Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/Archive 10

How do you get a picture into an article ?

how do you get a pic into an article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowsakura321 (talk • contribs)

First you have to upload an image using the "Upload file" link on the left of your screen. Secondly you have to give it a name i.e. EifelTowerAtNight.jpg - then to insert it into an article you have to add the wikicode [[Image:EifelTowerAtNight.jpg]] typically you'll want to add thumb and a caption - i.e. [[Image:EifelTowerAtNight.jpg|thumb|The Eifel Tower at night]]. The image itself should normally be a photograph you've taken yourself. Random images from the internet are unlikely to be GFDL or Public domain. P.S. you can sign your name by typing ~~~~ Megapixie 23:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeniceri_aga.jpg

Hi,

I recently uploaded an image under the name of Yeniceri_aga.jpg. Its url was Image:Yeniceri_aga.jpg before it was deleted. I found this image in the Turkish Wikipedia and so far as I could see it had no license problems. The url of the image in Turkish Wiki is: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/tr/7/73/Yeniceri_aga.jpg

I think I made a mistake with licensing while I uploaded this image. Could you please explain to me what I could do with the licensing in the next upload attempt? Thanks. --Chapultepec 00:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The image page is tr:Resim:Yeniceri aga.jpg on the turkish wikipedia. I don't speak Turkish, and no translation is available, but the tag appears to be some sort of fair use tag. When you uploaded it to the english wikipedia you indicated it was for non-commercial use or educational only use. I don't know if this is the case, but that type of image is not acceptable in keeping with our goal of being a free content encyclopedia. To answer your questions as to how to tag the image I would need to know something about the image, such as it's source, and license. Not every image you find online can be uploaded to wikipedia, even images on one wikipedia may not comply with policy on another. - cohesion 03:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where they got the image in Turkish Wiki, but I found nearly the same in lexicorient.com. The url is : http://lexicorient.com/e.o/janissaries.htm In fact I saw the picture in another web site as well, but I cannot locate its place for the moment. Regards. --Chapultepec 03:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Here it is identified as an 18th Century engraving. Plainly public domain as far as US law is concerned. TCC (talk) (contribs) 11:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Issues related to using certain programs to generate images - diagrams latex package

The diagrams latex package by Taylor (http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~pt/diagrams/) places limits on its use. In particular it says that commercial use is only reasonable for academic purposes, and has a condition that a copy of any published book using the package be sent to the packages author - see page 28 of http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~pt/diagrams/manual.pdf) for details. I am aware of at least one page limit(category theory) on which images have been made using this package - If one looks at the information related to the first image - the source code is for this package (though no direct reference is made to it). Also I'd suspect other similar diagrams with letters and arrows (commutative diagrams) on other maths pages which have been copyrighted as self-made will have used this package but have made no reference to how the pictures themselves were made.

This seems like it might be a breach of copyright on the part of the person using the package, for though they are not using the image for commercial purposes. They are giving anyone else the permission to use it for commericial purposes. Also the license of the program states that it cannot be used for military purpose, but as far as I am aware, the gpl license specifically says that limits cannot be placed on who can use a document. The question is whether the images themselves are affected by this breach of copyright or whether it's just the case that people who have made the images have breached the copyright on the use of the package, and that is the end of it.

This issue could arise in regard to an other program that places limits on its use. Has it been come across before.

There are several alternatives to this package, though I think some of them aren't quite so simple to use, and may be slightly more ugly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alexwright (talk • contribs) 13:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

When a software package is under a license, like GPL it applies to to the copyright of the software itself. So, when you're making changes to GNU Image Manipulation Program you need to abide by the GPL. It doesn't mean that any images you make using the software are also under that license. Does this address the issue you're raising? Even if someone steals Photoshop, and uses it to make diagrams for wikipedia they may be breaking their license agreement, or it may be outright theft, but the copyright of the created works isn't really changed. - cohesion 02:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the license of the program in someway infecting the licence of the images made with it. In the situation I was talking about the license for the use of the program said

• That it couldn't be used for commercial purposes
• That a copy of any published material containing something made with the program had to be sent to the author of the program
• That the program couldn't be used for military purposes.
• That any document that uses the program refers to the program used, and uses the latest version of the program

By making something available with no copyright, or under the GFDL you are (in theory) breaking all of these terms. I'd be inclined to agree with you that the copyright of the images shouldn't be affected, I was just wondering whether it could. I suppose the only question is:

"Does using a program illegally to make media that you then release under some license affect in any way the legal status of media produced?"

If the answer is a straight-out no then all is well.

Your analogy to Photoshop is exactly the same situation, in so far as then you have no rights to use Photoshop. I suppose the only difference is the license here places explicit restrictions on the copyright you are allowed to use. (Alexwright 13:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC))

I am not a lawyer, so this could be wrong, but I doubt unless the person signed some contract that that sort of EULA is legal. Seems a little overbearing to me. - cohesion 18:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Formulism symbol

I need a tag for the Formulism symbol:

Formulism isn't really a religion, more of a philosophy, so I guess it would be something like the Taiji symbol, however the taiji is so old that it's in public domain, while this one's just a few years old. It was suggested that it was marked as a "seal", however, seals seem to be more like governmental seals and stuff. I don't know how to tag this one.

Ion seal 14:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

{{logo}}, I guess, since it is really just a logo created by the creator of formulism.org as a logo for his website and philosophy. Seal doesn't make too much sense. Honestly, though, looking at that article and looking at the article, I'm unconvinced that the article would survive a deletion discussion. Are there any third party sources of information about this philosophy? If not, under Wikipedia:Verifiability, it isn't really something that Wikipedia should have an article on. (I have removed, by the way, the FAQ section as it was copied and pasted from the source website - copyright doesn't terminate just because they take it down.) BigDT 15:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Public Domain

Image:Mary Ward.jpg I got a message on my talk page that this was missing copyright information, but it is clearly tagged being in the public domain, what is the problem; what do I need to add? MHDIV ??gl??n??(r)d(Suggestion?|wanna chat?) 22:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

who painted it and when.Geni 00:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Please delete one of my uploaded images.

The image, Image:Nguyen Minh Triet.jpg, was one I uploaded without asking permission from the original page's webmaster. I figured it'd be better to turn myself in than try to cover it up and get banned. Special Penguin 23:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Simply tag the image with {{db|Unfree image, uploaded by myself by mistake}}. That should take care of it. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it :) Megapixie 06:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted it. Thanks for letting us know, Penguin. ×Meegs 12:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, guys/gals! Special Penguin 21:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm stumped... need help...

Howdy. I've looked through wikipedia over and again looking for the right thing to do, but I'm at a complete loss. I know, and have used before, a very good image on the TISM article which has now been deleted because of copyright. Even after a dispute, which went unheard. Anyhoo, I've got a question which needs asking, and that is if we can use a copyrighted image (such as an album cover, or screenshot of a tv show) for improving the articles quality, why can we not use a copyrighted image of a band just standing there? I did contact the author who was willing to have it used on wikipedia, though he did not state so under any free licence. Would you answer the above question please and also provide any information on how to add a publicity image to a page? I also tried to add a "Press Quality Image" from Snowman's official "image gallery" portion of their website to the band, Snowman's page, but that was also deleted. I'm miffed. -Gohst 03:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Such things can only be used under a theory of fair use. I didn't see these images so I didn't see why they were deleted, but when a claim of fair use without a valid supporting rationale is made, the image will always be deleted. Among the disqualifying factors for valid fair use is if a copyrighted image could reasonably be replaced with a free one. This was explained in the notice placed on your talk page. In the case of a current band, this is certainly the case. All someone would have to do is to go to one of their shows and take a picture themselves. This would not be true of, say, the Beatles, where two of the members are deceased and the band had long since ceased to perform together in any event.

Fair use is also context-dependent and can't be claimed just anywhere.. A scan of an album cover could not validly be used to illustrate an article on the band; only on the album itself. Similarly, a screenshot of a TV show must be used in an article on the show, not in one about one of the actors appearing there. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Just for the sake of argument, lets say it is a copyrighted publicity photograph of the band. Under what licence tag should it be attributed in order for it to stay?

The image is this one which the photographer has allowed use on wikipedia. It was deleted because "a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created" to replace it. However, after scouring the web to find that original picture, I had to flex my proverbial searching muscles to find this one, the best free alternative. The free one had this in its favour, compared to the other one:

1. It's free.
2. The page it came from said which member was which.

It had this not in its favour, compared to the first:

1. Its a lot darker
2. It only shows three of the members, one of which is barely visible
3. It has a microphone stand obscuring one of them
4. They all have their eyes closed

The first one has this in its favour:

1. The creator did allow it to be used on wikipedia
2. It shows all of the members
3. It appears more humorous, aiding the article in the artists humour
4. Its a lot brighter and easier to see the members
5. Its a lot easier to tell which part of the picture is a person and which is background

The first one had this not in its favour:

1. Its not free
2. Its impossible to tell which member is which.

I detailed the fair use rationale on the image's upload page which included correspondence on the original uploaded image's page, in which the photographer allowed its use here. I also disputed its deletion when the image was tagged for deletion (that dispute is here) but that apparently went unread, or unnoticed.

After the image was deleted I contacted the author again to ask if he'd mind releasing the image under a gfdl or cc licence, to which he simply replied with a request only to be credited with the image.

I uploaded the original image (this is the 2nd time only, if you're keeping score) and after I added more rationale it was deleted again. I'm wondering how, if possible at all, this publicity image with its allowed use for wikipedia by the author could possibly be used here. After all I can see there is no "freely licensed image [which] could reasonably be found or created" to replace it.

Gohst 04:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do you say the photo you found on flickr is free? Did you contact the photographer and obtain permission to use it under a free license, or did he license it in some acceptable way on his pages? If not, then it it not free whether it carries an explicit copyright or not. All content is by law automatically copyright to its creator as soon as it is set down "in fixed form".

Your dispute wasn't ignored; it's just that you said nothing that made any difference. Permission to use on Wikipedia only is not a factor in an image's favor. It is rather a consideration that forbids it being used here. Wikipedia cannot use it at all under any circumstances. That seems counterintuitive, but it's fully consistent with the goal of creating a free-content, freely-distributable encyclopedia. Wikipedia is mirrored in a number of different places as it is. Any copyrighted content that's OK "on Wikipedia only" cannot be copied to these mirrors without violating the license. See WP:IUP for the official policy.

If the photographer permitted free use with only a credit, then the appropriate tag is {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} providing the name of the photographer and that he requires attribution. (You can copy the text from {{Attribution}}, which itself it inappropriate because it assumes the photographer is a Wikipedia user.) Be sure the photographer understands his work might be used for non-educational or commercial purposes before re-uploading. Do not use a fair use tag or provide rationale in that case. Also follow the directions at WP:COPYREQ to ensure that the appropriate people have a record of the creator's permission.

