obtaining formal permission to do so. You are also welcome to use material owned by the Province of BC as an informational resource in order to create your own original material without obtaining formal permission to do so. If it is your intention to reproduce only small excerpts or make reference to material owned by the Province of BC when creating your own material, I believe that you are also welcome to do so without obtaining formal permission. In addition, you are welcome to simply link to the Province of BC websites on which the material is found without obtaining formal permission to do so.

However if you in fact wish to reproduce and distribute a substantial amount of BC material for purposes other than personal use (which would include posting material on a third party website), you will be required to obtain formal permission to do so. If that is the case, please complete the Copyright Permission Request Form found at http://www.bcsolutions.gov.bc.ca/ipp/. Please identify the specific materials you would like to reproduce and provide the exact website address(es) on which they are found (if applicable). Also please provide full details of your intended use of the material, the intended audience, the format(s) in which you wish to reproduce the material and the number of copies you wish to reproduce. Once we receive your completed application, we will be required to forward it to the custodial ministry to determine whether or not the Province of BC owns the copyright to the material and, if so, whether or not the custodial ministry would have any concerns with or objections to your intended use of the material.

Also please be advised that should your application be approved, a processing fee will apply for your use of the material. Our standard processing fee for requests which are non-commercial in nature is $85.00 plus GST. If the request is for commercial purposes or if a formal license agreement is required to facilitate your use of the material, the fee will vary depending on the intended use and distribution of the material. The information contained in your completed request form will assist us in determining the fee which will apply.

I hope you find the foregoing information helpful and please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions.

Regards,

Ilona Ugro

Copyright Officer

Intellectual Property Program

Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services

Province of British Columbia

Phone: (250)356-5055 Fax: (250)356-0846

Is this a good enough response to apply a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License to small exerts of material? Koltonsmith (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not. Consider using [4], which is under a slightly strange but free enough license. --NE2 23:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Remove deletion sign for jpg

What do you need more?--Virginal6 (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Me? I need more cake. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This question relates to the tagging done to File:Wallace & Darwin.jpg. I've fixed it. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Image is still highly problematic. I don't see how it could be encyclopedic. Furthermore, it is claimed, by the uploader, "I created this work entirely by myself." However, this is clearly patently false, in that the uploader did not personally create the constituent images (i.e. Michelangelo). Surely, some of the images are public domain, but I am not convinced that the simian images are PD or created by the uploader. -Andrew c ^[talk] 02:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Use of Copyright images

I want a picture lead image for this page: Raine Spencer, Countess Spencer, there are thousands out there on the internet, is it possible to use one claiming no free image is available? I'm sure I have seem this done on the site somewehre, but can't find it - so perhaps I imagned it. If so what is the licence tag to use? Thanks. Giano (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No, since she's still alive, it should be possible for someone to create a free image of her. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Washington Metro Logo

Image:WMATA Metro Logo.svg is being used on the Washington Metro articles. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.8.193.115 (talk) 13:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

128.8.193.115 (talk) 13:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a free image, hosted on Commons. There's no problem here. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Help me please :)

I have had 2 warnings on my talk page, over uploading 2 images, licensing problem. I am not aware I am doing something wrong, if I am, can someone please reply on my talk page and try and help me to do what I am needed to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadblocker (talk • contribs) 21:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Some old pictures of George Gaylord Simpson

There are some very old pictures of this biologist here. However, they were probably never published anywhere until they were put on this website, or at least I know of no evidence that they were. Am I right in concluding that they are not eligible for public domain status then, despite the significant age of some of them (i.e. the ones from 1920 and before)? Richard001 (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

For works that were never published before 2003, copyright lasts 70 years after the death of the author. If the author (the photographer) is unknown, the U.S. Copyright Office doesn't consider the author to be "presumed dead" until 120 years. (If the author is known to be anonymous, or known to be a corporation, it's 95 years after publication.) – Quadell ^(talk) 03:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, for works not published or registered for copyright before 2003, if the author is unknown, the copyright endures for 95 years after publication, or for 120 years after creation, whichever comes first. All of those Simpson photos, except the first two, look like they were taken less than 95 years ago (Simpson was born in 1902). — Walloon (talk) 04:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. I think I'll avoid uploading any to be safe. Richard001 (talk) 06:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this photo copyrighted?

Is something like this copyrighted? It is user created, however the main subject of the photo is copyrighted. Guy0307 (talk) 06:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's a derivative work of the original t-shirt design. I'd say the design is complex enough to merit copyright protection, and the intent and effect of the photo is to reproduce that design. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Adding copyright tag

How can I add Copywrite info to an uploaded image —Preceding unsigned comment added by Javedsbr (talk • contribs) 17:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

First you decide which license tag to use. (For example {{cc-by-3.0}} is one good tag for a photograph you took yourself.) After you decide, you go to the image description page (for example File:Utility Store.jpg), press the "edit this page" link, and add the tag there. —teb728 t c 18:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Non-commercial or Non-Derivative?

I had noticed that Wikipedia doesn't have Non-Commercial or Non-Derivative Creative Commons templates. Does that mean we can't post our own images if they have NC or ND licenses? Is Wikipedia Non-Commercial? Does this also apply to Wikimedia? --71.177.230.141 (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The philosophy behind the Wikimedia Foundation is that nearly all content should be freely available for nearly all purposes, including potential commercial uses where appropriate. As an extension of this philosophy, NC and ND content is not allowed on Wikipedia (except for limited exceptions in cases where fair use also applies, see WP:NFCC). Dragons flight (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That explains Non-Commercial. I still don't understand why Non-Derivative media isn't allowed. Is it because someone else may need to edit it?--71.177.230.141 (talk) 00:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It's because the philosophy behind the Wikimedia Foundation is that nearly all content should be freely available for nearly all purposes, including potential derivative works. The only restrictions allowable are proper attribution of the creator and the requirement that derivative works are similarly licensed. —teb728 t c 00:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It's also a practical concern. To take an extreme example, if we had a CC-BY-ND licensed image at 800×600px, we would be breaching the terms of the license to reproduce it at 600×450px. Stifle (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Donny.svg

Vector drawing based loosely on fair use screenshot File:STFUD.jpg. Uploaded minutes ago. Query. -Stevertigo 19:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a derivative image. Even if the image itself is GFDL, the work it's based on is non-free, so the image can't be use except where it complies with our WP:NFCC. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that would mean that it doesn't qualify as GFDL either? Does the concept of sufficient alterations from the original apply in some cases? -Stevertigo 04:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

