Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/Archive 8

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Image:JRE-EC205-500.jpg Carnildo/OrphanBot

Hi Carnildo, and thanks for inquiring about Image:JRE-EC205-500.jpg. I located the same file on the Japanese Wikipedia and added copyright information to the English Wikipedia Image page. I hope it is sufficient. If not, please let me know and I'll see if I can dig deeper. Having started the article the photo illustrated, I have an interest in the subject.

Best regards, --Fg2 10:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From your message it seems like the image was taken by a jawiki user and licensed under GFDL? If so then the info is fine. I removed the unsourced tag. If that's not the case and there are still some questions please ask :) - cohesion 19:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. I'll add the photo back to the article. Thanks --Fg2 20:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CC license has changed since uploading

Hi, I don't know whether this question has been asked or not. In the creative commons FAQ, there is a definition what if the copyright holder changes his/her mind about their CC license. It says:

What if I change my mind?

Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable. This means that you cannot stop someone, who has obtained your work under a Creative Commons license, from using the work according to that license. You can stop distributing your work under a Creative Commons license at any time you wish; but this will not withdraw any copies of your work that already exist under a Creative Commons license from circulation, be they verbatim copies, copies included in collective works and/or adaptations of your work. So you need to think carefully when choosing a Creative Commons license to make sure that you are happy for people to be using your work consistent with the terms of the license, even if you later stop distributing your work.

The problem is that how do we know that an image that was taken, for example from Flickr, has changed its license from WP compatible ones into non-compatible ones? Usually in the image summary, only a link to the Flickr page that is given, but when we go to the source, it says that the image license is not equal. I've done some cleanup of non-compatible WP license from Flickr, and then I realized that this case could happen. Thanks for your help. — Indon (reply) — 14:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikimedia Commons, there is a process called "Flickr review", where images uploaded from Flickr are tagged (non-automatically) with a template asking an administrator to check that the image really is on Flickr under a compatible license (and not a clear copyvio on the part of the Flickr user). If it's good, the administrator changes the template, and after that changing the license on Flickr will do nothing. If it's bad, it gets listed for deletion. There is no similar process on the English Wikipedia. Andrew Levine 15:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, what should I do if I find an image in En WP from Flickr with non-compatible WP license? Should I replace with with unfree tags, which will put the image into CSD? — Indon (reply) — 16:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Andrew Levine 16:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good, then I did the right thing. :-) , but how about if the uploader claim that the image was compatible when (s)he uploaded it? — Indon (reply) — 16:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I would do, personally, in that situation would be to try to contact the image's author and ask for confirmation that the license was changed. Then if he/she confirms, forward the e-mail to the OTRS system and upload the image to Commons along with an explanation that the license was given but later "revoked", a mention of the e-mail confirming the original license, and the OTRS#. Then gently remind the copyright owner that the license is irrevocable, and link to the license to show it. If on the other hand you get no reply after a week or so, or if the uploader says that it was always under the noncompatible license, tag it for deletion. That's just what I would do. Andrew Levine 19:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. — Indon (reply) — 10:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted!!

You have deleted pc john.jpg from the article P.C. John. I have already provided the image license. {{PD-India}}with the image Image:PCJohn.jpg. What more information do you need. --Nmj 02:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to say where the image came from, and who created it if that information is available. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Large Millimeter Telescope

The use for this image is perfectly explained in the website indicated in the image page. However I was unable to decide what template is the best for it, so I just copy-pasted the license given by the authors. Can somebody help me to decide? Image:LMT GMT.jpg -- AlexCovarrubias 11:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The license implicitly disallows the use of the photo for non-educational purposes. ~~We thus can't use it.~~ (It's also ambiguous whether it completely forbids commercial use or not, but either way it would be problematic, since properly identifying the copyright holder is disallowed in commercial use by the license.) Andrew Levine 14:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the article and noticed the location of the satellite (atop a 4640-meter-high volcano, with access from a non-public road) and I think we could probably get by with a fair use claim, since this is unpracticeable for anyone in the general public to reproduce. However, the size of the image needs to be greatly reduced (ideally to roughly 300x200 pixels) and a {{Non-free fair use in}} and proper rationale need to be added. Andrew Levine 14:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Question

hi. i saw an image of a celebrity in a website, and i found hid biography here in wikipedia but i would like to add an image to his biography, how can i do that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Barzini305 (talk • contribs) .

The image is most likely copyrighted by the photographer, their organization, or the website where it was found. It's unlikely you could use it on wikipedia, although if you have the exact url someone could take a look for you. - cohesion 18:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free Image?

Reffering to: Image:1108635570AES-MCFLY-326.jpg "..where the image is unrepeatable, i.e. a free image could not be created to replace it." I don't fully understand what a "free image" is, could someone please explain? --Stacey 22:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, one released to the public domain or under a free license such as the GFDL or some versions of the Creative Commons license. --Yamla 22:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right. So if there isn't one, what do I do (or say)? --Stacey 22:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of this particular image, you add {{db-author|Replaceable free image}} to the image so it can be speedily deleted. Alternatively, you can wait for a few days until it is removed for violating WP:FUC. --Yamla 22:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So it's not allowed to be used? --Telescope 22:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry. It fails the first criteria in WP:FUC. If you can find a freely licensed image or a public domain image, we could certainly use that. --Yamla 23:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, we are trying to "crack down" on unnessesary use of unfree images (copyrighted images that don't allow unrestricted use and modification) since one of the big goals of the Wikipedia projects is to create free content. In this case the image is simply used to show what the person looks like. We can (hopefully) get hold of a free licensed photo of him from some public appearance that will do the same job, and as long as this is a posibility we should not go for the "easy way out" and use a unfree "filler" instead. --Sherool (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What criteria are used to tag images for deletion under the First Fair Use criterion?

A copyrighted image I uploaded (Image:Zamira sydykova.jpg) has recently been tagged for deletion on the basis that it supposedly violates Wikipedia's First Fair Use criterion (i.e. that a free image could reasonably used in its place). What is the criteria for tagging images like this in this way? Given that it's well nigh impossible to find freely usable images of this person my assumption is that it was tagged purely because it is a copyrighted image being used under a Fair Use rationale. If I'm right then that doesn't make a lot of sense. For the tag to be meaningful it presupposes that some copyrighted images pass the "First Fair Use" test and others fail it, but I really can't see how this one fails that test. I get the impression that the editor added the tag purely because it is a copyrighted image. Can anyone shine some light on the procedure here? (PS Please reply to my talk page. Thanks!) -- Hux 09:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the image is used solely to depict a living person (and assuming the person is not in hiding or something), the image fails WP:FUC because a replacement free image could be created. That we have not yet found a freely licensed image is unimportant. A great many images currently fail this criteria and it will take quite some time for people to find and tag all (or a reasonable number) of them, but the work is ongoing. --Yamla 15:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fraterntiy logos

there are several templates available for school, univeristy, team, etc logos. Can one be created for crest/shields/coat of arms of fraternities and sororities?