But really, the ideal solution would be to make a completely free image. You don't do this by searching on the web. You do it by taking a photo of the band yourself and releasing it under a free license, as I explained earlier. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks TCC. Believe me, I'd be happy to take a picture of them myself if that was at all possible, though the word "reasonable" in "reasonably found or created" would prohibit me from tracking down all the members, assembling them in one place, taking a photograph and then uploading it and tagging it as a free image. The picture already created will have to do, under the tags that you offered. Thanking you. -Gohst 08:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

In the drop-down box on the image uploading page, which do I select? If I don't pick one I get a tagged for deletion message, don't I? -Gohst 09:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The image will deleted if there's no licensing tag, but the tag doesn't have to come from the drop-down box. You can type the code for the licensing tag into the summary field and ignore the licensing drop-down box. —ShadowHalo 22:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know that at all. Thanks. -Gohst 00:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Please make sure that you obtain the correct permission, they must license the image under terms that are acceptable as free content. It is not acceptable for you to make that decision on your own without their knowledge. TCC has kindly answered a lot of hypothetical questions for you, but keep in mind that falsifying license information is not acceptable. - cohesion 03:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

About the other question I asked in the first question, the image I uploaded to the band Snowman's page I got from here: http://www.thesnowmanempire.com/gallery/1/7?GalleryItems[start]=0 which is their own promotional image gallery with press quality images available. Under which licence would that go under? I'm pretty sure that that kind of photograph is usable, right? -Gohst 03:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Replacability of Image

This image is about a living author.

I found the image on the WEB where it's used to promote the book, I believe.

The image could probably be replaced by going to Israel (I'm in the USA) with a camera.

So what should be dome about it's use, Fair use, or otherwise?

The image in question is Image:906365 -Hadassa Ben-Itto-.jpg.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 22:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

If the subject is still alove and not in seclusion it's not relevant how difficult it is for you to replace the image, just taht it could be replaced. I don't know the details about the subject though. The issue is in regards to a possible violation of the first fair use criteria. - cohesion 03:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"For Wikipedia only" and fair use

Hi, User:Gvanrossum wants a new image to be added to the Guido van Rossum article. On Talk:Guido van Rossum he says:

Please replace the picture with the more recent one that's currently on my homepage. (I would do it myself but I'm still learning wikipedia edits and uploading pictures seems a dark art.) I have a hi-res version and an email from the photographer who allows me to give this photo to Wikipedia.

I'm not sure if he has permission to relicense the image or if he just has permission to upload it to Wikipedia. Assuming it's the latter, would it be OK to upload a low-res version under fair use? Thank you. --Kjoonlee 03:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a similar situation to my question about Image:LinHatfieldDodds2006.JPG below. Peter Ellis 23:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this person still alive? Would it be possible to get a free content image of them? - cohesion 03:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the editor in question is the subject of the article. It ought to be trivial for him to acquire a free image, but this probably needs to be explained to him. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Manuel Noriega mug shot.jpg

I would like somebody to review this image, which I uploaded. A previous mug shot (presumabley the same one) was deleted from Commons, but I am not certain why. It left a redlink in the article. It seems to be an obvious public domain image, but given that one was deleted, and the non-en Wikipedia's (the "all-free" wikipedias) seem to have no image of him at all, maybe there's a problem with this image, that I'm unaware of. --Rob 07:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, did you re-upload it to the commons under the same name? It is on the commons now, and not tagged for deletion. If you know the name it used to be in the commons we could ask someone. Commons can't easily check when they delete images we're using anymore since the toolserver broke. :( - cohesion 03:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

ulhostess.jpg

I THINK THIS IS A GREAT IMAGE OF A HOSTESS AND IT SHOULD NOT BE DELETED. THANKS!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.110.20.233 (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

No image by that name. Jkelly 19:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

File found at Image:ULhostess.JPG. -- nae'blis 19:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:LinHatfieldDodds2006.jpg

I welcome comments and advice.

I uploaded an image supplied by the subject of my article. See Lin Hatfield Dodds. I assumed that she was giving me permission to put it up for use at Wikipedia, because we'd talked about that use of the image. Hence, I applied the "non-commercial and/or educational purposes" tag because this seemed to fit what she was doing in allowing me to put the image on Wikipedia. (I did not look up the exact details of this at the time!)

The image was promptly tagged for rapid deletion (i.e. removed) from Wikipedia by an Administrator.

I think that tags such as this should be coded in some way so they can be used ONLY in combination with other tags. It's slightly ridiculous to allow a tag to be used (i.e. not greyed out) when its use will result in the image being removed soon afterwards.

I have advised the subject on some other copyright tags and am awaiting her choice. I suggested a combination of: "fair use" ('promotional' plus a 'with permission' tag), "cc-by-sa-2.5|subject's name", and "CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|credit to and copyright of subject's name".

Also see this issue at the topic "For Wikipedia only" and fair use above.

Peter Ellis 23:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Those tags exist because even in their absence someone will upload material "for Wikipedia only" or "for educational/non-commercial use only". They cannot be stopped. This way images that we cannot use are at least easy to identify and can be removed promptly. Otherwise they're difficult to find. If you can think of some other way to prevent this kind of non-freely licensed material from being uploaded, feel free to suggest it.

You are advising your subject on a number of self-exclusionary options. Fair use does not require the copyright holder's permission, and what the permission is for, exactly, is important as you have seen. A valid rationale for fair use must still be provided, but from everything you have said there may be none that apply here. If she will allow one or the other of the other two suggestions that would be fine, but she should only pick one of them.

Since this is a living person, it may be a better course of action to take a picture of her yourself and license it appropriately. If you own the copyright, you can do whatever you like with it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this advice. I tried to take a photo; she said she would prefer a 'studio' photograph. This is okay; women in 'public life', as she is (as a regular commentator on social issues on TV), should be allowed a little vanity. I'll resolve it after she gets back to me with her thoughts. Peter Ellis 04:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

My own family's coat of arms

Image:Skancke-skjold.JPG is my family's coat of arms, how do I tag it to avoid having it removed for "copyright reasons"? If anyone have copyrights on our coat of arms then its me and my family. How do I solve this issue? Manxruler 03:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Coats of arms are complex from a copyright point of view. Do you know from where that image was obtained. Regardless of the copyright we need a source. The graphic representation of a coat of arms is copyrighted by the artist, like any image. So, if you know eher ethe image was obtained from that would be helpful. - cohesion 03:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The original "creator" of the image is probably my family association. They have created a lot of images of the coat of arms over the years. But the coat of arms is mine, my ancestry, my blood. If its a question of the specific person who created the digital image if it, I guess I'll just have to take my own copy off the wall and scan it, create another one. If that would fix the problem. My point: Its my coat of arms. Manxruler 03:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's where I got it: http://flammensorden.laiv.org/ridderne/index.htm This guy Øyvind Moe claims to belong to my family, and he might very well be a relative. Manxruler 03:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Skancke-skjold.JPG Is the copyright stuff ok now? Manxruler 18:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Your suspicion that the artist may be related to you doesn't change his or her ability to copyright a drawing. If the blazon is old enough to be in the public domain, simply draw a version of it yourself. Jkelly 19:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't draw. Would a scan of my personal coat of arms do? Manxruler 01:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If you own all rights to that particular expression of the coat of arms, or if it was made long enough ago that it's now public domain (if, say, it was originally made for an ancestor) then yes.

An alternative is for you to look over the contents of the freely-licensed coats of arms over at Commons in commons:Category:Coats of arms and see if there are any self-created versions you like the look of, and then contact their creators to see if one of them is willing to help you out in making a free-license version of yours, were you to provide him with the blazon. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It was made for one of my ancestors, yes, and its been used exclusively by family ever since. Also, as this particular version was created in the 15th Century, and has its origins in a 13th Century version, I would suppose it to be public domain. How would I state that the image I'm going to upload is mine by right, alternatively public domain?

I'll think about that idea of contacting a creator for a free-lincensed version, but it should be public domain as its very old indeed.Manxruler 05:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, remember that copyright issues are separate from the right to display a coat of arms. That's one reason this issue is relatively complex. By "expression" I meant that actual depiction of the coat of arms itself, not the design. If the object (painting, drawing, document, embroidery, ring, what-have-you) you have was made in the 15th Century, then yes, we can safely assume it's public domain. Tag it {{PD-old}} (or possibly {{PD-art}} depending on the nature of the object) and describe the source in the image description. Also remember to put the {{insignia}} tag in as well so that others are aware of non-copyright restrictions on its use.

I'm apologize if I seem to be belaboring the point, but I'm striving for absolute clarity, which is difficult in this area. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

So, if I make a free-licence version of my coat of arms myself and then upload it, its all good? Manxruler 08:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:C-XF 09(72dpi)-cxf.jpg

Is this image OK? I think I selected the wrong copyright option. Can you change it? Details of copyright held by Jaguar is at the bottom of the image. Thanks. MonkeyMumford 13:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's tagged correctly. You need to edit the image description page to provide the image source and a valid fair use rationale. See Help:Image page#Fair use rationale for more guidance. (This appears to qualify for fair use since it's a concept car and no alternative free images could be made. But you do need to say why fair use applies, and what article the rationale applies for.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:LogoSadat.gif

Image:LogoSadat.gif —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mgenena (talk • contribs) 14:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

How do I make my images Wikipeida Legal? Can you send me an example? --Reynosojonny 18:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

How about Image:FallasburgBridge VehicleCrossingDSCN0016.JPG from todays mainpage. If you took the photograph yourself then tag it as GFDL or Public domain (releasing all rights to the image). If you can be more specific about the image I might be able to tell you the right tag. Megapixie 09:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

placing photo pictures on Wikipedia aritcles: need help!

Hello, I would like to know if I can add some pictures to some articles onto the Wikipedia website? I would like to add some pictures of the TV movie "Splash, Too" but I can't seem to do so. I would also like to add a picture to the Superboy (TV series) article. HOw can I do this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Queen of Swords (talk • contribs) 08:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

First you need to "Upload file" on the left (give it a sensible name - not "IMG0323.jpg") giving it the correct image tag (I would suggest reading TV-screenshot and reading WP:FU). Then you need to add the image to the article using [[Image:SuperBoyEpisode23.jpg|thumb|Superboy in Episode 23 battles his arch nemesis lazy caption man.]]. Megapixie 09:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Peyman tonbak green.jpg

Hi to everone, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Boilerplate_request_for_permission#Informal_.28images.29 I find no e-mail address to which the foto owner should send his permission like in the German Wikipedia which requests to mail it to info-de@wikimedia.org. Can you please help me to whom the owner should address? Will it be sufficient if he sends the following text?