There are no "sufficient alterations" unless the amount of material used from the original copyrighted work is considered "de minimis", or too little to bother with. That would have to be determined in a court of law if we were sued, with different judges placing that line in wildly different places. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Help me please - The Revenge

Could someone have a look on my talk page please - There is a TaggingBot that keeps tagging my images - when I think they are licensed correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadblocker (talk • contribs) 03:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

May be a bug with the bot, and you may want to consider contacting the bot operator. That said, it may help the bot if you were using an approved fair use rationale template, such as Template:Non-free use rationale. Where did you get the code (navbox) for your fair use rationale you are currently using in that image?-Andrew c ^[talk] 04:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the bot is able to detect that you have not provided a source. You list http://www.stv.tv/, but the images are not there. —teb728 t c 06:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

No, my source is fine, Its on the childrens website section, I also found the navbox on another images page and just copied it over. I'll use the normal way from now onn! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadblocker (talk • contribs) 22:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any "children's website section" on that page: Give me a clue, whereabouts is it? —teb728 t c 21:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Charts and tables from published academic papers

Sorry for what is probably a naive, already covered question. Are charts and tables from published academic papers, or from working papers, admissible for upload and use? These charts are based on publicly available data (and in fact with a bit of work can be easily replicated in Excel) so including a chart or table as an image doesn't seem that different than including an equation or a theorem that has been published somewhere. What is the specific license that they should be listed under, provided that it is ok to upload and include them? Specifically, I want to include Figure 1 from this paper [5] (pdf available from a listed link) in an article on changing sex ratios in Asia.radek (talk) 02:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Charts and tables certainly are covered by copyright. The underlying info can't be copyrighted, but the wording, order, organization, graphics and overall presentation are copyrighted. They are thus not suitable for upload. DreamGuy (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

So if I take the data from the paper and construct an Excel graph from it, but, say I use a bar graph rather than the line graph that is used in the paper, and then source the data to the paper, is that sufficiently different to have it considered "own work"?radek (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Most likely. If the wording can be changed but still retain the same meaning, and if the order items appear in the chart can be changed around without changing the meaning (I did not download the PDF, so I do not know), that would be good too. DreamGuy (talk) 13:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

How to tag this image

Hello. I posted a picture on an article on a living theorist. I asked him if he would provide an image that I could insert in the article. He sent me the photo. I am not sure how to prove that he permitted me to use it. He ( Kenneth Gergen) is not interested in becoming an editor himself, but does not mind if I edit his page.

I am new at editing. I am a doctoral student who wanted to take classes in social constructionism but couldn't find any programs or institutions in the US. I ended up taking my Doc program in another country. Had I known about these American theorists, I could have taken classes here (US). So I would like to edit or create pages so others will not have the difficulties I have had. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dialogical (talk • contribs) 18:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You must add source and a license tag to the image description page (one of these: {{GFDL}} or {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} or {{cc-by-3.0}}) and ask Kenneth to send an email granting the permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 18:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

See WP:COPYREQ for how to handle permission. —teb728 t c 23:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

HAYLP HAYLP trrying to get an image on commons (went speedy delete)

PLEASE someone help me.

I uploaded an image. That was hard enough. I didn't document it thoroughly cos I needed to do other fixup on the article and it went speedy delete before I managed. Now it's full of loads of stuff.

I have permission from the authors to use it. This is SO difficult when you are not used to doing it. You may not realise how difficult it is having done it hundreds of times.

Please someone just explain simply to me how to add the copyright etc. I know about information template etc but that still goes speedy delete.

I am losing my good faith here cos like I got the permission to use for three images this week and each time I've added one they've been deleted, even though I've gone to the length of getting permission from the author. I'm starting to wonder how Wikipedia has any images at all. SimonTrew (talk) 23:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I fixed File:Wagmag.jpg and left you a message on its discussion page explaining what was wrong with it. Someone else fixed File:Ecc logo.png.

File:C1evie.jpg is not so easy to fix. Unlike your logos it could not be used under non-free use, for it could be replaced by a free image. It needs permission which allows reuse by anyone for anything, including commercial use. See WP:COPYREQ for how to handle this permission. —teb728 t c 00:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have written permission to use these images both in email and on paper, they sent them through to me and I have a written signature from the commercial director. I think it's clear that I have permission. The problem is how to say so. SimonTrew (talk) 03:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Which license did they grant? Was it a license which permits use only on Wikipedia or only for non-commercial use? If so we can't use it. Wikipedia requires permission for reuse by anyone for anything. If it is that kind of permission, WP:COPYREQ tells where they should send their permission and what it should say. —teb728 t c 04:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

tebc that is all very fine, but you understand people who send you the permission may not be reading WP:COPYREQ. They say "Yes, use it by all means, no problems" (or something like that). It is absolutely clear that they are happy for it to be used in any context. If that doesn't meet WP's guidelines, I think there's a problem with the guidelines if you can't use a bit of WP:COMMON. I've got the brochures from them they sent me too (and made it quite clear I had no intention to buy one). They are obviously more than happy to have it used. I can't help what wording they use on their letter. SimonTrew (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's goal is to produce reusable content. Non-free content is not reusable. File:C1evie.jpg could be replaced with a free replacement; so without a specific free license it will be deleted. I see that you tagged it with {{non-free logo}}: That is bogus; it is not a logo, and tagging it as such makes it elligible for immediate deletion. —teb728 t c 20:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC) By the way, I don't expect that they, the copyright owners, will read COPYREQ. But I do expect that you, the person requesting permission, will read it. —teb728 t c 21:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Credit

How do I give credit to the image's creator??A Fantasy (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You can specify the attribution as {{cc-by-sa-3.0|attribution details}}. More important than credit, however, you must give the sources of your images so that people can verify that they are indeed licensed under {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}, as you claim. Without sources they will be deleted. —teb728 t c 07:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Acute Esophageal Necrosis

Hey tech peoples,

I've stumbled upon a research paper that was copyrighted in Spain, so I don't know if I can use it for fair use or if I can use it at all. [The paper can be found here. I hope we can get a consensus on this, because these are really the only pictures I've found of this rare disorder! Thanks. Renaissancee (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Since the paper is copyright in Spain in 2008, the U.S. considers it copyrighted. We can't use the images as "fair use", since they wouldn't pass our non-free content criteria. However you could try e-mailing the authors and asking if they are willing to license the images under a free license -- that sometimes works. Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission has tips on how best to do this. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 19:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