Many greek organizations currently use the {coatof arms} logos, but template has become deprecated. Or, what would be a good licensing template to use for these images?

It's more important for the copyright tag to describe the license status of the image than it is to categorize the image. The license tag should use one of the current tags explaining the license status. If you wanted to additionally categorize the images a separate tag, or a simple categorization would be appropriate. - cohesion 07:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use Rationale Question

Also asked here but I thought it might be better to ask here. I was just wondering if these: Image:The_Notorious_Notations.jpg, Image:Wonderlandtour05.jpg and Image:Therocketsummer_cd.jpg were satisfactory? Hopefully or I'll have to re-do about 16 *hates copyright details* --Stacey 16:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks generally good to me though I prefer a specific mention of which article you are providing the rationale for. I've seen too many detailed fair-use rationales provided for one use and then people just go and add them to numerous other articles. These can be hard to track down. --Yamla 16:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

surrendering my own copyrights

I took a picture with my own camera and uploaded it to wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ray_2006.JPG

i am surrendering any copyright to the image.

How do i edit this image t include the informatin that this is MY imgae that I am GIVING to the public domain?

You seem to have figured it out, it also helps to explicitly write that you took it rater than things like Photo Credit: Coagula Art Journal... --Sherool (talk) 21:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

venus image in logo

Hello,

I am presently designing a logo and would like to use an image of venus. I am interested in using one of 4 venus images and am not sure if they are subject to copyright. I could work with any one of them. Here are the one's I am interested in using:

Adolphe William Bouguereau (1825-1576) Aphrodite Alexandre Cabanel (1823-89) Birth of Venus Jean-August Dominique Ingres (Odalisque and slave) Titian (Tiziano Vecellio) (1490-1576) Venus of Urbino

Thank you, Renee

No problems, these are all public domain images. --Yamla 20:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

freedom of thought - freedom enterprise

i have not attached a copyright tag to my image freedom of thought Image:Freedomenterprise.JPG. how do i attach this tag: {{pd-self}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedomenterprise (talk • contribs)

Navigate to the image page and click the "Edit this page" tab. This will allow you to edit the image description. (The image itself will not be changed by this.) Replace the existing {{untagged}} template with {{pd-self}}.

Please note that Wikipedia is not a free media repository, so this image needs to be used somewhere. If you would like to make it freely available for public use, it would be best uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how to tag when given permission

i have a band press shot, given to me by their management with permission to use it i couldn't really find an appropriate tag for that, what should i do? --Kholamuffin 06:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of permission did you get? Permission to release the image under a free license, or permission to use the image on Wikipedia? --Carnildo 09:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

both? i'm not entirely sure, but they knew what the photo was for when i asked for it, and are aware of how it could be used if put on this site Kholamuffin 09:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I've recently uploaded a couple of images, but then I got a message saying that I haven't tagged it properly. I did however provide a link as to where the picture is uploaded, isn't that sufficient enough? I'm not too sure if I understand how it works here, but to post a picture you need to provide solid evidence that you have Copyright, and permission for an image to be uploaded? I need a little help on this.

Thank you,

Chris.

looking for, the authors who wrote the new tesatment chapters and how many each one wrote

This is a good question (how to tag when given permission). I am in the process of obtaining photos and the copyright owners wish to give permission to use the photo for a certain Wikipedia article, and any subsequent articles written about this person. I can't make heads nor tails of the help information re tagging and I need help. Thank you 70.120.79.129 15:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, basicaly you need to get them to agree to release them under a suitable free lice (any free license will do, just make sure they understand what it implies). Just getting permission to use on Wikipedia is not enough I'm afraid --Sherool (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hockey Player Pictures

User:Chowbok has placed a disputed fair use tag on five images I uploaded. Now, he was correct on four of them as they were each copyrighted, but one of them (Image:RyanKesler.jpg) was obtained from a press release from the Philadelphia Flyers and was marked with a promo photo tag. (The other four images were replaced with other press release pictures, which are freely distrubuted by the teams.) I have added fair use rational on the talk pages of all five, but am I incorrectly marking these pictures or are they not fair use? Briememory 20:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FUC states, essentially, that only freely licensed images are permitted to depict living people. This image has been correctly noted as being replaceable. That is, a free replacement image could be created that would serve the same purpose. Chowbok was correct to add the rfu tag to this image. --Yamla 20:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are these images going to be deleted. If so, what can I do to prevent this? Briememory 20:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can add the disputed replacable tag thing (explaiend on the rfu tag I believe) and provide a rationale for why you believe it is not reasonably possible to create a free licensed photo that serve the same purpose. However if the purpose beeing served is simply to show what a person looks like it will be a though sell. --Sherool (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By "tough sell," Sherool means that you basically have to demonstrate that it will be impossible for someone to ever take photos of these players at some point in the foreseeable future. Rather than debating the point on Wikipedia, I suggest taking a camera to a Flyers game and getting seats with a good view of the rink. Andrew Levine 21:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AutoMat1930.jpg

This is an image of an AutoMat built in 1930 in order to illustrate the automat article. What copyright tag should I use? Thank you.Disco79 15:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know if the tag I proposed on my talk page User_talk:Disco79 is correctly done. Thank you. Disco79 02:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The tag should be OK, but please remove it from your talk page since that template adds the pages on which it's placed to a category for fair use images.

Under your rationale, you can strengthen the case for fair use by pointing out that the photograph illustrates a historical situation that no longer exists, and that it will therefore not be possible to create a free image illustrating the same thing.