"I own the copyright to the image peyman_tonbak_green.jpg at http://nasehpour.tripod.com/peyman/. I grant permission to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, no Back-Cover Texts, and subject to disclaimers found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GFDL."

And which copyright tag may I apply then to the image?

Hoping for quick help before it might be deleted. Thanks! --VulpesE 14:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, this process is discussed at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. The text that you suggested looks fine and the email address that the copyright holder should use is "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org". --BigDT 22:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Architectural Images from the Web

Would you please help me? I've written a number of entries in architctural history and can't seem to grasp the right formular for using illustrations. Would you be so kind as to look at the illustrations on my entry for the German arhcitect Constantin Lipsius. I found a couple of great images from a local German website. They are clearly promotional images for a regional tourism website, and very probably amateur. I would think they would be thrilled to have the images used elsewhere and I would be happy to ask them.

If they do agree, how does that info get entered?

Should I not look for images on the net for future entries?

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

AppliedIconology 03:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you need to ask since this is a case where fair use plainly does not apply. These buildings are in public view, and it is a trivial exercise for anyone in the area to take a photo and release it under a free license.

WP:COPYREQ tells you what you need to do in order to obtain permission and to whom at Wikipedia you need to notify afterward. Just make sure you don't get permission "for Wikipedia only" or for non-commercial or educational use only, since Wikipedia cannot use images under those licenses. They need to be freely reusable under something like the GFDL or one of the Creative Commons licenses, a release to the public domain, a grant of permission for reuse for any purpose, or something similar. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Tomas Sedlon.jpg

I have uploaded image:Tomas Sedlon.jpg. As I am not familiar with English Wikipedia (I am Czech nationality), would you please check it and choose right license for my picture. It is portrait of my great grand-father painting from my grand-uncle and the picture is taken by me. Thanks for your help Bohemianroots 08:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you legally own the rights to this painting? (Meaning, did you inherit the rights to it upon your grand-uncle?) If so, you could tag it as {{GFDL}} or {{PD-self}}. Be sure to explain in the description that you own the rights to the painting. --BigDT 08:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

File:HPIMosacropped.jpg.

Hi, Though the painting, "After Howard Hodgkin or One Sunny Day" in File:HPIMosacropped.jpg.and the actual jpg image belongs to me, the uploading process went wrong: the image is not where I intended it to go, and the copyright tag is wrong. So may I please ask you to DELETE [[image:HPIMosacropped.jpg.], and when I know more about uploading processes and the copyrighting, I will try again..

Please respond on my talk page.

Many thanks!

21:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

SuicideSilence.jpg

This image was taken from the band's MySpace page. The photo in question had a comment reading, and I quote: "New Promo Logo - Put It On Your Page!!"

With that said, would that not throw the photo under the "The copyright holder gave me permission to use this work in Wikipedia articles" category? --ARandomHeretic 09:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

( edit; please send notifications to my talk. )

Centianly that would be a non free lisence and thus a candidate for deletion.Geni 09:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

What is your solution for these images?

I am trying to participate in the Wikipedia project by including some anatomical reconstructions I have done (i.e. I am the sole copyright holder) of prehistoric animals (e.g. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2a/Bambiraptor_skeletal_reconstruction.jpg ) but I am being told that they will all be deleted unless I put them in the public domain or open source it. This is ludicrous; My livelyhood is made off of these, and there is no way I can allow them to be used in (additional) commercial projects without permission. Why am I unable to provide such permission (e.g. onetime use and/or free for educational/non-commercial use) to Wikipedia? There must be a way around this nonsense that prevents authors from sharing their own content for the benefit of education. Shartman1976 21:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shartman1976 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

Sorry, we can't accept these. We are explicitly a project to give away a freely reusable encyclopedia. Jkelly 21:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

But this makes no sense! Educational-use images CAN be used in "a freely reusable encyclopedia." They just can't be used by a separate commercial entitity. Unless Wikipedia has aspirations of selling its content to a provider, how could this matter? Plus, looking over the 5 pillars of Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars) not allowing educational images specifically violates pillar 1 (by making it impossible to aquire some types of needed explanatory images, specifically in the sciences where you cannot photograph some subjects) and implicitly violates pillar number 2 (because it is not "neutral" to exclude the very people - scientific illustrators - that are most qualified to provide the images).

What's more, it does not actually violate Pillar #3, which refers to text content. There is nothing in pillar 3 that should prevent posting educationally/non-commerically based images as long as they don't contain text, expecially in lieu of the damage done to pillars 1 &2.

Getting on to pillar 5, it's clear that this is a case where Wikipedia should be flexible; it will improve the quality of the encyclopedia, it removes a bias against academic interaction, and it need not in any way impair the "free-ness" of Wikipedia. If there are particular issues I am sure a solution can be arrived at, but this dialogue really sbould stay alive until this problem is solved.Shartman1976 21:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shartman1976 (talk • contribs)

See Wikipedia:Licensing for more information, but, in brief, when we say that Wikipedia is reusable content, we mean that it is reusable for anyone, for any purpose, whether that be commercial (such as About.com) or not educational. It is true that this means that there are some resources that we don't make use of because of this commitment, but this is part of the nature of the project. Jkelly 21:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this is getting frustrating. I realize it's currently "official policy" and have read the relevant policy pages, but it needs to be changed. The whole point of Wikipedia (re: wikipedia's own pillar page) is that policy is flexible and that bad rules can be changed, and in this case the policy directly contradicts some of the founding pillars of the wiki. It makes Wikipedia a poorer encyclopedia, and biases who can contribute to the project, period. They question is, how do we fix it, while keeping it to the spirit of pillar 3?

How about creating a hybrid license that, for example, ok's any form of on-line referencing system, or only restricts the use for print and tv? Feel free to throw all the problems at me, but this has to be solved; otherwise there is nothing but an overly zealous application of the letter of Pillar 3 over the spirit of pillars 1, 2, and 5. Seriously, what can be DONE? Shartman1976 21:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shartman1976 (talk • contribs)

The bottom line is that, if you don't want your work to be reused , Wikipedia isn't an appropriate place to publish it. That said, you might want to take a look at the actual text of the GNU free document license. The GFDL demands that a complete copy of the license be published along with the content. This makes it very unlikely that an image so licensed would be put on a tshirt, coffee mug, broadcast on television, etc. By the way, please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Jkelly 21:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the lack of tildes, I'm still new to the markup language rules and decorum. Second, thank you for the time and manner in which you are responding. While I realize and support the purpose of Wikipedia (e.g. a free, publicly edited compendium of knowledge), it was not founded soley on GDFL, and as the tagging page shows, educational and non-commercial licenses were allowed for most of the site's history. Reading your user page I see you have your own thoughts (fairly well elucidated) as to how the wikipedia project is inherently "anti-expert". As an expert in this particular field, I agree, and have no particular problem with that (although I can be persistent and belligerant, when the occasion arises). But surely you don't want to intentionally bias the wiki against experts when it isn't necessary? The wiki was NOT founded on GNU/public domain-only licensing, and there is no reason there cannot be a separate licensing model that protects Wikipedia, achieves the original goals of free use, while simply not giving carte blanche to any given publisher/merchandiser to make a buck at the expense of those who would donate their time to inform the public? Shartman1976 21:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has always been a free content encyclopedia. That is very core to its nature. Free content in this terminology means free for anyone to re-use. It doesn't bias who can contribute, but guides how they can contribute. Only in free ways. This may be very upsetting, but it's not something that is likely to change. The idea that the content of wikipedia is free content is one of the 5 pillars, this doesn't infringe on the others, but together they are a distillation of the myriad actual policies that shape the community, and the content. - cohesion 03:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but that's disengenuous. At least as recently as as July of 2005 the five pillars page still provided for licensed work with permission: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Five_pillars&oldid=19978617 Indeed, the five pillars don't even show up until early 2005. When the Wikipedia:Copyrights page was created (2002) it clearly stated:

"Wikipedia should not contain any material that violates the copyrights of others. Please do not put copyrighted material into Wikipedia without permission. Works in the public domain can be used freely; works from copyrighted sources that grant permission for use can often be used, but additional steps may be required such as crediting the original author. If you obtain permission to use a copyrighted work, please note that fact (along with names and dates) in the talk page of the article." (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyrights&oldid=66730)

It is simply not true that Wikipedia was created with the idea to exclude educational/non-commercial images. More over, excluding them makes Wikipedia a poorer resource for learning. It's not "upsetting", it's simply factually incorrect that Wikipedia was founded on the idea that all images had to be GNU or public-domain lincensed, as preserved beautifully within the wiki's own history tracker. Excluding free images that are better for educational purposes simply because they are not GFDL is allowing an overlyzealous interpretation of the idea of "free" triumph over the actual founding ideas behind Wikipedia that it be a free source of knowledge, and that any user should be allowed to contribute as long they don't violate copyright law. So...how do we go about changing this? Shartman1976 15:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Shartman -- if you'd like to retain more control over your images than Wikipedia permits, why not host them elsewhere (other than Wikipedia) and create external links to them from the relevant articles? You suggest with your "It's simply not true" statement that you have the inside scoop on what Wikipedia was intended to include. I'd like to also direct your attention to the Statement of Principles that the founder of Wikipedia wrote. In it, he states, "The GNU FDL license, the openness and viral nature of it, are fundamental to the long-term success of the site. Anyone who wants to use our content in a closed, proprietary manner must be challenged. We must adhere very strictly to both the letter and spirit of the license." You ask, "how do we go about changing this", and you might as well ask "how do we make the earth rotate clockwise?". Changing the libre-ness of Wikipedia would defeat what Wikipedia is. I'm recommending that you link to your images instead of uploading them here -- that preserves your right to license them as you wish. -- Heath 24.53.130.213 21:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Coat of arms copyright tag removed

I got a notification about a coat of arms image I uploaded (image:Wapenstoedenrode.png), it used the coat of arms template as copyright notice. My question is twofold: first what is the apropiate copyright tag? Who holds the copyright for a municipality coat of arms? There is bound to be a general tag for this such as the 'logo' tag. I visited the coat of arms page and found many of the samples on that page to have their copyright tags removed -and therefore marked for deletion. I'm afraid not all people who uploaded those images at the time are active and it would be a shame to lose these images just because they are wrongly tagged. If there is a better tag than the 'coat of arms' copyright tag, why aren't those copyright tages simply replaced by a more suitable tag? If the images matched the 'coat of arms' tag then they would surely match the 'better' tag? Felsir 13:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Coat of arms was not a copyright tag, this confusion is one of the main reasons it was deleted. The fact that an image is a coat of arms does not imply anything about its copyright status. The tag was only informational, like saying, this is a photograph is a tree. In addition to saying that the image is a coat of arms we still need both a source and a license. Different coats of arms have different licenses, just as any group of the same subject might. Presumably the municipal coat of arms would be copyright the city, but they may license it otherwise depending on their choice. The {{symbol}} tag is a common tag used though, if you have to use fair use, but it may also be public domain if it is very old, or the city may have licensed it under some other license. - cohesion 03:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I changed it to the {{symbol}} as it seems most appropiate here. Felsir 11:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A related question - what copyright or license should someone use for their personal arms in the Society for Creative Anachronism? For those who aren't familiar with the process, everyone in the SCA who wants to may design and sumit arms for registration through the society's internal College of Arms. Thanks.