File:AbelStatue.jpg

Norway does not have freedom of panorama for statues, therefore, this picture could represent a violation of copyright, unless the sculptor has allowed for this picture to be released into PD, or s/he died more than 70 years ago. Whether it could be used under fair use, I don't know, but my impression is that to be fair use, the picture should be used in an article providing commentary on the statue (say the article concerning the sculptor), not as an illustration of what the statue represents. V85 (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You are correct... but according to this, the statue was designed in 1902 and unveiled in 1908. This makes it ineligible for copyright in the United States (although Norway still considers in copyrighted), so photos of it are not considered derivative works in the U.S., and can be fully licensed as free images. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Doubt !!

how to assign copyright tag on my images ? i want it to be free license . can someone else do it for me ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sambya (talk • contribs) 10:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

To release your images, in most cases, we'd like you to tag your own images, so the tags reflect your wishes. Go to the page with the image (the page name starts with "File:") and click "edit this page" at the top. If you don't care what the image is used for, or even if you get credit, tag it {{PD-self}}. If you just want attribution, tag it {{self|cc-by-3.0}}. If you want attribution and for derivative works to be under the same license, choose {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}}. Also, add a source to your images, even if it's just "I took this picture myself at ..." --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 12:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Removing registered or trademark symbol

Is it generally frowned upon to remove an ® or TM mark from a logo used with a non-free use media rationale? I uploaded a new version of an image, but the new version has an ® on it whereas the old versions didn't. Would it be a problem to remove the ® and reupload? Klubbit (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

File:SolarPowerPlantSerpa.jpg

I may be being stupid, but I came across this image whilst performing a GA review on Solar power. Is it OK for this image, with the "subject to disclaimers" tag to be used in the article as it is? Jezhotwells (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's not a problem. That's just Commons being paranoid about the boilerplate on the default text on the GFDL tag we used to use here. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

moving file to commons

this doesn't really belong here but perhaps it is a little busier..

I was trying to move a file to commons from here File:Windsortownbridge.jpg#Now_commons it seemed to work but nothing is there? please have a look and let me know what I have done incorrect. ta. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)) from here at en wiki [[6]] ??? (Off2riorob (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC))

Commons logs shows that you haven't uploaded anything to there this year. How were you trying to transfer it? If you were hoping that adding {{NowCommons}} to the page would work, that doesn't actually transfer it. That just tells people you did transfer it. You still have to actually upload it to Commons. There are tools that can make it easier: Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media has tips in the "Tasks and tips" section. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Quadell. Its not wyrdlight it is me Off2riorob. I found the file with a tag asking to move it to commons .I have added this commons helper tool to my monobook and followed the procedure but the pic has never made it? my account at commons is under the same name.(Off2riorob (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC))

I think I have it now , you still have to save it locally and upload it ..[[7]] Is this correct and could I now delete the original file or add a speedy delete tag to it (Off2riorob (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC))

Yes, you have done it correctly. There are tools such as FileScripts that make it easier, though. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks . (Off2riorob (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC))

Requesting copyright permission for multiple images

Using the Declaration of consent for all enquiries, is it possible to request permission to use a web page full of photographs, or does the link for each individual image need to be referenced? For example, could the first line read, "I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the photographs at http://www.fakeurl.com/fakepage.html"? Thanks! 75.165.242.170 (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that would be fine. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Movie Posters!

If there is a new poster for a movie and if it's not on the movie's article yet, how can I bring the poster to that article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.100.181 (talk) 00:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You need to upload the poster file. In order to do that you need to be an WP:Autoconfirmed user: i.e. you need to have created a user account 4 days earlier; and you need to have made 10 edits. When you upload it, use the {{non-free poster}} tag, and provide a non-free use rationale for the article where you want to use it. Then you will be able to use the uploaded file on the article. Look at other movie articles to see how it was done. —teb728 t c 21:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Flickr

Wanting to add a useful picture of a site on the National Register of Historic Places, I just now uploaded File:Otway Covered Bridge.jpg from Flickr. Did I do everything right? I've made sure to list it with a cc-by-2.0 license because the original page gives it that way; but other than that, I can't be sure if I've followed proper procedure. Most importantly — does this license require anything but attribution? My own pictures I always upload as PD-self, so I don't quite know if I've done everything legally required for this image. Nyttend (talk) 05:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The image is on the commons and looks fine. The flickr review has confirmed the proper licence too. ww2censor (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know if this image is allowed to be uploaded?

http://www.dec.ny.gov/images/fish_marine_images/whitecatfish.gif please respond at my talk page. Monkeyfox (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied thus on user's talk page: "Sorry but that website's usage policy is inconsistent with free use." —teb728 t c 21:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Where's The Policy?

How can I access this image for my article? Can I? here Programmer13 (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You'd probably need to request permission from them to release the image under a free license. See Example requests for permission and Declaration of consent for all enquiries. Klubbit (talk) 22:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Would this image be able to be uploaded?

It has a Creative Commons: Public Domain License on the image http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/resources/usfws/whitecatfish.jpg/medium.jpg also if it can be can someone help me upload it because I don't understand how to that well.Monkeyfox (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't see any free licence on this website. The page where the image comes from clearly shows a copyright notice, so unless you can show verifiable free licence for this particular image we cannot use it here. ww2censor (talk) 23:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Aapki Antara image deleted?

Why is File:AapkiAntara.jpg going to be deleted? How can i put copyright tag on images? --ZebiBebi (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The image does not seem to need a copyright tag as it already has a logo template but you have not provided any source for the image which is why it will be deleted and why the deletion notice was added. You must provide a correct url so the image can be checked for accurate information. ww2censor (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Question about fair use images

I'm not sure if I'm in the right place but I have a concern about the use of certain images currently being uploaded by User:Brian Joseph Morgan. This user has been uploading album covers with fair use rationale to dozens of biography articles on classical musicians (examples John Macurdy‎, Julius Rudel‎). Is this ok? I though fair use album images could only be used on an article about the album itself and not the performer/performers involved. I haven't brought this to Brian Joseph Morgan's attention because frankly I wasn't sure about the policy.Singingdaisies (talk) 00:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There isn't one rule forbidding such use, but I would agree that generally speaking, album cover art does not belong in articles about the performers, unless the article in question would be at a significant loss without the use of that visual aid. It appears File:ContesH.jpg is used entirely for decorative purposes and isn't appropriate for the Julius Rudel article. If you feel more confident now, you may want to leave a note to the uploader, reminding them of NFCC, and that images are not to be used for decoration. -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the explanation and your thoughtful response. That was very helpful.Singingdaisies (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Commercial Logo Images

I have a logo that belongs to a company. This company has asked me to make a Wiki entry. They gave me permission to use this Logo Image in that entry. Do I need to establish any proof of this to be able to use this here. This proof is easy for me to obtain so just let me know what you need.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinrwatkins (talk • contribs) 15:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, have you read WP:COI? When someone says that a company has asked them to make an article on them, it sets off alarm bells. Is the company WP:N notable? Can you adequately source the article? Can you write in an encyclopedic, neutral tone, and avoid writing a puff piece or advertisement with superfluous information?