However, for a photo that old with no accompanying copyright notice or for which the copyright registration has not been renewed, there's a good chance it's actually public domain. See [1]. Check the photo credits in your source publication. If appropriate, you can then use {{PD-US}} with accompanying text explaining why it applies. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolelinkletter2.jpg.jpg

User:Hotwiki has uploaded this image whose details are just blatantly false.... this is obviously not a screenshot, and if it came from upn.com, there's no way that UPN has "irrevocably released all rights to it". I'm already having a problem with this user adding false sources that don't contain the info supposed to be sourced, such as on Lisa D'Amato, so I wish someone else would weigh in here. wikipediatrix 15:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the "no rights" template since there was not even an attempt to justify it. Strictly speaking it would probably qualify for speedy deletion for having a "clearly invalid fair-use tag" (I7), however I settled for just tagging it as "replacable fair use" (still I7, but with a 7 day "delay"). The photo is just used to show what the person looks like, any photo of her can do that job, and it's not outside the realm of posibility that someone can take a free licensed photo of her. --Sherool (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The user should be warned for vandalism. See #User keeps uploading images with wrong tags, please. --Kjoonlee 18:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, warning for vandalism should be reserved for when a user keeps doing it after receiving notices, not on the first try. I posted a notice anyway, though. --Kjoonlee 19:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sparty mascot1.jpg and Image:Izzone arial.jpg

These images have been added in the last two days, Image:Sparty mascot1.jpg and Image:Izzone arial.jpg. Both come from a Michigan State University website. As MSU owns the copyright, are these images allowable? Are they fair use? Thanks. LarryQ 18:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

they bboth fail Wikipedia:Fair_use_criteria part so should not be used.Geni 01:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so what do I do? I do not upload them. Does an admin need to delete them? LarryQ 02:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List them at WP:CV. See the Instructions section. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photo Related

I have posted ELLSWORTH1 picture on the biography of Brad Ellsworth. This picture was found from his campaign website. How do I cite it?

the image is protected by copyright so cannot be used on wikipedia.Geni 01:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Matthias Colour 0610.jpg

Hi,

A bit puzzled as to why the Image that I included on Matthias Schmlez profile was deleted. I did included indication of where the photo came from: the authors website www.the-millionairemaker.com and of course I have permission to include his photo on his profile. It is self publishing with free usage. Many thanks,--Sandra Pires 13:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freewebphoto

Freewebphoto has been listed as public domain image resources. However, when I read the terms of image usage here: [2], it says: the image is not free for commercial usage and you CANNOT REDISTRIBUTE our images as part of an online resource site or by any offline means. So why it is listed as PD image resources? Thanks. — Indon (reply) — 14:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely because we have not been keeping a close enough eye on that page. There seem to be no review process to list stuff there, I've found several unfree and dubious sites on the list... --Sherool (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It means that all images uploaded into WP from freewebphoto should be deleted, isn't it? — Indon (reply) — 16:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely, at least if they are claimed to be PD just for beeing taken from that site. A quick search only turned up 6 though, all mis-tagged as GFDL and uploaded by the same user. --Sherool (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The terms have been misread and the above text has been taken out of context, the images can be used commercially, but cannot be REDISTRIBUTED via another online resource ie. someone setting up another website then copying all the images, the images can also be used freely on WP [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.189.148 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restrictions on redistribution is just as "bad", free content must allow unrestricted redistribution. Also while they do give substatial allowance for commercial usage (websites, newspapers, magazines, powerpoint and word presentations) they explicitly do not allow unrestricted commercial use. Don't get me wrong it seems like an excelent source of free (no cost) photos that can be used on (commercial) websites, unfortunately theyr terms are still too restrictive to be considered free (as in freedom), wich means Wikipedia can't use them as-is. We could try contacting users there individualy though. The redistribution restriction is most likely imposed by the site itself to ensure that no one will simply rip all theyr content and run them out of business. If uploaders already agree to allow (limited) commercial use of theyr works it should not be too hard to convince at least some of them to allow us to use theyr work under a "real" free license. However that would need to be aranged on a case-by-case basis with the individual users there, and unfortunately getting in touch with them might not be easy since many have not posted any contact information. The site itself is not a free contnet (let alone, public domain) resourse though, at best it's a place you can get in touch with people who might be willing to let us use theyr photos under a free license. --Sherool (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging my Eldar Bonesinger picture.

I am having trouble tagging my Bonesinger picture. Can you help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinny Jinster (talk • contribs) 18:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have figured out out on your own :) --Sherool (talk) 06:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

source information on logos

Orphanbot's been bugging to put source information on logos recently, so I am wondering - should logos even need sources? I don't understand legal stuff very much, but it seems to me that it would be obvious that the logo belongs to the organization represented by the logo.

What should I put for the source on logos? Here are examples of two different ways I've handled it recently.

For the second image listed, the place I acquired the image from was actually wikipedia. I was just fixing it up so it would comply with some image formatting policy or guidline.

Could someone please help me with this? Jecowa 08:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. The critical information is simply the logo's identity and name of its owner. Some people want to see a url every image (or an explanation of its re-creation) though, so whenever you have that information, you might as well provide it.

Your images are fine. It looks as though a new user registered, tagged 175 images as no source, and left. ~~If anyone has time, please help take a look through their their contributions, as I think there's some damage to be undone.~~ ×Meegs 09:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(now finished) ×Meegs 11:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) Jecowa 02:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confused about copyright on photographs

Say you take a family photo, and a magazine just happens to lie face up on a table. Who own the copyright of the resulting image? What if you ignored the family (cut them away with MS Paint or some such) so that you end up with the Magazine cover only, who has the copyright now? I'm honestly not sure.

Assuming the magazine is of a Marvel comic, and that marvel has a photograph of the same front cover on their homepage. What legal difference is there to uploading your image, or Marvel's image to Wikipedia - assuming you release whatever copyrights your holding? Surly Marvel retains all copyright for their magazine cover?

The reason I'm raising this issue is because a number of promotional images are being removed from Wikipedia due to fair use issues, with the argument that if the photo is replaced by a photo taken by a wikipedian it is somehow more 'fair use' (or so I understand it). What I'm trying to argue is that it makes no/little legal difference if you take a photograph of Logitech mouse and release your copyright, or Logitech take a photo of said mouse - in both cases Logitech "owns" the image.