--Jackytar 21:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:AOHAlapelbadge.jpg

This IS a logo. How on earth do I add a copyright tag ... whatever the tag actually is? John Oakley (I cannot sign here, can I; that is; I cannot physically sign on the computer screen. Presumably 'signing' must mean something else?)

You can sign here. Also, this isn't what we usually mean when we refer to a logo. Did you take this image? If so, you can license it however you would like. Regardless though we do need the source and license on the page. If you clarify the source here in a followup someone will be able to more accurately help you with the tag. - cohesion 02:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I photographed this badge myself using my own digital camera. There is nowhere on the upload that seems to recognise this ... also the image appears on my own website at http://www.j.a.oakley.btinternet.co.uk/AAS7.htm. Surely this makes it MY image? Finally, what does the license mean? ie any reader can use it as far as I'm concerned. Thanks for answering though. JAO

If you own the copywrite on this image, then you can release it under a free license so that Wikipedia may use it, but it seems to be a logo. This logo would be the copywrite of its owner. That looks like a shield in the image, yes? That would make it a coat of arms, wouldn't it? The double-bracketed items listed below are tags you can use. The double brackets must be included for it to work.

• {{Symbol}} - a fair-use tag for a coat of arms
• {{Logo}} - a fair-use tag for a logo
• {{GFDL-user|John.Oakley}} - a tag for a free license in which you can release your image

P.S. You sign things on Wikipedia by typing ~~~~ at the end. Jecowa 18:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Questions about permissions

I'm interested in uploading my photos to Wikipedia, but I don't know how I should release it.

In short, I'd like to retain copyright and not anyone can use it. Right now I'm just setting the permission to "No, you cannot use this without permission." and source as me... but I keep getting a notice that I have to attach the source and copyright status. What action should I take? -RemoteCar

Unfortunately, we cannot accept media licensed under those terms. Jkelly 04:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the current preference among many Wikipedia editors and admins is to allow the upload of libre images only. This means images that may be used, in perpetuity and for profit, by anyone, any time, any where, without concern for the content creator. (Libre is the "free" in "The Free Encyclopedia.") Jenolen ^{speak it!} 05:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

We do accept free content material, which can require attribution, and/or retention of the original license, for example GFDL and Creative Commons licenses. It is not true that we require images to be licensed in such a way as to disregard any "concern for the content creator". - cohesion 17:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal portrait photo

I'm not sure what copyright or license I should use for a portrait photo of myself (Image:JackyTar.jpg). The photo was paid for by the military, but is not an official DND photo (which are those taken by military or government photographers, and are Crown property). The photo in question was taken as part of a graduation parade photo package and a print plus the negative was given to me. As near as I can figure, the photo is essentially a course graduation gift and therefore my property. Any help gratefully received.

--Jackytar 21:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If they gave you the negative with it, I would agree that you own the images. Therefore, you can publish it under {{pd-self}} with additional text as you stated above saying you are the owner of this image and therefore release it into the GDFL. You could also use the {{CC-BY-SA-2.0}} which I use on my images. Congrats on your graduation. --MECU˜talk 02:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response. I should clarify - I wasn't one of the graduates, I was one of the instructors. Photo is from my time as a recruit instructor. Good times, good times. Thanks again. --Jackytar 07:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Peter Duesberg 01m.jpg

According to my communications with Prof. Duesberg, who owns the image in question, he would like a Creative Commons Attributions-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 license. However, the only Wikipedia tag that I've been able to find is for the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 license. ô¿ô 13:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not permit images that forbid derivatives or are licensed only for commercial use, unless they could also be used under a claim of fair use. This image obviously cannot be, so it would ne necessary for him to release it under a license that permits commercial use. Wikipedia's goal is to be a free-content encyclopedia and that goal is incompatible with having non-free image. If his concern is that a malicious person might take his photo and photoshop it in an unkind way, I understand that concern, but keep in mind that a well-meaning person isn't going to do that, while a malicious person is going to do whatever they want, regardless of the licence tag on the image. Personally, I would suggest releasing it under the {{GFDL}} as I this license is potentially more annoying to someone wanting to use the image for illegitimate means. Thank you. --BigDT 14:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info and the help. ô¿ô 14:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The image is now tagged GFDL. Please forward a license release to permissions AT wikimedia DOT org so that we can verify the licensing of the image. Jkelly 23:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Correct copyright tag for image

Hi, I have just uploaded Image:Paganreconstruction (2).gif. This was created by Gary Malkin who I have contacted & he has given his permission for the image to be used on Pagans Hill Roman Temple I tried to tag this appropriately but it automatically added a speedy deletion message. What tag should I use?— Rod ^talk 23:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. We don't accept media that is licensed "for Wikipedia only". See Wikipedia:Licensing for more information. If the artist is willing to license the work under a free license, such as the GFDL or Creative Commons CC-BY or CC-BY-SA licenses, please forward the release to permissions AT wikimedia DOT org for archiving. Thanks. Jkelly 23:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To expand on what Jkelly said, we could only use that image if there is also an acceptable "fair use" justification for using the image. In other words, under the law, could we use that image even if we did not have permission? Please see WP:FAIR for Wikipedia's fair use policy. If this image were being used to illustrate an article about the artist or the painting itself, or if this painting were a widely recognized, iconic work, where a discussion of the topic is incomplete without discussing the painting, it would be ok to use. But if it is a painting that just so happens to depict the topic of the article, that's not ok. I have insufficient knowledge about the subject to make a determination, but unless the article discusses this painting, it's probably not acceptable. In order for us to use it, he would need to release the image under the {{GFDL}} or another acceptable free license. --BigDT 23:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments & explanations. I've sent an email to the artist asking him to licence it as set out above. — Rod ^talk 23:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Annabel Port

Hello I am a new user, and it is a little bit difficult to read all the manual.

The question is the following. I am a fan of Annabel Port. In wikipedia there is a description of Annabel Port, she works in Virgin Radio. I though that it would be a good idea to put her picture in the description.

Now what do I have to do to make the things in the write way.

It would be very nice if you can explain it to me.

Best regards

Javier A. Chomer

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. For an image of her to be used on Wikipedia, it would need to be under an acceptable "free" license. For purposes of Wikipedia, a "free" license is one that permits redistribution, modification, and commercial use, such as the GFDL. Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission gives a detailed explanation of how to approach the copyright holder and what steps need to be taken. It also gives a sample letter requesting permission at the end. Please note that merely having permission to "use the image on Wikipedia" is not enough - we need for it to be under a "free" license (in the Wikipedia sense of the word). I hope this answers your question. Again, welcome, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia articles. --BigDT 04:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

confusing fair use problem

i got the following inscrutable message about an image on a page i maintain:

--

Thanks for uploading Image:P9promo1.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template. 2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. Chowbok ? 22:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

--

however clicking on any links relating to the image results in a no such image error, and the message is incredibly unclear. the image uploaded was a promotional photo for the band the article is about, properly credited to the photographer. said photographer has licensed the image to be used for whatever as long as she's credited. perhaps i put the wrong kind of copyright notice on it, but now i can't even get to the image and i'm not sure where to get it again. any ideas?

Structurefall 04:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)--

That image has already been deleted. Please see [1] for the entry in the deletion log. The reason given is that it is a "replaceable" fair use image. Wikipedia's fair use policy is to prefer "free" images where possible and any image of a living person is generally considered to be "replaceable" unless there are extenuating circumstances. If the copyright holder is willing to release the image under the a "free license", which, it sounds like, you are saying she is, then the image may be used. Please see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for an explanation of what kind of permission Wikipedia needs in order to use the image. The short version of it is that if she emails permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org a letter releasing the image under the GFDL, we can use the image. Once you have confirmed with her that she is willing to release it under the GFDL or another acceptable free license, you can re-upload the image and tag it with the appropriate tag from Category:Image copyright tags. {{GFDL}} is what I generally use and suggest, if she has no preference in the matter ... but it may be that she would prefer one of the free Creative Commons licenses or to simply release it into the public domain - that's ok, too. --BigDT 04:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Confused

I got a note from Orphanbot today telling me that "The Image:Izumi Curtis (FMA).JPG has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image". This srikes me as odd since the page has an external link to the site where I found the image. Do I need to do more than just provide an external link, or is this a false posotive from Orphanbot? TomStar81 (Talk) 18:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The tag left on the image description page is fairly clear. You may identify the source, but that is not in this case the copyright holder or, necessarily, its creator. In this case the website hosts a number of screenshots, and isn't the creator of any of them for the purposes of copyright and fair use.

You're better off taking a screenshot yourself, and identifying it by episode and timestamp. The creator would be the production company. The copyright holder can be obtained from the credits, the disc, or the case. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Uploading the correct way

Hello Wikipedia,

I'm trying to set up pages for a UK magazine, website and it's associated brands as I am the web editor for the product and want the world to know about it. On looking at the 'Upload file' page in the Toolbox I am completely confused as to:

1. How to upload copyrighted files which I have permission to use 2. What tags I should be using for these copyrighted images 3. How I can upload the files so that it isn't for the public domain

Can you help?

Many thanks

--Matchmagazine 14:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Folks

I've uploaded an image (Sz4s2.jpeg) to Wikipedia which I intend to include in an article I'm still editing.

I obtained the image from the person the page is about. She grants her permission for Wikipedia to use it.

But I have no idea how I can 'tag' the image so that Wikipedia will not automatically delete it.

Can you help, please?