That said, to answer your question. Permission to use images just on wikipedia are not helpful, because the way Wikipedia is licensed, we allow reuse, modification, and even commercial use (and thus, someone trying to donate an image to Wikipedia must license the image under a similarly free license that doesn't conflict with the GFDL/CC-BY-SA dual licenses). It seems rather unlikely that a company would release their logo under such a license. But don't worry, the English Wikipedia allows some non-free images under fair use claims. Normally, corporate logos fall under this, and would be fine if the image was tagged accordingly and had a fair use rationale. In fact, we don't even need permission to use images under fair use claims. I would suggest looking at how another company's logo is licensed. Take for instance one that I uploaded: File:Deathwish.png. Hope this helps.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

photo.

i got this photo from www.all-antm.net, and i allowed to put it on wikipedia and added it to a profile? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luluixo (talk • contribs) 23:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no. As far as I can tell, the images on that site are not licensed under a free license. And since they are of living people, we can't accept them as non-free content. —teb728 t c 02:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Two Pints Logo.png

I have recently uploaded a screenshot from a DVD for the Two Pints of Larger and a Packet of Crisps artical and I have been alerted that I may have entered information incorrectly. I am new to Wikipedia and getting used to the way it works. I am getting the hang of it now. I need some help on how to enter information for images tv screenshots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackdyson (talk • contribs) 20:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Green Check

Hi, I feel that the series of check marks(File:Yes check.svg), are not eligible for copyright. These contains basic geometric shapes, and I do not see any originality in them. I asked an administrator and he felt the same way but told me to check here to make sure. ZStoler (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. These are ineligible for copyright protection. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the code that creates the shape might be eligible for protection. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

iCopyright Question

When WikiTeX arrives, it will be easy for authors to enter <music> snippets, in addition to prose and imagery. Suppose an author adds these to Guinnevere,

1. A snippet of Guinnevere, say the first eight bars;
2. Same as before, but readers can click Listen to hear midi playback;
3. Same as before, but includes entire song;
4. Same as before, but score is a transcription of a 1992 arrangement of Guinnevere for flute and frog written by a famous zoologist;

Are any of these copyright infringements?

I hear something on the radio and score it on a copyright-free site, for listening, the same way an image is included with a current news report?

-- IDave2 (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Any of those above would be derivative works, and therefore copyright infringements. Options 1 and 2 would possibly pass WP:NFCC, but it would be better to just have an ogg file of the original recording. This is analogous to an amateur drawing of Mickey Mouse: it's still a reproduction of Disney's copyright, so it's better to use an official portrait. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Uddeim logo.png

The license listed for this image is clearly incorrect. It says it is a Wikipedia screen shot, when it is the logo for a piece of software. I don't have the faintest idea what tag to use to get this corrected (nor how to correct it myself). Help, please? LadyofShalott 02:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it: the correct license template is {{non-free logo}}. Even though the software itself is licensed under the GPL, its logo, like that of Wikipedia, is copyrighted under US law by default. Plus, the author has a copyright statement on the software's home page. -- Hux (talk) 02:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! LadyofShalott 03:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright of image.

Hello!

I'm attempting to do an article about my Uncle, Martins Krumins, a Latvian-American painter who died in 1992.

I have several sources of pictures to use:

First of all, a book was published about Martins Krumins in 1980 by the Latvian Humanities and Social Science Association. It was written by Janis Silins. THIS BOOK IS NOT COPYRIGHTED. There is no copyright on the book itself and it has no ISBN number.

The Latvian Humanities and Social Science Association has been disbanded for a long time and I haven't been able to find any members.

After the book was published my Uncle gave me several copies and he also gave me negatives of the photographs of his paintings and some of the paintings themselves. He never copyrighted anything.

So, what to do? Martins Krumins wanted people to see his work and was not precious or possessive about them in any way.

I have re-photographed some early photographs which are in the book and would like to upload them to the article but I have no way of knowing where they came from or who took them. I have the original photos but again, there's no way of figuring out where they came from. It is possible that my father Roberts, a photographer, took them for his brother Martins but all information is lost.

What sort of tags or information should I use?

Daina Krumins —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perkons (talk • contribs) 16:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The book may not have had a copyright notice, but that does not mean it was not copyrighted. Anything published (or even “fixed”) in the US after 1976 is automatically copyrighted; see Copyright Act of 1976.

A potentially more serious problem with your project is notability. Please read WP:BIO and consider seriously whether you uncle is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. I see little if any indication of his notability in your draft. You should work on evidence of notability, backed up by references to independent reliable sources Hundreds of articles are deleted every day; I would hate to have you spend a lot of effort on an article only to have it deleted. Please read Wikipedia:Your first article. —teb728 t c 20:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not correct that "Anything published (or even “fixed”) in the US after 1976 is automatically copyrighted". First, the Copyright Act of 1976 did not go into effect until January 1, 1978. Second, under the 1976 act, a work that was published without a proper copyright notice could go into the public domain after five years if the work was not registered for copyright. Not until March 1, 1989 was a copyright notice optional under U.S. copyright law. — Walloon (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and as for the paintings, you mention at File:AUTUMN SMALL FILE.jpg that you are executor of his estate. I believe that would give you the right to license photos of his works (assuming they are not 3 dimensional). —teb728 t c 20:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Image Copyright

I want to upload an image of Hiroyuki Tomita (because I feel there needs to be one) and I found one that was taken by a photographer from the Chinese news websited "Xinhuanet.com". I discovered the image in the Arabic [language] page of the Official Webiste of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games. There is absolutely no evidence the it is copywritten (that I know of, as I don't speak or read Arabic). There is a message stating that the image is subject to deletion. Could someone check into this and, if the image must be deleted, someone needs to upload an image for the biographical article. The direct URL to the above-mentioned webpage accompanies the picture.

Et Al.: There are several biographical artical (specifically of Olympic athletes) that I feel need to have accompanying pictures.