Bottom line, if an Image of a commercial product is deleted because the company that manufactured the product owns the copyright - it is no use replacing it with a user photographed one since the same entity holds copyright in both cases. (Note that is the manufacturer is not the source of the image, i.e. it came from some other website, then - yes - it makes a difference)--Anss123 20:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a substantial difference between taking a picture of a magazine cover and pretending that a copyright opportunity has been created, and taking a picture of a computer mouse. Derivative work issues are tricky, and we will just keep trying to do our best to make reasonable decisions. If you are uncomfortable asserting sole possession of copyright on photographs that you take of your computer peripherals, I can assure you that there are plenty of other Wikipedians who have no such concern and will respond to requests to provide them. Jkelly 20:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image: PTFI Board

Please delete my image upload Image:PTFI Board.jpg It will not be used and is not a good image. Thanks. Guest818 05:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. You can use the {{db-author}} tag for this kind of thing in the future. ×Meegs 06:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Selecting appropriate Tag

I have found a picture i want to use through google images.

I have stated where i have downloaded it from, and also the company is copyrighted. Is this enough or do i need to do more, btw the website is in polish, so don't understand it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Navjitbhamra (talk • contribs) 2006 November 11 10:10 UTC.

If there is no evidence that an image is available under a free license, it can only be used if it complies with our fair use policy. The first criterion of the policy says that unfree images may only be used where it is not possible to create a free alternative. Since Ronski Speed is alive and available for photographs, we can not use Image:Ronski-speed.jpg, Image:Ronski.jpg, or Image:Ronski2.jpg. ×Meegs 11:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Garment.jpg

on 11/11/06 I have received permission from the copyright holder to use this image without attribution or copyright notice. I have attempted to update the copyright info. Duke53 | ^Talk 19:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the copyright holder, and only want to grant permission to Wikipedia for non-commercial/educational use...

How do I do and indicate this? I may want to publish with this picture at a later date, so only want to grant this specific site specifically non-commercial use of this photograph. Not sure that Common License does so, since it SEEMS to allow distribution to others for non-commercial purposes, which is a right I do NOT want to give up on this image.

THANKS!

--JT 21:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Seems the automated system has informed me that I will not be allowed to post the picture and give Wikipedia permission unless I give EVERYONE permission, for commercial or non-commercial use. If that's true, then so be it, and screw you, Wikipedia. I am not giving away my work to everyone and anyone in exchange for the "privilege" of letting people here on Wikipedia see these rare and beautiful birds. What's up with this "socialist" perspective on my copyrighted material? Or did I misunderstand somehow? --JT 21:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we cannot accept the image. I understand that you are trying to contribute in good faith and we appreciate that. However, your restrictions are too strict for our use. Please do not upload the image. Thanks. --Yamla 21:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for more information about our copyright perspctive, which I wouldn't consider socialist, check out the article on Free content, and the Free Culture movement. Thanks again for contributing, and I hope you do decide to stay. - cohesion 21:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using a license like CC-by-sa or GNU FDL does not deprive you from using the image commercially at a later point. The share-alike clause makes it unusable for most commercial publisers. The GNU FDL license is a strong copyright poison, using a Wikipedia derived image in a printed book would make the whole book free content. This is something no publishers wants. The images will still maintain part of their commercial value. (You wanted to publish them on Wikipedia anyway, so you can not expect the full commercial value.) In short, you are not making them public domain --Petri Krohn 22:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It seems that you see the world as divided between free or "non-commercial" as in free beer and commercial. We at wikipedia see the world as divided between free as in freedom and non-free or "commercial". The differense is not great, but the new distinction was the great mental leap (by Richard Stallman) that enabled the free software and open source movements. Both free and non-free coexist, and the free does not prevent the non-free from making money from their copyright. --Petri Krohn 22:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I uploaded an image, I didn't select an option from the copyright menu, and now I can't seem to do it after it's uploaded! How do I do it?

My problem is in the title. I don't think it can be done in the same way after the image has been uploaded. I know what one it should've been, but I can't add one on now after it. What should I do? I've tried to see (then add) the image copyright tags, but it's different there, so I don't know what one to put and it's taking the piss! Can someone please tell me what to do. Thanks.

Mazito - Saturday, 11 November, 2006; 21:45

how do I delite my picture its concered red flaged or can you do it from their .

Go to the image page and click on the Edit link. (You will be editing the image description, but will not see the image itself.) Then add an appropriate template from WP:ICT. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

copyright

I have just uploaded two images to the Literature Circles article that I have been diligently adding to for over a week for a graduate assignment as part of a course. I obtained both images-- 15448-05dg and ITF099061 from Fotosearch.com as part of their FREE image gallery. I have listed all the information required-- URL address, date obtained, author etc. and THINK that I have correctly placed the tag {{copyrightfreeuse}} in this section. I don't want any unpleasant surprises from Wikipedia, telling me that the images are not properly documented. I don't see where else I need to document anything. Please let me know. I don't want these images removed. Thanks, Deborah Cox

The URL you give needs to be that of the page where you found the image, not just the main page of the website where you located it. For Image:ITF099061.jpg that'd be here: [4]. The image is from It Stock Free whose license page is here: [5] Please note the licensing terms under "Comp Use". There is a 60-day limit, and the license is not transferable -- in other words, you can't assign to Wikipedia (or through Wikipedia, to anyone else) the right to use it. The "Permitted Uses" is too restrictive, and several terms of the "Prohibited Uses" apply. This is a non-free license, and we may not use the image. Image:ITF099061.jpg [6], from Creatas Photos, is similarly encumbered.

So I'm afraid they will have to go. But I note that they really add no substantive information to the article, since they are stock photos and not pictures of an actual literature circle at all. A far better alternative would be for you to take some pictures of one in progress yourself, and license them as free content. Failing that, check out the Commons for suitable material. (The article, incidentally, should be named Literature circle, without the plural and so capitalized, to conform to Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Your section names should be similarly capitalized.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

about fair use of an image

I put a fair use tag on this Image:Gambari.jpg . A bot has asked me to explain the rationale for its fair use. But isn't the tag obvious? The image illustrates the person in question, no free equivalent is known, the image is low quality (5kb). Is there something else I should do. DDD DDD 09:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's fair use policy will only allow us to use an unfree copyrighted image if it is not possible to create a free alternative. This does not appear to be the case with Ibrahim Gambari, so we are going to have to hold out for a free version. Alternately, you could write to Gambari's office and request an image under a free license. ×Meegs 09:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But wouldn't writing and asking for permission violate the "No original research" part of the five pillars? Jenolen 21:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, "no original research" means you don't make something up. Information has to be based on reliable sources, which has nothing to do with acquiring an existing photograph with a known source under a free license. howch e ng {chat} 23:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright on trailers?