Sincerely

Daniel Abondolo

We may only use freely-licensed images to depict living people. That means the image must be released to the public domain (copyright must be given up) or it must be licensed under the GFDL or CC. If this is a regular copyrighted promotional image, we may not use it to depict the person. --Yamla 18:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use of promotional images

Regarding Paul Jacobs (organist), specifically the image used in that article: I work for an artist management agency, which happens to represent Paul Jacobs. The image was provided by Paul for whatever use we wish--which mostly means that we use it in advertising and promotion--and in this case, he wishes for it to be used as part of his page on Wikipedia. How should I go about tagging this image and others like it so that it will not be deleted? It's all a bit confusing for a first-time contributor such as myself! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nate Howe (talk • contribs) 17:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

In order to use the image, it must be released to the public domain (that is, copyright must be released) or licensed under the GFDL or one of the Creative Commons licenses. Note that this specifically involves giving up many rights to the image and is something that only the copyright holder can do. Please contact me if you need more information. --Yamla 18:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Gold_Coast_LGA.JPG

How can we save this image Image:Gold_Coast_LGA.JPG from being deleted? The specific address from where the picture was obtained has been cited and referenced. Please advise. 202.86.115.66 00:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You don't. This image does not belong on Wikipedia. According to the page where the image can be retrieved its copyright is held by the Commonwealth of Australia and a private company. Unlike works of the US government, this is not public domain and will not be until 50 years have passed [2]. There is no theory under which we can use this under fair use ("fair dealing" in Australian law) since it doesn't appear to fall under any of the categories where this is allowed, and it ought to be simple to produce a free version of the map. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:DP-1.JPG

Please let me know if I have added the correct tag information Fragilethreads 05:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Please let me know if I have added the correct tag for this image Fragilethreads 05:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. You gave a well-written description of the source and of the rationale for this image qualifying for fair use. You correctly used the "fair use" tag. Thank you for your hard work. --BigDT 05:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Early fans.jpg

This images is from 1977 supposed to be a work of User:Nadia Kittel. It is made with a Canon PowerShot A500 series camera. Some kind of time machine? I think it is just photographed from an old magazine or something like that. Reason for deletion? Geo-Loge 22:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I have left a message on the user's talk page asking for details. Thank you for pointing it out. --BigDT 22:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I also informed the user on his talk page. Geo-Loge 22:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Nadia Kittel changed the image with another upload. But there is still a copyright question, I guess. Geo-Loge 17:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright and anonymity

How can I upload images that I own the copyright of and still maintain anonymity as a user? The questions about source seem to require me to give my name.Harkey Lodger 12:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

We generally accept wikipedia user names as a valid source, if you took the image yourself. Keep in mind though that any attribution you require will only be attributed to your username. (which is probably ok with you). - cohesion 13:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you,I think I've got the picture now!!Harkey Lodger 11:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Flag Picture

I recently used a picture of the Czechoslovakian flag in a userbox i made, and now it wont show up. Please fix this. Yelir55 21:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It shows up for me. Is it working now? Can you see other images okay? --MECU˜talk 23:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yelir55, what browser are you using? That image is an SVG and on a couple of rare occasions, I have seen weird problems with SVG images being rendered correctly. (Behind the scenes, the server renders them as PNGs in the size requested. Maybe something is non-standard about them? I don't know - I'm not that sharp on the PNG spec - I've only looked at it once so I don't know what optional features there might be.) You may want to try clearing your browser cache and if that dosn't work, try a different browser to see if it might just be an odd problem with your particular browser not liking that particular PNG for some reason. --BigDT 00:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The correct copyright?

My image Image:Voldemort (GOF).jpg does not have a tag as of. I do not know what to put on, I got it from Toyfare.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LordVoldemort13 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

What is it and what article do you plan to use it in? --BigDT 03:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Where did you get it? "Toyfare" isn't a very description source. What URL or website? --MECU˜talk 15:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It's for the Voldemort article. I thought it'd be a good image, since it entirely covers what Voldemort look like....

I assume by "Toyfare" you mean you scanned it from an issue of that magazine. I do not believe this image to be usable under any theory of fair use. It appears to be a picture of a figurine based on Ralph Fiennes' portrayal of Voldemort in the GoF movie. If the article was about figurines based on the Harry Potter characters it might be appropriate. But in an article containing commentary on the movie, only screenshots from the movie would be fair use. The figurine is a separate work and may not be used under fair use in commentary on something else. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Help on Copyrighting

Hi, I own the copyright of the images which I have submitted and I have put my name Adam Murray below them but you are sending me emails about untagged images, please could you correct this. Kind Regards Adam —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Murraypaul66 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

No one can fix this but you. You have marked the image with your copyright notice, but have not specified a license under which Wikipedia can use them. You do this by placing the appropriate template in the image description. We call this "tagging" the image. You can find image copyright tags described in detail at WP:ICT. See especially the section "For image creators" that tells you what kind of licenses are acceptable for Wikipedia. If you are not willing to release the image under one of those licenses, it cannot be used here and should be deleted. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Help me please

I added 4 images (logos) at Star Academy Lebanon the images are not tagged, those are official logos from the official Star Academy Show, & fair to use.

I wanted to tag my images after I uploaded them but the system here is kinda confusing, I wish if you could make a page for all the uploaded images by the user so he can edit, tag or delete his own images in an easier way, thanx alot for cooperating! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Froozeen (talk • contribs) 02:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

You can see your image contributions by going to your user page and clicking the "contributions" link in the tool box in the left hand column. In the dropdown menu labeled "Namespace" select Image and click on the Go button. You will see a list of all the edits you made to image pages.

You can't delete images yourself once you upload them. You need an admin for that. To delete one, go to the page for the image and click the edit link. This will edit the image description, the text that accompanies the image, not the image itself. Add {{Db-author}} to the description and save. An admin will notice it before very long and delete it. You should also remove it from any article where it's used.

{{logo}} is the correct tag to add, by the same procedure I described above for editing the image description. Since this is a fair use tag, you still need to add a rationale explaining why fair use applies in this case. See Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#Fair_use for a detailed explanation. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Please delete an image that I uploaded

Hello, I'm new to making pages on Wikipedia and I made the mistake of uploading an image, Image:KumsusanMemorialPalace.jpg, in which I didn't ask the main source beforehand for permission. I did email the source site about it, but I had already made the mistake of uploading one of their images into Wikipedia. Instead of getting into unwanted copyright troubles, I'd rather play it safe and have the image removed. Can you please delete the image?

SquareBorn 07:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for your diligence. FYI, for future reference, to request the deletion of a page that you mistakenly created, you can just tag it with {{db-author}}. --BigDT 08:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

UPLOAD PICTURE

File:Omer Hussain.jpg. File:Majid Haq.jpg.

Hi, I am new to Wikipedia and have tried to upload a picture, but it was removed due to copyright, but I do not know what to do! I took the picture from the cricket scotland website, but am unsure as to how to use the image. Please help.

Aisha

If you got it from "the cricket Scotland website", then the image is most likely not free. You would need to use it under fair use. If the images are of players or people (which the filenames you supplied suggest), then you should not upload them as they would be considered fair use replaceable. If they are not of people, then you can use a fair use tag, but you must also write a rationale. --MECU˜talk 02:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I work for CricketEurope who host the Cricket Scotland website. I can confirm that no permission has been given for any pictures from the Cricket Scotland website to be uploaded to Wikipedia. Andrew nixon 23:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:TGOLPRESS.jpg

I have a question about Image:TGOLPRESS.jpg. The image is released as a promotion picture by Sony BMG Greece to promote artist Elena Paparizou. It is also a picture from her most current album The Game of Love. I put my source of the picture on the picture page, and stated it is promotional and put a promotional tag, but its fair use is disputed. Could you shed some light on this? The picture is the most recent picture of the singer, and is even displayed on the singers official myspace as well as on her official web-site. Thanks. Greekboy 20:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The Fair Use Policy #1 is "replaceable." Wikipedia defines that as a possibility of replacement with a free version. The image appears to just depict the singer, and as such, would be replaceable, as someone could take a picture of the singer that could serve the same purpose. Where the image is used (ie, myspace) is not relevant to us. Wikipedia wants free images, and when a fair use image can possibly be replaced by a free one, we don't take the copyrighted one. There has been considerable discussion on this for many months and you can likely find it from the fair use talk page for starters. --MECU˜talk 21:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

But it is relevant as it is the most recent picture, and her latest album release. She is getting ready for a 45 country album release very shortly, and is going to use that photo for promotion. Greekboy 22:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Copywrite of a picture of a building?

How does that work? A picture I uploaded (Image:Miraclemart.jpg) is of a building from a number of years ago...the company has been long gone...how do I indicate that in an image tag? Tenspeeder 05:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Where did the image come from? Who took the photo? --BigDT 21:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use of album covers in band articles

I wonder if I could have some advice on the use of galleries of album covers in "discographies" in band articles? It has come up on The Beatles and Red Hot Chili Peppers recently. In each case, as well as on the individual article on each album, some users want to use the covers on a separate "Discography of..." article, and also in the main band article. My stance has been that this is not good fair use; am I being too strict in my interpretation of

"This image is of a cover of an audio recording, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the publisher of the album or the artist(s) which produced the recording or cover artwork in question. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of such covers

• solely to illustrate the audio recording in question..."

and

"Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary)."?

Best wishes, --Guinnog 10:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me you're correct. Tyrenius 12:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

What if (hypothetically) the cover to Yellow Submarine (album) were mentioned in the main article on The Beatles in the context of discussion of how Peter Max and the boys influenced each other and how that cover influenced other work by them? That's all hypothetical, it would need to be sourced, but to my way of thinking, if a particular cover is discussed ("critical commentary" remember...), it's OK to show it so the reader can see what is being discussed, in context. That is NOT the same as using the cover decoratively, which is not a good practice. I think restricting usages like the hypotethetical I gave is too restrictive. ++Lar: t/c 18:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a really interesting hypothetical example. I can see what you are getting at. I'm glad we agree that having decorative fair-use galleries is wrong in terms of fair use. I've asked Durin to comment and I'm sure he will give us the straight dope. --Guinnog 21:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Durin agrees with my interpretation of the fair use rule (see [3]) --Guinnog 11:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

What constitutes "pure decoration" isn't always clear, so I can't comment about use on the artist's page (it varies from case to case). But the recommendation at WP:MUSTARD#Images and notation is clear in recommending (I'm hesitant to say "state" since it's not an official guideline) that "fair use images cannot be used in discography sections." —ShadowHalo 12:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Release of low res image

1) I am talking to some artists and photographers, who are interested in releasing some images on their own web sites under GFDL and/or Creative Commons, which wikipedia could then use. The question is, if a low res image is released, is the licence restricted to that low res image, or is it then considered to be applicable to any resolution of the same image?

2) If a cropped image is released, presumably the licence applies only to the part of the image shown?