--Girolle (talk) 05:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You can't simply upload images you find on the web. It doesn't work the way you describe. We assume the work is copyrighted until someone can clearly demonstrate that the image was released under a free license. You don't need evidence that it is copyrighted (because that is an assumption we have for all works), you need evidence that it isn't. Sorry. -Andrew c ^[talk] 12:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. As I said before, some biographical articles of WELL KNOWN Olympic athletes NEED to have accompanying pictures, specifically the biographies of Ahn Hyun-soo and Hiroyuki Tomita (and the gymnast Naoya Tsukahara needs a biography period in my opinion!). --Girolle (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If an article needs an image, but there isn't one available under a free license, try the procedure at WP:COPYREQ --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "need". Can you explain further? Wikipedia generally does not allow fair-use images of living people for the purposes of identification. If you desire an image for the article, go out and take one yourself (or try to contact a photographer who may be able to go to a sporting event). Alternatively, find photos that are already online and contact the photographer per COPYREQ to see if they will donate the image. Flickr sometimes is a good source for that. Hope this gives you some ideas.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Remember: Pacifist Kitten sheds a tiny tear when you don't get along. Don't make Pacifist Kitten cry! – Quadell ^(talk) 01:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing needs a photo bad enough to be an excuse for violating copyright. It sounds like you are not listening to what anyone is telling you. Copyright violations are not just immoral, they are illegal. DreamGuy (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Gah! No need to bite! – Quadell ^(talk) 23:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, no kidding! Plus, while certainly illegal, copyright violations aren't immoral, given that copyright is a utilitarian concept. -- Hux (talk) 02:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to help someone understand right from wrong. Having someone who apparently lacks morals and common sense show up to chime in isn't helpful. DreamGuy (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You think he lacks morals and common sense because he uploaded one image, asked for help, and opined that articles on Olympic athletes need images? Pretty harsh, dude. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Girolle, try putting {{reqphoto}} on the talk page of the articles for these athletes, and perhaps someone will find or create free ones. Meanwhile, thanks for your original contributions to articles on athletes! – Quadell ^(talk) 23:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the information. And how dare you, dreamguy, accuse me of deliberately violating a copyright; you don't even know me and if you weren't going to say anything helpful, you shouldn't have said anything at all. Anyway, thanks everyone, again. --Girolle (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

How come a photo from nazzi concetration camp is copyrighted?

"Mug shot" of Witold Pilecki from concetration camp Osvetim is allegedly copyrighted. Who is the owner and how he/she aquired this copyright? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.24.41.27 (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Whoever created the photo holds the copyright. If it was an individual, that individual's heirs hold the copyright for 70 years after his death. If the copyright was held by the Third Reich, all the Third Reich's copyrights were passed on to a private corporation, though I don't remember the name. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the theory I know of course. But I am interested in "practise":

1) Who took the picture? Most probably a camp photographer, who might be a member of SS or Gestapo. Do such people qualify for copyrights of photographs of political prisoners? 2) Even if the holder would be "Third Reich" and now some private organization - this is a photograph of political prisoner, taken "by force" - so I doubt any international body would agree with such rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.24.41.27 (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

(1) Yes. And (2) the EU honors copyrights regardless of the morality of the person who took the photo. And the U.S. honors EU copyrights. Copyright-holder do commonly sue for unauthorized use of WWII-era photos, and those suits are usually successful. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Possibly PD logo

Hi! Here we've got the logo of the ancient Spanish political party Eusko Abertzale Ekintza. I consider that it's PD shape: it consists in a circle, a star and a lauburu. So... it's PD? Opinions? Best regards. Rastrojo (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

AC Alles

I tried to upload a photograph of Mr AC Alles in his site but failed owing to a query raised by your goodself re copyright of the said photograph. Really, this photograph appears on the back cover of one of Mr Alles's books without credit being given to the photographer. There's no mention of the photographer's name. I guess it may be a private one taken by Mr Alles. Hence, I believe there wouldn't be a problem in reproducing same. I could scan the page in which this photo appears and send it to you to substantiate my statement? Please advise me how i may get about this. Thanks and warm regards. Qnyafs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qnyafs (talk • contribs) 03:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact that there is no credit does not make it useable. You might try contacting the book publisher; they presumably know the source of the photo. Tell them you are trying to get a license for reuse by anyone for anything. —teb728 t c 04:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Apollon Limassol

Can I upload a photo in Apollon limassol article whithout remove it later? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kividas (talk • contribs) 09:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as a matter of fact File:Apollon-Limassol.png, a logo that you uploaded, is in no danger of being deleted. But glancing at your talk page I see that you have had many other images deleted because you did not give the source, copyright status or license. For each image you need to tell where you got it, who the copyright owner is, and by what license Wikipedia can use it. If the image is not under a license that allows anyone to reuse it for anything, you also need a non-free use rationale, explaining why the use conforms to Wikipedia’s restrictive non-free use policy.

By the way, when you add a new topic to a forum, please add a section header on top if it (like the one I added for you). For lack of a section header nobody noticed your post for hours. —teb728 t c 07:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Sheet music covers

Can copyrighted sheet music covers be used to illustrate the music in question? There are fair use rationales for album and single covers, but none for sheet music. The only ones I've found in use are covers like this one and this one, which use {{PD-US}} since they're released before 1923. Is there a rationale for using sheet music covers newer than that? I want to use a low-resolution version of this image at "I Thought About You" (published 1939). Is this considered fair use? Which rationale should I use? Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, in this case it's moot, since the sheet music for that song is PD. A search of the copyright renewal records shows that Jimmy Van Heusen renewed the copyright for some of his songs, but not this one. You can tag it {{PD-US-not renewed}}. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I presume in the general case the use is not allowed if the copyright is renewed? Jafeluv (talk) 14:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No, use may be allowed, like book covers in articles on books. But the image would have to pass our strict non-free content criteria. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

A non-free sheet music cover would be most acceptable for identification on an article on sheet music itself (a rare kind of article I suspect). For an article on the song (rather than the sheet music), the rationale would require a rather strong explanation of why the use significant increases readers’ understanding of the article. —teb728 t c 06:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

In almost every case, use of non-free sheet music would be decorative and fail to increase readers' understanding of the article enough to pass WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Olivia Manning

I have been working on this article about a 20th century writer who died in 1980, and have been trying to find pictures to illustrate it. So far I've found a series of period shots of places she lived, but obviously some pictures of some humans would be good too! It is a difficult period from a copyright perspective: those involved are deceased, but the photos of them would still be under copyright restrictions. I think it is clear that one picture of Manning could be used under fair use terms. I presume this is limited to just one? What about a picture of her husband, to whom she was married for 40 years, who died in 1985, and whom she wrote about a good deal? Could this be considered fair use? Pictures of her friend Stevie Smith are already uploaded to WP under fair-use criteria (I think), but I'm guessing can't be used here? Anyway, any ideas and suggestions for what to do about this difficult in between period would be gratefully received. PS. I should mention that I have trawled through various websites looking for relevant free images, and haven't found any myself.--Slp1 (talk) 12:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This might help to consider. How would seeing an image of her husband or friend help the reader identify/understand the subject of the article?-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I am hoping and presuming this is a not a rhetorical question. Her husband is very well-known as the model for characters in her books, including Guy Pringle in the Fortunes of War; as such I would argue that it does indeed help one to understand the subject of the article and her work.--Slp1 (talk) 16:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

File:File-YPPedia_logo.png

I am not sure what tag it needs, but I guess its {{non-free logo}} as its the logo of another wiki found here --Lcawte (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

See below.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

New Section

Once an article is created, how do I upload photographs that I have taken and others that I have obtained copyright permission to use for online articles? I do not see a link to do this. When I add the edit for picture - it asks for a file name but does not give a mechanism to transfer the image.