Do we have any tags reflecting this? And do people here agree with this analysis? If this is indeed true, we could replace a lot of fair-use photos of dead actors. —Chowbok ☠

Not a spesific tag for it, though I think {{PD-US}} cover it even if the text of the template doesn't say so explicitly. Works published before March 1 1989 in the US without a copyright notice is in the public domain iff the following conditions are all true:

The work was not publihed without the authorization by the copyright holder.
The absense of a copyright notice did not violate a written agreemenet between the publisher and the copyright holder.
The copyright notice was not simply missing from a small number of the total released copies of the work.
If published between January 1 1978 and March 1 1989 no effort was made to add missing copyright notices or register the copyright within 5 years of publication.

If you can prove a work pass all the above tests it's in the public domain. If not the regular life + 70 rule apply. For individual photographs it would probably be insanely hard, though for movies and trailers these things should be doable to trace down so I'm inclined to believe them. See also Category:Public domain films, screencaps from things like Plan 9 from outer space, Night of the Living Dead etc. are fair game. --Sherool (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also works published between 1923 and 1963 with a copyright notice is in the public domain iff the copyright registration was not renewed within 28 years (wich seems to be the rationale used by that website you linked). If the copyright was renewed in this period it will last for 95 years since the original publication. --Sherool (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tag on my photo?

I uploaded a photo recently but I don't know what tag to put. I took the photo using my digital camera, what is the most appropiate thing to do?Toosmart215 01:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since Wikipedia is all about free content, the best thing to do is to release it under a free license, such as the GFDL, one of the appropriate Creative Commons licenses, a simple grant of permission to use for any purpose, or the public domain. Once you decide which to use, you should be able to find the relevant tag at WP:ICT. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I see that by now you've done that. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing an uploaded image

How can I remove the uploaded image of the internationalized shogi set? ElephantChess 06:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)ElephantChess[reply]

I have deleted the image "Internationalized shogi.jpg" for you. Please let me know if this was not what you were asking for. ×Meegs 09:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

copyright question and reducing question about two images

I've been trying to upload two images from IStockphoto.com that I paid for and that I have permission to use; however, they keep getting deleted! I think that I have been stating the copyright tag correctly but the directions are confusing and rather vague. I have included both links to the images. Please help! I don't want them deleted again. Also, I need help reducing them to a smaller size to fit on the page. I typed "thumb" to do this and also typed in smaller pixel sizes, but neither seems to work. Thanks deborah cox 14:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked over istockphoto's license, and I'm afraid it is not compatible with Wikipedia because it places tight restrictions on redistribution and commercial use. Outside of a few narrow cases where we allow unfree copyrighted images under our fair use policy, all images in the project need to permit (just about) all manner of replication and republication by anyone, for any purpose. ×Meegs 16:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a tag expert on Wikipedia but I do use iStockPhoto a lot. Their terms do not give you the right to upload their photos here. In fact it's strictly forbidden. You paid to use the photo in your own works but it clearly states that you may not redistribute the photo. You do not own the copyright to the image - just the right to use it in your own works. Fife Club 16:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PNS_1925_Cardinal.png

I would like help in the appropriate copyright tag for Image:PNS 1925 Cardinal.png. It is a scan of a 1925 college yearbook cover, uploaded for an article on that college. I admit that the article Plattsburgh Normal School will survive with out the image but I thought it was a helpful image.

I would also like to ask a related question while I'm here. I now have two images of the Plattsburgh Normal School building which I have not uploaded yet. One is an actual photograph circa 1905 and although it's nice, it's pretty small. Another is what appears to be either an good illustration or a painting on a photo, taken from a post card. This image may not be a straight photo but it is much better as an illustration of the school because it is at a better angle, in color, closer, and larger. I do not know the year the post card was printed but it has to be from before 1929 at the latest, the year which the structure burned down. Either or both of these images would be excellent as an encyclopedic illustration of the article subject - the school. Can anybody point me in the right direction for the correct copyright tags for these images so I can get them right the first time. Thanks. --Fife Club 16:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The scan of the 1925 yearbook is likely only in the public domain if the book was published without a copyright notice. You don't have access to the 1922 yearbook, do you? It is in the PD no matter what.

The ~1905 building photo is PD if it was published before 1923, or if the photographer retained its copyright and has been dead for more than 70 years. You said that you do not know how long before 1929 the post card was issued, so we can only safely assume that it is PD if it was published without a copyright notice. (Here is a useful table of these things, by the way)

In the above cases, the tags to consider are {{PD-pre-1923}}, {{PD-old-70}}, and for works published without copyright notice, {{PD-US}}. It's best to explicitly write-out the reason you beleive the work is in the public domain in addition to applying the correct the copyright template. ×Meegs 17:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use image restriction - policy need to be revised.

The policy of restricting the fair use images is a big setback for wikipedia. The policy been intepreted as if the object or person exists then its picture can be taken and hence the image cannot be used and need to be deleted. Who guarantees that the image of the said object will be clicked by someone. If no one takes the picture and above all did not uploads it into wikipedia commons, wikipedia articles will go without good images to be used in articles. Also if it is not possible to be uploaded into wikipedia, provision need to be made for this images to be shown in wikipedia articles by linking it with the exact location where the image is present with the acknoledgement.

Thank you Chanakyathegreat 16:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The goal of the project is to build a free content encyclopedia that is useable anywhere, by anyone, forever. The fair use exception to copyright exists only in the United States, and its interpretation may not stay the same forever. Using unfree images of subjects that are available for photography, even temporarily, greatly hurts our chances of acquiring new freely licensed alternatives. ×Meegs 17:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that it is possible to link to websites hosting relevant pictures, so long as those sites comply with copyright (see Wikipedia:External links). ×Meegs 18:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the passionate defense of Admin and Founders, this policy IS hurting the quality of images and even the existence of images for this Encyclopedia. Why anyone would insist that someone give away ALL rights, commercial and otherwise, to their valuable property, is beyond me. Would you be willing to give up ALL rights to your paycheck because you were willing to donate 10 percent to a charity this week? Same concept, which is why Wikipedia will do without my photos. Time for you guys to wake up and appreciate the generosity without demanding that we give everything away just because YOU believe in doing so. --JT 04:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's very funny, and it's in the wrong section as well. --Kjoonlee 05:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contibuting to Wikipedia does not make your images public domain (as you seem to assume). -- Petri Krohn 23:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to have a problem that Wikipedia asks that writers give up the same rights; why are photos different? —Chowbok ☠ 02:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Choosing suitable copyright tag for coat of arms.