Thank you 172.203.102.152 20:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

For legal advice, please consult a lawyer ... see Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer. It would be best for these artists to consider what rights they are willing to grant and to ask a legal professional how their grant of a smaller version of the image would affect their rights to the full work of art. --BigDT 21:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not a very helpful answer. This whole page is about legal advice. All of the stuff on wikipedia about Fair Use is concerning legality. Is there anyone who does know the answer to this simple question as to whether it is the image itself that is licensed or the specific file that is licensed? Put it this way, if someone uploads a low res file to wikipedia under GDFL, and an editor happens to find a high res file somewhere else on the web, is wikipedia entitled to use that higher res file also under GDFL, or would that need a separate licence? Thank you. 172.203.102.152 22:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a an extremely difficult question. In the US, things that are not creative are not considered copyrightable. In other words, if I make a 2-d photocopy of something, that is not a creative act and I have no rights from my act of photocopying. There is no creative difference between a low-res image and a high-res copy of the same thing. So purely as a lay person - I am not a lawyer - in my opinion, in the situation you suggested, the GFDL might not provide sufficient protection. But again, I strongly suggest that you contact a lawyer. --BigDT 22:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have looked through wikipedia and this question doesn't seem to have arisen, but it does seem that it is the image that is licensed and not the file. In that case, if the GFDL were attached to a low res image and an editor found a higher res version somewhere else (even if it said it was copyright), then wikipedia could still use it under GDFL. If anyone else has any thoughts on this matter (without legal liability of course) it would be appreciated. It is an important consideration for an artist, because then they relinquish all reproduction rights permanently. 172.203.102.152 22:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It's important to note that releasing an image under the GDFL does not give up your rights of copyright. The artist would still retain the copyright. I would be very sure to obtain a certificate of copyright in some manner before attempting this. I would also be sure to write on the image description page, that if other high resolution versions are found, that they are not covered under the release of the image under the GDFL, only this specific low resolution version and it's derivatives. But I agree with BigDT, if you make your money off artistic works, you should protect yourself by seeking professional legal advice. --MECU˜talk 22:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the anon meant the creator's exclusive reproduction rights, and in that he was perfectly correct. Since copyright inheres in any creative work as soon as its set down in fixed form, a certificate of copyright is absolutely useless for anything released under the GFDL. It's mainly useful for pursuing infringement claims, but that's not an issue for a work released under a free license. (I'm not a lawyer either, but my wife is a professional writer so I have some practical knowledge of copyright.)

A revision of a work need not be very extensive for it to qualify for a new copyright. Recall the case of The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien's publisher had failed to secure a US copyright (the law was different then) so it was PD in the US and one publisher came out with a "pirate" (but perfectly legal) edition. Tolkien therefore altered the text somewhat, added a foreword, and published it as the second edition. This and not the original is the edition that was copyrighted successfully worldwide. The edits weren't extensive enough to change the storyline in any significant way, but they were enough for it to be copyrightable.

So one possible solution is for him to make some different version of the images for GFDL release, while retaining all rights to the other. I was about to suggest he release only a cropped image, but then I read the original question more carefully. So the answer to #2 is yes. The license applies only to that actually released, and he'd retain all rights to the remainder. If he crops out a portion of the image and release what's left that then that's only part so licensed. He might have a shaky legal situation if the cropped portions don't add significantly to the work, so he should make sure they do. And it's necessary to avoid splitting up an image and releasing all its parts separately under GFDL, since then anyone could legally reassemble the full piece as a derivative work. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I think that there are a couple of points worth mentioning that haven't been brought up. One is that this already happens. There is lots of photography on Wikimedia Commons that is "medium-res" with text on the description page that indicates how one can contact the photographer to license a higher-res version, or under something other than the often-inconvenient GFDL. As far as I am aware, there haven't been any problems associated with this on either end. Ask User:Gmaxwell for more about this as a practice; he's done some thinking about it. The other point is that I would expect, in the event of someone uploading a higher-res version over the content creator's donation, that we as a community would respond responsibly and with the aim of increasing goodwill if it were pointed out to us. One can't make guarantees about a wiki, but it is generally true that people who would respect free licensing in the first place and not just grab whatever they can are also likely to act in good faith in regards to content creators' wishes. That said, this is really a judgement call that it is somehwat awkward to offer real advice on. Jkelly 23:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You are most likely correct about this. (A high-res image contains considerably more information than a lower-res image, and the added information contributes substantially to the work.) What I suggested was really a belt-and-suspenders approach to maximize the artist's comfort with using a GFDL license. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hight school crest

I had a school logo deleted due to copyright tagging problems. The image was [4] Can someone suggest how I can put it back and have it meet the necessary requirements? (I had it tagged as a crest when it got deleted) thanks, --James R. Skinner 21:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

What article is it for? If you re-upload it and tag it with {{logo}}, give the source (where did you get the image from?), and provide a fair use rationale (see WP:FURG for suggestions on what to include), that should suffice. --BigDT 23:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use of government photo

Hello. This note is regarding a message from User:Mecu about Image:Sharon Sayles Belton.jpg which he or she tagged "Replaceable fair use". I have added "Replaceable fair use disputed" and a talk page. The image is believed to be an official government portrait posted on an official government Web site, later removed when the official was voted out of office. Can you tell me please if this will be allowed? Please reply either here or on the image talk page (and not on my talk page). I know a little about fair use and this seems to be a good case, although I am not a lawyer. Thanks for your time. -Susanlesch 16:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Just because the image appeared on an official government website that doesn't mean we can use it here. Only works actually created, and not merely used under some license, by the Federal government is public domain. It is generally not true that state and local government-created works are PD, so we can't assume we can use this freely even if we knew for a fact that it was owned by a governmental body of some kind.

However, I think in this case that we are not dealing with a case of a replaceable image, as we would be for a local politician still in office. If the person depicted is no longer a public figure, in my view it's not really reasonable to say that the image is replaceable. We can't go around stalking private persons with cameras, after all. You should therefore add to the rationale that this is no longer a public figure and is not available for a new photograph to be made. This should remove any concerns.

It was, IMO, rather curt for that user to have simply placed the notice without describing his reasons for doing so. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your response which I archived so it can be linked from the image talk page for future reference. Do I need to wait for an administrator or may I remove the tags based on the review here? A rating for one article and couple of edits in two articles are on hold pending resolution of this question. No hard feelings Mecu and thanks again for your time. -Susanlesch 14:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

No offense taken. It would have just been nice to contact me regarding this discussion. I've made some comments on the image talk page. --MECU˜talk 20:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• MECU, I don't know who you are or why you oppose this photo. This discussion was initiated by the instructions in the tag you added to the image. The subject is pictured in her role as mayor of Minneapolis a position she lost in 2001. How do you propose to replace this image? -Susanlesch 21:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice to consolidate this discussion, and I believe the appropriate plate is on the image talk page. I will make all my future comments there, as I request anyone else interested in this matter should also. I have copied Susanlesch's comments to the image talk page. --MECU˜talk 21:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• To whom it may concern, the above response is in opposition to my comment on the image talk page, directing the discussion here. I am going to tag the image for speedy delete. The party who tagged the image is unknown to me and I have no time for arguments. Thank you. -Susanlesch 22:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• I attempted and failed to contact subject. Reuploaded a smaller cropped copy and added a longer rationale. -Susanlesch 13:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Should this be deleted yes/no http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Icon19_03_Gallente.png

I uploaded this pic should it be deleted yes or no ? Youngsticks 14:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Help Tagging

I need help tagging my image for my recent entry for Scott A. Jones. The image is labeled as follows:

[Image:Scott Jones in Theater 2.jpg]

Thanks,

--Meggos2006 17:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

When you say "made", do you mean that you took the picture or that you created it from another image? If you took it, then the tagging is your choice. For the image to be used on Wikipedia, the tag should come from here or here. If you do not wish to release the image into the public domain or under a free license, then Wikipedia will not be able to use the image. If you created it from another image, we need to know the source of that image, and that image will have to be freely licensed as well. ShadowHalo 17:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

question about image

I uploaded an image which was given me by the peroson depicted in it. She has released all rights of its use.

I did not wish to commit vandalism. I am just trying to get the image up legally.

What do I need to do? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abondolo (talk • contribs).

What you should do is add the template {{PD-self}} and also write on the image description page that the author told you that all usage rights were released. If you got permission by e-mail, you should forward a copy of the email to permissions@wikimedia.org. Andrew Levine 14:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Note, this appears to be Image:Szbs.jpg (see upload log as well). Also, its very confusing that you say on the image page you created the image, but here you say you were "given" the image. Who is the photographer? --Rob 13:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

License of Family Photo

What is the proper license for a photo from my family memorabilia? I am willing to place the photo in the public domain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RogerTaft (talk • contribs) 18:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

Oddly enough, there's no easy answer to this. If they're old enough, depending on where you live they may already be public domain. Note that under older US law the rules were different for unpublished works. Otherwise, under current law the copyright is owned by whomever took the photo. If that person is still living, you'll need to get their permission. If you inherited the photos from a deceased relative who himself took the photos, you have not necessarily inherited the copyright along with them. You'll need to check with the executor of the relative's estate. If it turns out that you do own the copyright, you can release them to the public domain or under whatever free license you'd like. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Apdex logo

I just uploaded and used Image:Apdex_Logo.PNG in the article about Apdex.

I also added the statement that "Intended usage is patterned on the articles for other standards organizations such as IEEE and Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)."

I read the guidelines as saying that using an organization's logo to illustrate an article about that organization was fair use. Please explain what else I need to do to provide acceptable "rationale".Chris Loosley 01:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I've taken care of it. Note that not all uses of a logo can be justified as fair use. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I see -- and you improved the article in the process. Nice job on that research. Thank you! Chris Loosley 02:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Not Apdex and looks dubious

I wish to add a free to use copyright tag to Image:ARRSE Stool Chart.png but don't know what code to add.

Could you help me please?

Thanks

See the following page for free licenses: Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses. May I suggest {{GFDL-self}}. To insert this license, just copy/paste the preceding code into the image page.--NMajdan•talk 20:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Map of the Longleaf Pine Belt

I made the article, and added this picture Image:Pine_Belt.jpg.

I got a message saying the licensing was bad. I changed it. Could someone tell me if it is sufficient?

How do I make my image on the G&L in accordance with your policy? I took the picture and will share it if source is included. What do you recommend?