Any help appreciated.

J.K.

On the left hand navigation, there is an upload link which takes you to Wikipedia:Upload. Anonymous users cannot upload files, and new users need to be autoconfirmed. You may want to upload the files directly to the commons if they are licensed freely. More information on that is at the upload page. Finally, this page is for copyright questions. For basic help, you should use WP:HELP. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Scouting Ireland

The images on Attainment badge (Scouting Ireland) were uploaded as "self made" and licensed as cc-by-sa-3.0. These are obviously scans of emblems created by Scouting Ireland. I would change these to non-free, but can these generic-style emblems be subject to copyright or trademark? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, only the most basic forms and typeface based logos are ineligible for copyright. Generic style emblems are subject to copyright. I don't believe switching the tag to non-free would solve this issue, as these images are used for decoration in a gallery/list. One group shot (perhaps some badges attached to a sash/shirt) should suffice. This many individual non-free images seems like an abuse. The uploader should be notified that taking an photograph of a copyrighted work does not give you the right to release that derivative work under a free license.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

That confirms my thoughts; I'm aware of the gallery issue that would result. Thanks. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jmacbonniehunt.jpg

It is a not just a promotional use but a file distributed by the actor/artist Jennette McCurdy for all individuals under her list. I hav listed the webpage, sources as best as possible. It is not exactly a copyright from Startraksphot.com--the pictures there are not an exact copy of the the photo which cannot be used any where else. The photo shows two individuals but it is the best picture of the subject Jennette McCurdy as possible since there are no other free images available. Please respond.Jeneral28 (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The non-free content criteria does not allow images that could be replaced by a free image. As the subject is still alive then the possiblity of a free image being available or being taken is reasonable and a non-free image can not be used. Being released as promotional image does not mean that it is not copyright or free to use. You could consider asking her website or management if they would release the image under a free license, refer Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. MilborneOne (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, am trying to contact the person. In the meantime, could you help ensure that the picture stays? Thanks.Jeneral28 (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Cant really stop the deletion but it doesnt mean you cant upload it again when you have permission. Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission explains what to do. MilborneOne (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Well the admin/actor doe take a long time to reply to emails.Jeneral28 (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I've done everything correctly how an admin told me to! Images are still being tagged!

I'm not sure what else I need to do. I have a source listed, author listed, OTRS ticket number. I have sent all the letters of permissions from the source that is allowing me to post their pictures. A bot is still tagging all of my uploaded images. They are as follows. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Iowavictorylane.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Iowapretech.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Iowafasttime.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justingrosser (talk • contribs) 20:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You mis-formatted the templates. I'll fix it for you. Dendodge _T\^C 20:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for not signing my post, thank you though.

Justingrosser (talk) 02:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

can i use this source???

I wanted to know if images from the following site http://www.st-spike.org/pages/uniforms/uniforms.htm can be used to illustrate Star Trek uniforms. A reply woulf be really helpful. Thanks IkeMuotoh (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No. The disclaimer on the home page states "© Spike 2000-2007. All rights reserved. STAR TREKTM and many related terms are registered trademarks of Paramount Pictures, Inc." You could always e-mail the site owner and see if they wouldn't mind donating images by releasing them under a free license. However, that could get sticky because some of the work is probably derivative of Paramount Pictures property, so the site owner wouldn't have the copyright to that stuff anyway....)-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Is fair use rationale valid for Templates

Can images be used in templates if there is a valid fair use rationale? There was an image that was deleted from the following template: Template:University of Utah. I have seen similar images on other university templates. UteFan16 (talk)

No, WP:NFCC#9 says that a non-free image can go only in article space. —teb728 t c 04:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC) The other images in templates might have been free use, and indeed File:UofU logo color.png might be {{PD-ineligible}}. —teb728 t c 04:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Puzzle_Pirates_logo_art.PNG

Dont know the copywrite but I guess its {{non-free logo}} as it is found all over this games offical website here --Lcawte (talk) 12:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You cannot use non-free images in userboxes. See WP:NFCC #9. This image, as it isn't used in the main article namespace, will likely be deleted. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Doesnt awnser my question, what copywrite template does it need? --Lcawte (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

My point was that no tag is going to fix that image if you are going to use that image (or any non-free image) outside of the main article space. Strictly hypothetically speaking, that copyright tag is usually sufficient for most non-free logos, as long as they have an accompanying fair use rational and otherwise meet all of the WP:NFCC. -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This is bordering on {{PD-textlogo}}. Stifle (talk) 12:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No copyright

I uploaded an image (File:Hasyim_Muzadi.jpg) which i found from www.swaramuslim.net. At the bottom of the website it says in Indonesian that there is no copyright, and it is not prohibited to copy, reproduce, or distribute. I need help for the license. Thank You. Dre.comandante (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The bottom of the page says "NO COPYRIGHT©". Then it says "TIDAK DILARANG KERAS mengcopy, memperbanyak, mengedarkan untuk kemaslahatan bersama syukur Alhamdulillah sumber artikel dicantumkan", which (I think) specifies that only the article text is free of copyright. But then it says "Copyright © Sep 2002" and "All rights reserved", so it's very confused. Regardless, the website often reprints images that it does not hold the copyright to, such as http://i43.tinypic.com/35apzz6.jpg and http://i43.tinypic.com/2uf7pt2.jpg. So I wouldn't say that the images from here are free. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

movie wiki photos

I want to start heavily updating some movie wikipedia articles that are neglected. This includes adding production stills and the movie poster in the top right hand corner. How do I check if a picture is acceptable to be downloaded and then uploaded to wikipedia? Is it safe to assume they are in the public domain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jules90 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No, very few movie posters and production stills are in the public domain. Most are copyrighted, so they can only be used under our strict non-free content criteria. In general, it is usually acceptable for one non-free image (a poster or a still) to be used as the main infobox at the top of the article. Other images are only used if they are particularly important to the article, are discussed in text, and convey information that could not be conveyed by text alone. More than four or five non-free images are almost never acceptable. But these will all have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to partially dissent here. In years of using U.S. copyright registration and renewal records, I have yet to see the copyright renewed on any production still published before 1964 from a U.S. motion picture. And no, there is no case law establishing that stills are protected under the parent film's copyright. (Presumably an assemblage of stills that told the film's story would create a derivative work and be a violation of the film's copyright.) Likewise, I've yet to see the U.S. copyright renewed of any U.S. movie poster published before 1964. — Walloon (talk) 07:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Question from non-expert: Isn't a still just a frame from the movie? If so, doesn't the movie's copyright attach to such a still? – ukexpat (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