Hi there, I've uploaded these two Republic of Macedonia coat of arms Image:Strumica.jpg and Image:Gostivar.jpg with the coatofarms tag. However the copyright tag is being shown as deprecated or obsolete. Other pages with similar coat of arms images have this tag attached without problems. They were found on websites about the cities and I'm unsure on how to proceed, any assistance would be appreciated. Yagonnadieclown 22:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The coat of arms tag doesn't explain the copyright status of the image, it's just there for categorization. Do you know the copyright status? For example, who created the image, how is it licensed? If you get these details or provide the source website where you located the images we can help you more. - cohesion 18:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can remember they were from the municipality sites of both cities: http://www.strumica.gov.mk/ and http://www.gostivari.gov.mk/mac/index.asp. Yagonnadieclown 21:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak that language, but the fact that is was created by a municipality doesn't really effect it's license status. The city can still hold copyright. You might make a fair use claim though, I would check out out fair use criteria - cohesion 05:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright for image already on wikipedia.

If an image is already present on the Bulgarian language wikipedia with a PD tag [here]. What sort of tag would be suitable to use if I want to upload it onto the English language equivalent? I uploaded the image a while back as Image:Sv_georgi_kavadarci.jpg with a link to the Bulgarian page, but it was deleted due to insufficient copyright information, any help would be appreciated. Yagonnadieclown 22:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This image is a great example of why you need to be careful when copying images from one Wikipedia to another. The source website mentioned on bg.wikipedia has a copyright statement of "Copyright © 1996-2000 Macedonia.org, All Rights Reserved", so the image is not really in the public domain. --Carnildo 03:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume if the tag is incorrect and the image is actually copyrighted and not public domain then the image will be removed? Yagonnadieclown 21:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Permission

I have received permission of the photographer to upload a picture a to this page: Davana Medina, but I do not know the exact tagging that i am supposed to use. could you help.Angel,Isaac 05:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of permission did you get? Did you get permission to use the image under a free license, or did you get permission to use the image on Wikipedia? --Carnildo 05:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagged by OrphanBot on 13/11/2006

I would like to enquire about the tagging of Image:Img comic01.jpg as not specifying the source and creator. The source URL has been provided and the creator of the image is not stated at the source. As such, the creator has been denoted as "unknown, not stated in source". It is not through editor's fault that information on the creator has been omitted, since said information is nonexistent at the source.

I await further clarification. Please contact me on my Talk page regarding this matter ASAP.

Thank you. --Warp L. Obscura 12:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on talk page - cohesion 18:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's missing? Help, please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mmzultimatecopyx.png What's missing in this page? It was removed from the Copy X article. --Delf 13:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have written permission to reproduce a photograph of the JesseImage (for the Wikipedia Tree of Jesse page)I had uploaded a copy some time ago and you asked for copyright permission. I have this under the Malcolm Low GNU Free Documentaion how do I reproduce the image on the Internet page of which I am a contributor? Malcolm Low.

The image needs to include it's source, which is where the image came from, and it's copyright status as a minimum. If it is copyrighted and you want to claim fair use see the fair use criteria and also include a fair use rationale in the image description page. - cohesion 18:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know what license to use

I uploaded this image this morning, but I wasn't sure what license to tag it with so I checked that I had the permission of the author to use it, but now the image is tagged for deletion. I'd like to keep it and after following the accompanying instructions on what to do in order to keep I'm still unsure as to what license would be appropriate for it. I could use some help, please. --Clay

Given that the image page claims the map is from 1895, the copyright will have expired, placing it in the public domain. If you are sure the map was published prior to 1923, use {{PD-US}}. --Yamla 21:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the website, the atlas the map came from was copyright 1895, so yes, it was published prior to 1923. Thank you for your assistance.--Clay

About "non-commercial or educational use of the file is allowed"

I've just added a picture of twin's breastfeeding to Breastfeeding article under "Tandem, extended, and shared breastfeeding" title, and found out that I can't ask that only non-commercial or educational use of the file will be allowed. Since this is me there with my twins, I really don't want to find myself one day on a commercial item, but on the other hand wish to show mothers of twins who read Wikipedia that breastfeeding twins is possible. I wonder if there any solution for this delicate problem. If you insist on allowing anyone to use pictures from Wikipedia for any purpose, even commercial, so then I might have to ask you to delete this picture.

I will be happy to read your comment here. (Please excuse any spelling or grammar mistakes. English is not my native language). Tamarah 23:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not comfortable allowing commercial and derivative use of your work, then your licensing conditions are too restrictive for this project. The image has already been sorted into our deletion queue. Jkelly 23:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you have misunderstood the GNU FDL license. It is the modern equivalent to "non-commercial or educational". The license effectively prevents anyone from selling rights to the image. In practice "commercial" means that the image can be displayed on a ad-supported website or "sold" on a CD-ROM. -- Petri Krohn 23:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The requirement of "non-commercial or educational" would be appropriate, if you were broadcasting your image on a non-commercial educational radio station, as defined in the U.S. by the FCC. This is the Internet. Here the GNU FDL license is accepted as the closest thing to "non-commercial educational". -- Petri Krohn 23:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you are overstating this. While the GFDL is inconvenient for a lot of commercial use, the "closest thing" to a non-commercial use license would surely be CC-BY-NC, which is explicitly designed to be exactly that. Jkelly 23:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D'Angelo sample

I uploaded a short sample of the D'Angelo song, "", and i tagged it accordingly but it was still tagged by the Ophanbot for deletion. Did I do something wrong? thanks in advance.--Majik43 23:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the tag OrphanBot put on the image description page says, you need to specify who the creator and copyright holder are. You do this by going to the image description page and clicking on the "edit this page" link. --Carnildo 04:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Example.jpg.

I need to delete the following image please

9d0e.jpg‎

Also whats the best tutorial link for posting images? I seem to be confused.

--Hstisgod 07:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the image for you. Help:Images and other uploaded files explains the technical side of how to incorporate images into articles, and you can questions at Wikipedia:Help desk. You should also take a look at Wikipedia:Image use policy, which gives an overview of the project's image policies, including ones concerning copyright. If you have any questions about policy or copyright, come back here. ×Meegs 15:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Herm.jpg

Could you help me to check if I provided all needed informations by this picture - Image:Herm.jpg? I really want to help Wikipedia but I need help badly by uploading pictures. So I decided to give this picure for you to check and after that, if everything'll be alright I'll put it in an article about Hermione. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Varda (talk • contribs) .