Dillivered

No, and you were notified earlier that there wasn't a source. You've provided a source, so removing the no source was fine. After adding and removing the PD-USGov tag (which would have been wrong), this image is without a license. The source website states "© 2004 The University of Mississippi English Department." Therefore, we can only use it under fair use, which then you would need to attempt to explain why this image is critical to the article and why it couldn't be recreated. This latter part would be the difficult case for you to make, as it's possible to get a free image or draw one sufficient for the article. But I'm also guessing that this isn't doesn't show anything specific that couldn't be recreated or is unique in some other way. I have added the no license tag, which you may remove if you provide a license. --MECU˜talk 20:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:BailonA.jpg and Image:KielyW.jpg

I am not sure what is wrong with it but I got notified. --Shaericell (Userpage|Talk|E-mail|Triplets) 03:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. These images are copyrighted, and in order to use them on Wikipedia, they must comply with our fair use policy. Part of that is that the uploader must explain why these images are not replaceable, meaning why a free image couldn't be used for the same purpose. These images appear to just depict the subject of the article they are used in for which any free image could do the same thing, thus myself and another user have marked them as replaceable fair use. If you want to dispute this tag, you need to follow the instructions in the red box and explain why they are not replaceable. Also, do not remove tags like this, especially without some kind of explanation of why you are doing this, and especially since the red box says you, the uploader, should not and to dispute the tag by following the step(s) outlined in the box. --MECU˜talk 20:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

I want to add this picture off the Steeler's website, but unfortunately I am being told I am incorrectly adding the picture with the copyright. So manybe someone could tell me how to go through with this process and I'll glady comply. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stillers36 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

What license for Image:Hofmeyr Skull.jpg?

I uploaded Image:Hofmeyr Skull.jpg. I found it here: [http://www.eurekalert.org/multimedia/pub/2854.php]. The page says :

Usage Restrictions: None

I'm not sure what license that would translate to. Please will a license expert help me decide if this can be on Wikipedia, and under what license. Gary van der Merwe ^(Talk) 10:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Since the site explicitly states that there are no restrictions on using the image, it appears appropriate for use on Wikipedia. I would recommend adding {{no rights reserved}}. ShadowHalo 10:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Gary van der Merwe ^(Talk) 11:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Image of my popcorn maker

I took a photo of my popcorn maker this morning, because I thought it might be appropriate for the "popcorn" article. I have also discovered that there is an article called "Popcorn maker". I took the photo so that it could be used on Wikipedia; I don't want to keep the copyright myself. However, the licensing tags are very confusing, and I did not select any. I have now received an automated notice on my discussion page, telling me that I need to add a tag. Can somebody help, please? In particular I'm confused by the difference between "free licenses" and "public domain", which I found on one of the links in the automated notice. The image is called Image:Popcornmaker.jpg. I have not yet attempted to add it to the article(s). I have a lot of other images that I'd like to give to Wikipedia, but I want to make sure I'm doing it properly. Thank you. ElinorD 23:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

With a free license you retain the copyright but allow its use by others with a relatively minimal set of restrictions. In that case you should select a license and apply the relevant template. Please reply here and let us know the kind of rights you're willing to license if that's what you'd like to do, and we can help you pick one. Public domain means that you give up your copyright. If that's what you want to do, just add {{PD-self}}. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I have released it into the public domain, using the tag that you suggested. ElinorD 00:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, you can upload photographs that you take yourself to Wikimedia Commons, which allows all of our different projects (Wikipedia in different languages, for instance) to use the image. Jkelly 01:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look. ElinorD 01:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Uploading images

I want to know how to upload images from websites without them being deleted, how can I do that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Support wikipedia (talk • contribs) 00:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Either obtain permission from the copyright holder to release the image under a free license, or use the image under fair use. Permission "for Wikipedia only" or for non-commercial or educational use restrictions is not acceptable.

See WP:COPYREQ for directions on how to obtain permission and what to do afterward, and WP:FAIR for the fair use policy. In either case the image must be correctly tagged, and if fair use is claimed valid rationale must be added manually, by you, to the image description. The image source must be provided as well. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Image Upload of Black_Seahorse_jpg (No Copyright)

I just joined Wikipedia as a new user today. I have been directed to this website many times in my research of WWII Marine Bombing Squadron VMB-611, of which my father was a PBJ pilot and went MIA in 1945. My thoughts and goal is to create an article on VMB-611 history, but I have a lot to learn to post it here. In respect to my uploading the above jpg file, Black Seahorse 1 jpg, it was something I just tried and now I have been notified of no copyright tag. I have to learn, but I have numerous items of memorabilia, including photos, that I have on personal file. These items are not copyrighted, nor are not "public domain" as they date back to over 60 years and are private collections. So, if I want to upload any of these items (that mostly are scanned from original documents or photos), what do I need to do to satisfy Wikipedia requirements, yet share to its users what I want to share with them? SeahorseBlue 04:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)SeahorseBlue

This is the image in question: Image:Black Seahorse 1.jpg

The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide a free-content encyclopedia that can be used by anyone for any purpose, including commercial. We therefore require all content be public domain or licensed in such a way as to permit free use. See copyleft.

Be aware that issues of copyright is not connected with physical possession of a creative work. If the work was published before 1978 but no copyright notice was ever affixed and no copyright was registered, then it's public domain whether the physical object you scanned to produce the image file is privately owned or not.[5] Unpublished work is a different kettle of fish. Under pre-1978 law, unpublished work was subject to perpetual common law protection. That is not now the case, but none of the existing copyrights on unpublished material have yet expired under the current law.

You therefore cannot assume you own the copyright together with the photographs. This would be retained by the photographer. However, as historical photographs they might be usable under fair use. See WP:FAIR for Wikipedia policy on this. However, even if copyrights were not mentioned in whatever arrangement by which you came into possession of the photographs, then you may well own them depending on inheritance laws in your state.

For the image you're specifically asking about, if this was as described an insignia actually used by the Marine Bombing Squadron VMB-611 then it's public domain as a work of the US Government. Otherwise, the copyright issues I mention above apply.

A "copyright tag" is a Wikipedia template added to the image description specifying its copyright status or license. You can find a list of image copyright tags here: WP:ICT. You add a tag by going to the image page and clicking the "edit" link. This will edit the image description. Remove the {{untagged}} template and insert the correct one. For public domain works of the US Government that would be {{PD-USGov}}. Otherwise, select one of the free licenses and apply that, or a fair use tag along with rationale.

You can tag an image automatically when you upload it by selecting a tag from the pulldown menu on the upload page where it says "Licensing". If you don't do it then, you have to add it manually as I describe. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Help finding the right copyright and fair use template for a photo of a dead person

I uploaded Image:Gil_Elvgren.jpg recently, and tried to follow the fair use and copyright policies. I found the picture at The Pin-Up Files Elvgren Page, and enhanced it a bit to use in a WIP biography article which I'm writing while I learn on how to write for Wikipedia. The image is of dubious source, copyright is not specified, but I think Wikipedia could use it in the biography of this person under fair use. I think I placed the fair use rationale and copyright tag appropiately, but a bot left me a message saying that I should indicate its copyright. I'm really new and just learning, and after re-reading the fair use and copyright pages, and reviewed again the fair use tags, I'm lost. Could anyone explain me, first what I did wrong, and second, which are the right tags I should use for this image? TIA. --Pi 09:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The copyright tag and rationale are ok (though it would be best to also mention that the subject is dead, and not available for future photographs) except for the fact that we do not know who owns the photograph. Without that information, using the photo violates Wikipedia policy and is pretty shaky legally. For example, how can we estimate the effect our use will have on the work's value to its owner, if we don't know who that it and how they've published it? If you merely want to show what Elvgren looked like, I suggest finding another image. ×Meegs 13:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Deveshwar.jpg

Hi.I took the above image from the online version of a newspaper. Under what category do I tag it and how do I find out its copyright status?Shreyas310 11:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shreyas310 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

It would be helpful if you could tell us which newspaper the image came from, and its article's URL. The photo could be owned by the paper, a new agency, a freelance photographer, the subject, or someone else. Unless we can figure that out and demonstrate that the photo is in the public domain or available under a free license compatible with Wikipedia (such as the GFDL), we can not use the image. If that's the case, we will need to either request that an existing photo's copyright holder agree to a free license, or we will need a contributor to take their own photograph of Y C Deveshwar. ×Meegs 13:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

DVD covers etc

Should such things as DVD covers, CD covers etc still state the source and a fair use rationale in each case. It does say this on the Template:DVDcover tag. I noticed several images uploaded by User:Vintagekits where he has failed to include the source or a rationale and flagged this up. However he was deleted the warnings and stated he doesn't need a source or rationale for such images. See for example Image:Steve Collins.jpg Astrotrain 12:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

A few things. First, regarding sources for covers, all that is needed is the name of the product and its copyright holder/publisher (who digitized the image, or hosted it on their web site is not relevant its copyright). That said, it is no harder to add this info than it is for us to delete the image, so covers should not be tagged {{no source}}; the info is trivial to find, so worst come to worst, we can always add it later. Second, covers without rationales are largely tolerated when they are used in articles about the product itself, as most of the major points are hit in the templates. A rationale specific to the particular article is advisable, though. Third, covers should only be used as a part of critical commentary about the product itself. It's not necessary for the entire article to be about the product, but the DVD that you linked is not even mentioned in the article. ×Meegs 13:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks for the response. Perhaps the tags should be updated as they contradict this position. I guess these images should be removed from the said articles then given they are not about the DVD or CD in question? Astrotrain 13:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats not what he said Astrotrain--Vintagekits 13:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

PUBLISHING Newsroom on Access SF page

I have added the copyright and image tag. I want to know how to publish my page so that everyone can look it up on Wikipedia. Right now, its not published yet.

I've read through many of your help pages but dont get a straight answer about publishing. Please just tell me how and I will do it.

Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Newsroom (talk • contribs) 22:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

/* Licensing -- permission granted for wikipedia only

Could someone check my tagging on Image:LENE2.jpg and amend it to something more appropiate if needed.

Thanks

joly

Wwwhatsup 22:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed the template. We don't accept "for Wikipedia only" media. The image will have to be deleted, unfortunately. Jkelly 22:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use SVG images

I don't know if this has been discussed before, but is it possible to use SVG images under fair use? #3 of the fair use criteria says that the image should be low resolution, but shrinking the size of an SVG doesn't appear to actually change detail of the image since, according to Scalable Vector Graphics, "the vector image can be scaled continuously". So doesn't this mean that no matter the resolution, an SVG is inappropriate for fair use? ShadowHalo 08:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

generaly it is consider better to use raster format fair use images.Geni 09:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

So then should {{ShouldBePNG}} be used in place of {{BadJPEG}} when it comes to fair use images then? ShadowHalo 10:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Is a screen capture made from a tv broadcast copyrighted?