A frame from a film would be covered under the same copyright as the film itself, just as much as a page from a book is held under the copyright of the book itself. Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying, Walloon. I would suspect that a movie poster of a copyrighted movie is a derivative work of the film itself. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No, a still is not the same thing as frame enlargement. Stills are taken separately by a still photographer with a still camera (usually on a 4 x 5 negative), before or after the scene has been filmed by the motion picture camera. — Walloon (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting, thanks for the info. So what was usually done with these stills? Were they offered for sale to the general public? I ask because there are some intriguing possibilities here. It's possible that the stills were published before the film itself, which would mean that the stills cannot be derivative works of the film. Let me explain. There is some disagreement about when a film is "published" according to copyright law. Here I quote from "The Public Domain" by Stephen Fishman: "Like any work of authorship, a film is published for copyright purposes when the copyright owner or someone acting on his or her behalf makes copies available to the general public. In other words, any interested member of the public may obtain a copy. Burke v. National Broadcasting Co., 598 F.2d 688 (9th Cir. 1979). Publication only occurs when copies of a film are made available to the public for purchase, rental, or loan. Showing a film to the public in theaters or on television does not constitute publication for copyright purposes. This is true even if thousands or millions of people have seen the film." Fishman goes on to explain that when a studio allows its clients access to film reels, or sells the reels themselves only to select partners, the film is not "published" according to the courts. And of course before the advent of video tape, films were not generally available for sale. Before the 1976 copyright law, unpublished works were not protected by federal law (though they were still protected by common law copyright). All these film were immediately covered by the 1976 law when it took effect in 1978, but before then they had no federal copyright status. The stills and posters, if "published", would have been covered. If a piece of film paraphernalia was published before 1976, based on an "unpublished" film, the paraphernalia cannot be held to be a derivative work of the film. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

"Because films were rarely made available for public sale, determining an official publication date has been difficult for these older films. However, a consensus has developed among copyright experts, the film industry, and the courts that films were published for copyright purposes when copies were placed in exchanges for distribution to theater operators. American Vitagraph, Inc. v. Levy, 659 F.2d 1023 (9th Cir. 1981)." Fishman, 4th ed., p. 166. Stills and posters are published separately from the film, almost always before the film to generate advance publicity and audience interest. In the pre-1964 era I am talking about, stills were sent in press packets to newspapers and magazines, and stills and posters were transferred to companies (most commonly the National Screen Service from 1940 to the mid-1980s) that specialized in distributing publicity materials to theaters. (More here.) — Walloon (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

"Share and Enjoy"?

I uploaded a photo for the entry on yarnbombing. I've seen this image on several blogs and on several websites dedicated to the practice or to offbeat art. The image was posted on a blog by Oberholtzer Creative Staff at 3:24 pm, January 25, 2009, with the mark, "Share and enjoy." [8] However, the article in The Telegraph that was the main source for the wikipedia article cites the picture as belonging to BNPS. Is this image appropriate for Wikipedia? If so, which tag should it receive? Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, have you considered contacting the original creator? The link you posted referred to a yarnbomb blog who attributed it to Magda Sayeg of knittaplease.com. That website has a contact page (here). Perhaps you could ask if they'd be willing to release it into the public domain, or license it via GFDL or similar?

Incidentally, the "share and enjoy" is entirely unrelated. That's just the description of the links for digg, stumbleupon, etc. Certainly not anything to do with licensing. 139.57.100.104 (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want to ask the copyright holder for GFDL permission, we have a helpfile at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The blog lists Oberholtzer Creative Staff as the image's posters, but Telegraph lists BNPS, Bournemouth News and Picture Service as the image's owners. Any clue what's going on? Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

They're probably just guessing, or attaching boilerplate text that isn't always accurate. The Telegraph is more likely to be correct, but I'd suggest contacting BNPS and asking them if they hold the copyright. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

{{PD-PhilippinesPubDoc}} and the Philippines' law

There is a question at the copyright talk page concerning the accuracy of this template, which is transcribed to a number of images. Please weigh in if you have input. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

GasBuddy Image

Hi,

We have recentlt uploaded an image. The image is GasBuddyGasPriceMap.png. This image was removed from our sandbox page, saying that it does not have the proper copyright information. All ofthe images that we have uploaded are images that we the GasBuddy Organization have created entirely on our own. These images are avaiable on the internet on any of our 185 gas price websites. Please restore this image GasBuddyGasPriceMap.png. as we are not breaking any copyright laws by displaying ths image as it is our own.

Regards,

Trevor Dewildt GasBuddy.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gasbuddy (talk • contribs) 14:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

When you upload an image, you need to state how it is licensed. If you created the image yourself, then you are free to license it however you want. Here are some suggestions: WP:ICTIC. When you upload an image, there is a drop down menu on the upload page for licensing. You have to choose a license from that drop down menu, or else the image will be deleted. Alternatively, if you forgot to choose a license when you uploaded the file, you can add the tag after the fact (i.e. adding {{PD-self}} for a public domain image or {{GFDL-self}} for a GFDL image or {{cc-by-3.0}} for the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license, etc.) If this image was published outside of wikipedia, you'll need to send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. Good luck.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You may also want to read about wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest particularly if you make the contents of User:Gasbuddy/Sandbox into an article. Also note the your user name is related to a business it may be blocked from editing please also read WP:SPAMNAME. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Just saw File:GasBuddy-Logo.gif. I've tagged it as lacking permission, as this clearly is a company/webpage logo that was published outside of Wikipedia. If you created this, just follow the instructions and send an e-mail in to the OTRS team.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The gasbuddy.com website disclaimer says, “GasBuddy Inc. reserves all rights and copyrights the site text, site images, site code, content, and usage of the GasBuddy.com web site. Use of any information found on any web site of GasBuddy Organization is not permitted without express written consent from GasBuddy Organization Inc.” This contradicts the public domain tag. —teb728 t c 22:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct Copyright tag