You are making a claim about fair use, please take a look at the fair use criteria to make sure that all of them apply in the specific instance where you will be using the image. You then need to include a fair use rationale on the image page. Before the rationale is made and the image is used in any article it's not possible to say for sure whether it can be kept, but I'm not that optimistic. A good rule of thumb from the criteria "As a quick test, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by a different one, while still having the same effect?" If the answer is yes, then the image probably doesn't meet the criteria above and should not be used." Also, claimed fair use images that are not used in an article will be deleted. - cohesion 09:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I've checked it all and I think that everything is okay. So you think I can put it in an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varda (talk • contribs) 12:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: I also checked it and I saw that Screenshots are qualified as a free-use material. Where did you check? What do you mean by "free-use material"? -- Petri Krohn 12:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photos on U.S. federal gov't website

There are some photos here: http://nmml.afsc.noaa.gov/CaliforniaCurrent/Hanson/SouthSoundOrca.htm , saying they are "File Photo/Footage - National Marine Fisheries Service."

Is it safe to assume that the National Marine Fisheries Service, or another U.S. federal agency, owns the photos, and that they are therefore in the public domain? I have emailed the webmaster with this question, but I haven't received a response in over five days and I don't know if they'll ever respond. Also, do you know if it would be OK if I edited out the orange text on the photos?

Thanks, Kla'quot 04:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tagging

Image:APC_logo.jpg

I uploaded an image, the American pie council logo (above), and I got a message saying that it needed a tag with source and copyright. info.

the source is here http://www.piecouncil.org/about.htm

but there is no copyright that I saw. What should I do? Theguy0000 03:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's more than a logo in that file, so it's probably not fair usage to use the image as-is. The logo itself is probably just the round thing. Can you contact the organization and ask for a file with just a logo on it? Kla'quot 04:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help with a Fair Use issue Image:Catfish Smith.jpg and others

A short while ago, an image that I uploaded, Image:Catfish Smith.jpg was tagged. I uploaded it under a fair use rationale. The image from the College Football Hall of Fame at Source. I based my upload description on another photo uploaded from the Hall of Fame website in July, 2005 - Image:John rauch.jpg.

In looking at the notice posted on the Image:Catfish Smith.jpg, I gather that I need to use a different template, perhaps Template:Fair use in. Is that correct? If so, what do I say? This is my first use of the fair use rationale, which is why I need a little guidance.

Please also note that I uploaded several photos from the same source using the same format. While typing this, they all appear to have been similarly tagged:

Thank you in advance for your help.--Tlmclain | Talk 18:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I have had more time to research fair use, let me see if I can refine my questions as they relate to these 5 images (McWhorter, Smith, Image:Stanfill.jpg, Image:Tarkenton.jpg, Image:Trippi.jpg and Image:Tarkenton.jpg. Before getting to my questions, there are a few bits of information that I feel are relevant

All of these images come from the College Football Hall of Fame website, which includes no information regarding the author or copyright holder and does not publish any policy on the use of images from the site.
All of these images are included in the section of the website that promotes membership in the National Football Foundation (which runs the Hall of Fame) by making photos and bios of the Hall of Fame Members available. These images and bios are also designed to promote the individual hall of fame members and, through them, attendance at the Hall of Fame.
These photos are historical images. They all appear to date from the time that each Hall of Famer played the game. As such, they historically significant photos of famous individuals.
Given the way these images are used, coupled with the lack of any copyright information whatsoever, it may be the case that the iamges are already in the public domain.

It seems to me that three different tags would potentially be available for these photos: Template:Promophoto, Template:HistoricPhoto or the more generic Template: Fair use in. Furthermore, as I understand it, more than one tag may be appropriate. Which one or which ones of these tags should I use? Thanks.--Tlmclain | Talk 21:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I won't claim to be the highest authority on fair use, but I believe {{fair use in|whatever}} is the most apropriate tag, {{historicPhoto}} seems to be more geared toward historic events, and these are just generic headshots. They also need a fair use rationale explaining why the image is believed to be fair use in the article it's used in, and preferably also why it's used within Wikipedia's fair use critera (such as why a free licensed alternative that convey the same information can not be created (person is dead, image show what they looked like when they where still active or whatever, how it improves the article etc.). Without proper source data we can't rely asert that they are public domain, they might well be, but we need to be eable to "prove" it before we can make such a claim, so stick with fair use unless you can dig up more detailed info on them. --Sherool (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sherool: Thank you for your help and I have now re-tagged all of the photos as you suggested.--Tlmclain | Talk 22:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging?

The image is in the public domain. Image: Willie-Cries-For-War_Oil_Well.gif

I indicated this when I uploaded it, but it may not have taken.

What to do? Jcmcapital 18:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how do i know if i need permision to post a photo ??

Copyright Tags of Uploaded Pictures.

Hi, I am new at creating articles at Wikipedia. I accidentally uploaded a picture, but I do not realize I need a copyright tag. At least not until I received an automatic message from the robot stating I need a copyright tag. I finished the work myself. I want to ask how you insert the copyright tag if I finish my work by myself. To see my picture, chech these articles:

P.S. I do not want the picture to be deleted. Please tell me how to add the tag soon.

From:Smcafirst 20:53 EST

what copyright tag i should put on a image taken from flickr.com for public use?

What image? From where on Flickr? --Carnildo 08:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logos for Australian Government Departments

Is it okay to upload the logos of Australia Government Departments if the image is properly labelled as a Fair Use:logo.

Example: Image:Attorney aust gov.jpg

Probably, but you do need to include a fair use rationale. If you have any other questions update them here. - cohesion 17:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

specify creator?

I added an image that is about 120 years old that has an unknown photographer. I made the perhaps hasty assumption that this image would be out of copyright by now and tagged it as such, but I keep getting a message saying I need to specify the image's creator. I'm not sure how to do this.

The best way is probably to say that the author is unknown, but also to include the information regarding the first published date so that it can be verified. - cohesion 17:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many images?