I have a photo posted that is a screen grab I made from something that was broadcast on television. It is of the person the page is about. While there are photographs of him available on the internet, they are copyrighted by the photographer or publication, so I did not use one of those. I felt that 'fair use' would cover the screen capture, but if I must request permission from his employer (the network) I will. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CLDelmar (talk • contribs) 08:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

Yes, it is copyrighted. If you take a look at {{tv-screenshot}}, it states that "the copyright for it is most likely owned by the company or corporation that produced it". I'm assuming you're referring to Image:MickWare.jpg, in which case a fair use image would not be appropriate since it would be possible to create a free image since he's a living person (see #1 at WP:FUC for more information). If you do decide to contact CNN, consider adapting one of the example requests at Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. ShadowHalo 09:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

How do you remove copyright flags made by a malicious user?

An image, which I own and created was accused of being stolen by the user Riurik. How do I stop a malicious user from flagging every single one of my pictures and wikipedia edits?

The source is from a website I also own: http://www.lvivlviv.com/pics/neo-nazis/neo-nazi-symbology/neo-nazi-symbology.jpg

I added a CC 2.5 tag with attribution with an explanation that I own/created the image. Is this enough to remove the flag?

Thanks, Graham Wellington 18:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You need to send an email to permissions@wikimedia.org with a list of the images and the lisence(s) you are releaseing them under.Geni 18:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you written the user on his talk page to ask why he did that? Unless you have had repeated problems with this user in the past, please assume good faith and allow that it may have been a simple error. In fairness, this is almost always the correct action for an image sourced from a website. The vast majority of such images uploaded to Wikipedia are not owned by the uploaders and are actually copyright violations. This is usually the case even if they carry a copyright tag. The uploaders simply lie about it. That's not true in your case, but Riurik would have had no way to know that.

However, even though you own the image you should not have removed the copyvio tag, so I'll be replacing it. Once the process has been initiated it's best to let it complete. Go to WP:CP and find the listing for your image, then edit that page and add your information you gave here immediately below the listing. Any proof you can supply that you own the source website, such as a WHOIS listing for the domain, would be helpful. Then when one of the admins goes through the list to close it out, your image will be treated appropriately. Don't simply remove the listing yourself; it would look like vandalism. (Although in a civil discussion you might be able to convince Riurik to remove it.)

Emailing permissions@wikimedia.org is not strictly necessary for images you own. It's mainly for giving notice of permission from non-Wikipedian copyright holders. It would look odd to remove the

If and only if this is a user with whom you have had repeated problems of this nature, then this can be considered harassment or vandalism. In that case, contact an administrator or make a report on the appropriate notice board. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, now that I look at the image description history, I see that an admin has some along and resolved the problem. So don't worry about some of I said earlier, except that for problems of this nature in the future, discussion with the user who added the tag might be fruitful. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I created my image, and want to copyright it

I created 2 images and want to copyright them, but do't know what licence to use. Also, how do you delete a picture? Image:GRAM_Logo.gif Image:Rumor_Productions_Logo.gif —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ryan Keyes (talk • contribs) 02:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

To delete a file you uploaded yourself and has not been extensively edited by anyone else, add the template {{db-author}} to the image description. An admin will notice it before long and delete it.

As for licensing, that depends on what use by others you want to allow. What would that be?

But do you really own the copyrights here? These appear to be logos. If you don't already own the copyrights on the designs, then you cannot claim copyright them. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Suspicions about licensing on a photo

Image:John Ogonowski.jpg has been labeled GFDL by the uploader. But the photo appears to have been taken from the web (the photo obviously looks like a retaken photo of an old, slightly crumpled photo, and a google image search for "John Ogonowski" shows the image on many sites - the only places that attribute give credit to AP). It should probably be a copyrighted fair use tag. What's the process for dealing with something like this? Thanks -- Siobhan Hansa 00:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It's obviously not an AP photo unless they've suddenly gotten into the portrait business. Here [6] it says "Photo: AP", but the text says it was provided by his family. Perhaps the AP reproduced the photo and made it available to the press. If the family was free to make the photo available and the AP was free to distribute it, then it's probably copyrighted to the family. It seems then to be eligible for a fair use tag with appropriate rationale. Feel free to fix it yourself, or bring it to the attention of the uploader. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I wasn't sure about going in and editing licensing tags on a photo I hadn't uploaded. Seemed like the sort of thing that might not be appreciated. I'll start by talking to the uploader, but it's good to know I can just make the change if necessary. -- Siobhan Hansa 22:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Atlas Map from 1497 to 1905, provided by government agency NRCan

Image:Canada,_Routes_of_Explorers,1497_to_1905.jpg Need a little help on this license. NRCan says it free to use, but that if you are using for commercial purposes you should contact them for the most up to date version? (I believe if you look at most free pictured republished and provided by the government that is the standard procedure to ensure accuracy. The image is free for personal use. Hence I made my own version of this file and have decided to release the modified version under GFDL. (see what files link here in the image link afformentioned). Thank you! --CyclePat 05:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It depends when the map was made however the terms they put on it will also apply to derivative works.Geni 14:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the only modification you made to this map was to change the colors. That doesn't qualify it as a derivative work under US law since there was no (or only minimal) creative work involved. And in any event, NRCan retains copyright over the portion of the work that remains. You are therefore not free to license this file under the GFDL.

You should follow the instructions for obtaining commercial permission, which appears to involve filling out a form provided in PDF format; otherwise we only have non-commercial permission which we cannot use. [7] When you do, you should make sure that NRCan is aware of Wikipedia's licensing requirements, and that although we can attach certain conditions on reuse (see {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}}) we cannot control how it will be redistributed. If they do not give permission under those conditions, then we can use neither version of the map. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Georg Meier.jpg

I think that I have over-written this photo as it already exsisted in Wikipedia. Can you help?

(Agljones 10:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC))

No you didn't. The "File history" section of the image description page will show all uploads to the same file name. There's only the one version of this, your upload of 27 January.

However, you do need to add a copyright tag. When you say it's your own copyright, do you mean that you took the photo yourself? If so, you need to release it here under an appropriate license. See WP:ICT#For image creators for suggestions. The image will be deleted if an appropriate license is not granted. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Image question

Hello -- I posted an image I photographed in 1998 on Baranof Island, Alaska. I posted the photographer's credit. It is my image -- what more do I need to do? Thanks, Barbara Carder.

I am a living person and here is my resume: http://www.hilton.k12.ny.us/bcarderresume.pdf

RE: "Green Cleaning" image of trees - taken in 1998 by Barbara Carder -- what else do I need to do to verify that I am a living person, etc.? http://www.hilton.k12.ny.us/bcarderresume.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbaracarder (talk • contribs)

Barbara - I've tagged your images as {{GFDLpresumed}} - in future you just need to select GFDL or Public domain when you upload your own (i.e. taken yourself) photos. If you have any more questions you can ask me at User talk:Megapixie Megapixie 13:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

We actually shouldn't be using {{GFDLpresumed}} for new material.

Barbara, the issue is that Wikipedia needs the photograph to be available under a free license. To do this, add the appropriate copyright tag (a Wikipedia template that grants the appropriate license) to the image description. To release it under the GFDL, remove {{GFDLpresumed}} and add {{GFDL-self}}. If you'd like to consider other licenses, see WP:ICT#For image creators, which offers some suggestions. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Graffiti

What about photographs/digital scans of Graffiti? The artist(s) would be releasing it into public domain, or would they? What about the person that made the image? Cheers, Dfrg.msc 22:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

To use a photo/scan of graffiti, I believe the person who created the graffiti would have to agree to release it freely. If the creator has not freely released it, taking a picture or scanning it would not make it a free image. ShadowHalo 00:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Graffiti is an interesting case. Technically it's protected by copyright if it's sufficiently original. A heavily stylized tag, for example, is copyrighted because of the creative work required to design it, whereas a short obscene phrase scrawled on a bathroom wall isn't any more than any other short phrase. However, it lacks many of the ordinary protections of copyright such as that against unauthorized alteration. Property owners are free to remove graffiti whenever it appears, and in some places are required to by law. Its creators are also deliberately anonymous to the authorities, and are in no position to profit from their work in places where it's illegal to profit from crimes.

So while any graffiti artist would be a fool to assert copyright over his work, it's by nature ephemeral and is clearly available to us under fair use. Of course, the photographer owns the copyright over the creative aspects of a photo of graffiti as a derivative work, and so it must be licensed separately. A scan would be a different issue, since there's nothing creative involved, but it's difficult to scan a wall. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if a photo might be considered in the same class as a scan where the purpose of the photo is for the same reason one might scan something - that is, to provide an electronic version of an image? Not saying it necessarily applies to this case, but for future consideration. Jackytar 23:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Licensing Problems

I uploaded Image:Seven Chaos Emeralds.jpg by a user known as Mephitinae (yes I gave her (???) credit)

It can be found here: [8]

The problem is that while it seems that it can be under free license or public domain, the author has said nothing against or for her work being used on other sites. I'm confused. Can someone help, and how do I put the copyright tags on uploaded pictures? ChromeWulf ZX 00:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hm, it seems Mephitinae may have just been giving permission for use on the forum. The problem is that the user hasn't released it for derivative works or commercial use, or even use anywhere else. I recommend that you ask the user if (s)he'll let anyone use the image for any purpose, provided that she is attributed. If (s)he agrees, it can be used with the {{Attribution}} tag. ShadowHalo 00:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

copyright Philip Boileau

Can you tell me if the works of Philip Boileau are under copyright or renewal or are they in the public domain? Thanks, Terry Sita —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Terry07S (talk • contribs) 00:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

He died in 1917. They are in the public domain in those countries with seventy-year post mortem author rules. The practical answer is that you can upload such works to Wikimedia Commons or other Wikimedia projects. If you're interested, we can also use an article on him. Jkelly 00:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

A little confused

I got this message on my user page "Thanks for uploading Image:Agasse, Jacques-Laurent ~ The Playground, 1830, oil on canvas, Oskar Reinhart Collection, Winterthur1.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

   * Wikipedia:Image use policy
   * Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)"

But I had put that the artist who created the image has been dead for more than 100 years, what tag do I need? How do i add it?

any help would be greatly apreciated

this is in regards to this image Image:Agasse,_Jacques-Laurent_~_The_Playground,_1830,_oil_on_canvas,_Oskar_Reinhart_Collection,_Winterthur1.jpg

--DrewWiki 01:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Tag it with {{PD-art}} but that has been done so there is nothing more you need to do.Geni 14:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Copywrite tag question

Image:Webheader1.jpg

I put up several photos of KEEN athletes and activities. KEEN owns these photos, but I'm not sure what tpye of tag to use. KEEN is a non-profit, 501(c)3 organization. Help?

--Jafralady 13:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)