I asked a user in Flickr if I could use a picture that's in is account in Wikipedia 2 days ago, and today he gave the the ok to do so but I don't know the correct copyright tag to use that will not result in speedy deletion. Please help. It's a picture of a college office building. Thanks Ceddy 06 21:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Did you ask the user to change the license on the flickr page? That is really the best and easiest way to go. There are 2 acceptable licensing options that flickr offers that are compatible with wikipedia. Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) and Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike (CC-BY-SA). If the flickr user hasn't done so already, ask them to pick the best license for them and change the image. From there, a bot can easily upload the image to the Commons for you. If the flickr user did not specify a license in your correspondences, then you cannot upload the image on Wikipedia yet. We have to know how the flickr user intends to distribute the image. Neither you or I can make that decision as we are not the image creator (copyright holder). Finally, permission to use an image on Wikipedia is not good enough. The way wikipedia is licensed, we allow reuse, modification, and commercial use of our work, the all images need to be compatible with that mission (and if someone wants an image just on Wikipedia, but no where else, that is too bad because Wikipedia is licensed in a manner which already allows reuse). Yeah, I know it's a bit complicated, but it's part of being a free encyclopedia. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

2 v 3

Having received emailed permission from the photographer, I just uploaded a photo from Flickr and forwarded the permission email to OTRS. The photographer stated, "I'd like attribution, if you'd work that out. But other than that feel free to use as you see fit"; accordingly, I tagged it with 2.0. After doing that, I discovered 3.0. What's the difference between the two? And if there is a difference, which one is more applicable to such a statement? Nyttend (talk) 02:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

{{Attribution}} is probably the best tag to use for such a statement. – Quadell ^(talk) 03:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure his email permits anyone to use it for anything? Or did it just say that Wikipedia can use it? The part you quote sounds like the latter, which is not acceptable. —teb728 t c 03:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I specified in my original email (just a few lines long, so she can't have missed it) that Wikipedia didn't accept anything that was only permitted for Wikipedia, and that anyone else had to be allowed to use it. Accordingly, I'm interpreting the email as "do anything that you want as long as you credit me". By the way, would someone please explain the difference between 2 and 3? Nyttend (talk) 04:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read, if you have a chance, what I wrote under "Correct Copyright tag", two topics up. If the uploader doesn't state "I release my work under the license xxx", it isn't best to assume they meant one license or another. For flickr users, it is always best (and easiest) for them to simply choose a license that flickr offers. Sending flickr mail to OTRS is hard to verify for the OTRS volunteers because flickrmail hides the users e-mail addresses. Furthermore, Commons has an automated flickrreview process which is more reliable and faster than OTRS. Why waste the time of OTRS volunteers when there is flickrreview?

To answer your question, the summary text of the two licenses is identical. The full text is different. See for yourself. And here are pages that explain the difference. -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I have no Flickr account, so I have no way to contact her that way. Instead, I observed (after Dtbohrer pointed it out to me) that in her profile she links to her blog, where her personal email address is posted, so I emailed that with my own personal email. And as far as flickrreview: this is only the second time that I've uploaded a picture from Flickr (the first time being just a few days ago; you can see in the recent archives a question that I asked here then), so I'm not familiar with how to get it to work. Nyttend (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

AC Alles

Further to my query, and to your response that I seek permission from the publishers to reproduce Mr Alles's photograph in Wikipedia, I may state that all his books were published by him, and hence I believe the said photograph was a private one. Otherwise he would have given credit to the said photograph. Your advise please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qnyafs (talk • contribs) 16:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Permission to use on Wikipedia is insufficient. The image must be released under a free license. Otherwise, it must be used under terms of fair use. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Chinese copyright

While deleting orphaned nonfree images, I came across File:Slaves whose eyes cut off under Dalai regime 1.jpg and File:Music instrument made by thighbones of young girls under Dalai Lama's regime re.jpg, which were tagged both as orphaned nonfree and as public domain! I was unfamiliar with the situation, so I changed the date on the orphaned-since-date template to today to give them a little more time before deletion. Could someone examine the copyright status of these images, and then (1) delete them or undo my postponement, or (2) clarify their PD status? Nyttend (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• File:Music instrument made by thighbones of young girls under Dalai Lama's regime re.jpg "Therefor it is clear that the copyright holders make the picture publically available" and "implies the copy right owner (Chines authority) grant the picture to be redistributed as as Non-free promotional in term of WikiPedia." This is really quite clear. An implication that something is free does not make it free. We have to have verifiable evidence the image is free for all purposes, including commercial. That is not present with this image. Therefore, it must be used under fair use here.
• File:Slaves whose eyes cut off under Dalai regime 1.jpg "Therefor it is clear that the copyright holders make the picture publically available" Same case as above. Making something publicly available doesn't make it free of copyright or available under a free license. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding AICAR Business School Logo

I have a permission to upload AICAR Business school logo but some delete it. Please suggest what should I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pankajku2020 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Send the permission in to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, quoting the exact file name. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Contradictory Copyright Message

I'm creating an article about a WWI Canadian soldier, and a picture of his headstone that I would like to use is on Veteran Affairs Canada.
Information on this site has been posted with the intent that it be readily available for personal and public non-commercial use and may be reproduced, in part or in whole and by any means, without charge or further permission from Veterans Affairs Canada.

Would that allow me to use the image? Please respond on my talk. MacMed^talk_stalk 16:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I explained on the user's talk page that a non-free photo of a headstone would be replaceable. —teb728 t c 23:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Edgelogos.png

image:EDGElogos.png is used to illustrate the EDGE Games article, yet the images used there are the masthead logo for Edge (magazine). Neither Edge Games nor Future Publishing would approve, I'm sure. I just wanted a concensus before nixing them. Sockatume (talk) 12:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The logo for the company is different comprising the word EDGE over the word GAMES, not this one. It must be removed because any rationale fails the WP:NFCC criteria. The proper logo could be used with an appropriate fair use rationale AND the {{Non-free logo}} template. ww2censor (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take it down and reference this discussion temporarily. How can I permanently reference this discussion when it's archived? 82.41.72.10 (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

After it has been archived it will likely appear in Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2009/May or maybe the June 2008 archive and you can then link directly to it there. This happens 7 days after it was last added to. ww2censor (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)