There's been a minor edit war on the WNBC image over the existnece of a image of fair use logos. The person who keeps putting them back in claims that they're needed, but that gallery has 11 images and I count at lesat 4-5 more images scattered throughout the article. Isn't 15 images taking fair use for a ride? Hbdragon88 23:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These images do not have any detailed fair-use rationales. As such, they should all be marked with {{subst:nrd}} and then deleted seven days later, I think (though this depends on when they were uploaded). They are not being used to provide critical commentary on the logos and as such, are in violation. We can't just place a gallery of fair-use images on a page, this is not adhering to WP:FU. One logo can certainly be justified as fair-use but a whole gallery requires much more extensive rationale. --Yamla 23:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google

If you get an image from google images and post it on wikipedia, is that copyright infringement?--Hamdrew 01:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, same as any other image from the web. Google doesn't host the images, it just indexes them. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting image

Image:Archbishop Harry Goodhew.jpg

This image requires deletion. I have sorted it out and uploaded again under a slightly different title.

--Amandajm 12:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To delete images like this in the future you can add the tag {{db-author}} and someone will get to it. I've deleted this one already though :) - cohesion 06:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do I add in the requested information?

Image:Philip.Taron.Portrait.in.System.Shock.2.manner.by.KGT.jpg

I thought all I had to do was add in an attribution, which I did immediately after uploading the image...

You have added the attribution information but you still need a source. A source is the place where you got the image. Are you the image creator? If so please note that on the article description page. If you have any other questions please update them here. - cohesion 06:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DukeHamilton.jpg copyright

This was a picture released by my family in the 1930's to the international press for use following my grandfather's flight over Everest. It has never been copyrighted. What tag should I put on the picture ? Brendandh 13:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright occurs when the image is created, there is no requirement beyond that. Based on that publication date it is not public domain, so we would need more details about who has the copyright now to answer your question. - cohesion 06:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PD self, or GFDL self?

What's the difference between these two tags, and which one would seem the most appropriate for this image? --AAA! ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are significantly different, I would suggest reading public domain and GFDL for more information. If you are the creator of the image it is up to you to choose whichever license you prefer. Both GFDL images, and public domain images are acceptable for use in wikipedia. - cohesion 06:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question Question re: a government source (Venezuela)

Don't know what copyright tag to put [7] --Flanker 19:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is all rights reserved as per the bottom of the website where it was found. Also it most likely fails the first fair use criteria, "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." Most images online cannot be freely used in wikipedia. - cohesion 17:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry after looking at the image more it seems this image illustrates a historic event, the pro-Chavez demonstrations around his election. As such it is not replaceable, and a valid fair use claim can be made. You can contact the newspaper if you think they would license it under a free license, but that is not required. In the future if you include more information on the image description page about what the image is depicting it helps with issues like this. I will update the image description page also. - cohesion 17:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not replaceable? Plenty of people took pictures that day, it's not a unique event, and how are you defining "historic" - it's not Iwo Jima? Sandy (Talk) 17:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is somewhat a unique event, and it's not replaceable in that no one can go, now, and take a freely licensed image of the event. My interpretation of historic fair use images may be nonstandard though, I'm not unwilling to discuss it :) - cohesion 18:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

copyrighting

If someone didn't get their image copyrighted, are they allowed to put it on here?

Copyright in all countries today is automatically granted to the creator, if the work is copyrightable (as with photographs and drawings). Andrew Levine 20:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Massive Deletion

An admin, User:Betacommand, today deleted several hundred fair use images, including many that were marked with the {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} tag. There is no indication that User:Betacommand considered any of the reasons for the disputes on the images talk pages before proceeding with what looks to be a blanket torching of these images. Now, many of these images had, I think it's fair to say, fair use issues... but many were entirely appropriately sourced, tagged, with copyright and source information, etc. My question: Is this deletion in accordance with Wikipedia policy? Jenolen 07:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images that do not meet all of the each of Wikipedia's fair use criteria — including the first, that unfree images can not be used if it is possible to create a free alternative — can and should be deleted through various processes. You're right, of course, that administrators should always read disputes on talk pages before making a decision. I see that you've just left a message on Betacommand's talk page; that is the right thing to do. In the interests of getting your dialogue off on the right foot, though, you may want to rephrase your message there to take a less demanding tone. You'll also have more luck getting answers if you ask him about the deletions of a few specific images. Give him the filenames so that he can go back, take a look, and explain his decision. ×Meegs 07:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Massive Image Deletion; maybe you weren't wrong to assume he wasn't giving the images any consideration. ×Meegs 09:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image for Band Page

I have permission to use this image from a band member himself. I was asked to make this page and I don't understand why this image isn't working

Image:DuckyBoys4.jpg

Can someone please fix this for me...

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

Looks like it's working to me.

If you have permission to use the image in a less restricted sense than on Wikipedia only -- for example, if the band authorized it in terms compatible with a free license such as the GFDL -- then you can tag it accordingly instead of as an album cover, which is fair use. If we still need to use it under a free use theory, be sure to supply appropriate rationale in the image description. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summaries not appearing

I've uploaded several images and had them tagged for deletion. When I looked at the images, I noticed that I did include the appropriate copyright information (so far as I understand) and it shows up in the file history, but it never showed up on the page. This happened for the following images: Image:Qmqtvid.jpg, Image:Beyonce - Check On It.jpg, Image:Torturavid.jpg, and Image:Anom video.jpg. When I uploaded these files, they replaced other images; is this why I'm having a problem? — ShadowHalo 02:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see the info on top of the page. If you overwrite an existing image the info for the existing image is kept. You need to manualy edit the image page to update the copyright info and stuff. --Sherool (talk) 06:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I had been assuming that the summary from uploading would overwrite the one for the old one. Thanks! — ShadowHalo 07:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Company Logos

Image:modulex_logo.jpg Where do logos of companies fall under according to media copyright?

They fall under fair use (when used in the article about the company. Use the {{logo|Company logos}} tag, or one of the more spesific logo types depending on what type of company it is. --Sherool (talk) 11:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Author for screenshots

Who is considered to be the "author" of a screenshot of a video, the one who takes the screenshot or the one who makes the video? As such, is it required that video screenshots licensed under fair use say who did the screenshot? — ShadowHalo 20:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The video and any derivative still images are copyrighted by the creator of the video. You do need a source for the screenshot though. Please make sure any screenshots of copyrighted videos adhere to all the criteria at WP:FUC. If you have any questions as to whether they do feel free to ask them here. - cohesion 22:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms not marked as depreciated

User:OrphanBot marked Image:Bordeaux10.png as having a depreciated copyright tag, but Template:Coat of arms is not marked as depreciated. What is going on? Please respond to User talk:Remember the dot.

Responded. - cohesion 20:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.